11 ms·

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

130 points by cwan 17y ago

maxklein 17y 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_conflicts
- lrm242 17y 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.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
- swombat 17y ago
  Hardly. You're just quibbling about loose language, not outlining a contradiction. What the author means is that the only way to stop the existing movements is by stopping their leaders. That will stop the movements, but it doesn't prevent other movements from rising in their stead. In fact, the author makes a very convincing case, argued over much more than two out-of-context sentences, that the way the system works at the moment makes it impossible for any principled leader to arise, since any time one does, criminal ganges will fund his opponents (presumably until he's dead) and perpetuate the "un-wars". This strongly implies that whilst killing the leaders might stop their respective movements, it won't stop the endless cycle.
pistoriusp 17y 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-guide-to-liberia-1-of-8 http://www.vbs.tv/watch/the-vice-guide-to-travel/the-vice-gu...
- Griever 17y ago
  Just watched the entire thing and I have to say that I found it to be very powerful. Thanks for the link!
- llll 17y 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.
lionhearted 17y 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 17y ago
  Yes, after installing themselves as the local aristocracy and landowners, and relegating the natives to serfdom.
  - lionhearted 17y 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_British_Empire.png 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.
skmurphy 17y 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.htm 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."
thaumaturgy 17y 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.
- tsally 17y 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_peace.html http://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_barnett_draws_a_new_map_for_.... Your view is a common misconception that should be corrected.
  - thaumaturgy 17y 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.
known 17y ago
I think African nations should implement some kind of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservation_in_India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservation_in_India
maxharris 17y 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!
njharman 17y ago
Africa is not unique. S. America's, Asia's and Europe's conflicts never seem to end either.
kingkawn 17y ago
Europe was at war for one or two thousand years before settling down to its current state.
DaniFong 17y 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 17y 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 17y 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 17y ago
hackers speaking on politics...

130 points by cwan 17y 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_conflicts

lrm242 17y 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.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

swombat 17y ago
Hardly. You're just quibbling about loose language, not outlining a contradiction. What the author means is that the only way to stop the existing movements is by stopping their leaders. That will stop the movements, but it doesn't prevent other movements from rising in their stead. In fact, the author makes a very convincing case, argued over much more than two out-of-context sentences, that the way the system works at the moment makes it impossible for any principled leader to arise, since any time one does, criminal ganges will fund his opponents (presumably until he's dead) and perpetuate the "un-wars". This strongly implies that whilst killing the leaders might stop their respective movements, it won't stop the endless cycle.

pistoriusp 17y 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-guide-to-liberia-1-of-8 http://www.vbs.tv/watch/the-vice-guide-to-travel/the-vice-gu...

Griever 17y ago
Just watched the entire thing and I have to say that I found it to be very powerful. Thanks for the link!
llll 17y 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.

lionhearted 17y 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 17y ago
Yes, after installing themselves as the local aristocracy and landowners, and relegating the natives to serfdom.
- lionhearted 17y 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_British_Empire.png 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.

skmurphy 17y 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.htm 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."

thaumaturgy 17y 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.

tsally 17y 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_peace.html http://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_barnett_draws_a_new_map_for_.... Your view is a common misconception that should be corrected.
- thaumaturgy 17y 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.

known 17y ago

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

maxharris 17y 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!

njharman 17y ago

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

kingkawn 17y ago

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

DaniFong 17y 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 17y 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 17y 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 17y ago

hackers speaking on politics...