The anti-migration regulations in Europe and the US against Africans continue to affect the sociopolitical and economic development of Africa. Thousands of Africans who apply for visas continue to have their applications rejected.

Moreover, most Africans are charged exorbitant non-refundable fees when applying for visas. Millions in foreign and local currencies are accumulated by European and US embassies in various African countries from visa applications annually. African visa applicants face more severe restrictions compared with applicants from other regions, resulting in a disproportionately high rejection rate.

In 2022, Africa topped the list of rejections with 30% or one in three of all processed applications being turned down, even though it had the lowest number of visa applications per capita. Africa accounted for seven of the top 10 countries with the highest Schengen visa rejection rates in 2022: Algeria (45.8%), Guinea-Bissau (45.2%), Nigeria (45.1%), Ghana (43.6%), Senegal (41.6%), Guinea (40.6%) and Mali (39.9%). The situation has become worse over the years as economic instability and conflicts continue to rage in most African countries.

Some African countries have started calling for visa reciprocity against travellers from Europe and the US. The US and most European countries do not require visas to enter African countries. According to Justice Malala, a South African political analyst, in May, Namibia unveiled measures to impose entry visa requirements to more than 30 countries that have not reciprocated its open visa regime. Nigeria has threatened to impose the same measures. In the run-up to the French election earlier in July, a Chadian official told France’s Le Monde newspaper that if incoming leaders block visas for Chadians, “we will apply reciprocity”.

Zambia’s President Hakainde Hichilema recently raised the issue of non-refundable visa fees in his country, demanding the rules on non-refundable fees be re-examined and the visa application fees be refunded to Zambians whose applications are rejected. If his demand is accepted, this must apply to all African countries. According to European states, most rejections are based on "reasonable doubts about the visa applicants’ intention to return home". Many Africans believe otherwise. They claim that African visa rejections are weaponised against Africans to deprive them of voices at critical political and socio-economic gatherings on global matters such as climate change, artificial intelligence, human trafficking in Europe and the US. These discussions eventually become policies that affect Africa. An increased number of leading Africans on these subjects continue to have their applications rejected. These do not sound like people who present “reasonable doubts about the visa applicants’ intentions to return home”.

African News reports that African governments are building partnerships with Europe across sectors, trade, education, and technology. But the barriers to movement stand in stark contrast to the rhetoric of cooperation.

The rise of right-wing politics in many parts of the world has also further complicated matters for African visa applicants. Pressure from far-right parties who are in power in half a dozen member states in Europe are outdoing each other in introducing tough anti-immigration measures.

US President Donald Trump has just imposed travel bans on 12 countries, of which seven are African — Chad, Congo-Brazzaville, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Libya, Somalia and Sudan. Travel restrictions will be imposed on people from Burundi, Sierra Leone, and Togo.
Even before this measure, Trump’s anti-migration political campaign and his subsequent extra-judicial expulsion of immigrants without due process now that he is in power has emboldened right-wing anti-migration politics throughout the world. The victory on Monday of the nationalist historian Karol Nawrocki in Poland's presidential election is one case in point. Nawrocki is an admirer of Trump who support by calling for tighter immigration controls and championing conservative social values in the EU.

The BBC reports that Trump's administration can temporarily revoke the legal status of more than 500,000 migrants living in the US, the US Supreme Court ruled recently. The ruling puts on hold a previous federal judge's order stopping the administration from ending the "parole" immigration programme, established by former president Joe Biden. The programme protected immigrants fleeing economic and political turmoil in their home countries. The new order puts roughly 530,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela at risk of being deported.

It is not just the rejection of visa applications that is troubling; the non-refundable visa application fees continue to negatively affect applicants’ financial status. According to the London-based research and arts organisation LAGO Collective, African countries have lost an estimated $67.5 million in non-refundable Schengen visa application fees since 2024. Africans find themselves going against the tide in a globalised world where mobility equates to opportunity. They are finding themselves locked out “not because they lack intention or preparation, but because the system increasingly seems stacked against them”.
This matter deserves a wider discussion, preferably at the African Union.

The visa rejections of Africans are not only about Africans overstaying their allowed time in Europe and the US. It is about Europe and the US continuing with business as usual, particularly at multilateral level, where binding discussions without the involvement of Africans are taken. This is particularly the case regarding rare earth minerals and other metals essential to new technologies.

President Cyril Ramaphosa is in the US after an invitation by President Donald Trump. The invitation coincides with one of the most important days in the political diary of South Africa. Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana is tabling a much-awaited budget on 21 May after two unsuccessful attempts.

Ramaphosa couldn’t risk postponing the invitation. South Africa has been isolated by the US for, among other reasons, taking Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. The invitation of Ramaphosa to the White House certainly marks a change of attitude towards South Africa by Trump. And judging by the recent events aimed at isolating Israel, the invitation may form part of the decoupling of relations between Trump and Netanyahu.

First, when Netanyahu visited the White House on 7 April — the first head of state to do so after Trump introduced global tariffs — Trump announced that the US was having direct negotiations with Iran to the bemusement of Netanyahu.

Making the surprise announcement while sitting alongside Netanyahu in the Oval Office, Trump said: “The discussions would be ramped up to high-level talks.”

Israel has always insisted that Iran was funding terror in the region and has since been lobbying the US and others to join a campaign to suppress and eventually attack Iran.

Although Trump has said the US was against Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, he has insisted on reaching a deal with Iran.

When Trump assumed office in his first term, he cancelled the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) deal between the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany (P5+1) with Iran.

Trump said: “The Iran Deal was one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into.”

The pressure to cancel the JCPOA came largely from Israel and to a lesser extent Saudi Arabia at the time. Saudi Arabia later engaged in rapprochement with Iran leaving Israel alone in its calls to sanction Iran and a possible attack of Iran.

Direct talks have been continuing between the US and Iran in Zurich. Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi is heading the Iranian side and his counterpart, Wendy Sherman, is leading the US. These developments mean Israel will have to go it alone if it was to attack Iran at this point, something it was planning to do after Gaza.

What also came as a surprise to many, including Netanyahu, was the announcement by Trump that he had reached a deal with the Houthis; the US will stop bombing the Houthis in Yemen after the Houthis agreed to stop interrupting important shipping lanes in the Middle East — the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandab Strait.

Oman said it had mediated the ceasefire, marking a major shift in Houthi policy since the start of Israel's war in Gaza. The deal between the Houthis and the US does not seem to include vessels to Israel.

The head of Yemen's Houthi Supreme Political Council, Mahdi al-Mashat, said the group will continue to support Gaza and that such attacks would continue. "To all Zionists from now on, stay in shelters or leave to your countries immediately as your failed government will not be able to protect you after today," Houthi-run Al Masirah TV cited him as saying.

Details of the deal between Trump and the Houthis are yet to emerge. Responding to concerns about direct talks between the Houthis and the US, the US ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee retorted that “the US isn’t required to get permission from Israel to make some type of arrangement that would get the Houthis from firing on our ships”.

The deal with the Houthis was followed by yet another surprise announcement — the release of a US citizen, Edan Alexander, from Gaza. Alexander was freed on 12 May after having been captured by Hamas during its 7 October 2023 attack on Israel following direct negotiation between the US and Hamas.

The deal with the Houthis and the release of Alexander excluded Israel, leaving them isolated from regional political processes, something new in Israeli-US relations.
Although Netanyahu has visited the White House twice this year, Trump excluded Israel during his recent tour of the Middle East.
It could be argued that Trump did not want to conflate his visit to the region — which has been touted as a business tour — with the conflict in Gaza. Israel was hardly mentioned during the three-day tour while possible rapprochement between the US and Iran was mentioned over and over again.
The reception of Trump by the Gulf countries and financial pledges made in terms of investments to the US signals the significance of these countries to the economic prosperity of the US. Whereas Israel continues to benefit from the US in terms of aid ($3.8 billion this year), the Gulf states have pledged more than $700 billion to meet the economic objectives of the US without much aid coming into the Gulf region from the US.
According to the White House: “These deals lay the foundation for investment, innovation and good-paying US jobs, including in frontier technologies, aerospace, energy, and critical minerals.”
Last, perhaps the most significant development during Trump’s visit to the region was the announcement of lifting sanctions against Syria. Trump then accepted a meet-and-greet opportunity with the president of Syria, Ahmed al Sharaa the following day. These two decisions have further isolated Israel, which has been bombarding Syria notwithstanding Syria’s gesture to engage in peace and wanting to chart different relations with Israel.

The announcement by the United Kingdom, France and Canada that they would take “concrete actions”, including targeted sanctions, if Israel does not stop its renewed military offensive and continues to block aid from entering Gaza is significant. It could not have happened without a prior discussion between these countries and the US.

Trump is incensed by the disrespect Netanyahu has shown him over the past couple of days. Israel has relentlessly bombed Gaza, killing scores of Palestinians while Trump was in the region holding meetings with Gulf states. The actions of the US in the past couple of days, particularly extending olive branches to what have been enemies of Israel, is meant to drive a message to Netanyahu that the US is prepared to go it alone in terms of resolving the problem of the Middle East.

In the past the US tended to support Israel at all cost, but the tide seems to have changed. What has happened in recent days — whether in improving relations with Iran, lifting sanctions against Syria, achieving a truce with the Houthis and the invitation of Ramaphosa to the White House — suggests a new attitude from the US towards these countries, most of whom had previously earned the ire of the US because of Israel.

India and Pakistan have been at daggers drawn since 1947 when Indian Sub continent was partitioned.  The partition of India was the division of British governance on the Indian sub-continent into two independent dominion states, India and Pakistan.  The partition was based on religious domination in each state with India having majority Hindu population and Pakistan majority Muslim.

The two nations have had continual dispute ever since, mainly over the control of the Jammu and Kashmir region, which is administered by India. It consists of the southern portion of the larger Kashmir region, which has also been disputed since 1947. Pakistan claims most of the region based on its Muslim-majority population.

On 22 April, 26 civilians were killed in Pahalgam in Kashmir. India has accused Pakistan of sponsoring the attacks; Pakistan has denied involvement and has undertaken to comply with any independent investigations into the attack.

Subsequently, tit-for-tat diplomatic spats have since ensued between the two nuclear nations. India fired the first salvo by closing its main border crossing with Pakistan, expelled its military diplomats and suspended a landmark water-sharing treaty.

The situation is escalating. On 6 May, the Indian armed forces confirmed that it had targeted nine sites in Pakistan and Jammu and Kashmir as part of “Operation Sindoor”.

Pakistan has vowed “to respond to this at a time and place of their own choosing. This heinous provocation will not go unanswered.”

The Resistance Front (TRF) has claimed responsibility for this attack. The TRF, a fringe organisation, emerged in the region in 2019. This attack is the deadliest on civilians in India since the 2008 Mumbai attacks carried out by Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LeT), a Pakistan-based militant group also known as Jamaat-ud-Dawa.

This latest attack has triggered a memory of the Mumbai attacks, something most Indians would like to forget. Prime Minister Narendra Modi is under pressure to act. He needs to particularly reassure his ultra-Hindu nationalists political base.

According to Sunil Singh, a street vendor in Delhi's busy Lajpat Nagar market, “Pakistan is the root of the problem, and the military should go all out to teach them a lesson.”

Singh argues that “unless India breaks the back of Pakistan, these heinous acts will continue to occur. Our prime minister has our full support; our military has our full support.”

A war between the two nuclear power nations could prove detrimental to the world’s economy, regional peace and stability. China and the United States have called for restraint.

Pakistan has had its share of homegrown terrorism, which it continues to confront. The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), in its annual report, said there were at least 67 suicide attacks in Pakistan. A total of 973 people died and 2318 were injured in 2008.

Part of Pakistan’s difficulty in combating terrorism is its weak border with Afghanistan. Thousands of migrants enter Pakistan undetected. The government of Pakistan recently issued a decree meant to deal with illegal immigration. The Pakistan-Afghanistan border has been volatile since Pakistan’s independence. Moreover, the invasion of Afghanistan by Russia and later the US worsened the safety of the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The recent attack of Indian nationals in Kashmir comes at a critical time in Indian politics, particularly with the rise of ultra-nationalists in the country. There have been a number of incidents targeting Muslims in India.
Less than 24 hours after the attack, a new song surfaced on YouTube. The lyrics are: “We made a mistake by allowing you to stay on, You got your own country, why didn’t you leave then? They call us Hindus ‘kaffirs’, Their hearts are full of conspiracies against us.”
The haphazard nature in which the partition of India took place and failure to include Kashmir into Pakistan is to be blamed for this conflict.

Why did Britain decide not to include Kashmir, a majority Muslim region under the administration of Pakistan? There is an argument that Britain allowed Kashmir to be under India’s control to further divide and rule. Britain committed crimes against the Indians before the partition, including the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, which saw British troops fire on thousands of unarmed people in Amritsar on 13 April 1919. Instead of calling for reparations and for Britain to account for its atrocities it committed during the occupation of India, the two countries have been engaging in an endless conflict.

Britain did the same in South Africa by supporting the establishment of apartheid after the country became a republic outside of the Commonwealth. The intentions of apartheid were the same as those that were implemented in India. Similarly, Jews were given a right to establish the Jewish state of Israel, which resulted in the dislocation and displacement of Palestinians from their land.

Thembisa Fakude is a senior research fellow at Africa Asia Dialogues and a director at the Mail & Guardian.

Coup d’états have dominated African politics since the end of colonialism for a number of reasons. Coup d’états continue to be condemned by several countries in Africa and indeed the African Union (AU). The Peace and Security Council (PSC) of the African Union (AU) is empowered by the AU charter to impose sanctions on countries and leaders who are involved in coup d’états. However recently, even the PSC has been unwilling to execute its mandate due to popularity of “ good coup d’états” especially in West and Central Africa. At one of its meetings to discuss the coup d’état in Chad, the PSC, after examining the report submitted by its fact-finding mission to Ndjamena and following lengthy discussions, decided against suspending Chad from the AU or imposing individual sanctions. Instead, it endorsed the Transitional Military Council (TMC) 18-month plan to restore constitutional order.

There have been several coup d’états in the West and Central African states since 2020 including in Gabon, Burkina Faso, Niger, Chad, Gabon, Guinea and in Mali. They are regarded as “good coup d’états”, a new political phenomenon in African politics. The popularity and charisma of the leadership of these coup d’états have pushed the AU into a corner in terms of excluding and sanctioning those responsible.

The traditional academic framing of coup d’états labels these political events as undemocratic processes, their framing is based on “the rule of law”. What does the rule of law mean in unruly and lawless societies? Where governments do not respect civil rights and consistently violate constitutional and basic human rights of their citizens. Moreover, what happens in situations where elections are never held, continually postponed or results thereof meddled? Young African activists and scholars insist that in such instances coup d’états are legitimate democratic instruments.

There is an emergence of a radical school of thought within young African thinkers and academics regarding coup d’état. They argue that, given the sociopolitical realities in many dictatorships in Africa, the blanket condemnation of coup d’états needs a rethink. This thought is further motivated by the rise of young new leaders such as President Ebrahim Traore of Burkina Faso. This new young leadership, their style and method of governance deserve proper study and inclusion in African political thought from a new academic perspective.

Anti-personnel landmines have maimed millions of people around the world. At least 1  983 people were killed and 3  663 injured in 53 countries, according to the 2024 report by the Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor Group. Civilians made up 84% of the victims, with children accounting for 37%.

Efforts by a number of organisations continue to assist countries around the world in mine clearance.

Princess Diana of Wales was perhaps one of the most popular people who spearheaded and highlighted the urgency of mine clearance. The image of her wearing a protective visor and flak jacket, walking through a minefield in Huambo, Angola, made international headlines.

Landmines continue to harm the ability of people to reach their full potential, particularly in the region of Karabakh in Azerbaijan.

Karabakh is heavily contaminated with landmines and unexploded ordnances.

More than 340 Azerbaijani citizens have either been killed or injured in varying degrees due to landmines since the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War.

It’s estimated that 11  667 square kilometres of territory in the Karabakh Economic Region is laced with landmines and other explosive remnants of war. According to estimates by experts, it will take decades to clear the region of the landmines and the unexploded ordnances.

Karabakh covers the south-eastern stretch of the Lesser Caucasus mountain range. The region was occupied and governed by Armenia in the First Nagorno-Karabakh War in 1994. The Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, also known as the 44-day war, took place from 27  September to 10  November 2020.

Azerbaijan reclaimed the Karabakh region except for a rump state connected through a narrow Russian-controlled corridor with Armenia.
On 19 September 2023, the Azerbaijani armed forces took over this area, including the ancient city of Khankendi.

The takeover of Khankendi was particularly important for Azerbaijan because of its historical significance. The city was established by the khan (or ruler) of Karabakh in 18th century, and was thus called Khankendi or ruler’s own.

The University of Karabakh is located in Khankendi. Hundreds of students from various parts of Azerbaijan are enrolled there. It is gradually becoming a vibrant student city with ambitious plans for growth and economic activity.

Khankendi also a campaign to attract new residents and businesses from other parts of the country, including those who left their homes and business during wars and conflicts in Karabakh over the years.

Thousands of Azerbaijanis who were forcibly removed from their homes in Karabakh during the 1990s and after the First Nagorno-Karabakh War live in the city.

The government of Azerbaijan has also communicated willingness to help resettle Armenians who left their homes after the war. According to the Azerbaijan’s foreign ministry, the country is “committed to upholding the human rights of the Armenian residents of Karabakh on an equal basis with other citizens of Azerbaijan”. The government has kept the houses and business premises of Armenians, especially in Khankendi, intact and uninhabited, hoping that Armenians and others who left will one day return.

Notwithstanding political successes and infrastructural developments, the region of Karabakh is still struggling to meet the goals of its socio-economic projects.

This is due largely to the dangers presented by landmines and other unexploded ordnances.

After the end of the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War in 2020 landmine maps were transferred to Azerbaijan.

In June 2021, Armenia handed to the Azerbaijan government a map detailing the location of landmines in Agdam, a region relinquished by ethnic Armenian forces as a part of a deal to end their short war of 2020. But Azerbaijan regarded those maps as inaccurate.

In 2024, Armenia presented an additional eight maps on minefields in Karabakh. But, according to the Azerbaijan National Mine Action Agency (Anama), “the information in those maps was “inaccurate, unreliable and incomplete”.

The agency said the carnage caused by landmines continues despite Armenia’s repeated claims of having provided accurate and complete minefield maps.

Anama is responsible for the clearance of mines, unexploded ordnance and other explosive residues (except for chemical weapons) found in the territories freed from occupation.

It is also responsible for other areas affected by war and military operations, and its activities include temporary storage, transportation and neutralisation of the weapons, as well as the planning, coordination and management of other activities.

Last year, Anama cleared 62  023 hectares of landmines, gathered 59  163 pieces of unexploded ordinances, 4  286 anti-personnel mines and 2 372 anti-tank mines.

The constant danger presented by the landmines and other ordnances continue to impede the progress in Karabakh.
Armenia is not a signatory to the Convention of the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction.