to protect its citizens could warrant foreign intervention.
The war on terror, which is generally associated with the George W. Bush administration and the 9/11 attacks, had roots in the late Cold War period. During the Cold War, the United States often deployed religion in the struggle against communism. The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) backed conservative Christian parties in Europe after World War II, hoping to undermine the appeal of communism to populations devastated by the war. In the Middle East, the CIA countered radical nationalism—which it erroneously conflated with communism—by supporting autocratic Muslim regimes that shared Western interests in opposing communism and in controlling the region’s enormous oil wealth. Where radical nationalists came to power, their secular regimes were frequently challenged by local Islamists, who believed that Islamic religious principles should serve as the basis of the social, political, and legal order.9 The secular regimes frequently responded with repression, arresting and imprisoning Islamists and forcing others to flee into exile. When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979 to shore up its regional interests, the United States seized the opportunity to rally support from a Muslim minority who had turned to violence to achieve their ends. In collaboration with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and other allies, the United States mobilized a multinational coalition that recruited, trained, armed, and financed Muslim militants from around the world to fight the 1979–89 Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. After Soviet withdrawal, the militants dispersed, taking their weapons and terror tactics to new battlegrounds around the globe. Osama bin Laden, founder and patron of al-Qaeda, was among the most prominent of the Soviet-Afghan War veterans who spearheaded the emerging terrorist networks. In the 1990s, his organization was responsible for a number of attacks on US citizens and property, culminating in the September 11, 2001, strikes on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
The 9/11 attacks opened a new chapter in the war on terror and marked the beginning of another era of US military intervention, first in Central Asia and the Middle East, and subsequently in Africa. Cold War experiences had left a deep imprint on US attitudes and actions. Having mobilized violent extremists who claimed the mantle of Islam to counter the communist menace during the Cold War, the United States contributed to the globalization of terror in its aftermath. Following the demise of the Soviet Union, Soviet-Afghan War veterans and their acolytes turned their attention to the United States as the last remaining superpower and patron of what they perceived as impious Muslim regimes. During the Cold War, the United States had confounded radical African and Arab nationalism with communism and intervened in local conflicts, with disastrous results. After the Cold War, many in the US government viewed a wide range of Muslims with suspicion, failing to distinguish between nonviolent Muslims with conservative religious beliefs and a small minority with questionable religious credentials who used violence to achieve their ends. Officials in Washington often glossed over differences between those who targeted local regimes due to longstanding grievances and a much smaller segment who attacked Western countries that, in their view, supported impious rulers, oppressed Muslims, and defiled Muslim holy lands. As a result, the US war on terror, like the war on communism, had unintended consequences that sometimes intensified local support for violent opposition groups.
Central Propositions
The impact of foreign political and military intervention in Africa after the Cold War is illuminated by a series of subregional case studies, described at the end of this chapter. They provide evidence to support the book’s four central propositions.
First, free market austerity policies, imposed by international financial institutions acting through weak postcolonial states during decolonization and the Cold War, contributed to deadly struggles over power and resources in the post–Cold War period. As dictators were driven from power, indigenous strongmen, and in some cases neighboring states, intervened to further their own interests. Other international actors interceded in an attempt to restore regional stability or protect civilian lives. However, they tended to engage selectively, choosing conflict zones that impinged on their own political, economic, and strategic interests, while ignoring other conflicts and casualties. Although some interventions benefited civilian populations, others harmed them. The failure to intervene when strategic interests were not at stake also had dire consequences.
Second, the war on terror, like its Cold War antecedent, increased foreign military presence on the African continent and generated new external support for repressive governments. Expanded US involvement was particularly noteworthy. Concerned about US energy and physical security, Washington focused on countries rich in energy resources and those considered vulnerable to terrorist infiltration. US military aid, combined with commercial military sales and arms left over from the Cold War, contributed to an escalation of violence in many parts of Africa. Rather than promoting security, US military and covert operations often intensified strife and undermined prospects for peace.
Third, although US counterterrorism initiatives cast a long shadow, they were not the only foreign interventions in Africa during this period. After the Cold War, the UN, the AU, and African subregional organizations played a growing role in diplomacy and peacekeeping initiatives, sometimes leading to multilateral military action. France, a former colonial power, maintained a strong military presence on the continent and intervened in numerous conflicts. Emerging powers such as China, India, Brazil, Turkey, and the Gulf states, which were heavily invested in African oil, minerals, and agricultural land, exerted new political influence.10 While these countries often reinforced the powers of repressive regimes, in some instances they used their authority to promote peace and security efforts. The success of externally brokered agreements was largely determined by the degree to which all parties to the conflict and representative civil society organizations were engaged in the process. Accords imposed from above or outside, with little buy-in from relevant groups on the ground, were least likely to succeed. Public pressure for humanitarian intervention in response to African crises also contributed to new waves of foreign involvement. Activist groups in Western countries put the spotlight on mass atrocities and mobilized support for action to protect African civilians. However, they often oversimplified complex issues and sometimes proposed the kinds of military solutions that historically have harmed civilian populations.
The fourth proposition suggests that during the period under consideration, foreign political and military intervention in Africa often did more harm than good. External involvement motivated by the war on terror tended to intensify conflicts, and foreign response to instability often rendered local conflagrations more lethal. In addition, the emphasis on quick military action diverted attention from the political, economic, and social grievances that lay at the root of the conflicts. Even humanitarian missions, which were premised on the responsibility to protect, sometimes hurt the people they were intended to help. They were often weakened by inadequate mandates and funding and undermined by conflicting interests.
In the second decade of the twenty-first century, the merits and demerits of foreign intervention remained hotly contested, while the impact of failures to intervene was also the subject of much debate. The voices of African civil societies were not yet central to the discussions, nor were the concerns of affected populations foremost on the agenda. The prioritization of these constituencies is critical to the long-term success of any peace initiative.
Scope and Limitations
For the purposes of this study, foreign political and military intervention refers to the involvement of external powers or organizations in the internal affairs of an African country. These entities may be based on other continents, or they may be neighboring African states or subregional or regional organizations. The term “intervention” implies an unequal power relationship. It occurs when a dominant country or organization uses force or pressure to exert power over a weaker sovereign entity or when a weaker entity requests external assistance to restore order, monitor a peace accord, or end a humanitarian crisis. Intervention can be viewed in a positive light, such as when powerful nations intervene to halt a genocide or enforce peace agreements. However, when outsiders have intervened to enslave, conquer, colonize, overthrow or install governments, or plunder resources, intervention
