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.