Western and Middle Eastern narratives are significantly shaping how African states define and respond to "terrorism" and "extremism." This influence operates on two critical levels: ideological framing (driven largely by the West and Middle East) and geopolitical prioritization (driven by the West).

This external influence often results in a definition that overemphasizes the religious/Islamist dimension while understating the local political and socio-economic drivers, which African scholars and the African Union (AU) itself recognize as the true roots of the conflict.

1. The Western Influence: The Dominance of the "War on Terror" Narrative 

The post-9/11 global "War on Terror" framework, primarily led by the United States and other Western powers (like France in the Sahel), has profoundly influenced Africa's security priorities and legal definitions.

A. Prioritizing the Global Threat

The Western definition of terrorism focuses on non-state actors who use violence against civilians for ideological goals, particularly those with transnational links (e.g., Al-Qaeda and ISIS affiliates).

• Security Over Governance: This narrative successfully elevates the counter-terrorism agenda above all other concerns. African nations, particularly those seeking aid, military training, or intelligence-sharing, are often pressured to prioritize military and security responses to terrorism over crucial governance reforms, economic development, and social justice, which are the fundamental drivers of local conflicts.

• The Military Footprint: The Western focus on "degrading and defeating" transnational terrorist groups provides the geopolitical justification for foreign military presence, drone strikes, and intelligence operations on African soil (e.g., the US presence in the Horn of Africa and the former French presence in the Sahel). African governments often adopt the Western definition to legitimize the security sector's large budget and foreign partnerships, sometimes at the expense of national sovereignty.

B. Narrowing the Definition of Extremism

The Western narrative tends to link "extremism" almost exclusively to Islamist violence, often overshadowing other forms of political violence.

• Ignoring Non-Jihadist Violence: By focusing heavily on groups like Al-Shabaab and Boko Haram, the narrative frequently neglects or downplays significant, often deadly, forms of violence in Africa, such as ethnically-motivated militia attacks, state violence, farmer-herder clashes (even when politically and religiously charged), and far-right or non-Islamist separatist movements.

• The "Christian Genocide" Narrative: Certain Western political factions and media outlets promote the narrative of "Christian persecution" or "genocide" in countries like Nigeria. While violence against Christian communities is tragically real, this simplistic, religiously-divisive framing often misrepresents the complex roots of the conflict—which are primarily land disputes, political exclusion, and poverty—and turns a national crisis into a religious proxy war that invites further, often counterproductive, foreign intervention. African political leaders have at times rejected this narrative as inaccurate and an infringement on their sovereignty.

2. The Middle Eastern Influence: Exporting Sectarian Ideology 

Middle Eastern powers, primarily the Gulf states (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar) and Iran, have influenced the definition of extremism by exporting specific, often ultra-conservative or sectarian, religious ideologies.

A. Funding and Ideological Diffusion

The competition between major Middle Eastern powers (especially the Sunni-Shia rivalry) for religious and geopolitical influence in Africa often involves large-scale funding for religious infrastructure and education.

• Salafism and Radicalization: Saudi-funded schools, mosques, and religious materials, often promoting a specific interpretation of Salafism, have been disseminated across parts of North and West Africa. While not all Salafism is violent, the ultra-conservative and anti-pluralistic elements can provide the ideological foundation that extremist groups later exploit. This external ideological influence acts as a vector for radical religious intolerance.

• Focus on Global Jihad: The rhetoric and global branding of transnational groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, which originated in the Middle East, have been adopted by African affiliates (e.g., Jama'at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin in the Sahel). By linking local grievances to a global Jihad against "the West" and "apostate" governments, these narratives transform localized political conflicts into a universal religious war, changing both the scope and definition of the conflict for local actors.

B. Proxy Conflicts and Political Exploitation

In regions like Sudan and the Horn of Africa, Middle Eastern rivalries fuel proxy conflicts that are often framed using religious or sectarian language, even when the underlying motive is strategic (e.g., control of ports or resources). This influence leads African governments to define their domestic opponents through a foreign-informed sectarian lens, deepening internal divisions.

3. The African Counter-Narrative: Emphasizing State Failure 

Despite the powerful external narratives, the African Union (AU) and many African scholars have pushed for a definition that is broader and more attuned to African realities.

A. The AU’s Inclusive Definition

The OAU/AU Convention on the Prevention and Combating of Terrorism (1999/2004 Protocol) is notably broader than many Western definitions.

• Exclusion of Liberation Struggles: Crucially, the AU definition excludes "the struggle waged by peoples in accordance with the principles of international law for their liberation or self-determination, including armed struggle against colonialism, occupation, aggression and domination by foreign forces." This historical distinction reflects the legacy of anti-colonial movements that were often labeled as "terrorist" by colonial powers, asserting African ownership over the definition of legitimate resistance.

• Focus on State-Centric Harm: The AU definition explicitly includes acts intended to "disrupt any public service, the delivery of any essential service... or to create general insurrection in a State," highlighting the need for political stability and security against both state and non-state threats.

B. The Gap Between Rhetoric and Reality

While the AU's rhetoric emphasizes state-building and addressing socio-political drivers (injustice, political neglect, lack of development), the operational reality in many African states is heavily influenced by the Western-funded, military-centric model.

• Donor Priorities: African states often adopt the Western-centric definition of terrorism in practice to unlock counter-terrorism funding, equipment, and training from Western partners, meaning that external priorities often trump local, holistic needs.

• Internal Political Use: Authoritarian African regimes also exploit the foreign-led "terrorism" framework to their advantage, labeling domestic political opponents, pro-democracy protestors, or separatist movements as "extremists" or "terrorists," using the internationally recognized label to justify their own repressive measures and silence legitimate dissent.

In conclusion, African definitions of "terrorism" and "extremism" are heavily shaped by both Western security concerns (which focus on transnational Jihad and military responses) and Middle Eastern ideological rivalries (which introduce sectarian framing). While the African Union's normative framework attempts to assert an African perspective by linking terrorism to governance failure and excluding liberation struggles, geopolitical necessity and the lure of foreign aid ensure that the external, often simplified, narratives continue to dominate the practical security response, sometimes obscuring the true, local political and economic roots of violence.