For political analysis to be thoughtful, it is imperative for one to closely observe the evolution of news and commentary on a given topic and be able to conclude with sensible remarks. The need to allow ‘the dust to settle’ prior to pursuing a geopolitical analysis often affirms the dynamism of an ideological landscape that is dominant in the 21st century world.
The standard, conventional discourse on the Westgate attack is the superficial narrative that we are all too familiar with. The siege is portrayed as yet another senseless terrorist attack by cold blooded, religious fanatics. Kenyan and European politicians, as well as editorials across the Western media, are using the attacks as a pretext to add another ‘radical hot-spot’ of Somalia onto the radar dictated by the war on terror. Furthermore, such emotional, sensational tirades continue to fuel anti – Muslim sentiment across the profoundly ignorant readers across the Western lands. A telling op-ed in USA Today titled, “Nairobi mall attack strikes against all of us: Column” states in its subtitle that:
‘As on 9/11, terrorists are waging a war on our modern, democratic way of life. Today, we are all Kenyans.’
The British press, especially the tabloids, took sensationalism to another level by producing front cover stories on the notorious, Samantha Lewthwaite or the ‘White widow’, stating that she was the strategic tactician of the attack due to her connections to Al – Shabaab and the wider Al- Qaeda network. Her supposed involvement has reached fever pitch as the enduring fascination of a ‘good girl turned bad’ tickles the curiosity of many. Now she is the world’s most wanted woman but continues to evade the intelligences of the U.S, U.K and Kenyan authorities. It appears that we are witnessing an imitator of Jason Bourne! In unison, we are also witnessing the creation of a modern myth because the whole idea of a female terrorist not only makes headlines but intensifies the already existing assertions regarding the ‘radicalisation of British Muslims’. In essence, the net effect of such poor journalism alludes to the notion that all Muslims continue to pose a risk to security. Even though her story will soon fade, the pervasive nature of her ‘activities’ would have left a permanent mark on the psyche of the British public and so further hardens the public opinion against Islam and Muslims.
Therefore, the most useful mode of analysis on the incident has to shy away from the conventional reports, instead concentrate on the geopolitical regional factors and how that is underpinned by the international system which is governed, largely by ideological imperatives.
The need for contextuality
Without a doubt, the attack was a shocking and heinous crime and completely violates the high ethics of Jihad that is required of a Muslim. However, simply passing a hukm is insufficient as consideration needs to be given to the wider activities in the region, which have resulted in the existence of Al Shabaab. Hence, contextual appreciation of the region needs to be sought.
A convenient starting point to the tensions within Africa can be traced back to 1884 when the Berlin Conference was held as a means to allow the European powers to come to some sort of formal agreements amongst themselves as to how they would invade, occupy, colonise and annex African territory.
Within a short period, by 1914 and the end of the scramble for Africa, Great Britain dominated the breadth of the African continent from Egypt to South Africa, as well as Nigeria and the Gold Coast; the French occupied vast expanses of west Africa; the Germans boasted control over modern-day Tanzania and Namibia; the Portuguese exerted full control over Angola and Mozambique.
The question that is naturally asked is, ‘What were the motives for empire in general and Africa specifically?’ Four strands of inquiry can be traversed: –
1. Economics: The economic prosperity of an empire, as Britain, for example had been proving for centuries, was unquestionable. Empire could insulate the mother country from dangerous booms and busts in the economic cycle by keeping markets open and exclusive. Mercantile capitalist policies could increase revenues and natural resources could bolster the treasury.
2. Geopolitics: The strategic importance of maintaining trade routes to Asia as well as having well established refueling stations for a world- wide navy satisfies trade and military necessities. The Horn of Africa, the southern tip of the continent, and the west- African coast were all strategic locations for world control. Inside the continent, territory was important for its location. Great Britain, hoping to link Cairo in the north with Cape Town in the south, wanted north-south dominion; therefore, all the territory between those two points gained strategic value.
3. Nationalism: To report back home and throughout Europe that one nation acquired thousands of square miles of territory and millions of captive populations enhanced the prestige of that state throughout the world and for its own people. To be a victor in the imperial game meant great national pride and, thus, the improvement of the ruling party back at home.
4. Liberalism: Such an idea isn’t just confined to domestic issues or representing a reactionary intellectuality against the traditional Christian values, but holds a particular position within foreign policy theory, especially in the 19th Century. The liberal tradition of Europe emphasized not equality but self-improvement and the perfectibility of man, as is the ideal presented in Hegelian philosophy. This belief, combined with Charles Darwin’s New Science and the politicization of the statement “survival of the fittest” by social Darwinism, encouraged the view that Europe was going down into the so-called Dark Continent to raise up and civilise the savage natives. Nothing could be more racist in outlook; however, as odd as it may seem, imperialism is thus associated with such a view and reminiscent to ‘bringing freedom’ to the Middle East as was cried by many of the neo-cons in the U.S administration.
Following World War II, as the Western Europeans nations focused on desperately recovering from the after-shocks of the conflict, the United States assumed leadership of much of the globe. In terms of America’s relationship with Africa, historically, the United States considered sub-Saharan Africa as being of limited significance to its national interests, and most US presidents had very little direct engagement on policy in Africa. Even during the Cold War, the proxy conflicts that played out with Soviet- and Chinese-backed enemies across the continent from Angola to Ethiopia were generally never more than sideshows to the larger Capitalist Vs Communist Cold War stand-off. Sub-Saharan African countries were seen as uniformly poor and of limited commercial interest, had little impact, positive or negative, on the world stage, and did not offer any significant threats.
However, the onset of the 1990s saw fundamental changes in the global world order. Communism, with its epicentre in the Soviet Union had collapsed. International relations had changed and the traditional power struggles began afresh. Very quickly, the dissolution of the red menace was replaced by the green menace, so concerns regarding ‘radicalisation of young Muslims’ and terrorism became an important feature in discussions pertaining to East Africa, in particular. One of the earliest, most serious attacks by Al Qaeda on US interests was against the US embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and
Dar as Salaam, Tanzania, in 1998. So, the fear that some African states were at risk of falling into the hands of anti-American ‘fundamentalists’, has driven US interest in that region for some years and this observation forms the back-bone to our analysis. Furthermore, the establishment of an Africa Command (AFRICOM) in 2008 for the US military is partly tied to this interest.
The need to secure energy outputs has been a high priority for the U.S administrations. Currently, she imports 22% of its oil from Africa, more than it does from the Middle East, which is currently at 17%. However, the amount of attention Africa receives compared to the Gulf region in terms of political and physical is very small and this is likely to change. Quoting Walter Kansteiner, U.S. Under Secretary of State for African Affairs, ‘African oil is of national strategic interest to us, and it will increase and become more important as we go forward.’
A third driver of increased awareness of strategic interest has been the need to win the votes of African countries at the United Nations and to counter attempts by others to do so. Africa has more countries, and therefore UN General Assembly votes, than any other continent. In key decisions, such as over sanctions on Iran, or on climate change, winning the votes of African countries is crucial. In the past, either General Assembly votes were peripheral to US interests or it was considered pragmatic to secure the necessary African votes. In recent years, however, UN votes have become more important just as African states have become more effective at caucusing, both among themselves and within the broader G77 bloc of developing countries. Moreover, other countries such as Iran and China have increased their own coalition building efforts, forcing the United States to do likewise. This driver for US interest in Africa is still less developed than the others mentioned above, and until recently both the United Kingdom and France had been more proactive in working to gain support for their positions in the General Assembly than has the United States.
The economic and diplomatic rise of China in Africa means that she is exploiting markets that can be very lucrative. This is obviously becoming a cause for concern for the Americans and Europeans and therefore, the Western powers recognize the strategic value of having a firm foothold in the African continent as a way of preventing Chinese influence from becoming too solidified.
Current policies in the region
Two broad categories can be identified: –
1. To develop economic capacities of African States. This is also tied in with AIDS programmes, education initiatives and the promotion of better bureaucratic procedures through democracy advancement.
2. To improve the security situation. This is mainly two pronged. First, the energy flow as has been mentioned and secondly, the aspiration of implementing Shariah Law by various groups. The fear that Al-Qaeda type organisations could establish themselves politically or worse still, to affirm presence in a ‘failed state’ such as Somalia would have severe ramifications for Western interests. It was this fear that lead to the most disastrous blunder by the U.S by encouraging Ethiopian forces to overthrow and quell a popular Islamic revolutionary movement, the Union of Islamic Courts that brought stability to Somalia for the first time in over a decade. This invasion took place in 2006 and the Ethiopian occupation withdrew in 2009. Then 2011 saw another invasion by Kenya in order to dismantle the Al Shabaab network. This was backed by the U.S and France.
Therefore, such a political grievance has served as the alleged motivation for the Al Shabaab attack on the Westgate mall, as was predicted a couple of years ago by many analysts. So, in the midst of all complex political intricacies, it becomes all too apparent that the overly simplistic narrative of ‘Fundamentalist Al Qaeda operatives’ creating bloodshed does not take into consideration many factors that has resulted in such chaos in the region. The historical exploitation of Sub-Saharan Africa is well documented and although the imperialistic ambitions did indeed dip for a while following the Sykes-Picot agreement but due to ruptures in the global scenery, Africa is, once again, back on the agenda and will be for some time to come.