INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

WHAT AFGHANISTAN TEACHES ABOUT THE ART OF THE POSSIBLE

Published

3 years ago

August 24, 2021

Editor

Spread the love

By Jose Miguel Alonso-Trabanco

After decades of constant turmoil, the latest chapter in the conflict of Afghanistan took place as the Taliban overran the country’s capital in the wake of the withdrawal of US forces and the implosion of the Western-backed Afghan government. This outcome is being characterised as dramatic because of the inevitable comparison to the fall of Saigon and also because of the widespread resonance of the images that vividly illustrate the various facets of this calamity. The baffling scenes that show the hasty evacuation of American personnel and the capture of the presidential palace have caught the attention of observers from all over the world.

Moreover, the significance of this event is highlighted by the fact that, after almost two decades, the invasion and occupation of the Central Asian country did not go as expected. The limits of American military power ‒ even with the assistance of NATO forces and the involvement of other allies ‒ were demonstrated in a stark way. Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to interpret this as a return to the status quo that prevailed before Operation Enduring Freedom was launched. In fact, the Taliban is arguably more powerful than ever before. Right now, they control even more territory than before the Pentagon’s direct military intervention first started.

However, a closer and dispassionate analysis reveals that this turn of events is hardly surprising. After all, progress was elusive, governance was feeble at best, the promise of prosperity never materialised, and the costs of the war effort got to be far in excess of the marginal benefits being obtained, most of which concerned the dismantlement of al-Qaeda’s top leadership. Furthermore, there were longstanding and serious doubts about the effectiveness of the massive investments being made to develop governmental institutional capabilities in the fields of security and law enforcement.

On the other hand, the imperative to abandon Afghanistan had become self-evident in Washington itself. The proverbial writing on the wall had been there for a while. In fact, deliberations started during the Obama administration and the US government under President Trump even engaged the Taliban in talks to pave the way for a pullout. Regardless of contrasts in terms of both domestic politics and foreign policy, the Biden team was nominally committed to the execution of an orderly withdrawal. Yet, what was unforeseen was the speed with which the whole situation unraveled as the power void left by the US and its local allies was rapidly filled by the Taliban. No matter how this reality is sugarcoated by official spokesmen, it was a shocking failure in terms of foreign policy, strategic intelligence, and planning.

In this context, a great deal of attention is being paid to the damage done to the prestige of the United States as a superpower, the humanitarian impact of the crisis, the multiple political costs that would have to be paid in Washington, and the nature of the regime that will be established by the Taliban. Besides, another major issue that will certainly ignite geopolitical shockwaves on a global scale is the diminished credibility of American support, commitment, and security guarantees. However, this disaster can offer instructive lessons for policymakers, analysts, and scholars, which are valid for understanding matters that will condition international security environments for years and maybe even decades to come.

WAR IS A PHENOMENON OF PERMANENT CHANGE

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the United States represents 33% of global military expenditures, far above any other country, including other great powers like China (13%) and Russia (3.1%). Qualitatively, the power projection capabilities of Washington include impressive platforms like aircraft carriers, submarines, state-of-the-art stealth fighters, nuclear weapons and ICBMs. Moreover, the American arsenal also contains special operations squads, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and highly sophisticated systems of intelligence and surveillance. In contrast, the Taliban is an irregular and loose alliance of militias equipped mostly with primitive firearms. Nevertheless, that massive disparity did not prevent the Pentagon from experiencing a severe setback in Afghanistan.

In order to understand such paradox, it is necessary to highlight that war is commonly regarded in Western countries as a military activity in which performance is mostly conditioned by logistical, operational, and technical matters. Those variables are of course relevant but said technocratic vision of military conflict is flawed because it overlooks that war is ‒ above all else ‒ a quintessentially political reality in which violence is instrumental in a deadly struggle between clashing interests, as the Prussian military thinker Carl von Clausewitz famously explained. Furthermore, it also has a psychological dimension that cannot be manipulated with hardware or weaponry alone. Neglecting such axioms is not just an intellectual shortcoming. Actually, an inaccurate assessment of what war is all about can lead to disastrous decisions.

Moreover, even though the underlying logic of war remains constant, its grammar evolves and becomes increasingly complex. As the Chinese General Sun Bin ‒ presumably related to the legendary Sun Tzu ‒ argued hundreds of years ago, war can be regarded as a kaleidoscopic phenomenon whose permutations are endless. In the particular case of Afghanistan, a modern national fighting force ‒ along with NATO troops ‒ and the Afghan government were involved in an intermittent confrontation with tribal warlords affiliated with the ideology of hardline militant Islamism.

In other words, it was an asymmetric conflict. This war is an illustrative example of what American professor Sean McFate refers to as ‘durable chaos,’ i.e. a protracted conflict fought between the armed forces of a national state and a nonstate actor in unconventional battlefields in which rules of engagement are unclear. Moreover, an aspect that provides an additional layer of complexity is that the motivations of both sides could not have been more different. For the Americans this was an optional conflict fought very far away from their own homeland and one in which no vital interest was at stake. In contrast, for the Taliban it was an existential confrontation and a ‘holy war’ against both ‘infidels’ and ‘apostates.’

Under such conditions, there is no precise definition of victory. The rebels win as long as they do not lose and the invaders lose as long as they do not crush the insurgents. In this regard, the coalition headed by Washington rapidly overthrew the Taliban regime, but it never managed to pacify the whole country. In addition, the reach of the new Afghan government seldom went beyond the perimeter of Kabul, leaving the hinterland mostly wild, lawless, and dangerous. Eventually, through a relentless campaign of guerrilla warfare, spectacular acts of psychological warfare, salami tactics, the appropriation of modern weaponry handed over by deserters from the US-trained security forces, and a final Blitzkrieg offensive, the Taliban achieved their intended outcome: the eviction of the foreign invaders and the demise of the client regime they had established.

Another factor that must be taken into account in order to understand why this turn of the tide was seen by so many as surprising is that, in the context of asymmetric wars, appearances can often be deceiving, especially if one’s analytical framework relies on narrow unidimensional prisms. Specifically, the idea that technological superiority by itself is enough to ensure a favorable result in war is not supported by empirical evidence. Hence, understanding the comprehensive and malleable nature of war in today’s world requires a broad multidimensional perspective.

Nevertheless, despite the deeply humiliating overtones associated with the loss of a crucial anchor of geopolitical influence in Central Asia, this can be an opportunity for learning in Washington itself. As a result of that military, strategic, political and diplomatic catastrophe, the world’s leading sea power will have to rethink, reassess, and reformulate its grand strategy, the actual reach ‒ and limitations ‒ of its national power, and the criteria that will determine its involvement in operational theaters in which direct intervention can create more problems than it solves. Thus, this occasion is appropriate for the Americans to analyze the far-reaching implications of fighting land wars in Asia against subnational nonstate actors the 21st century. As classical realist thinkers such as Thucydides and Machiavelli have argued, the sense of humbleness imposed by restraint is a timeless virtue of paramount importance for statecraft.

THE INFLUENCE OF GEOGRAPHY CANNOT BE OVERSTATED

Sometimes, obvious realities are so blatantly evident that they are actually overlooked. As the German philosopher Carl Schmitt noted, man is an earthling. As such, the political behaviors of human groups are heavily influenced by the spatial and material contextual circumstances in which they live, grow, thrive, decline, and fight against each other. In fact, the idea that geography is a powerful driver of political actions and interactions ‒ especially because of its relatively unchanged permanence in time ‒ is the core fundamental assumption held by all works of geopolitical literature.

Accordingly, an in-depth scrutiny of Afghanistan’s geographical conditions is essential to explain the country’s past and present. Afghanistan is a landlocked state located in the so-called ‘rimland,’ a region whose control is constantly being contested between continental (aka the heartland) and maritime powers from what it is referred to as the ‘outer crescent.’ However, it can also operate as a pivotal land bridge that connects vibrant, wealthy and powerful nations from the Eurasian landmass with one another. In fact, Afghanistan’s territory was crucial for the trade networks that were established under the umbrella of the legendary ‘Silk Road.’ This reality explains why such a location at the crossroads of empires has attracted the interest of mighty conquerors such as Alexander the Great, the British Empire, the Soviet Union, and the United States.

Nevertheless, that reality does not clarify why Afghanistan has acted as a ‘graveyard of empires,’ i.e. a black hole that drains the strength, manpower, resources and even the vitality of foreign invaders. Afghanistan’s rugged and arid geography entails meaningful military, political and economic challenges. Consequently, it is a place that is hard to control, rule, manage, and develop. Moreover, the ubiquitous presence of mountain ridges is an element that gives birth to clannish societies that are deeply distrustful of outsiders, particularly if those outsiders come from either valleys or ports. Such societies are protective of their own beliefs, ways of life, traditions, laws and independence. Likewise, in those environments, fierce warriors that are feared by their enemies are much more common than accommodating merchants and individuals who are eager to embrace ideologies with ecumenical pretensions.

Afghanistan is perhaps the most paradigmatic example of this reality. However, it is critical to underscore that, throughout history, the highlands have been the natural habitat, protective shelter, and perfect hideout of guerrilla forces, insurgents, separatists, rebels, religious extremists and even drug lords. In fact, many contemporary flashpoints are located in mountainous environments, including the Caucasus, Tibet, Scotland, Kurdistan and even the remote Colombian and Mexican villages in which the presence of the state is not even symbolic.

Hence, geography is an impersonal force that has played a major role in the history of Afghanistan. Yet, it can also determine its future, as the country’s geography offers many obstacles but it also provides assets that can be harnessed in a strategic way. For instance, it contains vast untapped deposits of natural gas, metallic minerals ‒ including rare earths ‒ and gemstones. Moreover, it is well positioned to participate in the ambitious multilateral projects of regional interconnectedness headed by China and, to a lesser extent, Russia. Yet, only the power of human agency will define if, how, and under what terms Afghanistan is willing to play its cards as a potential geoeconomic corridor. At least for the time being, it seems the Taliban are prepared to adopt a pragmatic approach for statesmanship in the latest iteration of the ‘Great Game’ played on the Eurasian geostrategic chessboard, but only time will tell.

MILITANT ISLAMISM IS HERE TO STAY

Anthropologically speaking, since the dawn of human civilization, religion has been closely connected to the worldly domain of politics. Historically, the expansion of Islam from the Arabian Peninsula to North Africa, the Levant, Central Asia, the Caucasus, Persia, Southeast Asia, the Iberian Peninsula, and the Eastern periphery of Europe was a result of military conquest. Centuries later, Christianity played a crucial role in the global expansion of European empires. Tellingly, the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes once described the Vatican as the ghost of the defunct Roman Empire.

Nonetheless, after the Enlightenment, it was believed that the influence of religion would eventually vanish thanks to the continuous progress of reason and science. However, even though secularism has triumphed in much of the West, religion ‒ as an element that shapes collective identities, establishes social rules, and provides a sense of meaningfulness in an uncertain world ‒ is still a powerful political force elsewhere. As such, it can be pragmatically mobilized for the pursuit of power.

Specifically in the Muslim world, the disappointing political, military, and economic failure of Arab nationalism ‒ a secular ideology championed by the likes Gamal Abdel Nasser and the various branches of the Ba’ath Party‒ fueled the gradual rise of militant political Islamism. Another precedent that needs to be taken into account is the overthrowing of the Shah of Iran (a right-wing secular modernizer aligned with Western powers) as the result of the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Furthermore, in the particular case of Afghanistan, the CIA and local intelligence agencies ‒ like the Pakistani ISI ‒ clandestinely encouraged the struggle of the Mujahideen against the invading troops of the Soviet Union and the atheist local client regime backed by Moscow.

Likewise, the flames of militant Islamism have been fanned by major events like American military intervention, the deposal of secular governments in the Middle East, the intermittent conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, the so-called Arab spring, the birth of ISIS and the sectarian carnage unleashed by Sunni and Shiite forces in places like Syria, Iraq and Yemen. In addition, radical Islamism has played a major role in multiple Eurasian spots whose control has or is being contested, including Chechnya, Transcaucasia, the Balkans, Kashmir and Xinjiang. Likewise, Turkey has abandoned almost a century of secularism in order to openly embrace political Islamism both at home and abroad. Finally, deadly acts of jihadist terror have taken place in Europe and even in the American hemisphere.

This is the political zeitgeist in which the growing power of the Taliban must be understood. The Western campaign to hunt down Al-Qaeda was ‒ to a certain extent ‒ partially successful, but radical militant Islamism is very much alive and thriving. Moreover, the prestige that comes with the achievement of defeating two superpowers that wanted to impose secular regimes in Afghanistan in a couple of generations will likely enhance their strength and their reputation as holy warriors. The impressive victory of the Taliban will be seen as a source of inspiration for jihadists all over the world.

Therefore, their triumphal return is being monitored with concern and caution in Moscow, Beijing, Delhi and Teheran, all of which are troubled by the prospect of Sunni extremism. Needless to say, such a turn of events entails potentially problematic ramifications in a region in which turmoil and tension can rapidly spiral out of control and engulf those in close proximity. Hence, those great powers have a strong incentive to reach some sort of mutually acceptable accommodation with the Taliban. The last thing they want is to intervene in Afghanistan, but they have to make sure, through either ‘carrots’ or ‘sticks,’ that the ‘Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan’ does not become an exporter of jihadist geopolitical disruption.

Nevertheless, the political revival of religion goes well beyond the confines of the Muslim world. In fact, this lesson can be extrapolated further in order to examine relevant phenomena in non-Islamic societies in which religion is playing a prominent role in politics, foreign policy, and statecraft. In fact, this contemporary trend is reflected in the proliferation of religious Zionism (even though the movement was originally secular), the closeness between the ruling Siloviki clan and the Orthodox church in Russia, the influence of Catholicism in Poland, and the mass political mobilization of Evangelical Christians in places like Brazil and the United States.

DREAMS OF UTOPIAN NATION-BUILDING CAN ENGENDER VERY REAL NIGHTMARES

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the early post-Cold War era was a period of intellectual triumphalism in the West. Back then, it was commonly believed that the global expansion of liberal democracy, free markets, human rights, and institutionalized co-operation was inevitable. In this regard, the quixotic neoconservative crusade launched by President George W. Bush was based on the premise ‒paradoxically inspired by the Trotskyist concept of ‘permanent revolution’ ‒ that Western model could be exported through hard power to places like the Greater Middle East. The radical transformation of societies was seen as desirable, but it could not happen without military might.

Afghanistan became the most notorious experiment undertaken to validate such ideas. Thus, once the Taliban was removed, an ambitious program of institutional reform was undertaken in order to remake Afghanistan. In other words, Washington was following the footsteps of the Soviet Union. In fact, both superpowers were guilty of hubris, in the sense that they were attempting to impose forms of government that had no roots whatsoever in the idiosyncratic national character and historical background of a country like Afghanistan, a place in which political dynamics are driven by collective tribal affiliations rather than by class struggle or individual self-interest. Thus, neoconservatism was mugged by reality in Afghanistan just like communism was in the late Cold War.

As the insightful Israeli political scientist Yoram Hazony observed, the use of military force or diplomatic pressure by a great power to rebuild a society in its own image and likeness is seldom met with welcoming enthusiasm and support. Instead, as history shows, the instrumental use of coercion in order to implement political reengineering usually elicits a strong nationalist backlash. After all, the collective struggle to determine a people’s own fate ‒ regardless of whether the decisions made as a result of that process please foreigners or not ‒ is a structural feature of an international system in which there is a plurality of heterogeneous polities. Thus, the idea of enforcing the universal homogeneity of political regimes is unnatural and out of touch with reality. In the case of Afghanistan, the Americans were seen by large segments of society as arrogant imperialist invaders, and their local allies were regarded as outright treacherous collaborators willing to sell out their country in exchange for personal benefit.

Furthermore, the artificial regime propped up by Washington can hardly be described as a textbook example of Jeffersonian democracy. It was an uneasy amalgam of sheer opportunism, professional careerism, rampant corruption, and misplaced optimism. Of course, realpolitik played a major role, since the US had little choice but to make deals with unsavory stakeholders such as local warlords, all sorts of outlaws, ambitious politicians with little genuine popular support, and Soviet-era strongmen. Likewise, occupation forces largely turned a blind eye to problematic phenomena like a skyrocketing cultivation of opium poppies. Unsurprisingly, such a political creation never reached the levels of legitimacy that could provide reasonable stability. Arguably, considering all of the above, it was simply a matter of time before the regime collapsed like a house of cards.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Undeniably, the military, political and ideological triumph of the Taliban over the West in general and the U.S. in particular represents a tectonic shift in contemporary international relations. It can even be argued that, as the epilogue of the twenty years’ crisis that began with 9/11, it abruptly disproves the premature prophecies that were made in the early 90s about the imminence of ‘the end of history.’ However, despite its ominous connotations, it can also teach sobering lessons that are valuable for strategic intelligence, foreign policy, and statecraft. The greatest tragedy in this case would be to disregard ‒ or, even worse, to stubbornly contradict ‒ those lessons. After all, wisdom in statesmanship calls for realism, a keen understanding of human nature, a thorough knowledge of impersonal forces, and an unshakable fixation on attainable concrete results rather than on zealotry over abstract principles. This is what the art of the possible is all about.

Courtesy: Geopolitical Monitor

Jose Miguel Alonso-Trabanco

Spread the love

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

Red Notice: Putin is Nearby

Published

2 days ago

May 16, 2024

Editor

Spread the love

By Dr Chidi Amuta

Putin is nearby. Precisely, Russia’s ambitious global influencer of illiberal order has docked next door. In Niger Republic to be exact. At the end of April, the military junta in Niger kicked out the American military advisers and tiny troop contingent from their country. Earlier, they had forced the U.S drone and surveillance base in Agadez to shut down. As part of a halfhearted diplomatic move to repair military relations with Niger, an American delegation went to hold talks with the regime in Niamey.

Almost on the same day, officials of the junta were reportedly showing a Russian military advance party around what used to be the American military base. The intent was obvious. The Russians were in the process of being handed the keys of what used to be a US base or at least preparing the grounds for an active security relationship with Moscow. Though the janitors are yet to hand over the keys of the former US base to the Russians, the signals are clear.

Earlier on, the military junta in Niger had chased away the French ambassador to the country, thus ending centuries of French influence in the country. Of course, the military dictators were towing the same line as their colleagues in Burkina Faso, Mali and Guinea. A rushed end to French presence and influence in these former French colonies has since become the central foreign policy doctrine of the new autocrats in what used to be Francophone West Africa.

Official Moscow is still predictably silent on its intentions. But what is clear is Moscow’s preparations to replace the West, specifically the United State and France as the strategic influence in Niger Republic and its environs. And with the exit of both French and American military presence in Niger, the door has been thrown wide open for their replacement by Russia. Of course Russia’s interest in Africa especially West and Central Africa has never been disguised in recent times.

Prior to the demise of the bullish Yevgeny Prigozyn and the decline of his Wagner mercenary force, Russian commercial and security presence in these parts of Africa had been quite pronounced but diplomatically muted. Now what began as an expeditionary mercenary commercial interest is about to graduate into a full blown strategic military and security presence and interest from Moscow.

The presence of US troops and the drone base coupled with the presence of a French protection force in West Africa remained for a long time part of the international arrangement to keep jihadist terrorists from drifting towards the south of West Africa. Countries like Nigeria were prime beneficiaries of the US presence in Niger. It was more importantly part of an international strategic engagement to barricade the region from a rampaging Jihadist onslaught from the Sahel.

This logic of containment and protection remained the major plank of Western influence remained valid until the rapid reduction of French presence and influence in the region by new military regimes. It all began with Mali which had earlier evicted French diplomats from Bamako. This was followed by the withdrawal of French protection troops from Mali and subsequently the other major West African former French territories now under military dictatorship: Mali, Guinea, Burkina Faso, Niger and possibly Chad.

There a historical context to Russia’s residual appeal in parts of Africa. Instructively, in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the world was gripped by anxiety. On March 2^nd, the UN General Assembly voted on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Of the 54 African member states, 28 voted against Russia while 17 abstained and 8 refused to show up. Towards Russia or more precisely the old Soviet Union, some nostalgia among an ageing generation of elite.

Many of these older African elite recall the days of the Cold War and the old USSR’s identification with Africa’s causes especially anti colonialism and anti Apartheid. Ideological nostalgia towards the Red Empire is strongest in places like Mozambique, Angola, Zimbabwe, Namibia and South Africa where political parties that pioneered the independence and anti racist struggles were backed by the old Soviet Union.

At the present time, Russian influence in Africa remains sporadic and uncoordinated but cannot be ignored as a significant part of the strategic future of the continent. In 2019, the inaugural Russia-Africa Summit in Sochi was attended by 43 African countries. It was a forum for Mr. Putin to critique the West’s policies towards Africa.

Nonetheless, Russia’s trade with Africa is only 2% of Africa’s goods trade with the rest of the world. A Russian bank VEB now under Western sanctions is a shareholder in the African Development Bank. Even then, Russia’s economic and military interest and roles in some African fragile states remains considerable. Russia is the largest arms supplier to African countries, a net extractor of mineral and other resources and a prop for fragile even if unpopular regimes. But with all its noisy presence in world affairs, Russia remains an unlikely agent of economic benefit for African countries.

The Russian economy is about the size of that of Italy. So, Russia is not in a position to act as an attractive agent of development in Africa. Russia is still a relatively poor country. Its companies playing in the African economic theatre are most extractive industry interlopers and state sponsored thieving entities. Russian infrastructure companies are still not interested in contracts in African countries. African tourist and business travel interests in Russia is next to zero. So, by and large any renewed Russian interest in parts of Africa will remain a matter of limited mutual convenience. Security assistance in return for opportunities for Russian rogue companies to come in and make some quick cash while the Russian state increases its foothold and authoritarian leverage against the Western liberal order.

For Nigeria, the implications of the exit of two major Western powers from our immediate northern frontier are many and far reaching. Nigeria’s exposure in this regard are threefold. First, the security safe corridor against jihadist terrorist expansion from the Sahel is instantly closed. Without American drones, intelligence and French troops on the ground, Nigeria is exposed. Our national security is further compromised. The jihadists are now free to roam free from centres in Niger into the troubled northern parts of Nigeria.

Secondly, the military presence of Russia in Niger and other parts of what used to be French West Africa immediately signals a decline of Western influence in the region and its replacement with an antithetical Russian influence. Russian security presence and strategic influence in an area now under military dictatorship effectively means the shrinking of the frontiers of freedom and democratic rule and its replacement with an authoritarian influence. Russian is not known to be a patron of democracy and freedom anywhere in the world. It cannot possibly export what it does not have at home.

Hidden under the above two meanings is a clear and present threat to Western influence in West Africa. The timing of this development in world history is fortuitous. We are in an era where the Cold War has been replaced by an increasing hemispheric war of nerves and rhetoric between Western democracies as we have come to know them and a rising authoritarian counter force. The counter force is being guaranteed by the growing influence and fortunes of China. Russia, North Korea, Iran and other client states of the same ilk are taking shelter under China’s bloated bank accounts to keep the West uncomfortable.

Nigeria’s political response to the developments in Niger have shown little of an enlightened national self interest. At the time the coupists toppled Niger’s democratic government, Nigeria was in a position to prevent the coup and its nasty consequences. Former president Buhari had a close personal relationship with the democratic leadership in Niger.

Even after Buhari’s tenure, his successor Mr. Tinubu woefully failed to use his position as the new Chairman of ECOWAS to neutralize the coup in Niger. Nigeria was in an eminent position to use its economic and military preponderance in the region to stifle the Niger coupists. We failed.

A few tepid diplomatic threats and fickle sanctions failed to deter the dictatorship in Niamey. The junta got stronger, compared notes with those in Burkina Faso, Mali and Guinea. They got stronger together and became a threat to ECOWAS from which they threatened a pullout. ECOWAS solidarity was broken. The bloc buckled. Its military weakness was on open display as they could neither effect an ultimatum to use force if necessary. Individual member nations reached out to the Niger and other dictators and made individual deals.

Nigeria’s resolve was broken. We shamefully restored electricity supply to Niger, lifted our limited and effete sanctions. And now the Niger junta has dug in and has admitted a potential destabilizing force into our immediate northern frontier. By creating room for the exit of the West from Niger and the tacit admission of Russian influence into the region, Nigeria has shot itself in the foot.

There is something more frightening in our political response to this development. The possibility that the United States and France could decide to pitch tent in Nigeria by negotiating military basing footholds here is far fetched. But even then, it is being opposed vehemently by some politicians instead of being welcomed enthusiastically.

In Nigerian political circles, the debate has been as to whether Nigeria should allow France and the United States to establish military bases in its territory. As is typical in our lazy politics of sectarianism, regionalism and divisiveness, the most eloquent voices of opposition to possible Western military bases in Nigeria have come from northern political voices. This is not only sad but also not backed by any iota of strategic insight and knowledge of basic national interests.

Ironically, the North is the region immediately exposed to the consequences of the withdrawal of Western forces from Niger. It has become the epicenter of national insecurity and instability of the kind associated with increasing jihadist activities. It is the home base of banditry. It is a free market for the spread of small and medium arms from the theatres of trouble in the Sahel, Northern Africa and the Middle East. It is the area where schools are being sacked and farming disrupted. It is the source of herdsmen turned into killers, armed robbers and kidnappers.

More pointedly, there is nothing that says that should Nigeria consider it strategically wise, Western military bases in the country must be located in any particular zone of the country. Such bases can be located anywhere in the country. And they often have collateral economic benefits to the host communities as in places like Djibouti, South Korea and Germany where US military bases are part of the local economic life.

In the world of modern technology, possible Western military bases can be located anywhere in the country. Advanced intelligence gathering and surveillance systems now allow major world powers to gather intelligence, order operations and manage military outcomes from virtually anywhere. The drones that decimated Al Queda in Afghanistan and Pakistan emanated from drone command bases in the deserts of far away Nevada. Donald Trump ordered the drone assassination of Iran’s General Soliman at Baghdad airport from the comfort of the Oval Office in far away Washington.

The long term strategic and overall national interest of Nigeria are better served if we rise above petty regional narrow views of the developments unfolding in our Northern frontier. First, we need to protect the nation from the spread of jihadist insurgency and terrorism. We need to remain enlisted in the international effort to defeat Jihadist terrorism decisively. We need to protect freedom and democratic rule as a heritage after more than four decades of military dictatorship in our history. Consequentially, we need to act in concert with the rest of the free world to discourage Russia’s active promotion and tacit marketing of authoritarianism and anti democratic ideas around the world.

Incidentally, among the salesmen of authoritarianism in the world, Russia is handicapped. Unlike China, Russia is neither an agent of economic development nor a model of cultural inclusiveness and universalism. Few free and happy people want to make Moscow their preferred holiday or business travel destination.

Dr. Amuta, a Nigerian journalist, intellectual and literary critic, was previously a senior lecturer in literature and communications at the universities of Ife and Port Harcourt.

Spread the love

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

Chad’s Election Outcome Already Seems Set: 4 Things Mahamat Déby Has Done to Stay in Power

Published

2 weeks ago

May 6, 2024

Editor

Spread the love

Chad’s elections kick off today. In this recent article, Helga Dickow argues that though it will officially mark the end of the transitional government, it may not mean a break with authoritarian rule. Mahamat Déby looks set to stay in power.

Chad’s presidential election campaigns officially kicked off on Sunday 14 April 2024 in the capital city, N’Djamena. Transitional president Mahamat Idriss Déby held a large meeting on the Place de la Nation directly in front of the presidential palace. In attendance were members of the government, the military and various political parties, identifiable, in the blistering heat, by their different coloured shirts.

Prime minister Succès Masra, meanwhile, led a large convoy of cars and motorbikes through the city and was accompanied by a crowd of mainly young followers. Déby and Masra, both in their early 40s, were cheered by their respective crowds. The election will take place on 6 May 2024 and end a three-year transition period led by Mahamat Déby after the sudden death of his father, Idriss Déby Itno, in April 2021.

I am a researcher on democratisation in sub-Saharan Africa, especially Chad. I have been closely following Chadian politics, including the transition phase, for many years. I would argue that Chad’s three-year transition programme had a single objective: the long-term retention of power by Mahamat Déby.

This objective has been pursued in four ways: violent oppression and intimidation; composition of the electoral institutions; approval of presidential candidates; and campaign strategies.

Violent oppression and intimidation

During the 30-year reign of the late Idriss Déby Itno, Chadians largely got used to a rather autocratic regime. Democratic liberties and the right to freedom of expression were repeatedly suppressed. Arrests of demonstrators were common. Some opposition leaders were killed. Ibni Oumar Mahamat Saleh, for example, was killed in 2008. Since Mahamat Idriss Déby came into office, two incidents have shown that violence against opposition voices has continued – even more ruthlessly.

On 20 October 2022, a day now known as Black Thursday in Chad, hundreds of mainly young Chadians, protesting against the extension of Mahamat Idriss Deby’s transitional government tenure, were shot and killed by government forces. The second incident was the assassination of Yaya Dillo, a cousin of Mahamat Déby and one of his fiercest opponents. Dillo, leader of the party Parti Socialiste sans Frontières (Party of Socialists without Borders) was shot in his party headquarters in N’Djamena on 28 February 2024. Official statements on his death blamed him for a deadly attack on the country’s security agency.

Composition of electoral institutions

The new constitution adopted in a controversial referendum in December 2023 demanded the creation of two electoral institutions before the electoral process. The institutions are L’Agence nationale de gestion des élections (National Election Management Agency) and the Constitutional Council. The election management agency is responsible for organising the election while the constitutional council vets candidates for the elections as well as the results.

Mahamat Déby appointed members of these two bodies on 30 January 2024 for seven year terms, which means they might serve him in two elections. All of them were loyal to his father in the past and have been members of the former ruling party Mouvement Patriotique du Salut for many years. Former minister of justice and spokesperson of the former ruling party, Jean-Bernard Padaré, was appointed president of the constitutional council. Padaré was accused of corruption in 2014. Retired president of the supreme court Ahmed Bartchiret, also a member of the former ruling party, chairs the election management agency.

It is my view that, in order to ensure his continuous grip on power, Mahamat Déby appointed faithful and long serving confidants of his father into these two important agencies for the management of the 6 May election.

Approval of presidential candidates

Between 6 March and 24 March, anyone interested in vying for the presidency was expected to submit nomination forms. Candidates had to pay 10,000,000 CFA (US$16,258) to the treasury. At the close of the exercise, 20 candidates expressed interest but only 10 were approved by the constitutional council appointed by Mahamat Déby, who is also a candidate. Disqualified candidates were given official reasons including an incorrect birth certificate or a missing document or photograph. As expected, the most prominent qualified candidates were Mahamat Déby and his prime minister, Masra. It will be the first time a president and the prime minister he appointed run against each other in a Chadian election.

Other approved candidates include former prime minister Albert Pahimi Padacké of the party RNDT Le Réveil. He served as prime minister to Mahamat Déby in 2021 and 2022. He previously served Mahamat’s father between 2016 and 2018. The only female candidate is Lydie Beassemda. She contested the presidency in 2021 and finished third.

The regional origin of the approved candidates is also an indication of how Mahamat Déby’s transition is simply working to retain him in the presidency. Out of the 10 approved candidates, only Mahamat Déby and Yacine Abderamane Sakine of the minority party Parti Réformiste are from the northern region. The other eight candidates are from the southern part of the country.

As elections in the past have shown, Chadians prefer to vote for politicians from their own region. Based on this projection, Mahamat Déby seemed poised to win most of the votes from the northern region while votes of the southern region would be split between the other eight candidates. Some voters may abstain from the polls as the opposition coalition Groupe de concertation des acteurs politiques (Concertation Group of Political Actors) and civil society groups like the Wakit Tama call for a boycott. They are challenging the legitimacy of the polls.

Given this scenario, Déby could win the majority of the votes cast in the first round of voting. Should this not be the case, the constitution says there would be a second round of balloting between the first two candidates. The candidate with a simple majority wins the second round.

Campaign strategies

All candidates are confident of victory. Their campaign promises do not differ greatly. They promise better living conditions – primarily the supply of electricity and water, education, more jobs and future prospects for the youth – as well as good governance, reconciliation and cohabitation. Mahamat Déby is additionally playing the stability card, which he has used throughout the transition period to justify his takeover and continuous hold on to power.

Mahamat Déby’s candidature is backed by a broad coalition called Coalition pour un Tchad Uni (Coalition for a United Chad). It is made up of more than 200 political parties and more than 1,000 nongovernmental organisations. The coalition is led by the former ruling party Mouvement Patriotique du Salut.

Mahamat Déby agreed to be the coalition’s presidential candidate on 2 March 2024. The opposition is accusing the coalition of using state funds for their campaign. Masra, leader of the opposition party Les Transformateurs, was one of Mahamat Déby’s strongest opponents until his return to Chad in October 2023 and was later appointed as prime minister.

As a presidential candidate, he struggles to campaign as someone independent of the Mahamat Déby transitional government. In his campaign speeches, Masra often refers to the past while carefully avoiding the past few months of being prime minister, a time when the cost of living rose due to increases in fuel prices and N’Djamena experienced the worst water and electricity crises ever.

Former prime minister Padacké refers to precisely these points in his campaign and accuses Mahamat Déby and Masra of being incapable of managing the country. If elected, Padacké promises to run for only one term. He avoids mentioning the fact that he was part of the late Idriss Déby Itno’s government.

In the final analysis…

Mahamat Déby is very likely to win the elections. Chad will see another Déby government. Meanwhile, focus on the presidential elections distracts attention from the fact that neither parliamentary nor local elections are planned in the near future. It is likely that Mahamat Déby will follow his father’s example here too: legitimisation through presidential elections. Under the late Déby, the last parliamentary elections were held in 2011; local elections were only held once.

Helga Dickow is a Senior Researcher at the Arnold Bergstraesser Institut, Freiburg Germany, University of Freiburg

Courtesy: The Conversation

Spread the love

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

Sudan’s Civil War is Rooted in its Historical Favouritism of Arab and Islamic identity

Published

3 weeks ago

April 30, 2024

Editor

Spread the love

The current civil war in Sudan goes beyond a simple power struggle between two generals. It reflects a deep-rooted crisis within the country’s governing structure that’s been present since it gained independence from the British in 1956.

Since independence, the Sudanese have experienced 35 coups and attempted coups, more than any other African country. In the country’s southern region a 56-year rebellion eventually led to the creation of South Sudan in 2011. A Darfurian uprising in 2003 was sparked by accusations that the central government was discriminating against the region’s non-Arab population. It led to ethnic killings and continues to simmer.

Delving into the history of Sudan, which I have done for more than three decades, reveals that the country suffers from a long-standing identity crisis that has fuelled the numerous rebellions. The inability, or perhaps unwillingness, of successive governments to manage the country’s diversity and articulate a shared vision has resulted in unfair distribution of wealth and resources. Sudan has a population of 49 million. It comprises 19 major ethnic groups and about 597 ethnic sub-groups speaking hundreds of languages and dialects. Sudanese Arabs make up the largest single ethnic group at about 70% of the population.

Achieving peace in Sudan requires a focus on the concerns of marginalised populations in conflict zones and deprived regions. These include Darfur, South Kordofan and the Nuba Mountains. It also requires addressing the root causes of armed violence. Among them are issues of marginalisation, the relationship between religion and state, governance, resource sharing, land, social justice and equality at the national level.

The early years of independence

The Sudanese government that came to power in 1956 insisted on an Arab and Islamic identity. The state was based on the principles of Mahdism, an Islamic Sufi order established in the 1880s. It wasn’t representative of diverse communities and sought to subject them to the will of the Mahdist state. It demanded a degree of compliance that many were unwilling to provide. Resistance against Mahdism was widespread.

In 1989, a new government seized control of the state under the rule of the National Islamic Front. This was an alliance between army officers and the Muslim Brotherhood, a fringe outfit that grew into a powerful political organisation. This coup brought to power Omar al-Bashir, who was supported by Islamist leader Hassan al-Turabi. Their government also endeavoured to establish an Islamic state. The government set up an internal security apparatus, which arrested and tortured dissenters. In 1991, the regime introduced a new penal code to impose an Islamisation agenda, and created the “People’s Police”.

Two further developments would create the conditions for the war that continues to rage today. The first was the al-Bashir regime’s decision in 2003 to enlist Janjaweed militias to quell an insurgency in Darfur. Second, the Islamist regime used this new militia to keep the elite in the Sudanese army away from conflict zones in the periphery. In 2013, al-Bashir formally designated these tribal militias as the Rapid Support Forces through a presidential decree. This affiliated them with the national security and intelligence services.

In 2017, Sudan’s parliament ratified the Rapid Support Forces Law. This formally incorporated the militias into the government’s military apparatus under the direct command of the president. The minister of defence was tasked with overseeing the Sudanese Armed Forces. Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, alias Hemedti, was appointed by al-Bashir to lead the Rapid Support Forces. This enabled his power and influence to grow. It was to inform the dramatic and tragic events in Sudan in the coming decade.

After protests in 2018 swept through Sudan’s major cities – driven by grievances around poverty, corruption and unemployment – the military intervened in April 2019. They removed al-Bashir from power and declared a state of emergency. Despite establishing a transitional military government, demonstrations persisted demanding civilian leadership.

With mediation from the African Union, an agreement on power-sharing was reached in August 2019. It resulted in a military-civilian transitional administration. Still, challenges persisted, including a failed coup attempt in September 2021. A month later, Sudan’s top general, Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, led another coup, derailing the country’s democratic transition.

The months leading up to the war in April 2023 were marked by civilian protests that were violently repressed, and tensions between army and Rapid Support Forces leaders.

Forging a militia-dominated state

The Rapid Support Forces emerged as a counterbalance to the armed forces. It strategically deployed thousands of battle-hardened fighters to the country’s biggest cities, volatile border regions and economic hubs like gold mines. Concurrently, Russia forged ties with the Rapid Support Forces through the Wagner Group to secure access to Sudanese gold. Three conditions coalesced to foster the emergence of a militia-dominated state, with the Rapid Support Forces at its helm.

Civil strife in Darfur in 2003 presented an opportune moment. While the army focused on quelling rebellion in south Sudan, the suppression of the Darfurian uprising in the west was left to paramilitary forces.
Support from the Sudanese government enabled the self-styled militia to access financial resources and weaponry. It could then develop commercial ventures to attain and sustain autonomy from the state.
Ideologically, Hemedti portrayed the Rapid Support Forces as a militia representing marginalised Arabs from Sudan’s rural and border regions.

The unravelling

In Sudan’s evolving democratic transition, Hemedti’s rise to the vice presidency of the Sovereignty Council in 2021 was crucial, overseeing the path to elections. Disbanding the Rapid Support Forces or sidelining Hemedti risked sparking unrest, given the outfit’s size and business interests. Militia dominance over the state can prompt belated responses from the military, potentially making conflict worse. Initially, Hemedti refrained from seizing power by force. He aligned his troops as allies of the army, which also had substantial economic ventures.

But the October 2021 military coup halted Sudan’s democratic progress. Amid repression and economic decline, the Rapid Support Forces expanded its influence through business ventures and engagements. The army’s attempt to integrate these forces backfired, leading to armed confrontations and the Rapid Support Forces’ seizure of critical areas.

What next

Sudan requires a collaborative effort from the international community to aid reconstruction. It needs to establish a transparent, civilian-led government that represents the Sudanese populace and hears their voices in decision-making processes. Urgent action is needed to reconstruct Sudan’s post-colonial state as one that includes and safeguards the rights of all.

Spread the love