
Africa's Forever Wars: Why the continent's conflicts never end - cwan
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/22/africas_forever_wars
======
lionhearted
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
Yes, after installing themselves as the local aristocracy and landowners, and
relegating the natives to serfdom.

~~~
lionhearted
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...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/The_British_Empire.png)

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.

~~~
plinkplonk
"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. "

You have no idea what you are speaking about. "serious decline in prosperity"?
yeah right. If you can prove that you should get the next Nobel prize for
economics.

 _No one_ in India wants the British back. While we have our problems, we are
_more_ prosperous , have _less_ religious violence than when the British were
here. (to be clear, we do have religious violence. I'd like data for "less",
since you seem so confident). The British Raj was hardly some kind of genteel
and benevolent rule. It was highly exploitative and highly repressive.

The Bengal Famine resulted in the deaths of 3 _million_ people,largely due to
British policy.

from wikipedia (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943>)

"During the British rule in India there were approximately 25 major famines
spread through states such as Tamil Nadu in South India, Bihar in the north,
and Bengal in the east; altogether, between 30 and 40 million Indians were the
victims of famines in the latter half of the 19th century (Bhatia 1985).

Though malnutrition and hunger remain widespread in India, there have been no
famines since the end of the British rule in 1947 and the establishment of a
democratic government."

Decline in prosperity? You have no idea, you arrogant idiot.

If you are arguing that the Germans, say, would have been worse than the
British, I agree, but that isn't what you were saying.

You make two points. one, that all former British colonies has inevitably
declined when the British ruled it is laughable when applied to India (it
might be true when applied to some African countries that have since fallen
into anarchy).

We have our problems sure, but we are _way_ better off than under British
rule.

"resurgence of the caste system" my ass. The caste system while still present
and still harmful is _way_ less powerful than in the period under British
rule. You have no idea what you are speaking about.

Anothe point is that unlike Egypt (say, or even Hong Kong) we didn't move from
British rule to more autocracy, but toward more freedom. Indians are more free
today then _ever_ under British rule.

The other point is "If I was alive in the times of the British Empire, I'm
pretty sure I'd want to be under British rule."

Sure, if you were British. An independence movement (like the Indian
Independence movement) by _definition_ consists of people who lived during
british rule and _didn't_ want to. But by your logic all of them would have
wanted to live under British rule forever. Millions of Indians sacrificed a
great deal to kick the british _out_. They most certainly did _not_ want to
live under British rule and for good reason.

 _No one_ In India today yearns for life under British rule. I can see how
someone in say, Sierra Leone, might.

Unlike you poring across your maps, I actually live here. My grandfather(still
alive, just) has many horror stories about British rule. The British Raj was
highly repressive and hated. We are glad they are gone and if they ever come
back, I (a gentle hacker type and hardly some kind of uber patriot) would be
the first to pick up a gun and fight to throw them out.

 _No one_ in India wants the British back. _No one_ believes we would be
better off under British rule _today_ . No one _here_ that is. But then you
with your maps know better what we would like ;-).

~~~
shabda
To add some more data points to what you said

Literacy changed from 12% to 66 % from 1947 to 2007
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_India>

Life expectancy changed from 32 years to 65 years (47 to 07)
[http://www.google.co.in/search?rlz=1C1GPCK_enIN371IN372&...](http://www.google.co.in/search?rlz=1C1GPCK_enIN371IN372&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=indias+life+expectancy)

Gdp changed from 93 Bil to 1.22 Trillion
[http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&rlz=1C1GPCK_enIN371...](http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&rlz=1C1GPCK_enIN371IN372&q=indias+gdp+&meta=&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=)
(1950-2007)

~~~
tel
That's incredibly misleading and a fantastically blunt example of correlation
not implying causation.

Do you really think Indian Independence was the only factor over a 60 year
period responsible for that 33 year life expectancy increase? It's what you
comment appears to say.

I'd still believe your (implied) argument considering that it was likely that
after Indian Independence the people were more able to get access to modern
medicine and distribute it effectively, but without including some comparative
estimate those data points are particularly biased and misleading.

------
pistoriusp
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...](http://www.vbs.tv/watch/the-vice-guide-to-travel/the-vice-guide-to-
liberia-1-of-8)

~~~
llll
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.

------
thaumaturgy
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.

~~~
tsally
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_...](http://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_barnett_draws_a_new_map_for_peace.html).
Your view is a common misconception that should be corrected.

~~~
thaumaturgy
> _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.

~~~
tsally
_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._

As I said, the invasion is the trivial part, but you keep focusing on it. I
did provide proof by the way. My proof is in the video. Please watch it.
Thomas Barnett's whole point is that your way of thinking is outdated. The
invasion doesn't matter. There isn't _any_ country the US can't invade.
Barnett knows a helluva lot more than you or I and I think you should listen
and consider what he's saying.

 _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._

That has nothing to do whether the world wanted Saddam gone or not. In
general, it's safe to assume that (if given the option) the world would like
to take mass murders out of power. Disagreeing with the means does not imply
disagreeing with the ends in any logic system I know of.

EDIT:

 _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._

This is exactly right, but Barnett's point is that we don't know how to do
that. That's why a mission to Africa is harder; there's less of a foundation
to build on in Africa than in Iraq. The fact that we're able to build an Iraqi
army and police force of _any_ size is impressive. At the moment such a task
would be impossible in Africa. Think about Iraq pre-invasion. They had a
uniformed army, police, and some semblance of government. These things do not
exist in many African nations.

~~~
thaumaturgy
So, I think -- but I'm not certain -- that the link to the TED video wasn't in
your comment when I first read and responded to it. Or, it was, and I just
somehow completely missed it.

But, I just finished watching it. It's great! I was disappointed at the
audience's awkward laughter to points that I don't think he was joking about,
but he makes a very compelling point, and he makes it clearly.

That said, I don't disagree with him or you on this, and I _wasn't_ actually
just focusing on the initial invasion, though I can see how my statements
could be interpreted that way.

I'll try to do a better job this time:

I think some parts of Africa, like Sudan, would be easier to both develop an
initial presence in, _and_ maintain a mostly peaceful presence in, than Iraq.
Although you're right to point out that Iraq has more social infrastructure to
begin with, that social infrastructure provides resources to "the other side"
as well as "our side".

In other words, I think that there being less of a foundation to build on in
Africa is actually beneficial -- even after considering Barnett's point, and
agreeing with it. I think it's beneficial because it allows us to more easily
provide resources to impoverished people without having to fight them for it.
Think about it: there are no schools to blow up in some of these areas, so we
can build them from scratch and introduce education to a population that
hasn't had it.

I [EDIT: don't] think it's right to say "we don't know how to do that"; though
Barnett may say the same thing, I think it's more of a statement that "we
don't do that". Certainly Barnett has some good ideas about doing that, as do
some aspects of the U.N. and organizations like the Peace Corps.

To underline my point: Iraq did indeed have a uniformed army, police, and some
government -- and it is the remnants of those things which we are still
fighting in that country to this day, and _that's_ why Africa would be easier
to administrate.

~~~
tsally
That's definitely a fair argument, and I don't think we are as opposed as I
thought we were. The idea of building from scratch is appealing, but I think
nation building is a really hard problem. I honestly think we don't have the
experience or methods to fix politically bankrupt states, but perhaps you are
right and perhaps we do. Either way, I think a shift in viewpoint (to
"everything else", as Barnett calls it) is really important.

------
maxharris
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!

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

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

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

------
stretchwithme
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.

------
maxklein
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
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.

------
DaniFong
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
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!

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

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

------
littleiffel
hackers speaking on politics...

