Nigeria: Beyond the violence

It is unusual for African countries to make the news headlines in British media, yet the continuous violence in the Northern Nigerian city of Kano has created much concern and interest from across the world. An Islamic and self-declared jihadist organisation called Boko Haram, meaning “western education is sacrilege” in the Hausa language, has been launching co-ordinated suicide attacks across the country as part of their demands for an Islamic caliphate under Sharia Law. In the past few months attacks have intensified with bombings on Christian churches, the UN building in Abuja and most recently several police stations, where 186 people were left dead. At the centre of it all is the hapless President Goodluck Jonathan. Elected last year after the death of his predecessor President Yar’Adua, 2012 has not begun well.  Not only a state of emergency in the north of the country and border closures with Chad and Niger, he has had to deal with a general strike after the government removed a fuel subsidy. The incidents in Kano have so far seen the national Chief of Police sacked and the ‘reorganisation’ and ‘repositioning’ of the Nigerian Police Force. Do these events mark a new era of politics in Nigeria or do they simply comply with the world’s previous assumptions of the country?

There is a belief with many Westerners that Nigeria is a land of dysfunction; dominated by internal strife, oil revenues and systemic corruption. A former US Secretary of State once declared that all Nigerians are crooks. Perhaps most people would associate it with email ‘419’ scams or documentaries by the filmmaker Louis Theroux. Yet the links to Britain are historical and continue to be present today. Acquired as a buffer from the Francophone dominated West Africa, the British Empire formed a country comprised of different religions, languages and tribes as a measure of convenience. Religious lines were split almost evenly between the Muslim north and Christian south, though religious relations were normally good. The country’s significance was reaffirmed several years later when oil was discovered at a time when the Royal Navy was changing its fleet from coal to oil powered vessels. When independence was granted in 1960, rule was governed in a similar way to the how the British had left it. The dominant population of Northern Muslims had power in the legislature and crucially the military, to the displeasure of the southern and western factions. The ugly Biafran War in 1970, which left over one million dead, is a direct legacy of the tension between the north and south.

Yet the underlying issue in Nigeria is not religious or ethnic conflict, but endemic corruption. Even as the country emerged from a military dictatorship, corruption has continued to play its part, from the local area boys to the state house. Nihu Ribadu, a prominent anti-corruption figure said that that since independence in 1960, over £380 billion dollars had been wasted or stolen by the government. Much of this money is laundered into British banks. In 2011, Transparency International ranked it the 143^rd (out of 182) in its annual corruption index, yet Goldman Sachs deems it to be in an economic grouping behind the BRIC nations.

As Africa’s most populous country, almost 160 million and growing, why is their thought to be so much potential when seventy per cent live under the poverty line?

Oil and petrodollars, continue to pollute the environment and the political system. As other countries have found, resource dependency inhibits creativity and innovation. As the state can rely on mineral wealth, it relies less on tax revenues and consequently accountability. The World Bank says that Nigeria’s oil wealth is siphoned off by only one per cent of the population.

After the oil price rises in the 1970s, it was the multinationals who filled the investment void vacated by the Government. Portrayed by some as a Faustian pact, the multinationals offered a more reliable investment to locals through jobs and wealth. However; not all benefitted, as local Governors became rich, other regions and ethnic groups were left out and felt the effects of oil spills and contamination. The lack of infrastructure or investment in health and education has been the main consequence. In 1993, fed up with the continuing pollution in the Niger Delta, protestors prompted a shutdown of Shell’s operations in the area. As a consequence, a military crackdown brought before a court several men accused of murder, with questionable evidence, including the playwright Ken Saro-Wiwa. All men were hanged for their crimes, stoking an international uproar, which saw several countries request Nigeria’s suspension from the Commonwealth.

Even with its massive oil exporting powers, almost 2.2 million barrels a day, Nigeria does not have any working oil refineries and therefore has to import the great majority of its oil. Many of the deals are struck by governing politicians and as the Africa watcher Richard Dowden says “Any politician who does not end up a multi-millionaire is regarded as a fool. Not many Nigerians are fools.”

And what of the nation’s politicians? Nigerian Parliamentarians are paid a salary of $1 million a year with $1 million in expenses to supplement it. Former rulers like Ibrahim Babingida and Sani Abacha both managed to steal billions of dollars and get away with it. The impunity and almost admiration for such men may be the reason why corruption happens and why there is so much of it. Simply because it is there and it works. It is part of the system, so there is no other way to function. As long as everyone receives their share then it is okay. Corruption is the oil that allows business to function. Tax collectors, telecoms companies, immigration officials all take part, especially the maligned police force.

The ruling Peoples Democratic Party [sic] (PDP), the new governing elite that succeeded the military, have a cosy arrangement that rotates the Presidency between a ruling southern Christian and northern Muslim. It in effect allows those in charge to have a share of the spoils whilst in charge, before the next rotation. The issue currently is that Jonathan succeeded Yar’Adua, who died before his tenure finished, before being re-elected. This led to violence in the city of Jos last year and the more recent anger in Kano. Muslims were annoyed at their PDP officials who acceded to Jonathan’s victory. Boko Haram is now exploiting that loss of trust by giving people an alternative, violence is their tool. For the first time in decades many Christians are leaving the north in fear.

Commentators argue that militants in the lawless Niger Delta were bought by government bribes to keep the peace; it is only likely that the members of Boko Haram will be bought with bags of bills sooner rather than later.

Prospects of Nigeria splitting or an African ‘awakening’ are not to be ruled out, but is anyone in a position to take it that step further? Nigeria is becoming strategically important to the West as it slowly becomes less dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Yet the question is yet to be asked, will the Gulf of Guinea will remain stable itself?

The legacy of Mobutu: The DRC votes.

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the vast and troubled country in sub-Saharan Africa, is going to the polls for only the second time in fifty years today. A country ten times the size of Britain, with a population just over 70 million, has suffered terribly since its independence from Belgium in 1960. Its vast reserves of natural resources that include timber, gold, diamonds and many precious metals should have created economic stability and wealth for its people, yet war, corruption on an enormous scale and destitution has left the people of the Congo at the bottom of the UN’s Human Development Index, earning a miserly $200 a year. The current President Joseph Kabila, who has been in charge since the previous leader (his father Joseph-Desire) was assassinated in 2001, looks set cement another term in Government and reaffirm his Premiership. However, the 40-year-old, Kabila is far from popular. Labelled as another African autocratic, he is distrusted in the east of the country and the ten million strong capital city Kinshasa. Pledging to introduce high speed rail to a country that notoriously lacks a road network, Kabila is certain to win through a mix of weak opposition and strong arm tactics. International critics are alarmed that Kabila has abolished any run offs between first and second place candidates and feel that the ruling party will do anything to hijack victory by any means possible, including ballot rigging. So why have the DRC and its people endured such an ignominious past and what does the future hold for this huge country.

In what became known as ‘The Scramble for Africa’ the small European nation of Belgium snapped up the huge region surrounding the mouth of the River Congo. Ordained Belgian-Congo, it became a playground for Emperor Leopold II in what can be deemed as one of Europe’s darkest periods of imperialism. Reconstructed in Joseph Conrad’s early 20^th century novella, ‘Heart of Darkness’ captures the impunity and sheer subjugation of human life in pursuit of mineral wealth, most notably ivory. After World War Two when the ‘Winds of Change’ were sweeping across Africa, Belgium had highlighted that Congo may require longer transition before independence. Instead of the 50 year period that Belgium had drawn up, the Cold War forced it to fast forward independence to 18 months. The country’s first Prime Minister and pan-African Marxist, Patrick Lumumba, was deemed as a liability by Western Governments and swiftly abducted then killed by firing squad, before his remains were put in acid to prevent him being deemed a martyr. The man the West backed and who would go on to rule for 32 years was Colonel Joseph Mobutu.

The rule of Mobutu can only be deemed as bizarre and shameful for all those who kept him in power. A powerful public speaker and strong campaigner, Mobutu was a bulwark against Soviet interests. If he was ever facing political strife then he could rely on French, Belgian or American paratroopers to put down any insurgency and all the while he could rule as he pleased. His reforms included the Africanisation of his country. He became Mobutu Sese Seko which translated to ‘all powerful warrior’ and Congo was renamed Zaire, Leopoldville to Kinshasa. He introduced cultural rules including collarless shirt similar to Mao’s China, he wanted to reaffirm an identity to country that for so long had been mismanaged and corrupted. It was Mobutu who brought Muhammed Ali and George Foreman to fight in Kinshasa in 1974 in what became known as ‘The Rumble in the Jungle’ to raise the country’s profile. Yet Mobutu was the most flamboyant and corrupt of them all. Economic mismanagement saw him ordering crates of money for himself from the central bank and building massive palaces in the dense jungles. He had fleets of Concorde, had a taste for expensive pink champagne and used the Zairian Treasury as a wallet on extravagant shopping trips to Europe.

Like most dictators, ideology gradually blurred because power was everything. As long as he was in power, the West turned a blind eye to what was going on internally. If he ever felt a threat from others, they were either bought off or executed. Towards the end of his rule, Mobutu, like many dictators before him, became obsessed about plots to kill him. He retreated to his palace in the forest and let most decisions be taken by his generals.

The collapse of the Soviet Union meant that Western Governments no longer needed to fancy favours from these decrepit despots. Economic collapse and the genocide in Rwanda and Burundi forced hundreds of thousands of refugees into the East of Congo around Goma. Mobutu, now suffering from cancer, was unable to put up any resistance against the Tutsi-led armies from Rwanda and Uganda, and fled in exile to Togo and then Morocco.

The question that many commentators asked was what a post-Mobutu Zaire would look like and whether it would work? Africa’s biggest kleptocrat had plundered, yet he had stabilised tribes and created an identity for his people. The day he fled, the rebel leader Laurent Kabila declared himself President, yet peace was short lived.

What is now recorded as the bloodiest conflict since the Second World War, and seen as Africa’s world war, drawing in nine countries and reportedly leading to over five million deaths, and shamelessly ignored by most Western media outlets. Many of the belligerents have been accused of invading/co-operating purely to loot the DRC’s mineral wealth, in fact Rwanda recently handed back some money it had made from stolen diamonds. To this day, the UN’s largest peace-keeping force operates within the country, with nearly 20,000 uniformed personnel on the ground and costing over $1 billion a year. Most reports to the outside world highlight the use of rape as a weapon of war, in 2009 there were 8,900 recorded incidents of rape. Yet, in a country so huge, it is difficult to determine the number of sexual crimes that have taken place, countless have been infected by HIV.

The great new Empire of China has also been criticised for its relationship with the DRC Government. A multibillion dollar bilateral contract that exchanges infrastructure work for valuable minerals. Many criticised China for taking advantage of its African partner.

So as over 32 million people head for the polls to vote for the candidates (including Mobutu’s son) it is hard to believe that a cross in a box is really going to make a difference in a country that has a tortured history and hopeless future.

Jacob's games.

It has been a busy summer of sport, yet notoriously quiet on the footballing front. Few high profile transfers and the only events taking place are the Women’s World Cup, which frankly does not draw the same audience as the men’s game and the Copa America, which is locked away on ESPN. A year has passed since the World Cup was played in South Africa, where Spain went on to become the champions after a fierce final against the Dutch. So, is this a good time to judge the legacy of Africa’s first finals and what will the consequences be for the Rainbow Nation?

The recent history of South Africa is fascinating to observe from the outside. After spending decades in the international wilderness through its racial Apartheid laws, it was under the leadership of Nelson Mandela who governed South Africa through a period of uncertainty and united a nation that had been living with the consequences of racial segregation laws since 1948. Mandela recognised the importance of sport in bringing people together and its significance in the public imagination. In Mandela’s memoirs there are plenty of references to sport whilst he was incarcerated on Robben Island, perhaps most famously his love affair for the great tennis rivalry of Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe. Mandela famously handed over the William Webb-Ellis trophy to Francois Pienaar after South Africa beat New Zealand in the 1995 Rugby Union World Cup final.

This was not the last tournament the country was to host; South Africa hosted the ICC Cricket World Cup in 2003 and also held the Indian Premier League in 2009 after security fears in India from the Mumbai bombings. South Africa has a proud history of cricket and rugby and inevitably, these tournaments do not expect hundreds of thousands of fans from around the world to visit. South Africa’s opportunity to host football’s biggest event was twofold. One, FIFA President Sepp Blatter is a fan of expanding the game into new areas of the world and the unifying qualities it brings, which a rebranded country like South Africa would love. Secondly, Blatter owed FIFA’s African delegation a favour as their bloc vote helped him become FIFA President.

Politically South Africa has changed since the early years of Mandela rule. Now under the Presidency of Jacob Zuma, South Africa’s African National Congress (ANC) party is struggling in the polls and has an identity crisis. No longer is it seen as the unifying party, but is swarming with a new breed of young black politicians, most notoriously Julius Malema, who are more interested in business and patronage, rather than welfare and equality. Last month saw the ANC lose control of Cape Town in regional elections. Many say it is no longer a party of the people and prefers to look after its own elite.

Football is very much a black person’s game in South Africa. The ranks of its cricket and rugby sides are swarming with white stars, despite the constitutional laws of positive discrimination that ensure that teams are not full of certain races. A World Cup in South Africa was a political statement not just to the world, but to black South Africans as well.

Yet, costs to host the tournament spiralled and supposedly reached $3.5 billion dollars, more than three times more than original predictions. Many cities such as Cape Town and Durban are left with stadia that remain empty. Port Elizabeth has yet to host another match since the ending of last year’s tournament. South African club teams are reluctant to relocate because of the extortionate rental fees (Ajax Cape Town were quoted $100,000 a game despite attendances reaching fewer than 8,000) and inevitably a weaker Rand has meant going to watch football is more expensive. It is true that in Portugal and South Korea, stadia were demolished after they held tournaments, but in a country where 50% of people live under the poverty line, where basic educational, health and welfare are every day issues, it does seem like a waste of money. Crime is a notorious issue in its cities, yet the federal Government struggled to pay the wages of its police force.

FIFA likes to acknowledge the good that football can bring, but it is at an exceptional cost. Legacy is an important thing to consider and many deemed the tournament to be a great success, but for the average black South African living in a township, how much did it cost their future?

Next stop, Mugabe.

Lord Palmerston, one of Britain’s most influential Foreign Secretaries in the nineteenth century is often remembered for his famous dictum:

“We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”

This is true of any nation. The US delegation that visited Mao’s China in 1972 was treading on dangerous ground. History Professor David Reynolds from the University of Cambridge said at the time it is like comparing ‘America opening talks with Al Qaeda’. Every story has a context and President Richard Nixon was pursuing a policy of containment from Soviet influence with his mandarin Henry Kissinger. China, under the insular rule of Chairman Mao, were political pariahs. They had contributed in World War 2 to help defeat Imperial Japan, but several years later (after the Mao’s succession) sent forces against the West on the Korean peninsula. The US decision to open talks was made easier by the Ussuri River conflict agaisnt the USSR three years previously. Communist China and Soviet Russia were now sworn enemies. This not only allowed the US to start talks with China, particularly about containing the Vietnam War but it opened up a diplomacy that would transform the two nations economically.

It is the same within the Middle East. The peace treaty between Israel and Egypt was transformative, after decades of war, it showed the ability to negotiate over trade and ultimately co-exist. This asks the question of Britain and whether it is willing or able to move on and talk to the wasp’s nest in the loft, Zimbabwe and its belligerent and ailing leader Robert Mugabe.

British history in Africa is grey. Comparing it to other nations and their empires such as Belgium or Portugal then you could mistake the British for saints. The ‘Scramble for Africa’ saw land divided between other countries with the line of a ruler. Unlike places like India or Hong Kong where institutions were laid down, a loose form of indirect rule was placed with strong tribal leaders to control affairs on site, whilst decisions were made from the Colonial Office in Whitehall.

The 1960s and the ‘winds of change’ speech uttered by PM Harold MacMillan saw swathes of British Africa declare independence; The Gold Coast, Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa. All these nations elected their own governments and power was truly handed over from London. Yet the British exit from Rhodesia did not change much in terms of politics. Ian Smith, a white militant, took charge and retained the apartheid system that subjugated Black Rhodesians. The guerrilla war that ensued finally ended in 1979 through the signing of the Lancaster House Agreement in London that ended Smith’s unilateral declaration of independence. It also introduced to the world the wily and implacable Robert Gabriel Mugabe, a product of the British Colonial system.

Why does Mugabe in particular revile the British establishment? Zimbabwe has a shocking human rights record; but what of the genocide in Darfur or the habitual rape of women and children in DR Congo? Freedom of the press – it is hardly a model system but compared to Eritrea. The dispute over land distribution is probably worse in neighbouring South Africa. If Mugabe is going to win an Oscar then it will be for his economic mismanagement, but the picture is often presented more fiendish than it is in comparison. Yet Zimbabwe, behind Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran, still features highly for UK press concentration. It ultimately boiled down to the fact that Mugabe, with his agile political skills and connivance, managed to defeat the British who left an Africa unfavourably for black Africans.

Yet despite his brazenness and ferocity, Mugabe still admires his ‘mother country’. He is known to enjoy afternoon tea and like Idi Amin, the Ugandan tyrant, wistfully respects the Queen and the Royal Family. Travel bans to the EU and US not only prevented his wife from trips to Harrods but separated him from the Establishment. This of course is entirely different to his revulsion towards the British Government, they only made things worse.

This is a man that oversaw an operation translated from Shona (the majority ethnic language) meaning ‘drive out the filth’ that saw bulldozers smash through homes of voters of the MDC (now in government with Mugabe’s Zanu PF) and Zimbabwe’s other ethnic group. This is a man that caused great instability across the whole of Southern Africa. A Black African killing black Africans, driving millions of refugees into neighbouring countries and overseeing the disastrous appropriation of white farm land to black natives that caused the whole region to suffer economically and without food.

We hear rumours that Mr Mugabe, now 87, is terminally ill with prostate cancer, yet still clutching to power. His latest economic policy is to see that all foreign owned enterprises must be have least 51 per cent ‘native’ Zimbabwean investors, a policy that is unsettling big firms such as Barclays Bank. The US and EU sanctions have also seen Mugabe flirt towards the Chinese, trading diamonds for military hardware. With a breakdown in relations between Mugabe and Prime Minster Morgan Tsvangirai the elections scheduled for next year could turn out as farcical and bloody as 2007.

Is this the opportunity for Britain, like Nixon all those years ago, to reach out an olive branch to Mugabe and reset relations? Not only could it possibly heal fractious wounds and generate a new relationship akin to somewhere like Sierra Leone; but it could prevent trouble in the short term. Who is to say that when Mugabe finally releases power (probably through death) that there will not be a power struggle from rapacious generals creating more unrest ; or alternatively a backlash against Mugabe’s ‘vets’ (war veterans who are in effect work as a paramilitary, yet they were probably not old enough to have participated in the independence war.) This would not be akin to an Arab Spring but another Rwanda, with consequences across the region.

Yet both parties are too stubborn to think along these lines. Mugabe will never give way and Britain would see this as submission. However; after its mismanagement since the 1890s and post independence, this could be the Empire’s medicine and redress after decades of mistakes, and ultimately an avenue for economic cooperation as Palmerston said.

Africa's continuous burn - Cote D'Ivoire

The news has been jumping around the world over the past few weeks covering the major events unfolding diplomatically and politically. Much of the attention has been in North Africa and the chaos surrounding Colonel Gadaffi and his struggle to retain power in Libya. Little has made of the events that have unfolded in Ivory Coast and the Presidential stand-off between the incumbent Laurent Gbagbo and the declared winner Alassane Ouatarra. Earlier today, Mr Gbagbo surrendered to troops that had been surrounding his bunker in Abidjan for the past few days. Reports have not confirmed how many people have been killed from the ensuing fighting, but it is safe to confirm that a region wide disaster has been avoided. The obvious question is could this have been avoided and is Africa still unable to learn lessons from its disastrous post-colonial past?

The election in Ivory Coast took place in November last year. Mr Gbagbo, who had been in charge for the last ten years, declared that his opponent had rigged the vote and that he would remain in power. Mr Ouattara, a Muslim from the north, had been confirmed by electoral watchers and the UN as the winner. The stalemate since then has slowly seen Mr Ouattara remain in his lavish hotel surrounded by government troops, whilst foreign powers decide who is in charge. The problem for Ivory Coast and for other countries in Africa, is that it is not an isolated example. As the two men fiddled, the economy burned, thousands fled to nearby Liberia and school children could not go to school for three months. The country suffered a horrendous civil war in the early part of this century, fuelled by political and ethnic tensions among Presidential hopefuls. Africa’s big men continue to play their tribal card to the detriment of the wider population.

In Kenya, six members of the Cabinet are currently under prosecution at the ICC in The Hague. All are believed to be behind the political fighting that saw over a 1,000 people die after the 2008 elections. In Zimbabwe, the current power share between Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai appears to have fractured further as the two sides continue to isolate and ignore each other. The obvious answer comes down to power. In power, they are celebrated and admired; it only cultivates their thirst for more. Gbagbo is known as ‘la boulanger’ (the baker) because of his capability to knead opponents and dust them with favours, it may sound favourable but it highlights the long term trouble of autocrats. Africa’s endemic problem is down to corruption; leaders continually bribe fellow members of their tribe for their vote and give favours to political rivals. By all means, it is not isolated to Africa, but much of the trouble stems not from colonial mismanagement but from the ill-judged and short term policies of its leaders. The cost of civil wars is obvious at a human level, but the destruction of economic stability, infrastructure and confidence is ultimately undermined for decades. The slow cycle induces sides to continue their greed, and civil wars/coup d’états are more likely.

This does have a bearing on us all and the world we want to live in. Yet, we cannot continue to meddle in African politics. The role France played in both Ivory Coast and Tunisia recently shows that its interference only helps the tyrants.The continent needs a strategy to deal with tensions militarily and economically. The Africa Union’s presence in Libya is welcome, yet the unhealthy cult of personality and power in heads of government may render its long term wider plans to be futile. Short term stability breeds long term instability.

Sudan: Snow or blood in Africa?

Time is a healer, but in history and diplomacy it is more subjective. In 2011 it is likely that Africa will have another country: South Sudan. Up until 2005, the country had suffered almost six continuous decades of civil war and now with the prospect of secession in the South, the future is blurred. Could it lead to more bloodshed within Africa’s biggest country.

Historically, the conflict existed between the mainly black African Christians in the south, who felt subjugated by the Arab Muslim in the north. Since the beginning of the civil wars, over two million people have died and over four million people have become displaced.

The peace process began in 1993, culminating in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in 2005. This officially ended the conflict and gave the South a future referendum on independence. In January 2011, the people of South Sudan will determine their future.

Over the past ten years, the west of the country has made all the international headlines. Violent ambushes in the Darfur region has created another humanitarian crisis, spilling across the region. The US has labelled these crimes as genocide .

Many of today’s problems could have been resolved by Britain in two earlier historical incidents. In 1898, the Fashoda incident nearly led to a war between Britain and France. It could have separated Muslim North from Christian African immediately, rather than retain the lines on the colonial map drawing.

When independence came in the early 1950s, the British who handed over the administration to the northerners in Khartoum. The British Empire favoured indirect rule from London and left power with local chiefs. The experience of British India saw power fall into the hands local Muslim Emirs.The self-interest of the northerners and neglect of the south became the tinder for war that destroyed the lives of millions for decades to come.

Hope is a wonderful thing, but it can also be short-sighted. When the Baltic and Balkan states broke up in the 1990s, there was a degree of stability and an infrastructure of support to ensure their institutions flourished.

Perhaps the problem for a newly formed South Sudan is that it creates more questions that are unanticipated. What about the oil wealth? What role will the diaspora play? Many countries including the US and Britain back statehood, but is this a ploy to punish the current Sudanese leader Omar al-Bashir. Al-Bashir is accused of arming the genocide in Darfur and wanted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court. He is also alleged to have supported the Lord’s Resistance Army, a mercenary organisation in Central Africa that has displaced and murdered thousands in the last twenty years.

South Sudan’s economy relies heavily on agriculture and the land. Yet oil could be the biggest problem if independence goes ahead. The oil fields are in the south, but the pipelines run through the north. As one of the Chinese biggest clients, how is this to be resolved.

Questions must also be asked of the leadership. It seems certain that the whole administration will be full of former rebels from the Sudanese Peoples’ Liberation Army (SPLA). Sudan has an Arab majority in the north and black Christians in the south, but it also has the hundreds of tribes embroiled in the fighting. Many questions are being asked of what will happen to those on the border and the migrant population in the north. After so many years of hardship, it is not a question of whether they are ready to govern – because clearly they are – it is more whether they have the experience to do so. For so long these people have been fighting, but are there plans to ensure everything is taken into perspective.

The countries surrounding Sudan endured their own struggles: Eritrea’s independence, Ethiopia and Uganda’s bloody dictatorships and the Rwandan genocide. These states are not flagships of good governance, but perhaps the lessons of Africa’s recent past has shown that to develop the economies and increase trade, then it is essential to have stability. Maybe Africa is waking up to the fact that continuous war doesn’t gain anything. 

AK47 is the tool.

No doubt the instability in our world breeds an air of fear and combativeness. Africa’s stagnation can be put down to the continuous volatility of regimes and the uncertainty it brings to neighbouring countries. In the past few days there was another coup in Madagascar, electoral violence in Guinea and the release of a British couple from Somalia. Perhaps the most unfortunate aspect of Africa’s liberation legacy was the fact that many of these young emerging countries first gained independence during the Cold War. The ebullient and determined leaders that hoped to define a continent were mostly purged or assassinated and replaced with military ‘yes’ men. History depicts them as charismatic, yet on the verge of lunacy; destroying the economies and importing arms by the shipload. Africa is still left awash with guns; most notably the AK47: the Kalashnikov.

Invented just after the Second World War, it was a cheap, effective, standardised weapon. Its global ubiquity stems from the planned Soviet economy, not capital markets of supply and demand; it was manufactured and stockpiled into the tens of millions, perhaps more. Cold War politics saw it sent to the Eastern Bloc, China, Korea and Egypt.

Most importantly, it was effective. It did not require much maintenance; it was long lasting and could pretty much be put into the hands of anyone. There are stories of American soldiers during the Vietnam and Iraqi wars dumping their own weapons for the more effective weapon of choice.

The AK47 is now the standard issue for the world’s terrorists and its iconography places its legacy in the hands of freedom fighters and revolutionaries. The armed struggle of Mozambique from its colonial overlord, Portugal, saw the AK47 have pride of place on the nation’s flag. Haille Mengistu Mariam of Ethiopia’s Derg reportedly took one to a cabinet meeting before opening fire on some of his minister’s. These all seem quite anecdotal, but the price for Africa with its porous borders and terrible post-colonial record has blotted the world’s image of war. The Kalashnikov’s lightness and ease of use has driven it into the hands of children; a legacy that caused devastation in Sierra Leone, Liberia and DR Congo. The unfortunate thing is that as long as there are poorly-paid soldiers and instability across the continent, then the AK will pen another chapter in its worldwide autobiography.