Mohau Pheko* argues that engendering peace, security and stability in Africa can be achieved only once Africans start a discussion on their own role in fuelling wars.
Images of civil war have created simplistic and negative stereotypes that characterise Africa as doomed, and ravaged by deep tribal conflict and increasing political violence. In Angola, over 500,000 people have been killed since 1989 and millions of others have been displaced. In Rwanda, declassified documents disapprove denials by the United States that they did not know about the coming genocide and reveal that they chose not to act. In the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), seven countries have been directly involved with the war. Statistics indicate that the war has created over 9.5 million refugees and hundreds of thousands of people have been killed. Undoubtedly, this large scale of destruction in Europe would be declared World War III. Aid agencies would be competing to provide aid, the media would cover it with updates, and mediators would be rushed in to diffuse the situation.
The past 40 years have witnessed more than 20 African countries at war. This means about 40% of Africa has experienced at least one period of civil war. Estimates show that approximately 20% of Africa’s population live in countries where there is either formal war or low intensity conflicts.
What is a Civil War?
It might be useful to define or come up with a working definition of civil war for purposes of this debate. Civil war can be described as an armed conflict that has the following characteristics:
- Causes more than one thousand deaths
- Involves the state as one of the principal combatants
- Involves parties concerned with the prospect of living together in the same political unit after the war
- Challenges the sovereignty of an internation- ally recognised state
- Occurs within the recognised boundaries of a state
- Includes rebels who have the capacity to mount an organised opposition
Competing reasons for war in Africa
Observers of African politics have debated and advanced several reasons why civil wars happen in Africa. The most commonly used hypotheses are ethnic and religious hatred. The opinion goes
on to conclude that ambitious leaders exploit these hatreds. When taken together with the existence of rebel movements organised along ethnic interests in various parts of the continent, these statements may seem valid on the surface. However, a study conducted for the Journal of African Economies by Ibrahim Elbadawi and Nicholas Sambanis refutes this argument. They have drawn their conclusions from looking at the prevalence of civil wars in 161 countries between 1960 – 1999. Rather than ethnic and linguistic fragmentation creating civil war in Africa, they have discovered that diversity helps and does not impede Africa’s stability and development. They instead argue that high levels of poverty, failed political institutions, and economic dependence on natural resources represent a conducive environment for civil war to occur in Africa. They imply that political and economic development can effectively reduce and eradicate political violence in Africa.
My point of departure from this study, is that it blatantly ignores the artificial boundaries created by colonial rulers. In 1884 when major western power of the world negotiated the slicing up of Africa, 80% of the continent was under traditional and local control. The colonial boundaries divided Africa into ‘countries’ that divided coherent groups of people and merged disparate groups who did not share the same culture and linguistic boundaries. Cheikh Anta Diop in his book, Black Africa, states, “linguistic unity based on a foreign language, however one may look at it, is cultural abortion.” History has not forgiven Africa for this. Unless a cultural revolution takes place in Africa soon, ethnicity will continue to result in wars in Africa.
In trying to create an understanding of what causes civil war in Africa, from my analysis and reflection it seems that civil wars in Africa erupt from complex, varied and multidimensional factors.
State formation and civil wars
The manner and nature in which African states have been constructed, promotes ethnic entitlements, rights and privileges. This creates an unequal status of citizenship, where the state panders to divided loyalties rather than creating a common bond through citizenship. This results in tension in the public sphere where accusations of exclusion, domination and marginalisation are predominant. This phenomena is becoming more evident in this era where domination is intensifying, and people in Africa search for their identity in the political globalisation process and ideology of capitalism. Rights and privileges are being redesigned, institutionalised, and enforced by supra-national organisations. The majority of Africans have no connection or concept of who and how these institutions play a role in their national lives. Regional integration is redefining the notion of citizenship within the national contexts as well.
Corporate Interests
We cannot ignore corporate interest in fuelling war in Africa. Access to Africa’s resource has and will remain a priority for industrialised nations and their corporations. It is not accidental that Exxon, Enron, Chevron, Mobil, Amoco, Caterpillar, Citicorp, Coca- Cola, Bristol-Myers-Squibb among many supported the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act. The spirit behind their support stems from their desire to access Africa’s natural resources.
The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is the size of the current 15 countries of the European Union. Its geo-strategic position in the heart of Africa has destined it as the first target and site of choice for the pursuit of this world strategy in Africa. The incredible wealth of the DRC’s mining industry (gold, cobalt, coltan, diamonds etc.) has made it an attraction for unscrupulous outsiders. Mobutu’s regime was happy to be wooed by western interests. The central cause of the war in the DRC is the fundamental power struggle for the remaining wealth in the country.
The DRC has been caught in a war since 1998. This war has the potential to jeopardise the future of the African continent. The European Union (EU) makes a pretence of wanting peace in Africa and going so far as to apply sanctions on Zimbabwe. A report by the International Peace Information Service demonstrates how member states of the EU such as Belgium, Germany, Netherlands and Switzerland, have played a role in the war economy in the DRC and the Great Lakes region. A panel of United Nations Experts concluded that “extracting the maximum commercial and material benefits” has become “the primary motive” of the countries and armies involved in this war. The Panel went on to state that “the role of the private sector in the exploitation of natural resources and the continuation of the war has been vital”.
The bustling trade in coltan – short for columbite-tantalite – provides a clear example of the coincidence of corporate interests in trade and civil war. Coltan trade has become important to the lives of Europeans. When refined and separated it produces tantalum powder which is used in the highly heat resistant electronic components needed for mobile phones, laptop computers and play stations.
The DRC accounts for 80% of the world’s reserves of coltan. It is therefore no accident that companies like Alcatel, Compaq, Dell, Ericsson, HP, IBM, Nokia, Siemens and Motorola benefit from Coltan trade. Through international traders such as Cogecom, Sogem, Masigiro and others based in European capitals these multinational corporations have set up lucrative deals by hustling between various rebel groups such as the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA), the Raassemblement Congolais pour la Democratie (RCD) and governments involved in the DRC war. African countries have become easy prey of multinational corporations. These corporations have positioned themselves in such a way that they are able to destabilise the region by creating their own State within the DRC.
omplicity of African States
African leaders have participated in fuelling the war in the DRC. President Kagame of Rwanda in the UN report stated, “The war in the DRC is a self- financial war.” The complicity of African politicians in collusion with multilateral organisations, international banks and European governments has been well documented. Uganda has received US$12,263,385 from exporting diamonds, despite having no diamond production. In 1999, coltan production in Uganda was zero, yet Uganda exported 69.5 tons. Rwanda in 2000 exported diamonds to the value of US$1,788,036 despite having no production in diamonds. The UN report shows that Zimbabwe has far exceeded its military budget. President Kabila is reported to have signed an agreement between “GECAMINES” and the Zimbabwean company Ridgepointe Overseas Development of British Virgin Islands, which belongs to the Rautenbach family. This family has friendly relations with President Mugabe, who in turn, feels close to the rich cobalt reserves of Katanga. This has benefited senior government and senior military officials in Zimbabwe.
Conclusion
Engendering peace, security and stability in Africa are tasks that will be accomplished only when Africans open the discourse on their own collusion in fuelling wars. It will entail interrogating how the state in Africa is constituted in order to find an identity of citizenship that all Africans can enjoy. Linking our analysis to issues of debt, mineral resources, and HIV/AIDS will begin to help us plan lasting peace initiatives.
* Mohau Mpheko is a gender and human rights activist, and a member of the editorial collective.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.