An African lens on breaking sovereignty

Foreign intervention in Africa has become almost a norm, with the Central African Republic as the latest example. The world must ask how much it should honor individual rights over national sovereignty.

AP Photo
Civilians who fled attacks by rebels seek refuge in a church yard in Bossangoa, Central African Republic. The rebels have been blamed for abuses including widespread looting, killings, rape, and conscription of child soldiers.

For those who track events in Africa, it has lately become more difficult to count the times that forces of one country have entered another. Last weekend, for example, US Navy SEALs raided Libya and Somalia. French troops swept into Mali earlier this year. Rwandan soldiers often chase rebels in Congo. Many nations are going after Joseph Kony’s Lord’s Resistance Army in Central Africa.

Then there are the troops of the African Union or United Nations currently involved in several troubled nations on the continent. One nation is the Central African Republic, a mineral-rich country of some 5 million people that has been disintegrating into chaos ever since a coup in March.

On Thursday, the UN Security Council unanimously approved a resolution to help end widespread violence there by supporting the African Union in sending more troops and possibly converting those forces into UN peacekeepers next month. The country already has a few hundred French soldiers near the main airport and some forces sent by neighboring states.

Foreign intervention in another country, whether approved or not, can often break a long-held rule about national sovereignty, or the collective self-determination of a people. In Africa, where most borders date back to colonial days and don’t follow ethnic demographics, the sovereign concept is still a work in progress.

The reasons are many. Civil wars spill over borders. Islamic militants seek a Muslim holy land across state boundaries. A humanitarian crisis leads to intervention by European or American forces. Or a terrorist group uses a weakened state as a launching pad for attacks.

The Central African Republic illustrates Africa’s sovereignty problem. Acute poverty and Muslim-Christian tensions have led to the country’s “Somalization,” as French President François Hollande calls it. But in addition, rebel groups have little regard for individual sovereignty, or a person’s right to be free, which is the very origin and basis of national sovereignty.

When a government, or a lack of government, allows the kind of mass killing as witnessed in the Central African Republic, then other countries must ask if they should put right the principle of individual sovereignty that holds a society together and thus temporarily disregard national sovereignty.

The UN and others often juggle the difficult tug between honoring universal human rights and state boundaries. “National sovereignty is never a license to slaughter your people,” President Obama said last year after the United States had joined the 2011 attack on Libya to prevent a massacre.

Global trends are driving the interdependence of people across borders while many authoritarian states, especially Russia, insist on respecting sovereignty even in cases such as Syria where a dictator is killing innocent people.

Smaller, poorer countries like the Central African Republic deserve more attention simply because the horrific conditions there represent the need for a better global understanding on the balance between individual and state sovereignty.

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

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.