backbencher James Lester (Conservative, Broxtowe), who suggested that the
only viable response was for the Government to support the OAU in reaching
a negotiated settlement.15 Hurd agreed: as one of his predecessors had suggested
in the House back in 1964, as the FCO had suggested in the memorandum to
the First Secretary in Kampala in 1990 and as Edward Clay had suggested in
his February 1994 reports, Rwanda was a problem for Africans, not the UK.
Following this brief exchange, MPs would not have the opportunity to question
Hurd in person again for another month.
This book explores the evolving African security paradigm in light of the multitude of diverse threats facing the continent and the international community today and in the decades ahead. It challenges current thinking and traditional security constructs as woefully inadequate to meet the real security concerns and needs of African governments in a globalized world. The continent has becoming increasingly integrated into an international security architecture, whereby Africans are just as vulnerable to threats emanating from outside the continent as they are from home-grown ones. Thus, Africa and what happens there, matters more than ever. Through an in-depth examination and analysis of the continent’s most pressing traditional and non-traditional security challenges—from failing states and identity and resource conflict to terrorism, health, and the environment—it provides a solid intellectual foundation, as well as practical examples of the complexities of the modern African security environment. Not only does it assess current progress at the local, regional, and international level in meeting these challenges, it also explores new strategies and tools for more effectively engaging Africans and the global community through the human security approach.
seen as part of the solution to
the continent’s problems. Long-established humanitarian organizations
working in Africa, like CARE, Save the Children, or Doctors without
Borders, as well as newer sector- or issued-oriented groups (The Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation, Water Aid, or Women and Children First
(UK) for instance) are becoming an integral—and indispensable—part
of the human security equation.
Putting theory into practice, however, has not been easy for international proponents of the human security approach. Even with the best
intentions, coordinating and
– such as the influential APPG on Africa – publish
reports into Government policy or particular political issues in Africa; others
concern themselves with developing business links between the country and the
UK; some attempt to raise awareness of political or development issues relating
to the country. Source: Houses of Parliament website: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmallparty/register/memi02.htm#a1, [cited, 14 March 2008].
Interview with Baroness Jenny Tonge (Liberal Democrat), London, 17 May
Interview with Chris Mullin, MP (Labour), London, 21 March
centrality of working for ‘sustainable peace and improved developmental results [in Africa]’ to Rwanda’s ‘core … agenda’ before scholars, military personnel and Western policy-makers at a number of events in both the UK and US in the last decade ( Beswick, 2010: 749 ).
Both leaders have also emphasised their states’ economic successes during engagements with Western business leaders and economists. Museveni, for example, promoted Uganda’s economic success story in a 1998 speech to economists and World Bank officials at the University of Oxford – an
’s serving as a surrogate venue for superpower competition during the Cold War further disrupted and distorted
Africa’s political and economic development, as both Washington and
Moscow pursued their own foreign policy and security agendas without
regard to the seeds of instability that they sowed across the continent.
Both sides’ unquestioned support for “their” African dictators, escalating arms sales, and the use of African surrogates to fight proxy wars not
only turned the continent into a superpower battlefield for decades, but
further militarized and polarized
between the UK and countries on the receiving end of its
ethical and development policies are reinforced by the ways in which the aid
discourse is framed (Slater and Bell, 2002). They argue that British aid policy
worked to maintain a dependency relationship between the UK and poorer
powers (often former colonies). Paul Cammack, in similar vein, argues that
the Commission for Africa was organised around the objective of creating
capitalist markets and extending and entrenching capitalist p
(Cammack, 2006). Rita Abrahamsen and Paul Williams suggest that
From troubled pan-African media to sprawling Nollywood
Julia Gallagher and V. Y. Mudimbe
the Qatar-based Al Jazeera has prompted some to talk about the possibility of setting up an ‘African Al Jazeera’. Thabo Mbeki once noted that there was no reason why an ‘African Al Jazeera’ cannot succeed (cited in Gouveia, 2005: 4 ). Philip Fiske de Gouveia of the London-based Foreign Policy Centre, a European think-tank, also proposed to the UK Foreign Office to establish a Pan-African media project along the same lines as Al Jazeera (Ibid). There is little doubt that Al Jazeera’s growth since its establishment in 1996 has been phenomenal. Indeed, in 2005, an
external forces as on the ability of African countries themselves. Since
2003, when the United States aggressively stepped up its counterterrorism efforts on the continent, Washington has sought to redefine the
nature of the terrorist threat from the perspective of the American-led
war on terror. Unfortunately, this approach is patently ill-suited to tackling the complex problems that breed terrorism in Africa. The danger
here is that “Washington will continue treating Africa as simply another
front in the war on terror, thereby neglecting real security needs
Algeria, Angola and later the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, did
not have the same prominence in relations between Washington and London as the
Congo crisis. In addition, the nature of Anglo-American cooperation in Africa had
subtly changed. In January 1966 the State Department took stock of its relationship
with Britain vis-à-vis America’s policy towards Africa, recognising that ‘No longer is
the UK the “workshop” of the world’. As the Congo experience had shown repeatedly,
Britain’s ability to wield influence among former colonies was increasingly