Follow us on social

google cta
Screen-shot-2023-02-16-at-4.55.15-pm

'Wakanda Forever' scene triggers French defense minister

Sebastien Lecornu took a swipe at the Black Panther film, but perhaps instead he could have learned something about France's colonial past.

Analysis | Africa
google cta
google cta

On February 12, French Defense Minister Sebastien Lecornu tweeted a condemnation of a scene from Marvel’s 2022 film “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever.” 

The scene shows elite soldiers from the fictional African country Wakanda dramatically entering a United Nations meeting in Geneva. The Wakandan soldiers hand-deliver, to France’s representative, a group of captured French “mercenaries.” These French personnel were captured while attacking a “Wakandan Outreach Center” in Ansongo, Mali and attempting to steal samples of vibranium, the fictional mineral that only Wakanda (and, it turns out, a fictional post-Aztec underwater society) possesses. 

Parading the captured Frenchmen into the UN chamber, the Wakandan soldiers underscore their queen’s message — directed at a smarmy American official and the patronizing French representative — that Wakanda will not share vibranium with power-hungry Western nations.

Why couldn’t Lecornu dismiss this as mere entertainment? The answer has to do with France’s increasingly resented political and military presence in Africa, and above all in Mali — where a junta, after taking power in 2020, has increasingly made France unwelcome. In his tweet, Lecornu harkened back to France’s 2013 intervention in Mali while its northern half (including Ansongo) was under jihadist occupation; he wrote, “I think of and pay homage to the 58 who died in defending Mali, at its request, confronting Islamist terrorist groups.” 

A decade later, French flags are being resewn into Russian ones in Mali’s capital Bamako. France (and the United States) are deeply concerned about anti-French and pro-Russian messaging on the African continent, making the media sphere a key battleground in Paris’s eyes. One major anti-French theme in Mali and beyond is the charge that France’s presence in Africa is ultimately motivated by a desire to control the continent’s resources.

Lecornu’s tweet falls flat on a few levels. First, for many audiences, Wakanda is an Afro-futurist utopia and a symbol of African pride, self-assertion, independence, and sovereignty. Second, “Wakanda Forever,” a sequel to the 2018 “Black Panther,” is also in large part an extended tribute, merging on-screen and off-screen worlds, to Chadwick Boseman, a widely beloved actor who starred in the first film and died, heartbreakingly, of colon cancer in 2020. It’s clear what Boseman meant to his fans. Given these circumstances, for Lecornu to take a shot at the film comes across as tone-deaf and petty. 

What are the film’s politics, meanwhile? Both Black Panther films experiment with a range of perspectives on what revolution and sovereignty mean, not only putting radical politics in the mouths of the films’ villains but also making those villains sympathetic. In “Black Panther,” the ambitious Eric Killmonger/N’Jadaka wants to harness Wakanda’s power to launch an assault on behalf of all African peoples worldwide; in “Wakanda Forever,” the undersea ruler Namor wants to launch a pre-emptive strike on the world’s major powers in order to keep vibranium for his kingdom and Wakanda alone. 

The first film was the subject of many provocative analyses, for example by Steven Thrasher, who points out the various threads — revolutionary and conservative, feminist and patriarchal — that make the film challenging and interesting but also potentially frustrating. The second film centers female characters and is similarly interested in the idea of anti-colonialism and revolution (the final scene reveals that Boseman’s character has a secret son, hidden away in Haiti, whose Haitian name is Toussaint, a reference to the Haitian revolutionary Toussaint Louverture, in what could be read as an additional shot at France). Yet there is also much to ponder about the limits of revolutionary politics in the context of Marvel’s close and long-running collaboration with the U.S. military. 

The second film, likes the first, positions the Wakandan elite as more interested in protecting their country than in remaking the world — although the presence of a Wakandan Outreach Center in Mali, essentially a scientific laboratory but also a military outpost of sorts, hints at a pan-Africanist vision where a place like Ansongo, currently wracked by violence and displacement, would benefit not from French counterrorism forces (or Russian mercenaries) but rather from the help of a benevolent African superpower. (As a side note, Mali, both the present-day, war-torn country and the wealthy medieval empire, influenced the films’ writer-director Ryan Coogler.)

Meanwhile, the second film’s full-throated defense of sovereignty could be read as a critique of the last 20 years of American (and French) foreign policy. In the UN chamber scene, the French representative tells the Wakandan queen that vibranium could be used for “weapons of mass destruction.” There seems to be a not-so-veiled criticism here of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, as well as current policy towards Iran and North Korea. The film only gestures to these questions, but Namor’s final speech anticipates that the battle for control of vibranium is only beginning. 

Back in the real world, French officials might reflect on the ways in which appearing thin-skinned about charges of imperialism can actually reinforce the image of France as imperialist. France has easy steps it could take to bolster its image in Africa, beginning with an apology for colonial abuses in Algeria. 

Meanwhile, U.S. officials might note that in “Wakanda Forever” and beyond, the United States is also frequently described as a “colonizer” — if America sometimes enjoys a more positive image in Africa than France or Britain, this does not mean that Washington cannot be perceived as hectoring and hypocritical. Aside from one, partly dissident CIA agent, the United States is portrayed in the film as willing to flout Wakandan sovereignty; one CIA official not just lusts after vibranium, but relishes a scenario in which the United States would be the mineral’s only holder. 

The film is not real life, but it is one mirror in which Western powers can consider their image in Africa and elsewhere in the formerly colonized world.


Images: Sarunyu L and Alexandros Michailidis via shutterstock.com
google cta
Analysis | Africa
Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?
Top image credit: President Donald J. Trump holds a joint news conference at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Feb. 4, 2025. (Shutterstock/ Joshua Sukoff)

Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?

QiOSK

In the months that led up to the Iraq War, the Bush administration went to extraordinary lengths to convince the world of the need to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Leading officials laid out their case in public, sharing what they claimed was evidence that Iraq was moving rapidly toward the deployment of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. When U.S. tanks rolled across the border, everyone knew the justification: the U.S. was determined to thwart Iraq’s development of weapons of mass destruction, however fictitious that threat would later prove to be.

In the months that led up to the Iran War, the Trump administration took a different tack. President Trump spoke only occasionally of Iran, offering a smattering of justifications for growing U.S. tensions with the country. He claimed without evidence that Iran was rebuilding its nuclear program after the U.S.-Israeli attack last June and even developing missiles that could strike the United States. But he insisted that Tehran could make a deal with seven magic words: “we will never have a nuclear weapon.”

keep readingShow less
Iran says ‘no ship is allowed to pass’ Strait of Hormuz: Reports
Top image credit: A large oil tanker transits the Strait of Hormuz. (Shutterstock/ Clare Louise Jackson)

Iran says ‘no ship is allowed to pass’ Strait of Hormuz: Reports

QiOSK

Hours after the U.S. and Israel launched a campaign of airstrikes across Iran, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is warning vessels in the Persian Gulf via radio that “no ship is allowed to pass the Strait of Hormuz,” according to a report from Reuters.

The news suggests that Iran is ready to pull out all the stops in its response to the U.S.-Israeli barrage, which President Donald Trump says is aimed at toppling the Iranian regime. A full shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz would cause an international crisis given that 20% of the world’s oil passes through the narrow channel. Financial analysts estimate that even one day of a full blockade could cause global oil prices to double from $66 per barrel to more than $120.

keep readingShow less
Ro Khanna Jon Fetterman
Top photo credit: Ro Khanna (creative commons/WebSummitt ) and Jon Fetterman (shutterstock/EB Photos)

Fury and fanboys: US, world leaders react to US-Israeli war on Iran

QiOSK

The reactions are already coming in following the early morning attacks on Iran by U.S. and Israeli forces in what is being called "Operation Epic Fury." The reports are fluid, but as President Trump announced on his Truth Social, the U.S. is taking aim at Iran's military and senior leadership and hopes to raze both so that the Iranian people can take over. "When we are finished the government is yours to take. Your hour of freedom is at hand."

For some, like U.S. Senator Jon Fetterman, a Democrat who represents the people of Pennsylvania, this is the greatest thing to happen since the last time the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran in June. "President Trump has been willing to do what’s right and necessary to produce real peace in the region. God bless the United States, our great military, and Israel."

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.