Africa entered the modern era as a possession of European colonial powers. Britain, France, Germany and Portugal cut up Africa like a cake, seeking to exploit its vast natural resources as they built their own empires.

The destiny of the 48 sub-Saharan African states -- upon which this net assessment will focus -- continues to be shaped by that legacy. Despite their variety of geographic features, political systems and ethnicities, countries like Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Uganda, the Central African Republic, Djibouti and Gabon, to name a few, share many similarities as a consequence of their recent colonial past. The Sahara Desert serves as a geopolitical as well as a geographic barrier that limits the interest and influence of the heavily Muslim northern African states in the regions to the south.

The colonial legacy has created a dichotomy within Africa, which for the past several decades has lived by two standards: one a Western-imposed system of political organization, governance, economic models, living conditions and social norms; another -- set by Africans -- that emulated Western ideals while retaining indigenous notions of political norms, social organization and wealth distribution.

The ocean-sized disparity between these two standards has been the foundation for Africa's relationship with its former colonial masters and the rest of the world.

Africa often is viewed as a dysfunctional continent -- riddled with institutionalized corruption, torn apart by civil wars, ethnic conflict and civil strife, deteriorating infrastructure, endemic poverty and disease pandemics. This assessment is correct. Chaos is the norm -- in politics and in business -- but there is more to Africa than meets the eye.

The chaos veils an underlying order that allows the continent to function, albeit at a level incomparable with other regions of the world. The region's governments act, its merchants do business, and its populations are politically engaged, in some places more than others. It functions at a subsistence level that does not encourage sustained economic or political growth, but this reality does create both political and economic opportunities for a variety of actors.

After the end of the colonial era and during the Cold War, most African governments, rebel groups, tribes and businesses returned to pre-colonial political structures. For instance, in many parts of Africa, the idea of wealth creation has yet to take hold – tribal leaders see seizing the wealth controlled by others as the only viable means to social, political or economic advancement. Even in West Africa, where the entrepreneurial spirit is embraced wholesale, fights over existing sources of revenue are nearly continual. The importance of this phenomenon cannot be overstated.

The snatch-and-grab model of wealth acquisition is one of the fundamental factors fueling wars in Africa, and an aspect of life that predates the colonial era. The fact that tribe-against-tribe raids have resurfaced in modern times -- with some actors employing modern warfare technologies -- is not surprising.

Western powers do not seem to understand the cause of Africa's continual conflict, however. Most outsiders -- including other governments, investors and humanitarian organizations -- fail to recognize the system of indigenous values at work in the region, thus contributing to ongoing miscommunication.

This net assessment will attempt to shed light on the reality of Africa -- in terms of both its capabilities and its limitations.

Why Africa Matters

Africa matters for a number of reasons. Perhaps the most obvious -- that seized upon by indigenous groups and foreign multinational corporations alike -- is the continent's wealth of natural resources, especially oil reserves, which make it an important source of commodities for the world's industrialized nations. It also has given rise to a neocolonial trend in which multinationals are aligning with local governments -- a key factor now shaping the region's political dynamic.

The trend, however, does little to fuel wider development for the African people. Instead, it plays into a countervailing trend: the government corruption, explosion of criminal gangs, drug-trafficking, gun-running and now, terrorist activity. Organized criminal cartels, traders in illicit goods and, more recently, radical groups like al Qaeda see sub-Saharan Africa as an attractive transit route for illegal materials, as a rear base for planning operations and carrying out missions and for money-laundering and sanctuary.

Had the world continued along its pre-Sept. 11 geopolitical trajectory, the assessment of Africa today would be somewhat different. With sub-Saharan states unable to rise above what to most of the world appears to be systemic crises or to project power in any meaningful way much beyond their own territory, much of the international community might be content to let the region go its own way.

However, just as Washington's response to the Sept. 11 attacks has reshaped the international system, it also is reshaping Africa -- whose very vulnerabilities are the key to holding the attention of the United States. Though still seemingly ignored by much of the world, Africa has become a significant battleground between U.S. forces and al Qaeda. This gives Washington an unusual and growing interest in events in the region -- including its local political dynamics, economic systems and overall security environment. African states, seeing this expanded U.S. interest, are eager to establish cooperation with Washington. The result is a renegotiation of Africa's geopolitical significance to the United States and the rest of the world.

Africa: Then and Now

Africa always has been subject to the whims and maneuverings of outside powers. As a colonial holding, the region proved a rich resource for its European masters -- Britain, France, Germany, Portugal and others. These countries, and later the United States, established bare-bones governments that focused on exploiting Africa's mineral wealth and other resources for profit -- attempting in some places to develop infrastructure such as roads, schools, hospitals, bridges, power plants and airports, but doing little to entrench democratic political systems with institutionalized ways of transferring power.

During the Cold War, the sub-Saharan region served as a proxy battleground for the United States and the Soviet Union. Angola's nearly 30-year war, for instance, dragged on in part because of the Cold War competition between the United States and the Soviet Union: Washington backed rebel leader Jonas Savimbi's Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) against the formerly Soviet-backed Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) until the fall of the USSR.

During the 1990s, however, Africa fell into relative obscurity. Few outside powers took an interest in the region -- and those that did tended to concentrate either on investing in extractive industries or on supporting regional proxies, such as Nigeria or South Africa, to advance their own foreign policies for the region and to protect their economic or security interests.

Geography and Demographics: A Recipe for Chaos

Geographically speaking, Africa is massive: It is the second-largest continent in the world, or approximately three times the size of the United States. The sub-Saharan states suffer from awkward border divisions -- a direct legacy of the colonial era --underdeveloped economies, limited infrastructure, poor educational systems, corruption, crime and poverty.

As a result, these countries tend to show similar levels of development and to pursue similar foreign policy agendas -- they have limited economic ties with neighboring states but rely heavily upon foreign aid and investment and trading partners.

Geography is very much a factor in Africa's endemic poverty: Its dearth of infrastructure, combined with dense jungles and soaring mountains, prohibits much commercial trade and discourages development in the hinterlands. And the poverty fuels other problems and health crises. For instance, HIV and AIDS have ravaged the population of southern Africa. The impact will be felt for decades: The disease is gutting the region's educated and professional classes, orphaning huge numbers of children and, in some areas, imperiling national security.

In South Africa, the region's most developed and industrialized economy, an estimated 20 percent of adults are HIV-positive. Unofficial estimates place the HIV infection rate within the Angolan military at 40 percent and at 15 percent for the Tanzanian armed forces. South Africa's Defense Forces has acknowledged an infection rate of between 10 and 12 percent. The implications are devastating: For these countries and others, national security is threatened - and in the event of war, their ability to prosecute campaigns or sustain a conflict of attrition will be severely limited, if not obliterated.

Economics and Neocolonial Tendencies

Africa's poverty is endemic and politically significant. The sub-Saharan region is home to nearly 700 million people, and yet its GDP barely topped $318 billion in 2002 -- approximately 1 percent of the globe's $32.3 trillion GDP, according to World Bank figures.

Foreign direct investment also is meager -- amounting to only $7 billion in 2002, a drop by almost half from the year before. In comparison, Latin America -- another underdeveloped continent with a troubled colonial past -- received $42 billion in FDI, six times more. And in Africa, even those limited sums of investment are unequally distributed among a handful of countries. For instance, $7.2 billion of the FDI in 2001 went to South Africa, with much of the remainder destined for extractive industries in oil-rich countries like Angola, Equatorial Guinea and Nigeria.

There are small pockets of stability and economic progress within Africa. Senegal, for example, attracted a surge in foreign investment after devaluing its currency in the early 1990s; the economy grew by an average 5 percent of GDP from 1995 to 2001. The country also has pushed forward with regional economic integration programs, such as tariff reductions and eliminations, in abid to strengthen its ties with neighbors and serve as a regional hub for development.

On the whole, however, only one group appears to be making a profit in Africa: multinational corporations. Drawn by resources that include oil, diamonds, gold, timber and precious metals, multinational corporations have begun to exert a colonial power-like influence in the region. They help to shape domestic government policies, employ military forces to protect their assets and in some countries, practically fund state economies.

However, the multinationals' interest and funds tend to be narrowly focused on extractive industries, with little spillover into other sectors. Little or no profits are reinvested in developing the host states' economies. In fact, in Nigeria and other West African states, multinational energy companies are scrambling to discover a way to move most of their operations offshore, seeking to avoid the political nightmares inherent in doing business with local communities.

Because they influence internal political dynamics, the multinationals frequently strengthen some factions over others: In Nigeria, for example, oil companies active in the Delta region are directly aligned with the government in Abuja, which has made protecting the corporations' investment a matter of policy. That alliance, however, often makes the companies targets for tribes like the Ijaw or Itsekiri, which in the past have seized flow stations or attacked personnel, facilities and infrastructure in attempts to gain amenities or political leverage -- whether over the government or other tribes.

Ultimately, corporations in a de facto sense operate as political actors in Africa -- but with the benefit of outside resources, money and intelligence that alters the internal dynamic to the detriment of some and the benefit of others. This aggravates instability rather than fostering progress.

Internal Politics and Policies: Going Nowhere Fast

Africa's economic troubles exacerbate its political chaos. Unable to influence the global economic or political environment, most African states are highly susceptible to outside interference from even marginally advanced countries or wealthy individuals.

Moreover, the 48 recognized states of sub-Saharan Africa do not adequately reflect the hundreds of nations they encompass. The tribal social-political structure is still very much alive and, in countries like Cote d'Ivoire or Burundi, tribal/ethnic/religious affiliations form the basis of the political position one adopts.

The tribal system directly challenges the colonially imposed political systems under which most governments operate. Tribal groups often extend across national territorial lines and frequently do not view themselves as citizens of either state. Their loyalties are first and foremost to the tribe -- a fact that often fuels border wars and ethnic conflicts for control over resources, access to roads, ports and other infrastructure.

The result is incohesion at the state level. This leaves many countries vulnerable to outside interference, since rebel groups are plentiful and arms and supplies abundant and cheap.

Instability and Insecurity: Thugs and Drugs

Africa's political climate is a hothouse for illicit activity -- criminal gangs, terror groups, rebels and drug traffickers can operate with relative freedom and can rely on local governments or rebels groups, criminal gangs and dissident tribes when in need.

Illicit transnational groups' interest in Africa has grown rapidly over the last decade. Drug traffickers from Asia are flooding the continent with heroin, hashish, cocaine, methamphetamines and other illegal substances. The continent's long and porous borders, corrupt or incapable security forces, impoverished populations and proximity to Europe and North America make it an attractive transit point. Gun-running is also a million-dollar industry in Africa, where nearly every gang, rebel group and militant organization is armed to teeth.

The near lawlessness of some countries, the region's geographic remoteness and limited penetration by Western intelligence agencies makes Africa a perfect hiding place for rogue groups wanted by Western governments or law enforcement agencies. Al Qaeda has long been known to operate in Africa, where it has well-established ties in Sudan, Somalia, Kenya and Tanzania.

America and Al Qaeda: An Obscure Battlefront

The interest that the United States and other major powers takes in Africa typically involves its natural resources. For several years, China has been pushing to develop ties with and investment in oil-rich states like Sudan, Angola and Nigeria. France is reviving its military role in West Africa and moving to strengthen its hand in the central part of the region now that the civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is winding down. And Western energy companies are becoming heavily involved in the offshore oil industry in the Gulf of Guinea.

As the recent deployment of thousands of U.S. Marines off the coast of Liberia illustrates, the U.S. government now is getting directly -- if reluctantly -- involved in nation-building in Africa. However, Washington does not want to get any more involved than is either absolutely necessary or absolutely profitable, since the United States has few solutions for the chaos in the region and because commitments and problems tend to snowball.

Instead, like many other Western powers, the United States prefers to work by proxy. For the last decade, Washington has cultivated relations with regional powerbrokers like South Africa and Nigeria, encouraging their activities as regional peacekeepers. Nigeria now is acting as West Africa's policeman -- a role will only grow as the United States and other nations turn increasingly to their African allies to ensure stability on the continent.

The New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) -- championed by Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo, South African President Thabo Mbeki, Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika and Senegalese President Abdolye Wade -- is meant to capitalize on this role. NEPAD is a development program that promises Western aid donors Africa nations will take a direct and leading role in developing democratic governments, reducing corruption, ending wars and opening up economies to outside trade and investment.

As previously stated, however, the United States no longer can afford to leave Africa in the hands of multinationals and work by proxy alone. Al Qaeda clearly has an ability to strike at U.S. interests in the region, as the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania showed. One of Washington's top imperatives is to shut down areas of sanctuary for the militant organization, and it is working with governments in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen to do so.

The situation in Africa, however, is substantially different. Even in countries where the government is willing to cooperate, Washington cannot be assured of success, since security forces often are incapable of denying al Qaeda sanctuary. Kenya, for instance, has carried out repeated sting operations and crackdowns in Mombassa to purge suspected al Qaeda cells. Yet in November 2002, a suicide bomber rammed a truck into an Israeli hotel in the port city, killing 15 people, and another attacker fired a shoulder-launched rocket at a commercial airliner in a failed attempt to bring the aircraft down.

Al Qaeda is still reportedly active in Sudan, Somalia and other parts of central and eastern Africa. As a result, the United States is growing more involved in security operations in sub-Saharan Africa -- and, by extension, in the domestic African politics and regional political dynamic. The U.S. Joint Task Force Horn of Africa (JTF-HOA), based in Djibouti and involving more than 1,800 American and coalition forces, has conducted counterterrorism operations in Ethiopia and Somalia and may be launching others in Sudan.

Africa: More of the Same and Something New

In our decade forecast, Stratfor argued that the violence and chaos that has characterized most of Africa since independence will continue unabated and that the only cohesive actors -- foreign multinational corporations -- would be the dominant players in Africa for the foreseeable future.

The U.S. war with al Qaeda, however, has altered that dynamic somewhat. Washington has now begun to watch the continent with a nervous anticipation and diligence previously unseen. The impact will be important for African nations -- especially those like Nigeria, which have oil and a large Muslim population and are politically volatile, if not unstable, and which will capitalize on Washington's reluctant interest in the region to expand their own geopolitical roles and potency.