Recently, West Africa has seen violence flare again in Nigeria and less than credible elections as well as calls for drones in Ivory Coast. With continuing conflict and occupation in Mali, as well as the U.S. military’s growing presence on the African continent, conflict in these two countries opens the door not just to deeper conflict but to the further embedding of West African militaries with the imperialist “security” apparatus.
Understanding these conflicts and the broader context is crucial to understanding the strategies of imperialism on the African continent.
Serious clashes in northern Nigeria
In Nigeria, at least 187 people were killed over the weekend of April 20 in fighting between Boko Haram, a militant organization based in the northeast of the country, and Nigeria’s military. The fighting took place in the fishing village of Baga, in the northeastern state of Borno. This is part of an ongoing conflict between the Nigerian central government and Boko Haram since 2009.
The clashes began when Nigerian soldiers surrounded a mosque attempting to trap members of Boko Haram, who fought back with machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades. The Nigerian government claims that Boko Haram used civilians as human shields, while residents of the town accused army soldiers of setting fire to parts of the town with no regard for civilian life. This would not be unprecedented given that the Nigerian army has been frequently accused of abuses in its fight against Boko Haram, which has launched scores of deadly attacks in the North.
Boko Haram, which means “Western education is forbidden,” may in fact be several factions. Originally, the organization aimed at establishing an Islamic state in the North. However, questions have been raised as to the motives of all those committing attacks under the name. Elites in the North have often used religious and ethnic rhetoric to further their own interests, and some activity attributed to Boko Haram is rumored to be in line with this sort of political maneuvering.
The violent clashes are rooted in the deprivation that pervades Nigeria. As we wrote after Nigeria’s last election in 2011:
“On a national scale, poverty is extreme in Nigeria. According to the World Bank, 92 percent of the population lives on less than two dollars per day. Life expectancy stands at 48 years, and less than half of the population has access to clean water. It is estimated that 80 percent of the oil wealth flows into the hands of roughly 1 percent of the population.
“There is also a regional dimension to wealth disparities. In a relative sense, the South has seen far more benefits than the North. Negative social and economic indicators find their greatest concentration in the northern states.”
Whatever their exact “parentage,” Boko Haram groups find fertile ground for their ideas because of the failure of Nigerian elites to pursue even the most rudimentary of development or redistribution strategies. An Islamic state, for instance, is an unsurprising response for many northerners tired of lack of opportunity. Further, given the long shadow of colonialism, and the clear link between Nigeria’s current situation and the economic policies of imperialism, it is logical that groups that highlight their opposition to Western cultural hegemony would find popularity.
Sham elections in Ivory Coast
On April 22, voters in Ivory Coast cast ballots in the first polls since current President Alassane Ouattara rode to power on the back of the French military two years ago. The election was boycotted by the opposition party of deposed President Laurent Gbagbo, and turnout was reportedly low. On top of this, the United Nations reported “unacceptable” intimidation at some polling places.
The election came just a few days after Ivory Coast had requested that the U.N. make up for any loss of efficacy due to personnel cuts in its peacekeeping force by adding surveillance drones. Specifically, the government asked that the drones be used on the western border with Liberia.
This is a blatantly political maneuver, given that the border with Liberia is also where clashes have taken place between supporters of Gbagbo, currently in the International Criminal Court, and the Ivorian government. Clearly, the Ivorian government is attempting, in the name of protecting human rights, to use the U.N. to limit the ability of supporters of the former president to organize resistance to the Western-backed government. If Gbagbo is convicted by the ICC, it will be used as further ammunition to criminalize his followers. This is all despite the fact that the forces of Ouattara were widely and credibly accused of human rights violations of their own when overthrowing Gbagbo.
The ICC, the U.N. and the government of the Ivory Coast are trying to establish the legitimacy of a government that clearly could not win a national election and rode to power only with the help of French military forces.
What this all means
In the context of the growth of the U.S. military presence in Africa, these conflicts raise worrying possibilities. The primary selling point for the increasing U.S. presence in Africa is “counter-terrorism,” under the guise of which the Obama administration is sending military missions to a wide variety of African countries, arming them and providing other forms of military assistance.
In Nigeria, U.S. officials have been working with the government to counter Boko Haram since at least 2011, and there is currently a growing clamor among U.S. think tanks for the United States to officially put Boko Haram on its list of terrorist organizations. This will open the door for even more military support from the U.S.
As for Ivory Coast, already the victim of a neocolonial intervention by France, further clashes between supporters of Gbagbo and Ouattara will make it easier for the current government to seek “security assistance” from the West. The criminalization of Gbagbo in the ICC will make it much easier to define opposition as “terrorists” or “human rights violators” or some other language that will fit perfectly into the “war on terror” rhetoric the U.S. uses to militarize the world.
While France has taken the lead in direct military intervention, it is worth noting that the United States has established a 4,000-person rapid response team for its African Command—AFRICOM. The growth of these “security partnerships” between U.S. imperialism and the African continent portend a growing neocolonial trend of the Western nations using direct interventions and arms buildups to determine the outcome of African conflicts. This sort of paternalistic influence can only result in deeper subservience of recipient governments to U.S. economic and political dictates.
