Whether in Kenya, Nigeria or Libya, terrorism has been the big story of 2014.
However,
East Africans seem puzzled by one aspect of this story: Why does a
presumably “mighty” army in Nigeria flee when attacked by a rag-tag
bunch of Boko Haram militants? How can an army, like that in Mali,
abandon a major town and take off into the desert because they have
heard that rebels are 60 kilometres away and approaching?
It
is very “un-East African”. The Ugandan, Kenyan, Ethiopian, Rwandan, or
Tanzanian army would never do that. I asked a leading military figure in
the region why that was the case. He told me, “In East Africa armies
are taught never to give up their arms.” Thus in Darfur, bandits are
known to have forced Nigerian and Senegal UN peacekeepers to surrender
their weapons… but not the Rwandese.
This difference in
military culture was dramatically illustrated in Somalia. In 2007,
Uganda became the first country to send troops to the Somalia capital,
Mogadishu, for the African Union’s peacekeeping force for Somalia,
AMISOM. From real life, and the movies, we have a view of how
peacekeeping happens.
An advance contingent goes in,
secures a landing, and clears a camp site for peacekeepers, builds
washrooms, then the troops arrive walking in a neat single file – with
the media assembled to record the moment.
FOUGHT FOR MOGADISHU
AMISOM
did not have that luxury in its entrance into Somalia. The Al-Shabaab
militants were in charge of Mogadishu and most of the country. So the
Ugandans took off for Mogadishu essentially on a gamble, landed at Aden
Adde International Airport, and basically fought for it.
The
plan was that a second plane with soldiers, weapons, and supplies would
arrive shortly thereafter and reinforce the first arrivals. It did not
go according to plan. The second carrier was shot down as it approached,
and crash-landed at Aden Adde. Fortunately, most of the troops escaped
only with bruises.
The carcass of the plane still lies
at the edge of the airport. A few weeks later the Burundian contingent
also landed. For the next four years the Ugandan and Burundian troops
fought a bitter war with Al-Shabaab, suffering hundreds of casualties.
In
October 2011 the Kenyans entered the Somalia fray, aiming to take the
port city of Kismayu. Again, they fought for every kilometre of
territory until they took Kismayu.
AMISOM officers actually speak with respect for Al-Shabaab and Somali fighters in general.
AMISOM officers actually speak with respect for Al-Shabaab and Somali fighters in general.
They
are a hardy lot. As one officer put it, “Somali soldiers have their
discipline problems and clan politics, but there are few people I would
rather have in the trenches with me. They are brave and warriors of the
highest order.”
BOKO HARAM THREAT
In
East Africa, therefore, there is little context for understanding the
fact that Boko Haram can send the Nigerian army — with a record $6
billion annual defence budget — scampering for the tall grass. But there
is always another side to this story.
Eastern Africa
is a tough neighbourhood. With the exception of Kenya and Tanzania, the
rest of the governments in power today fought their way to power as
rebel armies, so they are hardened.
Secondly, even
where they did not, like Kenya, the years before independence were
bitterly fought (Mau Mau rebellion) and the Maji Maji war in Tanzania —
and later the “Zanzibar Revolution” and the war against Uganda’s
military dictator, Idi Amin.
And in Kenya, elections are like war, so winning the presidency is a far bigger prize than in, say, Ghana.
The
sharpness of East African political contestation was also evident in
Sudan. They fought for nearly 25 years. The equivalent in West Africa
was the Biafra civil war in Nigeria. It lasted two years. The Sierra
Leone civil war lasted 10 years and Liberia’s eight. In other words,
lump them together and they still fought for a shorter period than the
Sudanese.
The fact that in West Africa folks are less
willing to fight to protect the state or die in war, while dangerous
because it might allow the Boko Haram to take over, actually means it is
also easier for incumbents to allow the opposition to take power. So,
while East Africa will continue to be more stable than West Africa, West
Africa will remain more democratic than East Africa.
Where would you rather live?
The author is editor of Mail & Guardian Africa (mgafrica.com): Twitter:@cobbo3
No comments :
Post a Comment