The World Cup is supposed to be a fun and exciting event; an event where thousands of people from hundreds of nations can sit together in the same place and enjoy a competitive game full of drama, heartbreak, victory, and defeat. So when 74 people were killed in Uganda at a restaurant and a sports club by a suicide-bomber, it was understandable that the game so many people love quickly turned into a distant afterthought.
You may not have heard, but two large bombs exploded within an hour’s time in Kampala- the capital of Uganda- killing dozens of spectators who gathered to watch the final World Cup match between Spain and the Netherlands. Needless to say, most of those spectators were unable to finish watching the game that day, instead preoccupied with escaping death- or in the case of some, stepping over dead bodies and loose limbs in order to escape death.
Violence in Africa is anything but surprising. Half of the world’s failed or failing states are located within the confines of Africa, and most of the world’s most disturbing conflicts- hunger, genocide, ethnic conflict, and drought- are located right in the heart of the continent. But suicide terrorism is a particularly rare tactic used by African militant groups, and from the evidence that is being gathered at the scene, suicide bombers were in fact responsible for the incident.
But there’s more to this investigation than meets the eye. In fact, not only have investigators discovered the cause of death in yesterday’s strike, but police are also quite confidant as to who the perpetrators are. And Al’Shabab, the Islamic militant insurgency based in Somalia (who has ties to Al’Qaeda), are deemed the prime suspects.
You don’t have to look too far to find a direct connection between the Uganda attack and Al’Shabab’s organization. The group has made it clear that it despises international troops on Somali soil, partly because those troops are used to build up its main adversary (the Somali Transitional Government) and partly because Al’Shabab views any foreign presence as an interference in Somali affairs. The groups’ spokesman, Sheik Ali Mohamud Rage, made this abundantly clear through a statement he issued yesterday, which claimed credit for the operation and promised more if countries like Uganda, Burundi, and Ethiopia don’t withdraw from Somali territory.
Yet perhaps what’s more frightening than the attack itself is Al’Shabab’s willingness to export violence to other African nations. This was the first time the radical Islamist organization executed a terrorist attack outside of Somalia’s borders, demonstrating both its strength and its intent. More importantly, the massacre in Uganda may elevate the Somalia file in the U.S. Government, which hasn’t been much of a priority in the past.
How Washington will respond is anyone’s guess. The CIA may be authorized to increase its drone program over Somalia in the hopes of destroying Al’Shabab infrastructure and killing top terrorist leaders, similar to what the agency is doing in Pakistan’s tribal areas. Or, the White House could funnel more money into the Somali Transitional Authority and reiterate its strong support for the U.N. peacekeeping mission in Somalia. And of course, covert operations with regional allies- like Ethiopia and Kenya- are always a possibility.
But whatever option or combination of options the U.S. chooses, Al’Shabab has shown the world that it’s only getting stronger. With a less than weak Somali Government in place, and with the humanitarian situation inside Somalia getting worse by the day, more and more residents may be forced to join the insurgency out of fear and desperation. The U.S. and its African allies should take warning.
-Daniel R. DePetris
**Comments courtesy of Michael Wilkerson and Elizabeth Dickinson at FP.com**
If you are familiar with the work of Stephen M. Walt (as I am sure you are), you may want to take a look at his most recent post regarding the ongoing violence plaguing the nations of Central Africa. While his post is relatively short for such an acclaimed scholar of international relations, it accurately demonstrates America’s ignorance towards some of the worst sadism that the world has experienced since World War II.
No, this conflict is not in Iraq or Afghanistan…in fact, it does not involve the Middle East is any way, shape, or form. Rather, the 5.4 million deaths that Mr. Walt is talking about is located right in the heart of the African continent; that improvised swath of land that American policymakers have neglected for far too long.
For the ordinary American, discussing violence in a place as foreign and distinct as the Congo is relatively low on the agenda. Most people nowadays are concerned with finding the next job and putting food on their family’s table. And of course, I do not blame them. However, while this casual sentiment represents the mainstream opinions of the American electorate, this is not an excuse for the United States Government- the most powerful and most influential authority in the world- to blindly ignore the atrocities that have been occurring in the Congo for the past decade. Just because Washington has over 200,000 troops in two theatres does not mean the United States should caste this extensive conflict aside and pretend that genocidal activity is not going on.
Not once have I seen the western media discuss or even mention the violence in the Congo. Certainly, they have other priorities at this time. Major media conglomerates would get heavily criticized if reporters failed to cover America’s offensive against the Taliban in Afghanistan or America’s reconstruction efforts in a post-Saddam Iraq. When American boots are on the ground, CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC have an obligation to cover the story. But, once again, why does this enable networks to pass over the ethnic wars that have come to dominate African politics?
The only possible explanation I can muster is what Steve Walt coins as “strategic ethnocentrism,” a term that describes western passivity on issues outside the Anglo-American sphere of influence. As Walt states, “Western elites pay a lot more attention when people like them are killed in large numbers, and look the other way when the victims are improvished Africans.” If this is the case, I am ashamed of the current administration…not to mention the CEO’s and executives of our country’s news corporations.
Now on to the argument that Africa is not a part of the American national interest, and thus should not warrant resources from the U.S. Government. As disturbing and flawed this view has become, this “do-nothing” mindset has unfortunately come to dominate African policy for nearly two decades. Ever since the 1993 Somalia fiasco, both Republicans and Democrats have been more than reluctant to push through much-needed reforms on the continent.
Democracy promotion and international humanitarian missions are seldom to none, with the exception of some U.N. peacekeepers on the ground in places considered vital to western interests. Politicians routinely view Africa as an aimless cause, a messy-area where intra-state warfare will always occur regardless of western commitments and devotion (just take President Clinton’s failure to act during the Rwandan genocide as an example). Americans simply have no incentive to help out, thus the conflict is an internal affair that needs to be solved by a combination of the United Nations and the World Bank. Such is our nation’s great African policy.
However common, this traditional outlook is riddled with falsities. Africa, despite the stigma attached to the continent, is in the U.S. national interest, just as the pool of oil called the Middle East is in the U.S. national interest. As the world’s remaining superpower, and as the country with the most diplomatic leverage, it would seem that our government has an obligation to work with those in the Congo; using every tool within the State Department at our disposal to negotiate a ceasefire. Such an action would only bolster President Obama’s “open hand” strategy: reaching out to others in a tolerant fashion in order to boost international peace and mitigate the dangers associated with terrorism and political extremism.
Ironically, we can learn from one of our most trusted allies in the Middle East. Egypt, despite its authoritarian tendencies and its frequent abuses of human-rights, has been known to accept the role as the Middle East’s most dedicated power-broker…mediating issues as diverse as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the Arab-Israeli land dispute. If a quasi-dictatorship can perform functions associated with dialogue and negotiation, why not the world’s greatest democracy?
When millions of innocent people are continuously slain by semi-automatic weapons and machetes, it becomes part of the U.S. national interest to intervene and assert ourselves in the situation…regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, or tribal affiliation. It is time for us to start acting as the peaceful humanitarian that we have all-too-often come to define ourselves. It is time to back our rhetoric with concrete action.
Note to the White House: mobilize a coalition of the willing to deal with the worsening situation in Central Africa. If you continue on your present course, expect a rising amount of anti-Americanism among the Sub-Saharan African population; a situation that our country cannot afford. Surely, limiting hatred towards the United States is in our best interest.
-Daniel R. DePetris
-This post was based on Stephen M. Walt’s “Strategic Ethnocentrism.” His full article can be accessed at: http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/09/14/strategic_ethnocentrism