5 reasons why Africa is not ready to meet its own security needs – yet

Two decades have passed since the end of apartheid in South Africa – the final dividing line with the colonial era. In that time, the continent’s leaders have steadily built new regional and Africa-wide economic and security structures. This effort may well be helping economically. But joint African military deployments have yielded only fleeting success in the continent’s worst hot spots.

Africa’s experiment in a regional approach to security is serious and laudable, but it will take time to build credible capacity. In just two weeks French troops halted and pushed back extremist advances in Mali in January 2013, whereas West African leaders were unable for nearly a year to mobilize a regional force.

The attacks by Islamist insurgents on US outposts in Benghazi, Libya, in September 2012 and at a gas plant in Algeria in January 2013 expose several reasons for persistent security weakness across Africa. Here are five reasons why Africa is not ready to meet its own security needs – yet.

1. African Union needs better member contributions

Adama Diarra/Reuters
A Malian soldier, with a French flag wrapped around his head, stands next to a military vehicle in the recently recaptured town of Gao, Jan. 27. French and Malian troops retook the major Saharan trading towns of Gao and Timbuktu from Islamist rebels over the weekend.

The multinational forces of the regions and of the larger African Union require financial and personnel contributions from the member states. Both are missing in sufficient supply. The majority of sub-Saharan countries are still among the world’s poorest. Many simply cannot afford to honor their pledges of dollars and soldiers to regional peace efforts.

West African leaders have been talking about sending a regional force to Mali since a coup d’état last March. They are still looking for funding.

1 of 5

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.