Africa

Drawing in the dragon: China's involvement in Africa's peace & security

January 29, 2015 by Strife Staff

By Semiha Abdulmelik:

Chinese engineers serving with UNAMID in Darfur, Sudan. UN Photo/Stuart Price. — Chinese engineers serving with UNAMID in Darfur, Sudan. UN Photo/Stuart Price (creative commons).

‘Meaningful participation in African conflict-resolution processes is not an important aspect of China’s current Africa relations. China is becoming increasingly important in the landscape of African politics, including in conflict-affected theatres, but is not as significant an actor as external perceptions contend. Nor has the Chinese government shown any particular inclination for more active engagement beyond spheres such as Sudan where the need is more compelling’’.^[1]

Dan Large (SOAS), 2008, in China’s role in the mediation and resolution of conflict in Africa.

These words, written just seven years ago, now seem out of date. We are now witnessing what might be described as a significant if incremental evolution in China’s involvement in Africa’s peace and security. It is more structured, purposeful, and beyond countries of immediate interest, if still exploratory.

China’s peace and security engagement on the continent has predominantly been characterised as driven by economic interests in countries in which it has significant investments. This is the narrative most commonly seen in the Western media and academia: strict adherence to the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of countries and comprising of bi-lateral military cooperation and arms trade. How this has evolved will be the focus of this piece.

With China’s increasing focus on its global power and the associated reputational risks, as well as the emerging realities of its deepening political engagement in Africa, a number of defining shifts can be observed. China’s concerted efforts to resolve the South Sudanese conflict is a case in point. China has dispatched its Special Representative for African Affairs, Zhong Jianhua, to conduct shuttle diplomacy, support the Inter-governmental Authority on Development’s (IGAD) efforts, and create forums for dialogue between the parties.^[2] He noted that China’s meeting with South Sudanese opposition was ‘pretty dramatic for us. I think for the last two or three decades we were quite rigid about non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries… this is a typical domestic conflict. Usually when this happens, we try to avoid making direct contact with the opposition because, to some extent we think, it’s a rebel force. When you talk to a rebel force that means stepping into internal affairs.’ ^[3]

But Chinese mediation efforts in South Sudan suggest that China is reconsidering its long-standing belief in non-interference as part of its commitment to support peace and security in Africa.[4] This change comes from an understanding that it is essential for the achievement of its development policy and goals in Africa that there be peace and security.

Interestingly, Jiahua was also clear that China did not have the academic or analytical expertise to understand internal African conflicts.^[5] Indeed, China’s approach has been less about a nuanced understanding of the conflict dynamics but a kind of ‘oil diplomacy’ grounded in its ability to appeal to the economic rationale and incentives of the warring parties.[6] In this regard, the Chinese government is currently promoting African Studies^[7i] in its academic and research institutions – pointing to the growing importance of non-state (academic/research) linkages between China and Africa in mediating and informing this growing engagement.[8]

In contrast to Sudan and South Sudan, where China has a significant economic presence, and hence more evident engagement in conflict mediation efforts, there are other parts of Africa where China does not have the same immediate interests yet is still involved in fostering peace and security. In Mali, China has contributed over 500 military troops to the UN peacekeeping mission (a quarter of its total UN troop contributions).[9] This is significant because China does not often deploy military personnel; previously it had only deployed logistical and medical personnel.^[10] Interestingly, given the lack of significant Chinese interests in the country, Chinese efforts appear more in pursuit of broader regional stability where it has varied interests.

This attention to China’s role in UN peacekeeping in Africa suggests that China is now placing greater emphasis on multilateral approaches to peace and security partnerships in Africa. While this has often been seen by Chinese commentators and others following Chinese foreign policy[11] as an attempt by China to consolidate its ascendancy as a global power, this involvement has arguably been ‘evolving in an open-ended way’.^[12] China has, for instance, proven more progressive in supporting the use of force to protect civilians in through the UN mission in the DRC while at the same time continuing its traditional resistance to the establishment of a human rights office for the UN mission in Sudan.^[13]

China’s increasingly multilateral approach to peace and security cooperation in Africa is not only through the UN but also through regional organizations – the African Union (AU) in particular. The admission of the African Union Commission in October 2011 as a full member of the Forum of China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) has undoubtedly paved the way from more concrete cooperation in the area of peace and security between China and the African Union (AU).

Three years later, the Government of China and the AU co-launched the AU-China Strategic Dialogue for Peace and Security in Africa.^[14] This regional multilateral cooperation is predicated on two pillars. Firstly, financial and technical support for various aspects of the African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA), including AU peace support operations and mechanisms such as the African Standby Force and African Capacity for Immediate Response to Crises. Secondly, cooperation at an international level, particularly on African positions at the UN Security Council and on UN Security Council reform.

Chris Alden, one of the few writers to analyse China’s multilateral engagement with the African Union on peace and security issues, argues that China’s desire for more systematic and institutionalized cooperation on peace and security in Africa is in tension with Chinese foreign policy principles and economic interests. This is particularly so given the underlying normative basis for APSA, namely the principle of non-indifference and provision for intervention in Member States.[15] As such, he sees three emerging ways in which China could engage with the APSA, all of which it already exhibits to varying degrees: as architects (through the formulation of new or refinement of existing foreign policy and security norms); builders (through participation in multilateral security and peacekeeping operations); and/or as subcontractors (through offering specific and time-bound solutions for security challenges) of the APSA.^[16]

It is clear that China’s engagement in Africa’s peace and security has evolved, both with regards to its principles of engagement, geographic scope, and institutional interlocutors. As Alden’s exploratory research has indicated, there will continue to be interest – and a research agenda – in seeing how this evolves further and consolidates in the long-term with regards to Chinese foreign policy. Of further interest will be how this plays out in international efforts to secure peace and security in Africa, from possible tensions or cooperation between the West – Africa’s traditional peace and security partner – and China, to UN Security Council level reforms. Yet what is missing and crucial is African perspectives and experiences: this should preoccupy the new generation of African academics and researchers.

Semiha Abdulmelik is currently a Fellow at the African Leadership Centre in Kenya. Her research interests include humanitarian diplomacy, regional organizations, post-conflict reconstruction, and the security dynamics of the Horn. You can follow her on Twitter at @SAbdulmelik.

NOTES ^[1] Large, D. (2008), China’s role in the mediation and resolution of conflict in Africa, Oslo Forum Network of Mediators, accessed at http://www.hdcentre.org/uploads/tx_news/20DanLargeChinainAfricaWEB.pdf, pp. 35-41. China’s significant resource interests in Sudan, including its substantial economic investment, presence of nationals and oil operations and facilities, particularly in Darfur, has put the Sudan conflict and its resolution as a top interest for the Chinese government.

^[2] China to hold consultative conference on South Sudan in Khartoum, Sudan Tribune, January 6, 2015 accessed at http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article53569

^[3] Fabricius, P. (2014), China plays mediator in Africa, The Sunday Independent, November 2, 2014, accessed at http://www.iol.co.za/sundayindependent/china-plays-peacemaker-in-africa-1.1774195#.VK0zOyuUcT8

[4] Indeed, Chinese officials have been quick to point to the Chinese commitment during the 2012 Forum of China-African Cooperation (FOCAC) to do more in the area of peace and security in Africa.

^[5] Ibid

[6] Fabricius, P. (2014). In Fabricius’s interview with him, Jiahua admits that that he does not know the triggers for the South Sudanese civil war or who is to blame. Instead the approach has been to reiterate what was conveyed to both parties when oil production was shut down in 2012. “I persuaded them that this is the most important property not only of the government but also of the people of South Sudan. Look at this country; the biggest, the most important for the survival of the people is this oilfield. For some like Large (2008) however, this is an indication to a lesser degree of China’s lack of experience in ‘applied conflict resolution’ and more a demonstration of China engaging on ‘its own terms for its own ends’.

^[7] Ibid

[8] China-Africa scholarly exchanges and fora are not new. These are long-standing and have historical links to state-sponsored efforts to support communist Africa states. However, this was largely focused on technical areas such as agriculture and engineering. This concerted state effort to strengthen China’s knowledge and analytical capacity in the area of Africa’s peace and security, as well as non-state efforts to build linkages between Chinese and African researchers and institutions, such as Fahamu’s Emerging Powers Programme, are indicative of shifts that respond to current realities in the China-Africa relationship.

[9] http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/resources/statistics/contributors.shtml

^[10] Cordano, D. (2014), China’s role in Africa’s conflicts: Military cooperation, arms transfers and involvement in peacekeeping operations, 11 April, Consultancy Africa Intelligence, accessed at http://www.consultancyafrica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1672:chinas-role-in-africas-conflicts-military-cooperation-arms-transfers-and-involvement-in-peacekeeping-operations&catid=60:conflict-terrorism-discussion-papers&Itemid=265

[11] Wong, C. (2013), China Embraces Peacekeeping Missions, The Diplomat, August 9, accessed at http://thediplomat.com/2013/08/china-embraces-peacekeeping-missions/

^[12] Fabricius, P. (2014),

^[13] Cordano, D. (2014)

^[14] http://www.peaceau.org/en/article/commissioner-chergui-concludes-official-visit-to-china-launches-au-china-strategic-dialogue-for-peace-and-security-in-africa

[15] Alden, C. (2014), China’s evolving approach to the African Peace and Security Architecture, Norwegian Peacebuilding Resource Centre, accessed at http://www.saiia.org.za/news/chinas-evolving-approach-to-the-african-peace-and-security-architecture

^[16] Ibid

Managing an epidemic: Security implications of the Ebola outbreak. Interview with Edwin Trevathan M.D., M.P.H.

August 19, 2014 by Strife Staff

By Joana Cook, Managing Editor, Strife
Interview conducted on 19 August 2014

Edwin Trevathan, M.D., M.P.H. is Dean of the College for Public Health and Social Justice at Saint Louis University (SLU), and Director of the Institute for Global Health and Wellbeing, where he is also Professor of Epidemiology, Pediatrics, and Neurology. He was Director of the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, where he was responsible for many of the CDC’s activities in areas of maternal and child health as well as neurological, developmental, and genetic disorders. Under his leadership, the CDC engaged in several productive collaborations in China, Latin America and Africa. He was the CDC’s Strategic Lead for the pediatric response to the 2009 H1N1 flu pandemic, and was a senior investigator for epidemic investigations of Nodding Syndrome in Uganda. Dr. Trevathan was previously Professor and Director of the Division of Pediatric and Developmental Neurology at Washington University in St. Louis, and Neurologist-in-Chief at St. Louis Children’s Hospital. He has published widely in public health, epidemiology, neurological and developmental disabilities, multi-center clinical trials, and child health. His new research interest, working under experts at King’s College London, focuses on Global Health Diplomacy in conflict-affected countries. You can follow Edwin Trevathan at @edwintrevathan.

* * *

Joana Cook: What would you suggest are the key security implications related to the Ebola epidemic for international actors, in particular, governments around the world?*

Dr. Trevathan: There have been more deaths from other ‘expected’ causes (malaria, malnutrition, childhood diarrheal diseases) than from Ebola in theses poor countries of West Africa over the past several months. However, Ebola poses a risk of becoming more widespread, disrupting the life of a city, closing borders, and provoking unrest. Ebola uncovers the weakness of public health systems, which will need to be addressed; a disease-specific approach to control will not be sufficient.

In your view, have global health bodies like the WHO been able to coordinate with affected countries in an adequate fashion?

The coordination of epidemic responses is often most difficult in epidemics that cross borders of resource poor countries, or poor countries that simultaneously are involved in armed conflict. One of the great challenges in these responses is the often poor coordination between the local health authorities and the national Ministry of Health of these developing countries. Poor in-country coordination delays requests by the national Ministry of Health (MOH) for assistance from the World Health Organization (WHO) and organizations like the U.S. Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). These problems of coordination within countries are further exacerbated when disease outbreaks occur in rural areas in border regions, as occurred in this Ebola outbreak, and then extend into densely populated cities.

Why has the international response been so seemingly slow?

It is always difficult to analyze a response to an epidemic in the middle of a response. After control of this outbreak, there will certainly be investigations that will lead to recommendations for future action. These are some preliminary thoughts.

Although some of the initial response may have been somewhat delayed by poor in-country coordination, I do not perceive that the response has been significantly slower than previous outbreaks (i.e., Uganda, South Sudan, Eastern DR Congo). However, the efforts to control spread of Ebola have been less effective for a variety of reasons, primarily related to the local efforts of health workers. These reasons include:

The local authorities and health systems have been less well-equipped to prevent disease spread. For example, some local healthcare providers to not even have access to basic hygiene measures such as rubber gloves.
The local tradition of handling the bodies during funerals (large numbers of people embracing the body and kissing the bodies) has amplified the spread of Ebola in some areas.

International NGO responses seem to have been relatively rapid. Yet by the time they set up their response teams the disease has spread further for reasons more related to inadequate local initial responses.

Can you comment on the health system responses from the countries most affected by Ebola?

A few thoughts:

The outbreak has occurred in an area of relatively high population density close to borders, but with low density of physicians and other healthcare workers trained in how to recognize Ebola and use basic methods (gloves, gowns) to prevent disease spread when in contact with patients who may potentially have Ebola.
People with the initial symptoms of Ebola look much like the other people in the community with malaria or other diseases. Traditional management of these other infectious diseases in communities do not include measures to prevent transmission of Ebola.
Local health officials and public health officials have not implemented infectious disease precautions (“universal precautions”) in routine care before the diagnosis has been confirmed.
The prior Ebola outbreaks were easier to control because of remote and rural nature of the communities that were impacted, and by the local health authorities more coordinated response while working within a single country.

Have we seen previous Ebola outbreaks of this scale before?

No.

Is the US worried about the potential threat posed to its security by Ebola?

Ebola should not be a threat to the health of residents in the U.S. Universal disease precautions in hospitals and clinics should be effective in preventing disease spread. The security of the U.S. and of Europe is indirectly threatened by Ebola-exacerbated threats to security in West Africa.

Do you think Obama’s initiative to set up an African Centre for Disease Control is useful in responding to diseases such as Ebola?

Yes. The establishment of the China CDC has been very helpful in responding to epidemics in Asia. Most importantly, the nations of Africa will need to focus on epidemic and pandemic preparedness in order to best equip their countries to deal with Ebola and other emerging infectious disease threats.

Thank you very much.

____________________

* The recent Ebola epidemic has thus far caused a recorded 1,069 deaths and infected 1,975 others around the world, with victims largely from West Africa, but these numbers are stated to ‘vastly underestimate the magnitude of the outbreak’. Ebola has a fatality rate of up to 90% and though Canada has now sent 1,500 doses of a new, experimental vaccine, there remains no proven cure.

‘Secret Diplomacy’. Should we engage with Boko Haram?

May 23, 2014 by Strife Staff

By Ifesinachi Okafor-Yarwood:

“All wars represent a failure of diplomacy”

According to Tony Penn, wars occur as a result of lack of diplomacy or the failure/unwillingness of both state and in the case of terrorist’s, non-state actors, to engage in lengthy negotiation – be it the traditional way i.e. secret diplomacy or the new way i.e. open diplomacy/negotiations as the case may be. This article explores the potency of “secret diplomacy” in averting conflicts and or wars, and recommends that it be taken seriously in tackling insurgency and terrorism in West Africa. This recommendation is in reaction to the often-too-cited mantra of ‘we do not negotiate with terrorist’ adopted by western countries, and which has also become a common dictum in Nigerian political discourses. Following a brief definition of what constitutes secret diplomacy in the next section; case studies from past international events will highlight the need to employ secret diplomacy as a means to ameliorate the threat of Boko Haram insurgency in Northern Nigeria.

According to Berridge (2012) secret diplomacy entails keeping secret all or any of the following “the contents of a negotiation, knowledge that negotiations are going on at all, the content of any agreement issuing from negotiations, or the fact that agreement has been reached” (2012: 336). This means of resolving disputes is proven to be effective as it has and continues to be utilized by states in resolving difficult international political problems.

Secret diplomacy has been identified as a potent instrument in dealing with many domestic and international crises in the past. For instance, it is no secret that secret negotiations between the government of the United States and former Soviet Union, was instrumental in averting the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 (Stern 2003:33). Similarly, the “Good Friday Agreement” of April 1998, that saw an end to the crisis in Northern Ireland (BBC 2004, online), did not happen because the British government were so strong or kept to their words of not negotiating with terrorists (as the Irish Republican Army (IRA) at the time were seen as a terrorist organization). Rather, secret negotiations between the British government and members of IRA were instrumental to an agreement being reached (Fisher et al 2003, 57). What is more, despite the United States stance in negotiating with terrorists, there is evidence to suggest that they had and continue to have secret negotiations with the Taliban and Hezbollah on possible solutions to ending the crisis in Afghanistan and Syria respectively (Chandran 2011:60-61; RT 2014). These negotiations have almost always occurred hand in hand with a conventional (open) diplomacy, with the latter acting as the front for the real negotiations, while the back channel negotiations are on going (Roberts 2009:516).

Since the new wave of destruction fomented by radical Islamists group Boko Haram is threatening the very existence of nationhood in Nigeria, this author suggests that one possible way of addressing this menace is to have meaningful (secret) dialogue with their leaders. Notably, Islamic radicalism is not a new phenomenon especially in Nigeria, however the recent terror campaigns including the kidnap of over 250 girls by “Jamã’atu Ahlis Sunnah Ladda’awatih wal-jihad – meaning people committed to the propagation of the prophet’s teaching and jihad” otherwise known as “Boko Haram” –has brought Nigeria to the focus of international community. Although the history of this organization remains shrouded in controversy (Alao 2013:73-73), there is no denying that they have some influence in Northern Nigeria, and that influence is fast spreading beyond the borders of Niger and Cameroon.

Understandably, the incessant terror attacks by Boko Haram have led to public outcry for the government to do more. Some of the recent attacks including the kidnap of over 200 schoolgirls come with demands from the terrorist group – such demand includes the release of their imprisoned members in exchange for the release of the kidnapped girls (Abubakar & Jon 2014). In addition, since the Nigerian government, like United Kingdom and United States government, insists that they do not negotiate with terrorists, the prospects for ending the fatalities inflicted by Boko Haram looks dim. If precedence is anything to go by, then the best way of curtailing the activities of these dangerous terrorists is to engage with them and make some compromises.

Based on the evidence presented above, it is obvious that if the Nigerian government is willing to put an end to the problems of Islamist insurgency in their country, then they must be open to the option of secret negotiations. This is important because although Boko Haram has been identified as a terrorist organization, regrettably, like the Taliban in Afghanistan, and Al-Shabab in Somalia (Tarzi 2009:306-308; Hansen 2013:2), Boko Haram have significant influence among residents in communities where they operate – as demonstrated by the facts that people are willing to provide shelter for them in their undercover operations.

Although it remains impossible to meet the core demand of Boko Haram, which is the Islamisation of Nigeria (Adenrele 2012: 21), the Nigerian government can engage in secret negotiations with them to figure out ways of ameliorating the unending murders and destructions to properties. While some people might argue that it is unethical to engage in any sort of negotiation with terrorist organizations, it is important to recognize that without engaging with Boko Haram, their influence would continue to grow. In addition, contrary to the belief that any engagement with terrorists undermines a state’s integrity, adopting secret diplomacy could boost a government’s ability to protect its citizens, especially when it matters most. Disengaging with terrorists’ in this case, Boko Haram increases their resolve to seek attention. Engaging with them militarily also put the state at a disadvantage, since terrorists have no rules of engagement. The surest hope of addressing the threat posed by Boko Haram is to have meaningful engagement with them and this author believes that this can be achieve through secret diplomacy.

_______________

Ifesinachi Okafor-Yarwood holds an MA in Conflict, Security and Development and is an Alumni scholar with the African Leadership Centre, Kings College London and University of Nairobi. Her Primary research interests include diplomacy, African security and development, The Gulf of Guinea, maritime and human security.

FURTHER READING

Abubakar, A. & John, H. (2014). ‘Blasts at Market kill 118 in Central Nigeria, Officials say’. CNN, 21 May. Available: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/21/world/africa/nigeria-blasts/. Accessed: 21th May 2014.
Adenrele, A.R. (2012). ‘Boko Haram Insurgency in Nigeria as a Symptom of Poverty and Political Alienation’. Journal of Humanities and Social Science: Vol. 3 (5), 21-26.
Alao, C.A. (2013). ‘Islamic Radicalization and Violence in Nigeria’. In Gow, J. et al. (eds.) Militancy and Violence in West Africa: Religion, Politics and Radicalization. Oxford: Routledge, 43-89.
BBC online, (9 December, 2004). ‘The Good Friday Agreement in full’. Available on: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4079267.stm. [Accessed: 24thMarch, 2012].
Chandran, D.S. (2011). ‘Armed Conflict in FATA and NWFP: Continuing Violence’. In Chandran, D.S. & Chari, P.R. (eds.) Armed Conflicts in South Asia, 2010: Growing Left-wing Extremism and Religious Violence. India: Routledge, 44-66.
Fisher J. et al, (2003). Central Debates in British Politics. England; Pearson Education Limited.
G.R. Berridge, (2005). Diplomacy Theory and Practice. 3rd ed. United Kingdom: Palgrave Press.
Hansen, S.J. (2013). Al-Shabab in Somalia: the History and Ideology of a Militant Islamist Group, 2005-2012. United Kingdom: Hurst Publishers.
Helander B, (1999). ‘Somalia’. In Westerlund D. & Svanberg I, (eds.), Islam outside the Arab World. New York; St. Martin’s Press,
Reuters. (2014). ;Kenya Defends Security Efforts After Weekend Bombings’. VOA News, 5 May. Available: http://www.voanews.com/content/reu-kenya-defends-security-efforts-after-weekend-bombings/1908334.html. Accessed: 20th May 2014.
RT. (2014). ‘US in secret talks with Hezbollah – Israeli reports’. Russia Today, 29 April. Available: http://rt.com/usa/155728-hezbollah-cyprus-us-talks/. Accessed: 21st May 2014.
Stern S.M, (2003). Averting “the Final Failure”: John F. Kennedy and the Secret Cuban Missile Crisis Meetings. California; Stanford University Press.
Tarzi, A. (2009). ‘The Neo-Taliban’. In Crews, R.D. & Tarzi, A. (eds.) The Taliban and the Crisis of Afghanistan. United States of America: Harvard University Press, 274-310.
Wilson, G.H. (2013). Ilham Portrait of a President. United States of America: AuthorHouse Publications.

Looking back into the future: Civil Rights and Pan-Africanism in a "marginalised" world

May 12, 2014 by Strife Staff

By Kafui O. Tsekpo:

Introduction

Equality at all levels of human endeavour is important for the progress of the human race. In this article, I will deviate from what has been the norm, “hero worshipping” of individuals whose sacrifice of time, energy and intellectual prowess helped to start and flame up Pan-Africanism and the Civil rights movement and the achievements it managed to chalk during the period of the struggles. Rather, this piece will attempt to bring to the fore the problems of society which these two movements sought to eradicate.

The Two movements: Civil Rights and Pan-Africanism

There is a symbiotic relationship between Pan-Africanism and civil rights in America. According to Salma Maoulidi, Pan-Africanism gave rise to the civil rights movement in the US and to independence and anti-imperialist movements in Africa.[i] Pan-Africanism had its origins as a movement of intellectual protest against ill-treatment of blacks all over the world. It was initiated by the blacks of America and the West Indies whose ancestors came from Africa.[ii] Martin defines Pan-Africanism as “the attempts by African peoples to link up their struggles with their kindred and compatriots in the Americas and around the world for their mutual benefit.” Shepperson states “Pan-Africanism was a gift of the New World of America to the Old World of Africa.”[iii] It was an expression of the feelings of the people of African descent regarding their condition of helplessness and degradation. It was a movement created because black people across the world were tired of having the ‘slave’ mentality that had been ingrained in them for decades. The movement was created because, they decided they were better than how they were treated, and if they stuck together they knew that they could change to world.

In the view of Marah, the Pan-African movement was an “emotional, cultural, psychological and ideological movement that began among the African Diaspora in the Western hemisphere, for a closer purpose, so that African people could feel secure, attain political, economic as well as psychological power vis-à-vis other races or world regions.”[iv] Pan-Africanism advocated the commonness and unity of Africans and people of African descent, seemingly oblivious to Africa’s rich cultural vastness and diversity and its huge potential of forging a humane world order yet to be unleashed. Early pioneers moved to reclaim the dignity of the African, instil pride in being African and forge an African identify from a shared culture. At the outset, therefore, Pan-Africanism is grounded in an ideology of resistance from colonial and European domination. According to Maouldi:

“At inception, Pan-Africanism was tied to strong intellectual, labour and other social movements e.g. student movements, revolutionary movements and literary movements. Pan-Africanism was a central thesis in their advocacy for equality and the end to injustice of all forms. Political agitation for the rights of black people was going on simultaneously both in America and in the continent calling for the end of oppression of black people.”[v]

Similarly, the civil rights movement in America has its origins in the centuries-long efforts of African slaves and their descendants to resist oppression, racial discrimination and abolishing of the institution of slavery right from the Atlantic Ocean, through the plantations to the independent states of America. The civil rights movement in America was a mass protest movement against racial segregation and discrimination in the southern United States that came to national prominence during the mid-1950s. In essence it was a movement of African ‘Black’ Americans to ‘fight’ for their right to equality, to be recognised in body and mind as having the same God-given abilities, and to exercise their inalienable rights as humans and citizens of America. This is succinctly summed up by Martin Luther King Jr. in his letter written from the jail in Birmingham “We have waited more than 340 years to exercise our constitutional and God given rights.”[vi]

Both movements aimed to champion the African ‘black’ race, bridging the gap that has been created by imperial domination of the world and to create a world order where all persons are treated and respected on equal terms and joined forces together to make the world a better place for all. Today, though one cannot conclusively say America is free from the injustices that were fought for in the Civil Rights Movement, the movement nonetheless made a significant impact on American society culminating in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which banned all forms of discrimination in America, at least on paper.

The early roots of Pan-Africanism demonstrate a strong kinship between Africans in the Diaspora and continental Africa. Indeed, the movement was birthed and spearheaded in the Caribbean and in the United States predominantly by intellectuals advocating for the dignity of Africans. The Pan-Africanist movement which originally was populated by the Caribbeans and African-Americans started to gain prominence among the Africans in the Diaspora and on the continent. Pioneers like Henry Sylvester Williams from Trinidad organised the first Pan-African Conference in London. Edward W. Blyden W.E.B. Du Bois one of the founders of the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (NAACP), sponsored the Pan-African Congress of 1921, 1923 and 1927, Martin Delany developed the re-emigration scheme which was later taken up by Marcus Garvey, the founder of a nationalist movement – the Universal Negro Improvement Association – which promoted black pride and advocated for repatriation to Africa.

It is also not surprising that the origins of the movement in the continent are tied to an elite class, part of which was resettled Diaspora in West Africa, led by activists like S. L. Akintola of Nigeria or Wallace Johnson from Sierra Leone[vii]. Wallace Johnson for instance was noted for his fierce criticism of the British Colonial administration in West Africa. Most importantly the conference highlighted the ills of imperial domination of Africa:

“European presence in Africa had resulted in regression of indigenous democratic political systems had been replaced by autocracy; constitutional reforms which in reality led to continued Africans’ enslavement; indirect rule and assimilation was an instrument of oppression and encroached on the rights of Africans and their rulers; European-imposed artificial boundaries that obstructed effective state formation. On the economic front, Europeans were systematically exploiting African resources, Africa’s unique forms of industrialisation had been obstructed by the imperialist powers with standard of living fallen below subsistence levels; land and mineral rights of the people were alienated; there was no freedom to form independent trade unions and co-operatives to advance their interest; the one-crop export oriented economy was in the hands of the European merchants and financial capital beyond the control of the government Africans.”[viii]

Most nationalists on the African continent were at different stages in their struggle against colonialism and its ills introduced and inducted to Pan-African ideology. At the Pan-African conference held in Manchester, prominent Africans such as Jomo Kenyattaand Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana as secretaries and organisers respectively; others, such as Julius Nyerere, were in attendance. The conference impacted positively on the African caucus that was attended mainly by students studying in Europe and America. It implanted the Pan-African ideology in them, converting them into “willing disciples” who saw the usefulness of the ideology in their self-understanding and appreciation of the ills that dominated society and the need for Africa to be liberated from the imperial domination by the West. Personalities like Kwame Nkrumah, Jomo Kenyatta, Julius Nyerere, Dr Hasting Banda -Malawi, Obafemi Awolowo (Nigeria), Ibrahim Garba-Jahumpa – Gambia, Jaja Wachuku – Nigeria and Ako Adjei and Joe Appiah of Ghana among others came back to lead their respective countries’ struggles for independence or served in various capacities in the post-independence government as well as becoming leading advocates for the total liberation of the African continent and its people from imperial domination; colonialism and apartheid.

The rise of independent Africa accelerated the momentum of the civil right movement in America. It underpinned the decision of many young civil rights activists in the U.S. to take charge of the destiny of the movement by substituting the white liberals who were holding back the movement. With organized labour controlled by racist bureaucrats, and the socialist left small and weak, nationalism seemed a viable alternative for black radicals such as Malcolm X and Stokely Carmichael (later Kwame Ture). They travelled to Africa to meet with leaders of newly independent nations and anti-colonial movements. Activists in the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) read the words of the Black Algerian revolutionary Frantz Fanon as a guide to action. By the mid-1960s, Black Nationalism had swept through the United States; behind the slogan of Black Power.[ix]

Pan-Africanism as an ideology is concerned with promoting the African race, culture, potentials and achievements. It is concerned with creating an equal and just society where every person is able to live a meaningful life and no one or race is supreme. Celebrated writers and champions of the Pan-African course such as Walter Rodney (How Europe Underdeveloped Africa), Franz Fanon (Wretched of the Earth), Nkrumah’s (Africa Must Unite), and many literary pieces by Du Bois, Padmore, Garvey among others were all attempts to reconstruct and explain global relationships from a African perspective.[x] All the while, it is also sending a message to the world of the need to break away from the imperialist/capitalist domination of the world that only seeks to divide society and crate enmity amongst humanity.

Conclusion

It is imperative to note that the injustices of racial discrimination, inequality and slavery among others that gave rise to the movements of Pan Africanism and civil rights are still rife is our societies today. They are manifested in forced labour, low wages in factories and offices, inequality on the basis of sex and colour, hunger and starvation as result of greed exhibited among a minority few, and xenophobic attacks and the like that are flaunted daily before our eyes on our screens and streets. Considering that the existing world order continues to create segregation between the rich and the poor, man and woman and among persons with various ethnic backgrounds, one may not be very far from right to describe the existing order as inhumane and a scar on societal consciousness. The commemoration of Black history month, must challenge us as a people to rigorously think about the kind of legacy the current world order is charting and how we can contribute in turning around the current tide in tune with objectives of the two movements. We must be guided by the spirit of the Civil Rights and the Pan-African movement to tackle the root causes of this unfolding legacy. The youth of Africa must be challenged and inspired by this, and lead the charge towards creating a better future grounded in Pan-African ideas.

________________

This is an excerpt of a speech given on behalf of the ALC at a dinner to commemorate Black History Month organised by the African Heritage Association (AHA), which is affiliated with the 1000th Air Refuelling Wing (ARW) of United States Army, RAF Mildenhall. Cambridge, England.

Kafui O. Tsekpo is a Leadership, Security and Society Fellow with the African Leadership Centre at King’s College London. He is a young Africanist scholar whose primary research focuses on issues in African Development.

NOTES

[i] Maouldi, 2009 Contemporary Africa and Pan-Africanism http://pambazuka.org/en/category/comment/55476. Retrieved on 07/02/14.
[ii] ibid.
[iii] George Shepperson, Contributions in Black Studies, Vol. 8 [1986], Art. 5
[iv] John K. Marah. African People in the Global Village, An introduction to Pan-African Studies. University Press of America, 1998
[v] See Maouldi, 2009 Contemporary Africa and Pan-Africanism http://pambazuka.org/en/category/comment/55476. With emphasis Retrieved on 07/02/14.
[vi] Martin Luther King Jr. “Letter from Birmingham Jail” with emphasis.
[vii] See Maouldi, 2009 Contemporary Africa and Pan-Africanism http://pambazuka.org/en/category/comment/55476. retrieve d on 07/02/14
[viii] See http://www.youthcouncil-namibia.org/docs/5thPANC.pdf
[ix] See http://socialistworker.org/2012/10/05/origins-of-pan-africanism
[x] See Maouldi, 2009 Contemporary Africa and Pan-Africanism http://pambazuka.org/en/category/comment/55476. retrieve d on 07/02/14

Failed, failing, failure – Is Africa disgracing our family?

April 7, 2013 by Strife Staff

By Tim Glawion

All five of the most failed states in the world lie in Africa, calculates the Fund for Peace in its 2012 Index. Mali, as a case in point, has been failing for months now, the army even went as far as fleeing when the Islamist insurgency attacked them. Only mother France’s troops have turned the tables and are leading the recapture of the country’s North with astonishing swiftness and ease. After all we have done for you Africa, why do you prove us a failure time and time again? At least so the popular narrative reads.

Unlike the recent events in Mali suggest, however, Africa has not disappointed us. We have disappointed Africa. In light of the apparent failure of our imposed mode of order in form of a state system we persist and refuse to change our ways. In fact, most African countries never had a state system, at most borders and institutions left behind by colonialism. Africa’s political order, therefore, has neither failed, nor is it failing. Africa’s political orders are evolving and we might see states emerging from this evolution. But if we opened our minds and our international system, we might just witness new forms of political order different from what we know. While we condemn colonialism for the slavery and abuses it brought about, we still silently praise it for bringing order to a continent of anarchy. State systems with clear boundaries, infrastructure, and powerful governments. However, when independence movements kicked out European imperialists, indigenous rulers seemed incapable of containing their abusive and extractive measures to an economically viable level, as the former colonizers had been able to. The economy and the state quickly collapsed. It seems as though the circle began closing itself, when Mali called upon its old masters to bring about the stability they were unable to provide for themselves.

But does this patronizing viewpoint stand the test of reality?

To begin with, can we speak of states, in the European sense, in Africa? While the 1884 Berlin Conference painted lines on the ‘blank’ African drawing board, which have stayed surprisingly untouched for almost 150 years, is this enough to become a state? Were infrastructure developments, coercive rulers and ideological indoctrination, which came about as by-products of colonialism, enough to fill these borders with a common people? Unlikely. Colonial institutions did not create unifying causes and processes for the emergence of states, instead they were meant to increase the efficiency of exploitation. If any moment in time can be seen as a possible spark for state building during the twentieth century, it was not when Europeans entered the continent. It was rather when Africans in each country collectively decided to kick them out.

Along with the common enemy, disappeared the common cause. Identities and institutions other than the state persisted, such as tribes, kin-groups, clans and kingdoms. But the centralizing apparatus left behind by the imperialists and international incentives to uphold the central state empowered exclusive groups to exploit the rest of the population. Somalia’s dictator Siyyad Barre, propped up first by the Soviets, then by the Americans, went as far as starting massacres against north-eastern tribes simply to boost his grip on power. The same region declared independence in 1991 as Somaliland, and who could blame them after a history of violent discrimination under the pretence of a centralized state? Well, we are blaming them, as no state so far has recognized Somaliland’s independence.

Anglo-European powers did not bring about statehood, but these same powers upheld a ‘quasi-state’ system as a pretext to justify violent repression and avoid the emergence of an organic political order. How, then, can we believe that Western intervention is the key for peace and stability? When recognising a central Somali government for the first time in 20 years the United States took credit for supporting the transition to a central state. What kind of support did the US mean exactly? Propping up Barre’s regime for 12 years? Leading a failed attempt at pacification in 1993, and retreating in haste after the infamous Black Hawk Down incident? Supporting warlords against Islamist groups during the civil war? Encouraging the Ethiopian invasion in 2006 that toppled the only stable Somali regime since 1991 because it was “Islamist”? Or does it indeed refer to the most recent move to acknowledge as the sole representative of Somalia a government that itself effectively controls no more than the capital city?

With the French forces reporting one military success after the next, and newspapers’ daily self-congratulatory headlines on what a great impact we Europeans have on our ailing little brother Africa, as a European I must disagree: Africa has not failed us, we have failed Africa.

Africa

Footer

Contact

Recent Posts

Tags