June 2000

Turmoil in Africa

Inter-State Conflicts in Africa

The African continent has received many names in its history, ones upon a time it was some kind of paradise, the promised land, but this is a long time ago. Only the tourist guides and the travel agents continued to sell the African continent as a paradise as it is if you talk about the beautiful nature and landscape.

The continent is however a political, economical and social nightmare. The majority of the countries are ruled by autoritarian regimes and human rights or democracy are being regarded as western cultural imperialism. The economy is weak as it is at a virtual standstill, it is dependent on mono-cultures and to make things really worse it is being robbed by government officials. The social picture looks just as bleak, the people live in poverty at best but very often they are close to starvation and infected by or under threat of many dangerous diseases like Aids, TBC or even the Ebola virus.

The majority of the African states came into existence after the decolonisation drives after the second world war. The majority of the areas, territories, were economically and socially in a relative good shape. The agri-cultural output and the abundance of all kind of resources delivered a steady revenue. On the negative side, the people of the continent were somewhat behind in education and industrialisation but there was at least food and some kind of work for all. In general the perspectives were promising.

Only politically the continent was underdeveloped, only some were higher educated but all were still divided in the former clan, tribe, people, structure of the continent. The loyalty belonged to the tribe not the country. The country was considered as a mean to improve the position of the tribe and personal wealth. And this was the road to corruption, nepotism, self enrichment, suppression of the opposition who mostly happened to belong to another tribe/clan and coup d’etats.

The economically and socially promising former colonies of Great Britain and France were given independence even as most people considered it to early. Politically they were simply to immature and there were to many different groups, tribes, in one country. This was firstly ventilated by former field-marschall Montegomery who stated after a field trip to Africa that the continent was far from being able to govern themselves. Regrettably his words proved to be right. Thirty to fourty years after independence, Africa was called the dark continent or the lost continent.

Many conflicts and wars have passed by on the continent and anno 2000 several conflict are still going on. The African continent is the only area with more than one inter-state conflicts and in nearly every country some kind of intra-state conflict. To name a few Algeria, Sierra Leone, Senegal, Nigeria-Cameroun, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the People’s Republic of Congo, Somalia, Ethiopia-Eritrea, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Angola, Namibia and Zambia. The scale and intensity may vary by country and time but the consequences tend to be devastating for the civilian population.

Inter-State vs. Intra-State

The conflicts can be divided into inter-state and intra-state conflicts with the latter the most common. Inter-state conflicts are conflicts between two or more countries and intra-state conflicts are conflicts within a country between two or more groups, mostly between the sitting government and an opposition group which has been suppressed and moved underground to fight the government.

Intra-state conflicts are the most terrible as it is some kind of civil war. Atrocities and the ruthless suppression of any kind of deviation from the government or for that matter opposition political doctrine are the normal modus of operandi. Intra-state conflicts have their own dynamics which are difficult to control or stop. The government is protected by the international law and the United Nations charta which states that foreign involvement in internal affairs is not allowed. This rule would only be broken if a government would commit large scale systematic human right abuses, like mass killings. The intra-state conflict is further difficult to end as none of the sides is able nor willing to tolerate and negotiate with the other side. The enemy is criminalized making any diplomatic solution very difficult to achieve. Negotiations will only be considered if both sides have fought themselves into total exhaustion.

Inter-state conflicts are much more controllable as the international community can use their influence to stop or at least force the participants to the negotiation table. Preventive diplomacy can work in the avoidance of inter-state conflicts or if the conflict has already started, diplomacy can create a fast exit, an end of the conflict. At least in the majority of the cases.

In this article we will therefore describe some of the inter-state conflicts and the shortterm future of the countries in question.

Inter-State conflicts

In relative terms there have been only a few inter-state conflicts on the African continent. Most have been intra-state conflicts between groups wanting to govern, exploit, the country. And in nearly all conflicts the opposition/rebel organisations received support from one or more neighbors in the struggle against the sitting government, giving it an international flavour. Strictly they remain however intra-state conflicts as there is no involvement of foreign troops, or better foreign armed forces, as the use of mercenaries is still quite common on the African continent.

Currently there are about four conflicts which can be described as inter-state conflicts, namely Western Sahara vs. Morocco, Nigeria vs. Cameroun, Eritrea vs. Ethiopia and the involvement of many of its neighbors in the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo, DRC. The first two conflicts are not yet active but the tension is running high. The third conflict is a textbook inter-state conflict. And the fourth conflict is a conflict between several factions which all recieve more or less support from foreign countries, including military forces.

Morocco vs. Western Sahara

The conflict between the Morocco and the Western Sahara is going on for several decades. In short, Morocco occupied the Western Sahara after the Spanish forces left the area. Morocco immediately put a claim on the territory which has been violently resisted by the original population. A number of western Saharian people created the Polisario movement to resist the Moroccan occupation. The Polisario received in time support, at least passive support, from the majority of the population. To resist the Moroccan armed forces more effectively Polisario received support from Algeria. Which happened to have some territorial differences with Morocco.

After a prolonged fight between the Moroccan armed forces and the Polisario the conflict seemed going to be settled by a diplomacy, e.g. an United Nations organised referendum about the future of the Western Sahara.

The referendum has been delayed several times as both sides disagreed about who should be allowed to vote. A large number of Moroccan settlers have been moved into the Western Sahara and a lot of original people from the Western Sahara fled abroad and live in several camps in Algeria. Each side want their people in and the other people out of the election lists.

The Moroccan government would like to delay the referendum even further as time is on their side. Morocco can in the mean time increase the grip on the territory and even more importantly the Moroccan government can delay an unwanted outcome of the referendum. Morocco is politically unable to loose the territory without creating big internal problems. Morocco has invested to much money, manpower and time into controlling the area to give it up that easily.

The lack of progress has led to increased tensions in the region. Especially the Polisario is getting tired of the delays and are becoming ever more willing to restart the military operations against the what they call the Moroccan occupation force.

The return of hostilities is therefore very likely on the short term as the Polisario has no other option to regain the territory and to remain a viable opponent as time is working against them. With every month lapsing the Moroccan government is increasing its grip, changing the demographics, estranging the original population from the cause of the Polisario and is weakening the fighting power of the Polisario and their relations with Algeria.

The last effort of Algeria and Mauretania to work out a solution with the Polisario and Morocco to execute the long promised referendum on the future of western Sahara will most likely not succeed as the interests of Morocco and Polisario are to divergent. The stakes are to high for all parties to compromise and the delaying strategy worked out very well for Morocco. Time is on their side and as long as they talk Morocco can not be accused of agression, that ball will be on the side of Polisario. If they want to change the status quo they will have to return to violence and therewith receiving a bad press.

Nigeria vs. Cameroon

The bone of contention between Nigeria and Cameroon is the demarcation / ownership of the Bokassi region. The Bokassi region is suspected of possessing large quantities of fossil energy, or better oil. Both countries have a claim on the region and put it before the international court in the Hague to solve the poblem peacefully.

The patience of both is however limited and the trust between the two countries is equally low. Both suspect eachother of creating facts which are difficult to change if one of both sides would have taken firm control of the region. Both countries have increased the number of armed forces in the region waiting to march into the region or blocking a move of the opposite side.

The respective governments are walking on small line which can be easily crossed, only a wrong perception of the other side’s motives will start a conflict. Mediation and the start of mutual confidence building measures could avoid a conflict but both are not yet willing to start. The internal problems of both, especially in Nigeria, could become an additional dangerous factor. The insecurity in Nigeria could force Nigeria to move into the Bokassi region to avoid that Cameroon could benefit of Nigeria’s weakness.

Preventive diplomacy and the involvement of outside powers, the international community, could avoid military actions but the international comunity is downplaying the seriousness of the conflict. So the start of hostilities are very well likely on the short term.

Eritrea vs. Ethiopia

The conflict between the youngest country on the African continent, Eritrea, and one of the oldest, Ethiopia is somehow a conflict between brothers. Eritrea have been for many years part of Ethiopia and the governments of both countries were ones brother in arms, allies, in the battle against the communist regime of Mengistu.

After the government under the leadership of Mengistu was defeated in 1992, Eritrea received independence in 1993. The borders between the two countries were in those moving times not exactly demarcated which would lead to war some years later. But at first the relations were good and Eritrea kept on using the the Ethiopian national currency for some years and this turned out to be one of the causes of the conflict. Eritrea created, printed, to much money and bought everything they could get in Ethiopia and sold it on the international market earning hard currencies at the expense of Ethiopia. The currncy problem erupted when Eritrea introduced their own currency and demanded from Ethiopia to change the Ethiopian currency, they had printed to much and to freely, into hard currency. Consequently the relations between the two deteriorated very quickly.

The real problems started as Eritrea claimed and sended in soldiers in the area around the city of Badme that Ethiopia considered theirs, this was the immediate cause to start the war between the two countries.. Eritrea was at first very succesful in occupying the land in question and they could even defeat some Ethiopian forces in the first encounters. After two cease fires, or better battle pauses to recover and rearm, and international mediation the Ethiopian armed forces started another offensive. This offensive of May 2000 proved to be very succesful as Ethiopia could defeat large number of Eritrean forces, conquer substantial stretches of Eritrean territory and they could even take the bordertown of Zalembessa. The territorial gains placed the Ethiopians forces only 100 kilometer away from the Eritrean capital Asmara. The Ethiopian offensive and the subsequent Eritrean withdrawal forced Eritrea to withdraw from the questioned territories and ask for negotiations. These have been accepted but not eagerly by Ethiopia. Ethiopia could claim a large victory and even that they have defeated Eritrea. But this remains to be seen on the long term. Eritrea has been forced to accept an initial defeat and need at the moment negotiations and time to recover. In these circumstances they will promise a lot to be able to consolidate their positions but they will be very dissatisfied and in some time in the future have another attempt to regain the area around Badme.

The war between Ethiopia and Eritrea has the doubtful achievement that it is, or was, the largest war, about 100.000 Ethiopian were and are deployed on the Ethiopian side and 80.000 on the Eritrean side, going on in the world. The war is fought in a very old fashion of trench warfare which limits the mobility of the armed forces of both countries. The cease fire, battle pause, of over one year delivered both forces an opportunity to recover and rearm. Ethiopia was however the country which took the initiative and broke the stalemate of trench warfare.

The Eritreans are now forced to accept the Ethiopian military success as they failed to respond adequately. Ethiopia has now the upper hand but Eritrea will remain vindacative of the humiliating loss and they will wait and strike back and possibly retake the lost territory. It is just a matter of time until Eritrea will try to win back the lost territory. The war according to Eritrea’s state of mind has just started and will only end if they control all territory they consider as rightfully theirs.

The Democratic Republic of Congo

The Democratic Republic of Congo, DRC, has experienced since the fall of the Mobuto regime a nearly continuous civil war. After Laurent Kabila became president of the country with considerable support from Angola, Rwanda and Uganda and several dissatisfied groups in the country he very soon estranged himself from his strongest internal and external supporters. His policies to support or lack of action against the ethnic Congolese, the Hutus and the terrorist groups out of Uganda made him the Banyamulenge, Rwanda, Burundi and Uganda to his most dangerous enemies. The ethnic minorities like the Banyamulenge quickly organised, with support of the three before mentioned countries, resistance against the rule of Kabila. The new resistance/rebels/terrorists, depending on the viewpoint, movements soon after received support from other dissatisfied groups in the country. Creating a serious security problem for Kabila as they conquered nearly the whole eastern part of the country.

The civil war in the DRC spread through the whole country and the divided the country in two main groups. The government of Kabila with support from Angola, Zimbabwe, Namibia and the Sudan. And the rebel group consisting out several factions with the same goal of forcing Kabila out of office, namely the MLC, the RCD, the Banyamulenge and the ever switching Mayi-Mayi militia supported by Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi. The conflict turned very quickly from a pure internal conflict into an external conflict as Angola, Zimbabwe and Namibia sended ground and air support to rescue the Kabila government. Kabila desparately needed this support as nearly the whole of eastern Congo was conquered and controlled by the rebel forces. Who received considerable support, including ground forces, from Uganda and Rwanda. The increasing tensions and even clashes in the DRC between Uganda and Rwanda will deteriorate and extend the conflict even longer as no decisive power can be developed which could beat the other side, in this case the Kabila government. The status quo between the two main sides will be strengthened by the problems between Uganda and Rwanda.

All foreign parties in the conflict have their own interest in the conflict, Angola wants to limit the movement of the UNITA in the DRC, Zimbabwe is protecting its commercial interests it acquired after it supported Kabila in gaining power, Uganda wants to end the existence of several organisations living in the DRC who commit terrorist activities in Uganda and finally Rwanda and Burundi want to eliminate the Hutu extremists which also use the DRC as a base to strike into Rwanda and Burundi. All have also their own interests in the country which have nothing to little in common with the good for the DRC.

All efforts to end the conflict, including the Lusaka accords and the proposed UN peacekeeping/observer force, will do little to end the conflict as long as the demands from the external parties are not met and the opposition/rebel groups are not invited to join the negotiations. The agreed cease fire, which has been violated many times by all sides, will only be used to recover and rearm to restart the conflict on the short term with the goal and hope to defeat the other side. Both the Kabila government and the opposition/rebel forces still hold the conviction that they will be able to defeat the other side and end the conflict on their terms with the use of violence. As long as this conviction is present the conflict will continue, especially as long the foreign supporters remain generous suppliers of equipment and forces. And no side is at the moment or on the short to medium term exhausted enough to ask for a diplomatic solution. Negotiations have been and are still part of the strategy to defeat the other side by military means.

The conflict is therefore likely to continue until the security and commercial demands of Angola, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and Zimbabwe are more or less satisfied. And as long all the external parties continue their support the internal conflict will go on. Only if the external support would end and all concerning partis would be allowed to be part of the negotiations, the conflicting parties would very likely be willing to negotiate. The other option would be to fight until one of the sides would be defeated but this might very unlikely. A victory is expensive and both sides would most likely be exhausted long before a victory could be attained due to the lack of resources. A victory is not impossible but difficult and only if one side is displaying a fundamental weakness. And above all it will take time.

So the only road to peace on the short to medium term would be the end of foreign involvement, e.g. support, allow all parties join the negotiations and that all share the mutual insight that war does not bring a solution. This opens the way to serious negotiations with the goal to end the conflict.