Islamic State is also known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) or the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).21 In contrast to local Salafi jihadist groups that focus on establishing or purifying a Muslim state in a single country, the Islamic State aims to establish a caliphate that would unite Muslims worldwide in one political entity—a phenomenon last achieved in the eighth century. The origins of the modern Islamic State can be traced to the US-led military intervention in Iraq in 2003, which precipitated the Second Gulf War (2003–11). The invasion and occupation sparked a Sunni insurgency led by the Jordanian-Palestinian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who transformed his organization, Jama’at al-Tawhid wa’al-Jihad (Organization of Monotheism and Jihad), into al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), which targeted US military and international coalition forces as well as local collaborators. After Zarqawi was killed in a US airstrike in 2006, his successors began to refer to the al-Qaeda branch and associated organizations as the Islamic State in Iraq. When civil war broke out in Syria in 2011, the Islamic State expanded its reach into that country, and by 2013 it was calling itself the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Under the leadership of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who honed his ideas and mobilizing skills in an US internment camp, the Islamic State recruited followers from among the Sunni minority that had been favored under Saddam Hussein but was marginalized politically after his ouster by US and coalition forces. In February 2014, al-Qaeda severed its ties to the Islamic State, criticizing its persistent aggression against Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate, as well as its brutal treatment and indiscriminate killing of Muslim civilians, particularly Shi’as.22 Noted for its ruthless methods, the Islamic State attracted international jihadis who felt that al-Qaeda was too moderate. However, both Muslims and non-Muslims widely condemned the organization for its harsh practices and attacks on civilians.
A number of African entities have pledged allegiance to the Islamic State leader. Like those that developed links to al-Qaeda, these groups emerged from local conditions and only later established ties to the international jihadist organization.
AFRICAN ORGANIZATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ISLAMIC STATE
Algeria
Egypt
Libya
Mali
Nigeria
Somalia
Tunisia
Conclusion
Sustaining a pattern established during decolonization and the Cold War, foreign governments and other entities intervened in African affairs in the decades that followed. Although individual states continued to intercede unilaterally, multilateral intervention by organized groups of states and by nonstate actors became more frequent than previously. In some cases, the presence of nonstate actors associated with international terrorist networks provoked intervention by foreign states or institutions. In other cases, intrusion by foreign entities stimulated local insurgencies that in turn attracted international terrorist support. State-based actors justified their involvement as a response to instability, an effort to protect civilian lives, and a necessity for advancing the war on terror. However, they also promoted their own more parochial interests. Conflicting agendas often weakened multilateral efforts, and the priorities of the most powerful countries generally took precedence. While African political and military leaders participated in war-making and peace-building processes, African civil society representatives remained in the background. These deficiencies undermined the prospects for a lasting peace, as the following case studies demonstrate.
Chapter 4, which focuses on Somalia, is the first of two chapters that explore post–Cold War intervention in East Africa. When foreign powers withdrew their support for the Somali government after the Cold War, insurgent forces overthrew the authoritarian regime. Concerned about the humanitarian crisis inside the country as well as the potential for regional destabilization, multilateral organizations, extracontinental powers, and neighboring countries intervened. Their motivations were varied, often at odds, and subject to change over time. Although some of the initial outcomes were positive, the long-term effects were largely negative, contributing to increased human suffering and instability.
Suggested Reading
African international relations are explored in a number of recent works. Two recommended volumes investigate the role of extracontinental powers in Africa after the Cold War, including the major Western powers along with Russia, China, Japan, India, the UN, the EU, and international financial institutions. See Ian Taylor and Paul Williams, eds., Africa in International Politics: External Involvement on the Continent (New York: Routledge, 2004); and Ian Taylor, The International Relations of Sub-Saharan Africa (New York: Continuum, 2010). John W. Harbeson and Donald Rothchild, eds., Africa in World Politics: Engaging a Changing World Order, 5th ed. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2013), explores interstate conflict, the impact of outside investment and externally induced political reforms, and the role of international peacekeeping forces. Errol A. Henderson, African Realism? International Relations Theory and Africa’s Wars in the Postcolonial Era (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Little-field, 2015), challenges the applicability of Eurocentric international relations theories to African cases and explores the relationship between Africa’s domestic and international conflicts.
Several books examine the role of the UN in the post–World War II international order. Mark Mazower, No Enchanted Palace: The End of Empire and the Ideological Origins of the United Nations (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2013), argues that the UN was created to protect the interests of empire but was reshaped by formerly colonized states and transformed into an instrument for ending
