Great-Power rivalry in Africa is among the legacies left by European statesmen who, a century ago in Berlin, carved up the continent and whole nations within it into tidy colonial compartments, several with frontiers still in dispute. Russians and Americans attended that inglorious conference but stayed out of the scramble for territories that followed. It is one of history's ironies that Moscow and Washington emerged, with proxies to help them, as leading contestants in the contemporary struggle for position, presence and power in Africa.

The past decade has seen an increase in the scope of relationships, both political and economic, between Africa and the United States. These vary with the complexion of the government in power, though some would say that this was more in emphasis than in substance, others definitely not. It is felt by many Africans, nevertheless, that the Carter Administration's emphasis on human rights has now been downgraded by the present Reagan Administration and that, instead, the geopolitics of U.S.–U.S.S.R. rivalry, and the economic importance of developing the private sector at the expense of bilateral or multilateral aid, have been moved to the fore.

Since the establishment of the Economic Community of West African States in 1975, its acronym has become well known, even though ‘E.C.O.W.A.S.’ still means little more than a synonym for ‘West Africa’ and a symbolic tribute to the ideals of African unity. The Community has certainly witnessed a growth of its bureaucracy and institutions, but the limited co-operation actually achieved has been based on strengthening links which were developed in the region since the early 1960s rather than on the transfer of state prerogatives to Community organs on specific issues.

Our intention is …to put Afro–Arab cooperation on the map as a dimension of international economic cooperation which all countries, especially the rich industrial nations, must reckon with. Arab aid and cooperation efforts should be in a context of a new world economic order, based on equality and justice.

This study focuses on the relationship between political symbols and the legitimation of national leadership in Ghana, Guinea, Senegal, and Sierra Leone. We are particularly interested in ways in which their leaders have used myths and symbols in an attempt to foster or enhance the legitimacy of their régimes in the face of severe economic and political crises.

Both Lesotho and Swaziland possess a well-developed rhetoric advocating disengagement from South Africa, exemplified most recently in their joint commitment to the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference. Nevertheless, both countries remain firmly fastened to their dominant neighbour and committed to development strategies which tend to perpetuate such ties. The implications of continued social and economic domination by South Africa have not been lost on analysts of these two small, nominally independent Southern African states.