Traditionally the concept of state sovereignty in Africa has been fundamentally opposed (Hall, 2010). According to Ejikeme and Ugwueze (2014) the First World War which was fought to save the world for democracy had added to the urge for political independence and autonomy in the subjugated and colonized countries, and by the end of the outbreak of the Second World War, political scene in the whole of Africa was agitating to throw away the yoke of colonialism with the belief that the moment colonialism is defeated, imperialism would die a natural death. On the contrary, following the emergence of new states in the world politics with the attendant globalization, the master-slave relationship of the post-colonial imperialism has been reinforced which still pose as a threat to state sovereignty in Africa. Internal Problem of Bad Governance This remains the greatest challenge confronting the new states upon which other factors including the external problem of globalization are built. Indeed, bad governance has been identified as one of the most critical factors responsible for stunted growth and development, insecurity, unemployment, and poverty (Obama, 2013; Ezekwesili, 2013; Kiani, 2013). While fielding answers to journalists on some nagging questions of global concern, the President of the United States of America, Barrack Obama, noted that the upsurge of terrorist groups could be situated on the fact that countries are not delivering for their people and unless strong and responsive democratic institutions are built, insecurity would continue (Obama, 2013). Similarly, a former World Bank Vice President for Africa and one time Nigerian Minister of Education, Dr Oby Ezekwesili, speaking specifically about Nigeria, has attributed the challenges facing the country to poor governance and the monotonous economic structure (Ezekwesili, 2013). In his view, Dr El Bakri, African Development Bank Vice President for Operations (Fallah, 2016), argued that poor governance in Africa has not only had costly consequence for the productive use of resources but also constrained the ability of African countries in mobilizing resources. As a corollary to the above observations, bad or poor governance which is akin to maladministration breeds corruption, poverty, insecurity and other social vices that are very inimical to societal development. By extension therefore, it erodes economic development and creates favourable atmosphere for external domination through globalization.External Problem of Globalization Political scientists have developed successful research agenda on the political effects of globalization (Kahler, 2010; Onuoha, 2014; Asobie, 2012; Olayode, 2016). Olayode (2016) noted that: globalization has become an important theme of the post Cold War discussion of the nature of the international order. Although rarely tied to any clearly articulated theory. It (globalization) has become a very powerful metaphor in the sense that a number of universal processes are at work generating increased interconnection and interdependence between states and between societies. The result is that territorial boundaries are becoming decreasingly important, that traditional understanding of sovereignty is being undermined and that individual regions must be viewed within a broader global context. Essentially, globalization is seen by liberal scholars as a process of freeing economies so that trade between countries can take place more easily (Onuoha, 2004). Freeing in this context entails providing unrestrained opportunities for businesses to thrive between and among states while reducing the role of the state in the market. Accordingly, Olisa (1999) cited in Onuoha (2004) argued that globalization is an on-going gigantic movement initiated and pushed forward by the developed capitalist and industrial western nations. On the other hand, the Marxist scholars see globalization as the universalization of capitalism in its speculative variety (Asobie, 2002 cited in Onuoha, 2004). Asobie further argued that globalization is a technique of ideological marketing devised by global entrepreneurs primarily to counter a rising trend in the underdeveloped world. The idea of globalization is a grand design to villagize the world so much so that one can access the whole world from the comfort of one’s room. Indeed, it aims at weakening (if not removing) traditional and jurisdictional boundaries and barriers of individual state much to the disadvantage of the new ones. However, while trade liberalization is the motor that drives globalization, information and communication technology (ICT) is the oil that fuels it. Consequently, the new states especially those that are highly underdeveloped or developing are the worst affected in this globalization project; the reason being that they are largely technologically backward and are therefore predisposed to consumption than production. In view of this and along with the monopolization of the international economy by those who produce (in this case, the industrialized countries), the dictate of the trade movement is at the advantage of the producing countries and the efforts made by some underdeveloped or developing new states are often sabotaged by the old established states. Globalization is one of such grand strategies of sabotage used by the industrialized old states against the less industrialized new states. In fact, all the nemeses of the ancient slavery, naked colonialism, coded neocolonialism and imperialism have been summarized in globalization. The implication of the foregoing is that, the world politics is still characterized by inequalities and exploitations of the highest order executed with unmitigated impunity where might is right. Notwithstanding the foregoing observations, specifically at independence in 1960, Nigerians were in high spirit that come what may, very soon the country would join the world league of developed countries. To make real this dream, the Nigerian government immediately began to make assertive foreign policies designed to actualizing this dream and it was not long before it earned the name “Giant of Africa”. This was due largely to the roles it played in ensuring that many African states secured their independence from colonial rule, including fighting apartheid regime in South Africa and spearheading the liberation struggle in Angola which earned it the membership of the Frontline States. Meanwhile, in terms of human and material resources, Nigeria is endowed to the tune of becoming the world power given the requisite commitment it deserves. This endowment has helped it in the promotion of OAU (now AU), membership of the Frontline States, and peacekeeping operations around the globe, among other leadership roles both within and outside Africa (Ibeanu, 2010; Oculi, 2010; Sanda, 2010; Okolie, 2010). However, contrary to this expectation, Nigeria after 53 years of independence (even with enormous resources at its disposal) is still ravaged by poverty, hunger, unemployment, political instability and terrorism and the dream of becoming a developed country is still in inchoateness, if at all conceived. In fact, the country is even battling to regain its former glory let alone improving on what hitherto existed. The question remains, why is the situation so? The situation is so because Nigeria has ceased from producing anything. The country largely depends on importation and any nation that thrives on importation is bound to be a pariah state. Countries that suffer such fate will definitely lose the grip of any power project in the international system. At present, the only surviving instinct by Nigeria as a power to reckon with in Africa (not even the international system) is its intimidating size which is inadequately exploited, and the moment it is broken, whatever that remains of the entity would be confined to the dustbin of history. Perhaps, from the look of things, if there is no significant effort made by the Nigerian government in urgently addressing unemployment through industrialization, sooner or later, the country would be unable to manage the mass of unemployed youths and the result would be very catastrophic and capable of breaking the country into many sovereign states reminiscent of a banana republic.War on TerrorThe challenge posed by neoliberal policies to Africa will be aggravated by the militarization of globalization. One of the tragic illustrations of this doctrine is the illegal aggression and occupation of Iraq with the numerous crimes against Humanity committed by the occupying forces the world has been witnessing since the invasion. Another illustration of that doctrine is the threat of war against other sovereign countries, such as Iran, North Korea or Syria.These aggressions and threats are part of what the US imperialism calls ‘war on terror’. The Bush Administration is attempting to draw African countries into that strategy, which poses an even greater threat to Africa’s security and development. Since 2002, the US government has put together a special program, named “PanSahel”, whose stated objective is to train the armed forces of the countries involved to enable them to track down groups supposed to be linked to Al Qaeda.The recent announcement of the creation of a US military command for Africa – Africa Command (AfriCom) – is a major step toward expanding and strengthening the US military presence in Africa through more aggressive policies to enlist support from African countries for its ‘war on terror’. According to George W. Bush, ‘the new command will strengthen our security cooperation with Africa and create new opportunities to bolster the capabilities of our partners in Africa.”In reality, the objectives of the Africa Command are to be found in the US drive for global dominance and its growing appetite for Africa’s oil. US imperialism seeks to protect oil supply routes and American multinational corporations involved in oil and mineral extraction. In fact, several studies have forecast that the United States may depend for up to 25% of its needs on crude oil from Africa over the next decade or so. One clear sign of this trend is that several US oil companies are investing billions of dollars in oil-producing countries, notably in the Gulf of Guinea region. Thus, oil is one the main driving forces behind the US activism on the continent. It has nothing to do with Africa’s ‘security’. On the contrary, this is likely to increase the insecurity of the continent!Therefore, the US strategy aims to secure strategic positions in Africa by using the threat of “terrorism” to gain military facilities and bases to protect its interests. The countries which accept to cooperate with the US may become more and more dependent on the US and inevitably on NATO for their “security”. They will be forced to provide military bases or facilities for US forces and serve as a canon fodder in the US ‘war on terror’, as Ethiopia has done in Somalia. The US strategy will sow more divisions among African countries and undermine the goal of African Unity.Internal challengesTo the challenges posed by the global context described above one should add the internal challenges facing African countries.As indicated above, the neoliberal policies imposed by the IMF and World Bank and the violence of corporate-led globalization have further weakened Africa. The principal characteristic of the continent is its weakness and divisions, despite the foundation of the African Union and the adoption of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). The divisions are ideological and political. Neo-colonial ties are still strong with former colonial powers. There are still many foreign military bases and facilities on the continent. Several countries still depend on western countries for their “security”. France is intervening in the Central African Republic in an attempt to help the government push back attacks by rebel groups.A similar operation took place a few months ago to help the Chadian government repel a rebel attack that threatened some parts of the capital. These countries are home to foreign military bases and have signed defense agreements with their ‘protectors’. These military bases are also used to launch criminal aggressions against other African countries, as the United States did when it launched air strikes against innocent civilians in Somalia from their air base in Djibouti! France is using its military bases in West Africa – Senegal and Togo- to destabilize Cote d’Ivoire.These examples underscore the vulnerability of the continent and the fragile nature of many States, some of which have all but collapsed, in large part as a result of structural adjustment policies. Africa’s vulnerability is also reflected in the widespread poverty affecting its population, in the deterioration of the health and educational systems and in the inability of many States to provide basic social services for their citizens. Poverty is the result of policies imposed by the IMF and World Bank, using the pretext of the illegitimate debt with the complicity of African governments. This has aggravated economic, financial, political dependence on western countries and multilateral institutions. Food dependency has dramatically increased. According to the FAO and other UN agencies, more than 43 million Africans suffer from hunger, which kills more people than HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis combined! As a result, Africa spends billions of dollars in food imports, paid for by credits and ‘aid’ from western countries and multilateral institutions.The external dependency and the extreme vulnerability of the continent are also reflected in the surrender of economic policies to the World Bank and western “experts” by many countries.