Specialists define ‘national security’ is many different ways. There are many overlapping issues including arms availability and proliferation, nature of governance, contested control of economic and natural resources, conflicting ideologies, ethnic divisions, etc. Most African governments have narrow definitions of security, based on considerations of military defence and regime stability.
Security threats are both internal and external. It no longer makes sense to make a clear-cut distinction between ‘internal’ and ‘international’ wars: virtually all conflicts in Africa contain elements of both. Threats are both immediate and long term. Unfortunately, responding to short-term threats in ad hoc military ways can exacerbate long-term threats such as poverty, weak governance structures and the grievances of victims of abuses
One of the contributory causes of insecurity is the fact that governments in Africa are unpredictable. A destabilising action can come about through calculable ‘raison d’etat’ such as the presence of an insurgent force on a country’s border. Or the spark for an outbreak of war can be something wholly unexpected, such as the personal whim of a leader. Many African governments are dominated by small elite groups that run their countries in a secretive and authoritarian manner. For these ruling groups, national security is not something to be discussed in the public arena. This secrecy contributes to insecurity in the long term, by making governments less predictable and making decision-making more centralised and militarised.
Underlying reasons for insecurity include poverty and thus conflict over scarce resources, vulnerability to external economic shocks, weak institutions (further weakened by HIV/AIDS), and poor governance. However, under militarised governance and with mostly short-term thinking, these are not seen as ‘national security’ issues and are considered a lower priority than military and security affairs.
Underpinning these weaknesses is the absence of a clear strategy for promoting national security in most countries. Countries that have identified their national security threats, and developed clear and transparent mechanisms for responding to them, are more stable and predictable. In addition, as countries move towards a correct identification of their national security challenges, they identify a wider range of threats, many of them longer-term ones that need to be dealt with by non-military means. Threats to national security, real and potential, include, among others:
- Actual and potential external threats of force projection (invasion);
- External threats of destabilisation and terrorism;
- Potential sources of conflict with neighbours such as undemarcated borders, contested natural resource control;
- Violent crime and banditry associated with proliferation of light weapons;
- Potential social unrest associated with economic recession;
- Ethnic, religious and regional cleavages and the incapacity of governance structures to manage disputes peacefully;
- Insufficiently institutionalised constitutional order;
- Weak governance institutions and corruption;
- Mass distress migration due to natural and man-made calamities;
- HIV/AIDS and its impact on institutions and capacities including security services.
There are sceptics who argue that African governments are incapable of defining their national security interests. Their arguments are that the militarised mentality and selfish behaviour characteristic of some governments, will lead to leaders invariably resorting to force to try to resolve issues that are better addressed through longer-term diplomatic processes. Such approaches need to be supplanted by strategic enlightened self-interest, based on the assumption that national security is best pursued by common security. Sceptics contend that African states have yet to prove themselves capable of pursuing their interests in this way. It is for African leaders to prove them wrong.
|
