The world seems to have entered Cold War 2, with international terrorism replacing communism as the enemy of the United States and its allies.
And as in Cold War 1, geo-strategic security concerns are increasingly overriding the concerns about democracy and human rights which gained importance in what may unfortunately come to be seen as a brief interregnum between the two wars.
America's soft-pedalling on the undemocratic practices of Pakistan, its essential ally in the fight against the Taliban, is the obvious example. A lesser-known case is the tiny
central African state of Equatorial Guinea, where President Teodoro Obiang Nguema was re-elected with over 97 percent of the vote on December 15.
The European Union deemed the election to have been essentially rigged, which it certainly seemed to be. But the US, while noting irregularities, gave it a pass mark. It is perhaps not coincidental that the country is gushing in oil and that Nguema is a fervent US ally in the war against international terrorists.
These contrasting judgments point to a larger difference between Cold War 2 and Cold War 1 - that the Western alliance that was so strong in Cold War 1 is now crumbling. France and Germany, for example, do not want to join in President Bush's war against Iraq, which now looks like being more an Anglo-Saxon than a broadly Western affair.
There are also signs that Africa may become a pawn in the new game, as it was in the old, if it does not watch out.
This week the United Nations Human Rights Commission elected Libya as its new chairman, despite strong opposition from the US because of Libya's own dismal human rights record. Libya was Africa's nominee for the chair, which is traditionally rotated among the regions of the world.
This year was Africa's turn. Africa probably chose Libya deliberately to stick it to America.
Interestingly, the European Union abstained from the vote, allowing Libya to win. Some European diplomats conceded that this decision was at least partly motivated by a growing resentment against US unilateralism.
I suspect that France's decision to invite Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe to the weekend's Franco-African summit in Paris - against strong British protest - may have been similarly motivated.
It is all too easy for African leaders to tag along with the prevailing anti-Americanism and anti-Anglo-Saxonism, especially those who have felt the lash of US righteousness about their bad behaviour.
They will point to America's own human rights transgressions in the treatment of Taliban prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and the hypocrisy of overlooking Nguema's election rigging and alleged plundering of his country's oil.
Such criticism may score points in a high school debating contest, but does joining in this game help Africa in the end?
The continent's leaders have a fine record of cutting off their noses to spite their faces, and the Libyan decision is a good example.
The price of this cheap shot at the US has been to confirm the world's worst stereotypes about Africa as a continent that does not take human rights seriously. Freedom House, the US NGO which rates political freedoms in the countries of the world, cited this decision as a major blow to Nepad, and Africa's credibility generally.
The US government consults Freedom House's ratings in deciding who gets aid. Undoubtedly many companies consult it in assessing potential investment destinations.
Thus do the paper victories of proud African diplomats and politicians in the plush halls of New York and Geneva translate into hunger for their 800 million people back home.
South Africa's United Nations ambassador George Nene this week reprimanded the US for forcing a vote over the election of Libya to the chair of the UNHRC - and thereby breaking a tradition of letting each region decide.
You know that a diplomat has been too long in the UN system when a breach of UN procedures is more important to him than the lot of flesh-and-blood victims of human rights abuses and of hunger.