International
Adopt Kagame’s new thinking on combatting terrorism
Jihadists
kill 40 civilians in northern Mali. At least 13 people killed by suicide blast
in central Somalia. Suspected jihadists kill 10 in Burkina Faso. Headlines like
these, of acts of terrorism or extremism across Africa, have become all too
frequent in the last decade or so.
Different
forms of armed conflict have been around for a while. But as President Paul
Kagame told the EU-AU Summit in Brussels on February 17, in Brussels, they are
a growing security threat and have to be tackled in a different way.
Perpetrators
of such acts are a diverse lot with different reasons. There are some that are
made up of local groups with specific local grievances, usually of a
socio-economic nature. These are probably easier to deal with. But that does
not always happen. Sometimes it is ignored by the authorities, its root causes
not properly addressed, or is hijacked by some political group that uses it for
its own ends. And so a limited, local issue is allowed to grow into a serious
problem,
There
are others that take up grievances, membership and organisation that go beyond
national boundaries. They have an ideology they want to impose or reject
existing ways of doing things without necessarily offering a credible or
acceptable alternative. Often, they take advantage of existing local complaints
to gain a following. These are more difficult, but not impossible, to tackle.
The
question then has been how to combat and defeat such non-state or cross-state
armed groups.
Until
recently, the response has been mixed. The state has usually treated them as a
domestic matter with varying seriousness, and handled them as such, also with
varying success. Some tend to regard them as a mere nuisance and do little to
contain or eliminate them, or look into their concerns. As a result, they grow
and become a bigger problem.
But
sometimes, the state lacks the capacity, or for some reason is reluctant to
effectively fight them and so they get entrenched and grow and become a real
menace.
When
the state fails to deal with the problem, which unfortunately is the case most
times, the usual recourse has been to call for outside intervention, usually
the United States, Europe or the United Nations.
But
even this traditional approach to security issues of this nature has not always
worked as desired. For several reasons.
First,
the mission of external intervention, for example by the French who are the
quickest to get involved because they have military bases in many of their
former colonies, has been: regime prop when that serves their interests or
regime change when they can best be served that way regardless of what citizens
think about it. It was never designed or meant to defend them or the nation.
Which is perhaps why they have not been very successful in the fight against
insurgents in Mali and Burkina Faso.
Second,
these interventions sometimes tend to treat the matter as purely a military
problem. They will fight the groups, maybe defeat them and then leave. But as
experience has shown in Africa and elsewhere, force alone is not enough to
defeat armed groups and end the threat they pose.
Third,
at some stage in some of these conflicts, the United Nations gets involved in a
peacekeeping role. Which means to stand between belligerents and hope they
behave themselves and not attack each other.
Now,
the UN is frustratingly slow in getting off the ground, and when it finally
does, woefully ineffective. It takes long to agree on the need for intervention
and even longer to assemble and deploy forces. There will be debates on who
will provide troops, equipment and funding, and then the nature of the mandate.
As
all this talking is going on, hundreds of thousands of people are being killed
and property destroyed.
The
presence of UN peacekeepers does not even solve the problem. It merely
postpones it, allows it to grow or polices an uneasy stalemate. Rwandans have
painful experiences of this snail-slow process of the UN.
Departure
from this sort of intervention is clearly needed. Which is exactly what
President Kagame did when he proposed “new thinking and new template on
counter-terrorism and peace support operations” at the EU-AU Summit in Brussels
last week. In his words, “a blended bilateral and multilateral” approach is
what is required.
How
does this new thinking depart from what has been going on? In several ways.
One,
it proposes a quick response, usually obtained through a bilateral arrangement.
Once the ground has been prepared a ‘credible multilateral force” can then take
over.
Two,
alongside military operations and even when they have ended, issues of
governance must be addressed.
Three,
gains made have to be consolidated. The forces must stay longer to ensure
stability, help build capacity to prevent return of armed groups. Immediate
departure after so-called pacification or prolonged stay without achieving it
have been a major weakness in the past.
Four,
funding for these operations.
This
new approach has already been tried, with success, in the Central African
Republic where Rwandan forces are involved in a bilateral arrangement and as
part of a UN peacekeeping mission and in Mozambique under a bilateral agreement
and in collaboration with a multilateral force from SADC.
In
Mozambique, for instance, Rwandan troops had a specific mission: fight and
defeat IS-affiliated terrorists who had taken over the province of Cabo
Delgado, stabilise the area, restore the authority of the state and reinforce
its capacity.
There
is therefore evidence that this sort of new intervention model provides a
faster response. It is also clear that stability is returning to the region and
rebuilding is ongoing.
The
world had better listen to and act on President Kagame’s proposal. He is
speaking from knowledge and experience.
Source:
www.newtimes.co.rw