This chapter examines the relevance of Frantz Fanon for the study of global politics. While Fanon did not offer a ‘theory’ of international – or as I would prefer, global – relations, I intend to demonstrate that he did point to some of the constitutive antagonisms of global power relations. Of course, whether Fanon may or may not be considered relevant depends on one of the broader concerns of this book, namely, what is the meaning and purpose of theory, and in particular the degree to which critical theory has an emancipatory dimension.

In International Relations realist theorising has served as a form of power/knowledge, thus ‘disciplining’ theoretical practices in the field. By privileging certain conceptions of power, states and national interest, in realist ontology the histories and experiences of less powerful states (and their peoples) become marginal or irrelevant. In other words, the civilisational and political content of realist ontology involves not only what is considered reality, but also how it represents the realities that are included and excluded: it is, in effect, a kind of colonisation and dichotomisation of the mind. This is, in my view, a dangerous error, both theoretically and politically.

One way to illustrate this is with reference to the writings of Fanon, and in particular with his understanding of domination, violence and liberation. Fanon saw colonial domination as both an epistemological and ontological system as well as a form of structural violence that was much broader than economic exploitation.