War and peace exist in Africa for reasons that are not always internal to Africa. Conflicts in other parts of the world often have huge repercussions across Africa. Four times as many Kenyans as Israelis died in November last year in the terrorist attack on the Paradise, an Israeli hotel in my hometown of Mombasa. Was this but another moment of blood-stained convergence between the politics of the Middle East and the politics of Islam in Africa?
Here we must distinguish between national and international terrorism. Much of the terrorism in Africa in the second half of the 20th century targeted the colonial powers and the European minority regimes that were their legacy. Kenya, for example, won its independence partly in an anti-colonial war of liberation in which both the British colonial forces and the Mau Mau movement resorted to terrorism.
In retrospect, "national" terrorism in Africa was a form of warfare that must be judged within its political and moral context, and by its ultimate results. Kenya's Mau Mau war delivered independence in 1963; the Algerian revolution liberated that country in 1962; anti-colonial wars in Angola, Mozambique and Guinea-Bissau destroyed the Portuguese empire in 1974; the anti-UDI struggle in Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) ended white rule; and the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa finally triumphed against the apartheid racial order.
ILLUSTRATION: MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
Unlike anti-European guerilla war and anti-colonial terrorism in Africa, anti-American and anti-Zionist terrorism in the Middle East has led nowhere. Yet its brutality has often caught Africa in the crossfire.
In order to kill 12 Americans in an attack on the US Embassy in August 1998, Middle Eastern terrorists killed some two hundred Kenyans in Nairobi. Far more Tanzanians than Americans were killed and wounded when the US Embassy in Dar es Salaam was targeted at the same time. Sudan bore the brunt of US retaliation, when president Bill Clinton ordered the bombing of an apparently harmless pharmaceutical factory near Khartoum as retaliation for an Osama bin Laden sponsored terrorist attack.
Indeed, violence between Americans and Middle Easterners has been spilling over into Africa for decades. Before Clinton, president Ronald Reagan ordered the bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi in Libya in 1986 in retaliation for the bombing of a German disco in which several Americans were killed. Similarly, many Africans were killed at the World Trade Center on Sept. 11 -- Senegalese hawkers, Nigerian investors, Ethiopian or Eritrean drivers, Ghanaian students, Egyptian and South African tourists, and others.
Security forces throughout the continent subsequently opened their doors to the US FBI and CIA. At that moment, Pax Americana entered Africa, forging an alliance with the governments and people long struggling to establish a Pax Africana. The FBI reportedly arrived in Tanzania with the names of 60 Muslims selected for interrogation. The Kenyan authorities, eager to please the US, were tempted to hand over Kenyan citizens on the slightest encouragement.
The terrorist attacks on New York and Washington of September 2001 and their aftermath may exacerbate tensions not only between pro-Western and anti-Western schools of thought in Africa, but also between Christians and Muslims. A demonstration by Nigerian Muslims in Kano against the US war in Afghanistan provoked stone throwing by Nigerian Christians. Churches and mosques were soon being burned in communal riots.
Moreover, efforts by the US to unite African governments against terrorism may merely bolster authoritarianism. The pressure on African governments to enact legislation against terrorism may pose new threats to civil liberties at the very moment when democratization is gathering momentum. In the war on terror, it seems, Africa's dictators may find it easier to justify continuing tyranny.
Because the thousand-year-old city of Mombasa historically had a superb natural harbor, it was fought over many times -- by Arabs, the Portuguese, Zanzibaris, the Mazrui, the British and others. There was a time when it was called "Mvita," the Isle of War. Even now, the Swahili dialect of Mombasa is called Ki-mvita, and its people coined the proverb "Ndovu wawili wakipigana, ziumiazo na nyasi" [When two elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers].
Since the attack on the Paradise hotel, Mombasa has not reverted to its ancient identity of Mvita, the Isle of War, because only a single elephant, the US, with its protege, Israel, exists. But when even a lone elephant does a war dance, the grass still feels the pain. Mombasa's anguish, economic as well as in terms of security, may have only just begun.
Speedy action is needed to restore the sense of dignity of Coastal and Muslim Kenyans before Kenyan Islam is radicalized into a "Black Intifada." Even speedier action is needed to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, both for its own sake, and because its repercussions destabilize other parts of the world.
But will American resources help to strengthen Pax Africana, or will American power simply turn it into a handmaiden of Pax Americana? How can we avoid the Americanization of Pax Africana?
One solution is for the African states to evolve a common position and shared rules of engagement in the war on terrorism. Ideally, the US should deal with a South Atlantic Treaty Organization, consisting of African states that are allied against terrorism, rather than cutting bilateral deals with individual African countries. Above all, if Africa is to escape the crossfire of international terrorism, the trend towards establishing US military bases on the continent must be stopped.
Ali Mazrui is director of the Institute of Global Cultural Studies at State University of New York.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with