We are often reminded by politicians that the first duty of a government is to safeguard the country and ensure the safety of its citizens. This is the first, and thus most important responsibility a government must bear. If a government cannot fulfil its first duty, logically it must fall and be replaced by one which can. It is not enough to say the threat faced is too great and call for external aid to buttress an elected government. Particularly when the threat amounts to a few hundred armed zealots and the aid consists of soldiers from the armies of your former imperial overlords.
In 2013 Ibrahim Boubacar Keita stood before the members of the United Nations having ‘chased out’ terrorists and rebel groups. Almost five years later the situation has worsened to such an extent that American troops are casually engaging in reconnaissance missions in the country. Mali’s terrorists have become so emboldened that the sight of American troops, far from discouraging conflict, is a call to arms in a shadow war which is just beginning to emerge into the light. Four American special force soldiers died recently in an ambush which alerted the world to the fact that there were active US troops in Mali; a fact both governments had until then had expertly veiled.
Back in 2013, Keita urged the ‘international community’ to face what is undoubtedly a frightening threat of terrorism together. ‘No country’, the president opined, ‘is protected from violent and barbarous acts’. He was correct. In the ensuing years, it has become clear that contemporary terrorists will find a way to strike even the most highly policed and wealthiest nations. Yet, what is also clear is that although all countries are vulnerable, few invite foreign soldiers to assuage their fears.
France, England, Germany, Spain, America, and Canada, to name but a few, have all suffered terrorist atrocities. None have African, nor UN troops, patrolling the towns and cities of their countries.
So why do foreign troops fight in Africa and not Europe?
Mali is not alone in inviting European/American troops into Africa. The United Nations have fifteen ‘peacekeeping missions’ in operation; eight take place in Africa. The Democratic Republic of the Congo, Central African Republic, South Sudan, Darfur, Abeyi, Liberia, and Western Sahara all host UN troops. It is not Keita alone who has damning questions to answer. When foreign troops enter, seldom do they leave until their political superiors are content they have restored order. If the laws of history continue, expect to see UN and American troops in Africa for many years to come.
In 2015 The Democratic Republic of the Congo voiced its ‘legitimate aspiration’ that UN troops vacate the country immediately, following the Congo’s political and economic progress. Almost three years later, there is still no sign of the ‘political and economic progress’ that would appease UN members, nor of their troops leaving the Congo. When a government has to plead with an organisation to remove its troops, that nation has ceded parts of its independence to the organisation.
The message is as clear as when it was first delivered, in an age long forgotten, if you cannot govern your own country another with willingly govern it in your stead. It would be misguided to look upon the UN, or America and their European forebears, with revulsion at their intervening inclinations. For, history shows that they are willing to venture to the farthest reaches of the world to disrupt tranquillity with bloodlust; any ignorant of such a fact in the twenty-first century has no business in political office.
Beneath Barak Obama Africom, America’s African command, spread its influence throughout Africa. As the incident in Mali shows, in the shady world of the US military, their true role is often obscured. We may not discover the extent of their activities until more death alerts the world to the secret nature of American militarism and African ineptitude.
As well as having a detrimental impact upon the sovereignty of independent nations, who quickly find themselves beholden to their saviours, the welfare of Africans is also impacted. ‘UN Peacekeepers and staff raping children is not a right-wing conspiracy or fake news, it is admitted by the UN itself’. This statement is from an article in The Independent which likens the UN to the Catholic Church, in their ill-usage of children, analysing the 145 cases of sexual exploitation admitted by the overbearing organisation. None is in any doubt the true figure is inexplicably higher. A continent once described as the white man’s grave, can now be suitably dubbed the white man’s harem.
In essence, the responsibility for the raping of African women, men, and children lies with the ruling classes of the nations which host lecherous soldiers. For if a nation is strong enough to defend its own citizens the paedophilic UN soldiers never set foot upon their soil. Lest we forget, these soldiers have been invited, often begged, to come to Africa by politicians elected to govern their nations. None placed in their manifesto ‘UN peacekeepers and American troops on African soil! (rape may occur).’ With what mandate do they invite raping foreign soldiers into Africa? These men and women in office are charged with the protection of their citizens. Instead, they invite rapists into their homes, and perennial conquerors into their land; surely, they must fall and never rise again or it will be Africa which falls once more.
Africa’s great anti-colonial champion Marcus Garvey once likened men who attempted to solve Africa’s problems beneath the auspices of the nations of the UN, to optimistic mice presided over by bloodthirsty cats. A hundred years on the mice are still optimistic, the cats still bloodthirsty.
Leave a Reply