Africa's Forever Wars: Why the continent's conflicts never end

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/22/africas_forever_wars

by cwan • 16 years ago

130 113 16 years ago

maxklein• 16 years ago

Read the wikipedia page on ongoing conflicts to better understand how many people are dying every year and where exactly they are dying: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_conflicts

lrm242• 16 years ago

The comments look uninformed and scattered. Care to share why you think this is a dangerous simplification? From what I have observed and read about the various conflicts, kidnappings, and terrorism that occurs in Africa this article appears to provide a valid point of view.

pistoriusp• 16 years ago

Africa is a very big place. I've been a resident in South Africa for 27 years. The majority of which has been peaceful - I get the feeling that we're in a critical tide turning phase right now.

It's going to swing one way or the other. It's both exciting and incredibly scary.

I am definitely not qualified to comment about the rest of Africa. I did, however, watch an insane documentary about Liberia on Vice TV. (And if this documentary is any indication of what is happening in the rest of Africa, that's scary.)

http://www.vbs.tv/watch/the-vice-guide-to-travel/the-vice-gu...

Griever• 16 years ago

Just watched the entire thing and I have to say that I found it to be very powerful. Thanks for the link!

llll• 16 years ago

To elaborate on what you said about South Africa being in a critical phase for those who are otherwise uninformed: South Africa has a president who was elected by corrupt interests, and even more disturbing, Julius Malema, leader of the youth wing of the ruling party, who has been anointed the future leader of South Africa.

Given the tenders worth millions for roads that get washed away, Malema's calls for mines to be nationalised (revenge for being excluded from a deal in which other poltically connected parties benefited), and attempts by his organisation to intimidate journalists who report on him, his brazen abuse of power is shocking.Coupled with his open calls for white people to be murdered, which are defended by the ruling party, Malema seems to be the sort of African leader described by the article, right down to his lack of educational sophistication and his exploitation of young people. South Africa is not a failed state (yet), so Malema's methods are not as as violent, but, there is no doubt that his intent is.

Malema is a symptom of a deeper problem: South Africa's emergent kleptocracy, in which the ruling party patronage and corruption are expanding, and the deep seated ignorance of the masses (a direct legacy of apartheid policy) are a dangerous combination. With a black township erupting in flames every other week over the lack of service delivery, and the xenophobic attacks of 2008 (largely directed against African immigrants), I am quite pessimistic, however, if opposition parties strengthen their support bases, and the ruling party can disentangle itself from the state, South Africa may be able to save itself.

lionhearted9• 16 years ago

Say what you like about colonialism, but this kind of shit never happened under the British Empire. They'd come in, kill the local armies and resistance, then they'd start building roads, hospitals, and schools and generally managing their territories fairly well.

Last time I mentioned this, someone brought up to me that the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. It's an okay document, it's got some of the best parts of the Magna Carta and U.S. Bill of Rights in it, but one part I particularly disagree with:

> The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

I think "the basis of the authority of government" should be sane, good governance - protecting individual rights, keeping peace and stability, and keeping citizens free from violence and crime. I could care less if I have a say in the government if they're generally keeping me safe and leaving me alone. I think sane, wise, and effective governance should be the basis of authority for government, regardless of whether it's "the will of the people" or not. I imagine many in Africa feel the same way, and would be much better off under rule from proven decent governors instead of what they've got now.

barrkel• 16 years ago

Yes, after installing themselves as the local aristocracy and landowners, and relegating the natives to serfdom.

lionhearted9• 16 years ago

Edit: I spent a fair bit of time going country by country through a historical map for the sake of discussion, to elaborate on an uncommon point of view that might benefit thinking about. If I'm mistaken on the facts, or you disagree with the sentiment, would you care to discuss instead of just downvoting? I've spent a fair bit of time studying history, warfare, trade, and the rise and fall of civilizations, including British history, and I'd be happy to hear opposing points of view.

> Yes, after installing themselves as the local aristocracy and landowners, and relegating the natives to serfdom.

There's a map of the British Empire here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/The_Briti...

Almost every one of those regions has been more peaceful, stable, and prosperous than neighboring non-British managed regions. Almost all of them saw a decrease in prosperity once they left the British Crown, with only a couple exceptions.

Burma was literally the wealthiest country in Asia under British rule - nowdays, not so much.

India? Much further along than Pakistan and its non-British governed neighbors. Serious decline in prosperity, freedom, and safety; massive increase in religious violence and resurgence of the caste system after the British pulled out.

The United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand obviously turned out quite well largely modeling British systems of common law, trade, treaty, military organization, and government.

Egypt? Incredibly wealthy under the British, not so much under self-governance.

Ireland's a mixed bag, the British did some good and bad things there. I'm a quarter Irish and a quarter English by the way, and the British legitimately did some good things. The religious infighting was nasty, but Ireland is quite prosperous today, all of the UK is along with Wales and Scotland.

The African countries were much better under British Rule than non-British rule.

And then there's Hong Kong, which is where I am right now. Any doubts there?

Oh, I forgot Singapore, and having done jobs in both Malaysia and Singapore, who are neighbors of the same ethnicity, climate, geography, and natural resources, there's no doubt that Singapore is much better off.

So was it serfdom under the British Empire? Was it bad? You tell me - would you rather be under British governed Burma, or Burmese governed Burma? British Egypt or Egyptian Egypt? British Hong Kong or PRC Hong Kong? British India or Indian India?

I missed the island countries - Maldives, Sri Lanka, Fiji, Bermuda, and the rest of the British Caribbean and Polynesia. If you had your choice in 1700, would you want to be in one of the British governed islands or the local governed islands?

Yeah, self governance? Not high on my list of priorities. Sane, good governance, minimal violence and corruption, safety? High on my list of priorities. Again, keep me safe and leave me alone, and I don't care so much that I have a say in the government.

jksmith• 16 years ago

Yeah, damn that really screwed the place up when they did that. There's two solutions: either the continent is managed by first world countries, or it should be completely left alone. The second option is of course no longer possible.

The hand-in-hand combination of help and exploitation that the rest of the world provides to Africa may stroke our conscience a bit, but it does nothing but exacerbate the situation.

chasingsparks• 16 years ago

UR said something, in a similar, albeit more verbose manner. His essay was at least entertaining (and certainly thought provoking.)

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/08/from-cr...

natch• 16 years ago

Your apathy about participating in decisions is not the best reason for having concern with that part of the document. A far better reason is the possibility of a tyranny of the majority.

ajuc• 16 years ago

You should compare independent countries before the colonization with the same countries under colonial powers rule, not after the colonization.

Many things people of countries that were colonies expriences are because of colonialism.

Its like when doctor goes to the patient with chronic pain, gives him a painkiller and breaks his leg. While doctor is there patient feels no pain, after the doctors went away painkiller stops working, and the situation is even worse.

philwelch3• 16 years ago

Yes, and as soon as the colonialism became more expensive than it was worth we ended up with the Africa of the past 50 years. Even before colonialism, large amounts of Africa were ruined by warfare simply so the winners could sell the losers as slaves to the European powers--so if colonialism was an improvement for Africans when it happened, it's largely because it solved a problem the Europeans themselves created.

You'd have to go over centuries of history to really see if European interference was a net improvement for Africa at all. I can't speak to that particular question, but there's a lot of evidence to suggest that most of the Amerindians were better off before Columbus than afterwards. "I asked seven anthropologists, archaeologists, and historians if they would rather have been a typical Indian or a typical European in 1491. None was delighted by the question, because it required judging the past by the standards of today—a fallacy disparaged as "presentism" by social scientists. But every one chose to be an Indian."

http://spacecollective.org/nagash/5282/1491

discussed here:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=934117

rue2• 16 years ago

> Say what you like about colonialism, but this kind of shit never happened under the British Empire. They'd come in, kill the local armies and resistance, [...]

In your mind, colonialism[1] has had little to do with the situation we face today? Or its "downsides" are outweighed by whatever good was done?

[1] You know, arbitrary borders against traditional ethnic/cultural separations, slavery, stealing the natives' capital and resources, on one hand stunting the natural evolution of their societies and on the other accelerating it with technology, delaying developing their own good governance over time by installing colonial authorities, etc., etc.

bokonist2• 16 years ago

on one hand stunting the natural evolution of their societies

What does that mean? What was pre-colonial Africa evolving towards? And what is your evidence?

njharman2• 16 years ago

> but this kind of shit never happened under the British Empire

Is obviously factually incorrect to anyone with a modicum of historical knowledge. I'll give you benefit of the doubt and assume you're ignorant and not a bald face lier.

krav• 16 years ago

Um, no. They were harsh rulers. No one likes to be oppressed by a foreign power. How would you feel if the Chinese came in, killed off Democrats and Republicans, and the rest of us were relegated to serving them afternoon tea and being third-class citizens in our own country?

defen• 16 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSELOCMmw4A

greenlblue• 16 years ago

I don't think your argument makes any sense. It's not that these lands and nations are lawless and "governed" by bandits but the fact that many civilized nations profit from the chaos in terms of cheaper raw materials and drugs that are traded for guns to keep the struggle going. As soon as more developed nations stop selling them weapons and stop trading for the "cheaper" resources the whole problem goes away.

lmz• 16 years ago

If you haven't read it yet, Piers Brendon's "The Decline and Fall of the British Empire" might be interesting for you.

csomar2• 16 years ago

> Say what you like about colonialism, but this kind of shit never happened under the British Empire. They'd come in, kill the local armies and resistance, then they'd start building roads, hospitals, and schools and generally managing their territories fairly well.

If they are coming for good, why do they kill the resistance and the local armies? If you are going to offer free services that benefit us, why do you need armed soldiers? You Don't! If you want to make use of our resources for our benefit, so that won't really be a matter for 99% of the population, they'll be happy. Point two: Resistance didn't exist before colonialism, it appeared after and it was a result of colonialism.

Question: British contributed in the Iraq War. What was the result? Roads, schools, hospitals? No, but hundred of thousands of deaths under the US and British army, more violence than ever and a corrupt political system.

miked• 16 years ago

The result has been the only free country in the Arab world, the recent election of a secular leader, and a dramatically higher standard of living.

but hundred of thousands of deaths under the US and British army,

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ estimates about 100,000 civilian deaths from ALL sources, including things like grudges, etc. This is vastly lower than what Saddam did, and unlike him, the Brits and Americans were trying to kill innocent people. Odd how all the people who claim to be so concerned about the deaths of innocents never set up body count websites before the war, when there were far more bodies.

Tangurena• 16 years ago

I'm reminded of a remark in the book Persian Puzzle:

> We English have had hundreds of years of experience on how to treat the Natives. Socialism is all right back home, but out here, you have to be the master.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0812973364/

rajat• 16 years ago

Hasn't that always been the clarion call for the dictators and authoritarians? They're even celebrating Stalin now over in Russia because there was order under him. Was Tito's dictatorship justified given the later turmoil in Bosnia?

And what atrocities went unreported under the British Empire? It wasn't until Gandhi came along and somehow got the British press to pay attention that the British public was aghast and shamed by what they saw. What was there to be so ashamed about if things were so hunky dory? Colonialism died when the rulers couldn't stand the actions taken in their name to maintain their rule.

What's happening in Africa has happened all over the world, at times even in the U.S. It happens whenever access to certain resources brings in so much money that the government is overwhelmed. It's happening in parts of Mexico right on the U.S. border today, and it's spilling over into the U.S, with the resource being drugs.

skmurphy• 16 years ago

Ralph Peters wrote a very thought provoking essay in 1999 "Our New Old Enemies" (see http://www.usamhi.army.mil/USAWC/Parameters/99summer/peters1...) that anticipate developments Africa:

"From child warriors to fanatics who revel in slaughter, man's future is written in man's past."

thaumaturgy14• 16 years ago

This is an infuriating problem that would be relatively simple to solve.

The U.S. mandate for its incursion into Iraq, and the justification for the predictably subsequent civil war, was to end human rights atrocities in a foreign country. While there were human rights problems in Iraq, there are many more countries in Africa where the abuses have taken on truly astounding proportions.

And, more maddeningly: a mission to the Congo or Sudan would have been simple, or at least far simpler than Iraq. The predators in those countries are not very well armed; they are not well educated, most of them. There would not had to have been a great loss of life. Merely installing a peacekeeping force, and then concentrating on the reconstruction of those countries -- the building of schools and hospitals, and other infrastructure -- would have stabilised the regions.

Those would have been actions that would have lessened my distaste for my taxes.

But, instead of spending the resources on stabilising a region, far greater resources were spent to destablise a different one. It's very, a very disappointing incrimination of human tendencies.

tsally10• 16 years ago

There's no plan (international or domestic) to rebuild politically bankrupt states. The idea that a mission to the Congo or the Sudan would be "simple" or "far simpler than Iraq" is patently false. The actual invasion is a trivial and essentially irrelevant part. In fact, based on the political climate in Africa (or lack thereof), I'm willing to assert strongly that a mission to an African nation would be far harder. We can build a million schools in Africa tomorrow and they'll all be gone in a few years.

There are states and leaders that the entire world wants gone. Saddam was one of them. Kim Jong Il is another. The problem is that the world fails to realize solving political bankruptcy is just as important as solving financial bankruptcy.

Thomas Barnett is the man to listen to on this stuff: http://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_barnett_draws_a_new_map_for_.... Your view is a common misconception that should be corrected.

thaumaturgy14• 16 years ago

> The idea that a mission to the Congo or the Sudan would be "simple" or "far simpler than Iraq" is patently false.

How so? You state this concretely as though it's a fact, but you don't go on to support it with any evidence at all. I asserted that it would be simpler due to the relative resources of the hostile forces in the countries, and I still stand by that assertion.

I would also cite the article that started this thread; as it said, murdering a single violent leader in these areas of Africa seems to do a pretty good job of taking the wind out of the "rebels'" sails. (I'm using the term "rebel" there somewhat loosely; they really aren't rebelling against anything other than peace.)

Whereas in Iraq, the murder of a single violent leader has caused a bloody and violent civil war and furthered racial tensions. Also, this was predictable: I researched the situation in Iraq before our tanks even rolled into the country, years ago, and came to the conclusion that our usual tactics there would cause this sort of conflict. It's hard for me to imagine that actual scholars wouldn't have been able to do a better job of predicting the outcome there.

And, the whole point of an armed incursion would be to dispel the current political climate (or lack thereof) and create a new, more peaceful, social climate.

> I'm willing to assert strongly that a mission to an African nation would be far harder.

Then do so! :-)

> There are states and leaders that the entire world wants gone. Saddam was one of them.

I question your sense of "the entire world" then. As I recall, there was quite a lot of protest around the world over the U.S. actions in Iraq.

josh33• 16 years ago

That TED talk was incredibly enlightening. Political Bankruptcy really seems to be as important to rebuild as Economic Bankruptcy, as a county that is politically bankrupt will never be able to maintain stability.

sketerpot• 16 years ago

> The U.S. mandate for its incursion into Iraq, and the justification for the predictably subsequent civil war, was to end human rights atrocities in a foreign country.

I seem to recall something about weapons of mass destruction as the main reason going around when we invaded Iraq. Did I just hallucinate that whole thing? Because the human rights thing sounds like a huge retcon.

thaumaturgy14• 16 years ago

It depends on who you talked to at the time, I guess.

WMD were indeed the initial justification; however, when various U.N. investigations failed to find much in the way of evidence for WMD development -- other than a possible mobile chemical lab which may or may not have been used for WMD development IIRC -- the WMD justification came under heavy criticism by those who were following the progress.

The WMD reasoning in fact came under international criticism before we officially breached the Iraqi border. I distinctly recall this because this situation was what prompted my research and essay at the time. The U.S. had mounted large forces on Iraq borders and other points in the area, and I guessed that there was no way the U.S. administration would then simply recall of those forces. They were there, so they had to do something.

So, to counter the weakening of the WMD case, the case for human rights protection started making the rounds in mainstream media and talk radio. Suddenly the case wasn't that Saddam might be able to harm the U.S., it was that Saddam was a bad guy and we were going in there to do good things for the population that he was oppressing.

And that worked long enough to roll the troops in, destroy some cities, topple a statue, and find the guy hiding in a hole.

viggity• 16 years ago

Wrong. The main reason why we invaded Iraq was because Saddam wouldn't give full access the weapons inspectors, as was required of him after the cease-fire that ended hostilities in 1991. Granted, we thought that he was hiding WMDs but we really had no way of knowing unless he gave full unrestricted access to the weapons inspectors - which he did not

Also, Saddam did at one point have WMDs, he used chemical weapons to kill over 5000 Kurds.

Maktab2• 16 years ago

Thing is, what you describe ("Merely installing a peacekeeping force, and then concentrating on the reconstruction of those countries -- the building of schools and hospitals, and other infrastructure") is precisely what did happen in the DR Congo and Sudan. In both cases the United Nations and African Union deployed a large peacekeeping force of approximately 16 000 troops in each country, armed in some cases with AFVs and attack helicopters, and backed them up with a significant civil assistance and reconstruction program. All this was funded largely by the US and EU, the UN's primary donors.

In neither case was the peacekeeping mission itself particularly successful. MONUC in the DRC stood impressive but ineffectual for over a decade as the violence continued raging around them and civilians continued dying and being terrorised. The violence has arguably died down only because President Kabila has proven to be fairly tenacious and the government army has managed to restore some level control in certain areas, thanks in part to training by Belgian and South African military advisors. UNAMID in Sudan did not seem to achieve much, though their reporting was valuable, with much of the progress in that country seemingly being due to the ongoing strengthening of the South Sudanese rebel movements and the severe international pressure that worked for once. In retrospect, we may be able to claim that both missions were ultimately successful, but it's clear that if it's a rapid end to violence and an improvement in basic human security you want then look elsewhere.

These conflicts are usually just too much of an intractable problem for peacekeeping to be of any real effect. For one, peacekeeping by its very nature tends to preserve the status quo, by slowing the conflict down and preventing either side from gaining a swift advantage, but this is what allows these conflicts to drag on for decades without any real winner. For another, peacekeeping forces are seldom capable of performing offensive missions to wipe out rebel forces and their leaders or groups of bandits, not only because they're not funded for it but because that would require deciding from the outset who to support and who to destroy and the UN, in order not to adversely effect possible negotiations, usually tries to avoid that. After all, what if you make the wrong choice? Finally, how do you build a state up without any kind of central authority around which to hang the authority, monopoly of force and institutions needed to ensure human security? This by the way was a large part of the problem in Iraq, where the US had to create a central authority from scratch and found it to be a whole lot harder than initially thought.

If you are willing to make a snap judgement about who is 'good or bad' in a conflict though, there are solutions that will result in short-term stabilisation. One of these is the use of mercenaries, who have proven in the past (see Executive Outcomes in Sierra Leone and their proposed intervention plan for Rwanda) to be effective in this sort of scenario. However, the use of mercenaries is undoubtedly subject to abuses and it's a short-term solution in most cases, as the core civil and social dysfunction that permitted the breakdown in order in the first place remains present. However, they also only work best in cases where they're able to piggy-back off some sort of central authority and where they have a clear mandate and a clear distinction of who the good and bad guys are. And when they leave, as when Executive Outcomes left Sierra Leone to be replaced by a UN peacekeeping force, the violence can start up all over again.

In the end I think the sad fact of the matter is that this is not a simple problem to solve, despite surface impressions. Conflict, crime, poverty and sexual abuse in many African countries is all part of the same issue, of states and civil institutions that are either totally dysfunctional or entirely non-existent, a concurrent tendency for regions to produce warlords rather than self-sufficient federalist enclaves and the immense difficulty both the people living in the country and those from outside face in trying to build a viable and secure system of governance in a place that has little or nothing on which to build. So unfortunately, I think we're going to be living with this problem for a long time to come.

known• 16 years ago

I think African nations should implement some kind of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservation_in_India

maxharris• 16 years ago

From the article:

"Even if you could coax these men out of their jungle lairs and get them to the negotiating table, there is very little to offer them. They don't want ministries or tracts of land to govern. Their armies are often traumatized children, with experience and skills (if you can call them that) totally unsuited for civilian life. All they want is cash, guns, and a license to rampage. And they've already got all three. How do you negotiate with that?

The short answer is you don't. The only way to stop today's rebels for real is to capture or kill their leaders."

I agree completely and fully!

njharman2• 16 years ago

Africa is not unique. S. America's, Asia's and Europe's conflicts never seem to end either.

kingkawn• 16 years ago

Europe was at war for one or two thousand years before settling down to its current state.

DaniFong• 16 years ago

It is interesting to read that the neutralization of rebel leaders is so effective. I would want to know how the disarmament happens. Intuitively, it would seem that the power vacuum and now leaderless organization would fragment or simply find another figurehead.

pinstriped_dude• 16 years ago

I have never voted on EVERY comment until this thread. I just spent over 2 hours reading the original article and the 100 or so comments. What a great article, and what great comments and discussion. Excellent read!

stretchwithme• 16 years ago

instead of asking why Africa's conflicts never end, ask why there is peace on the others.

Europe and Asia are perhaps more stable today than they have ever been in most centuries. Could the reason be that a particular economic system that enables the creation of wealth has decreased the desire to invade other nations to acquire it?

Maybe imposing capitalism and the rule of law on those that lost the last world war instead of imposing burdensome reparations on them actually decreased the chances that they would turn to war again.

littleiffel• 16 years ago

hackers speaking on politics...

Africa's Forever Wars: Why the continent's conflicts never end

Related Stories