They have issued especially, but not accidentally, from various circles in the UK, a call for a "new imperialism" and therefore the "recolonisation" of Africa! Because we considered this to be an obviously preposterous proposition, as a Continent we ignored this voice.
However, the agenda for the "recolonisation of Africa" is a present and actual part of the reality to which we must respond in the context of the uncertain global order which, inevitably, shapes and will continue to shape the future of our Continent.

The argument has been advanced that the process of globalisation has created such interdependence among all nations that the "post-modern world" (Western countries) has a responsibility to ensure the integrity and proper functioning of the global system.
The British diplomat, Robert Cooper, in a 2002 article on "The Post-Modern State" said that one of the "main characteristics of the post-modern world" is achieving "security (that) is based on transparency, mutual openness, interdependence and mutual vulnerability." These "academic" views have also been echoed by the media, and have therefore helped to prepare opinion in the "post-modern world" in favour especially of the "recolonisation" of Africa.

For instance, in a June 2, 2003 article, Bruce Anderson, columnist of The Independent (London), wrote: "Africa is a beautiful continent, full of potential and attractive people who deserve so much more than the way in which they are forced to live, and die. Yet it is not clear that the continent can generate its own salvation. It may be necessary to devise a form of neo-imperialism, in which Britain, the US and the other beneficent nations would recruit local leaders and give them guidance to move towards free markets, the rule of law and - ultimately - some viable local version of democracy, while removing them from office in the event of backsliding."

On April 19, 2008 The Times (London) published an article by Matthew Parris entitled "The new scramble for Africa begins" in which he said: "Fifty years ago the decolonisation of Africa began. The next half-century may see the continent recolonised. But the new imperialism will be less benign. Great powers aren't interested in administering wild places any more, still less in settling them: just raping them. Black gangster governments sponsored by self-interested Asian or Western powers could become the central story in 21st-century African history."
Another British commentator, Richard Gott, wrote in the New Statesman magazine published on January 15, 2001: "There is a growing belief, not least within the ranks of latter-day new Labour missionaries, that appears to favour the reconquest of Africa. No one really suggests how this would come about, nor is there a "plan" available for discussion.

Yet the implicit suggestion of recent reporting from Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe and Nigeria, sometimes echoed in London, is that imperial intervention might indeed be welcomed by peoples threatened with mayhem, anarchy and civil war . . . What Africa really needs, Maier, (in his book This House Has Fallen: Nigeria in Crisis), seems to suggest, is the advice of a new generation of foreign missionaries, imbued with the new, secular religion of good governance and human rights. Men such as Maier himself and R W Johnson would fit the bill admirably.
Other contemporary witnesses, the innumerable representatives of the non-governmental and humanitarian organisations that clog the airwaves and pollute the outside world's coverage of African affairs with their endless one-sided accounts of tragedy and disaster, echo the same message. "With the reporting and analysis of today's Africa in the hands of such people, it is not surprising that public opinion is often confused and disarmed when governments embark on neo-colonial interventions.

"The new missionaries are much like the old ones, an advance guard preparing the way for military and economic conquest."
What Richard Gott reported is the setting of a political agenda in the UK, which observation also applies to the rest of the "post-modern world" which would help to create the conditions for Western governments to "embark on neo-colonial interventions."
The NATO bombardment of Libya is the ultimate outcome and practical expression of the theories advanced by intellectuals such as Robert Cooper and popularised through the Western media by commentators such as Bruce Anderson.

Led specifically by the ‘post-modern countries' of France, the UK and the US, the UN Security Council authorised the current NATO military operation against Libya, which has absolutely nothing to do with helping the Libyan people peacefully to resolve the crisis afflicting their country.
Rather, it has everything to do with regime change and the assertion of the "new kind of imperialism" which Robert Cooper called for, which was echoed by Bruce Anderson when he wrote of the need for "a form of neo-imperialism".

This means that we must understand the role of the proposition of "the Right to Protect", which has been used to justify military interventions allegedly to protect civilians and advance human rights. Similarly we must put in its proper context the elevation of "international justice," as represented by the ICC, even above the search for peace to save human lives.
All this fits in perfectly with "the new world order" which Robert Cooper visualised when he wrote: "What is needed then is a new kind of imperialism, one acceptable to a world of human rights and cosmopolitan values. We can already discern its outline: an imperialism which, like all imperialism, aims to bring order and organisation but which rests today on the voluntary principle."

This point is emphasised by the reality that many organisations, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the International Crisis Group have challenged the arguments used to justify the NATO military action against Libya.
In this regard, in an April 14, 2011 article in the Boston Globe newspaper, under the heading, "False pretense for war in Libya?" Alan K. Kuperman said: "Evidence is now in that President Barack Obama grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify military action in Libya.

The president claimed that intervention was necessary to prevent a "bloodbath'' in Benghazi, Libya's second-largest city and last rebel stronghold . . .
Obama insisted that prospects were grim without intervention . . . Thus, the president concluded, "preventing genocide'' justified US military action. "But intervention did not prevent genocide, because no such bloodbath was in the offing. To the contrary, by emboldening rebellion, US interference has prolonged Libya's civil war and the resultant suffering of innocents . . .
"Nor did Gaddafi ever threaten civilian massacre in Benghazi, as Obama alleged. The ‘no mercy' warning, of March 17, targeted rebels only, as reported by The New York Times, which noted that

Libya's leader promised amnesty for those ‘who throw their weapons away'. Gaddafi even offered the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight ‘to the bitter end'."
All this means that as Africans we must understand the true meaning of the NATO assault against Libya, authorised by the UN Security Council. It is neither an aberration nor a mistake.
It constitutes a concrete expression of the systemic ‘neo-imperialist' resolve to impose on Africa the "world in which the efficient and well governed export stability and liberty, and which is open for investment and growth," for which Robert Cooper argued.

If the NATO military intervention in Libya succeeds, this will open the way for these countries to use the Libyan experience as a precedent which would encourage them to intervene everywhere else in Africa.
Thus, whatever we do to "reposition Africa sustainably in a shifting and uncertain global order," we must take on board the present and concrete reality that the Western powers, presenting

themselves as "the post-modern world," are resolved to ensure that they determine the destiny of Africa.
They are convinced that they have to act to ensure the integrity of the "new world order" of globalisation whose essence they have defined, and that as Africans, we are incapable of ensuring that our Continent conducts itself in a way that is consistent with the requirement to guarantee this integrity.
The Western powers are acting even through military means, to ensure that Africa is governed according to their wishes. One of the consequences of "the new world order" is the transformation of the vitally important Office of the UN Secretary General into an institution which would systematically "(support) initiatives that coincide with American interests," rather than those which coincide with

the interests of the world community of nations as a whole.
Two of our most urgent and current tasks are to take all necessary steps:

• to mount a united offensive for the defence of the independence of the peoples of Africa and our right to determine our destiny; and,

• to evolve a minimum programme to mobilise the billion Africans into united action to advance our shared interests. An important part of our response must focus on the implementation of existing Continental decisions including those relating to such matters as democracy and human rights, peace and security and the prevention of genocide and other crimes against humanity.

The challenge we face is seriously to internalise the reality that nobody but ourselves can and should take responsibility for the renaissance of Africa towards which the billion Africans aspire. We have to act together to make our future and think together about what that future will be. When HE Ben Mkapa, former president of Tanzania, delivered The Thabo Mbeki Africa Day Lecture at the University of South Africa on Africa Day this year, he said:

"I consider these three freedoms - from food insecurity, from ignorance and from disease - as the fundamental and priority measure of the dignity of African Independence. More emphasis should be given to the war against them. The terrain to fight them must be of our own demarcation.
"The weapons and terms of their deployment must be of our own determination. The indices of success must be established by us. External support groups whether civil or State, must be selected by us; their deployment too must be monitored by us. The war is fundamentally our own and we can win if we set our sights objectively.

"This is the first challenge and imperative facing the second generation of African Leaders." I could not agree more! President Mkapa went on to quote what the late Mwalimu Julius Nyerere said when he addressed the South African parliament on October 16, 1997: ‘We have to depend upon ourselves, both at national level and at the collective level. Each of our countries will have to rely upon its own human resources and natural material resources for development. But that is not enough. The next area to look at is our collectivity, our working together. We all enhance our capacity to develop if we work together.'

As Africans we must mobilise ourselves to respond to the challenge starkly posed to us by "the new world order" which demands that we should not merely proclaim our right to self-determination, but indeed act to determine our destiny!

• The writer is Patron of the Thabo Mbeki Foundation and former President of South Africa.