•  
  •  
 

Abstract

A question in African international relations is whether or not "big states" are capable of exercising hegemony in African sub-regions. U.S. policy towards Africa has included a focus on "anchor states" that appear to possess both the size and the capability of playing a lead role in stabilizing and leading their respective sub-regions. One of the criticisms of the policy focus is based upon the argument that "big states" are weaker and less stable than small states and that big states are bound to be destabilized by the burden of sub-regional hegemony and leadership in peace and stability operations. The argument is deficient in terms of a weak theoretical basis, no definition of a "big state," and faulty case selection. It is not made clear how regional leadership might cause big states to be weakened and is not proven empirically. In fact, three of the four anchor states (South Africa, Nigeria, and Ethiopia) have proven to be more capablt; than other African states or regional organizations in projecting power and maintaining regional peace and security without much adverse effect. Three of the four anchor states, (South Africa, Ethiopia, and Kenya), are stable. The fourth, Nigeria, may be inherently unstable but has done more to maintain stability beyond its borders than any other African state. South Africa, Ethiopia and Kenya have not suffered the same stress levels as Nigeria. However, they have not done as much as Nigeria in the way of deploying large numbers of peacekeepers and peace enforcers. Furthermore, involvement in regional peace and security has not seriously weakened Nigeria and has in fact has helped to upgrade its military. Therefore, the U.S. anchor state policy is valid.

Download

Share

COinS