Security issues tend to dominate discussions at the governmental level mainly because of consequences that lead to a feeling of insecurity among the population.
The problem here is that, in the main, attention is focused on internal and external armed conflicts between regimes while the major issue for the population – security of the state – is totally ignored. Security of the state is all about the provision of food, portable drinking water to the creation of employment.
This situation seems to have pushed up instability to a large extent in Africa and other parts of the world, too. For instance, over the years there has been a strong suspicion on the part of many that even though Boko Haram, the insurgent group in north-eastern Nigeria that started its armed campaign in 2009, has never hidden from the public the motive behind its activities, widespread poverty in the areas that it operates is also seen as a covert factor. Disillusioned youths, according to studies, have found the group a good “home”.
“We talk so much about Boko Haram and their operations. We know that their methods are not good, to say the least. But in most cases we fail to deal with some of the root causes of the problem”, Babiola Adjekuno, a security analyst said.
“African countries have not developed policies and programmes that discourage activities of insurgents. This means that, sadly, we will keep witnessing increasing number of groups taking up arms to fight for a cause. The concentration of most African governments is to deal with the United Nations, the European Union and other international organisations to drive forward their agenda to provide security whereas back home policies on education, employment and the provision of social amenities are not followed through to address the issue,” Adjekuno notes.
He adds: “[The] reality must not be lost on anyone [because] economic failure, mostly through corruption, has offered all the necessary ingredients for people to take up arms. Since the cost of putting out such ‘fires’ far outweighs the cost of creating the enabling environment for people’s life to improve through their own initiatives it makes sense for African governments to enact the right policies and programmes to make it unattractive for people to take up arms.”
Adjekuno’s view of a direct link between economic deprivation and a call to arms is shared by many. In addition, religion, ethnicity, identity crisis and resources have all had impact on the security situation in Africa.
“While Black against White in Africa is a clash over resources, Black against Black is a clash of identities. The thesis here is that racial conflicts in Africa are ultimately economic, whereas tribal wars are ultimately cultural. White folks and Black folks fight each other about who owns what,” noted the late Professor Ali Mazrui.
“Black folks fight each other about who is who. Apartheid was ultimately an economic war. But Hutu against Tutsi is a culture-conflict. The demarcation of property may be less deadly than the clash of identities.”
In fact, since independence, more than a third of African countries have experienced large-scale political violence, and whereas some of the military adventures of the past involved bloodless coups and occasional assassinations, in the most recent past, long drawn-out conflicts influenced by ethnic, religious and ideological boundaries have been witnessed.
Cote d’Ivoire, Sierra Leone and Liberia provide classic examples of how centuries-old unresolved ethnic, religious, ideological and even national boundaries can come back to bite viciously.
Recent upheavals in Mali and Burkina Faso were less devastating, compared to what happened in the three countries mentioned above. Also, the “Arab Spring” that led to the toppling of some regimes in North Africa highlighted the manner in which an individual’s action can galvanise people. There was widespread disaffection with politics and the economy in this case, and the revolution across North Africa and the Arab world was sparked, quite literally, by the self-immolation of Mohammed Bouazizi in Tunisia in 2010.
Countries like Ethiopia, Somalia, Sudan and Uganda have also experienced civil wars, with Tanzania too facing similar problems through a revolution in Zanzibar in 1964.
“Since the middle of the 20th century more people have died in Africa as a result of conflict between Black and Black than because of conflict between Black and White”, noted Professor Mazrui.
Dealing with conflicts has always been a tall order, to say the least, for African governments. The Boko Haram situation presents a classic case. After the Nigerian government had tried on its own to deal with the situation, it had no other option than to call on the international community for support. Cote d’Ivoire, Liberia and Sierra Leone all had to get international help – financially and logistically – before the situation was brought under control.
In all of this, one refreshing hope is that Africa today has had relatively few conflicts between states, pointing to the fact that the balance between external conflict and internal conflict has tilted on the side of internal in Africa.
This, however, does not mean that the damage is less. Studies have shown that civil wars often leave deeper scars and are often more indiscriminate and more ruthless than inter-state conflicts. For instance, history has it that the United States lost more people in its own civil war in the 1860s than any other single war in its history.
The refreshing part is that once the situation can be identified, the solutions can be proffered and most of the time such solutions do not rest with the United Nations Security Council or “Special Forces”. Counterinsurgent activities, whether against a violent extremist organisation or a less aggressive group could be approached using home-grown strategies that should, in effect, address the basics of the security of the state.
The lasting solution to the security problems in Africa is for governments to find the right policy balance that would prevent despair and therefore hopelessness. For instance, the rising levels of the unemployed in Africa – without the right social safety net to protect them from abject poverty – have been the cause of the increase in migration from Africa to Europe. African youths are risking everything to make the dangerous journey through the high seas to Europe, with only one goal: economic freedom.
It was therefore apt when the African Union Peace and Security Council (AUPSC) at its 576th meeting on “Migration, Peace and Security in Africa”, held on February 16, identified that migration was “too important to be left to governments alone and even more dangerous if they try alone”.
Therefore, I am firmly of the view that the AU’s Declaration on Migration, which includes migration as part of the development goals for regional integration and the implementation of Agenda 2063, is a firm riposte to the need for national policies to seek to address issues bordering on young people. Good policies and strong institutions that reinforce each other are needed to address the challenges of insecurity in Africa rather than rhetoric.
Institutional arrangements within the “national security” set up, firmly built around the army, policing, prison service and the likes, are good, but ultimately it is the policies developed around the ambit of security – the security of the state – that will address unemployment, migration, poverty, corruption and so on – thus guaranteeing peace and stability in Africa.
By Bernard Otabil
a financial journalist, is the CEO of the Ghana News Agency and a Regional Fellow of the Tana Forum, with a research interest in economics, peace and security.
Source: GNA
