AFTER the horrors of the Second World War, the international community said "never again." The Holocaust represented the epitome of human evil, and one of the primary tasks of the United Nations was to prevent similar occurrences. Genocide has continued, however, and has plagued the continent of Africa perhaps more strongly than any other. Proposals to stabilize Africa abound, but most are either too idealistic or misguided. One of the most effective solutions could be to strengthen a few elite African nations to a point where they can actually dictate the politics of the continent without outside interference. This plan carries both positive possibilities and several pitfalls, but its overall benefits should override negative effects.
The post-colonial era in Africa left a legacy of weak governments incapable of controlling intransigent groups and imposing national unity. The nations of Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have been some of the hardest hit by internal strife. According to Globalsecurity.org in a statement about the casualties of the Congolese civil war, "The International Rescue Committee says that between Aug. 1998 and April 2004.3.8 million people died in the [Congo]." With some 200 different ethnic groups, establishing security has been difficult for the Congolese government, and to this day, roving soldiers continue to terrorize local communities and villages. Sudan, beset by conflict for years prior to the atrocities in Darfur, has suffered in a similar manner. In an April 13, 2005 New York Times article, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan stated that "21 years of warfare" have caused "more than two million dead, four million uprooted" in southern Sudan. Although the scale of the tragedies may differ, gloomy details like these predominate in the modern histories of several other African countries.
This is a state of affairs that the world should and does find intolerable, but it persists nonetheless. Typical suggestions for curing Africa's woes revolve around aid: Who should get it, why, how and, just as importantly, when? In the same New York Times article, Annan advised potential donor countries to "keep our commitments, and not turn a blind eye to a whole generation of Sudanese." Bono concerts and other celebrity events seem to reinforce the myth that if we just pour more money into Africa, things will get better. Things have not gotten better, though; in some places, they are worse than they have ever been. What is required to solve Africa's problems is a completely new strategic vision for the continent.
The key to addressing these problems should be a few core nations strong enough to take on Africa's security responsibilities. The West should find and target these nations with heavy economic investments and military buildups before allowing them a relatively free hand in tackling potential hotspots. Obvious candidates for this role could be countries like South Africa and Egypt, among others. These states should work within the context of larger organizations like the African Union, but little would be lost if they were allowed to dominate those organizations and spur them onwards to future greatness. The European Union got where it is today largely through the stimulus provided by France and Germany. This model could very well work for Africa if encouraged and supported by the international community.
Potential problems with this model are further destabilization and inter-continental wars. This appears like a problem superficially, and in many ways it is, but it also carries some benefits. Wars in recent times can and often do breed national consciousness and a sense of community and belonging. The Prussian defeats during the early parts of the Napoleonic Wars inspired whole generations of German nationalists that succeeded in forming a united Germany by 1871. In a similar manner, competition between African states could incite economic, political and social growth while harvesting national unity.
Since Africa does not have the strongest concentration of nation-states in the world, we would not have to worry about a conflict that plunged everyone into chaos, like World War I or World War II. Africa could be regulated by outside powers if it became too explosive, exactly what happened to Europe during and after World War II, but in the meantime it should be allowed to gain enough power to stop the genocides happening right in its backyard. The solution lies within Africa, not outside.
Erald Kolasi is a Cavalier Daily Viewpoint writer.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 5 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
