Conflicted Africa: Ethnic and Religious or Power and Resource

In the run up to the end of 2013, the continent of Africa saw a significant rise in the number of conflicts claiming lives, displacing thousands of people and destroying property. Most if not all of these clashes were identified as having been founded on either ethnic or religious tensions. At least in the theme the world media has been propagating, this might seem to be the paradigm. Yet for those like me who tend to conscientiously follow the happenings of the African continent and the world at large, there seems to be another dimension that is going unnoticed or deliberately underreported. From Central Republic of Africa, Mali, Nigeria, Somalia, and South Sudan all we hear is how tribalism or religion is causing a rift between people within the same borders: people who for centuries lived side by side in peace, might I add. The former colonialists with their own economic and social failures are ever ready to play the role of saviours and none more daring than the French, the worst of the lot in my humble opinion. 

The struggle for power and management of resources has long been a tussle most African states are familiar with. If not within their boarders then it’s with the neighbouring states. More recently these battles have intensified and I can’t help but think it is somewhat connected to the ever rising prices in the global markets for raw materials. Also we can’t ignore the global war economy, profit margins always look healthier with wars and Africa is an ever-eager surrogate.The current situation in the world’s newest state is a perfect example of this major predicament. Nevertheless to the western world it is again portrayed as tribesmen now in military attire fighting an ethnic war. I understand this is a way of galvanising support for western governments within their respective countries to pursue their interests. However this is far from the reality of modern day African geopolitical and social ideologies. Tribalism and religion are often scapegoats for profound faults within the political structures and resource management issues of the continent. 

  

South Sudan is eating away at the little establishment created since independence from the north, because the incumbent and his former Vice President could not agree on the division of the countries wealth. That’s the situation in a nutshell; the loss of life, the displacement of the innocent and the ruin of infrastructure are just chalked down as statistics.The country has vast amounts of natural resources that are untapped and are currently under the eye of multinational prospectors. The World Bank estimated the states budget for 2012-2013 at the $3 billion mark, supplemented by another $1 billion of development assistance and another $300 million in humanitarian support. These figures don’t compare to the $10.6 billion received in oil revenues according to the CIA report of 2012.

A new country administrated by former rebel leaders of limited political understanding, and it seems in the past the only uniting factor was based on the northern enemy. Now they're turning on each other and are using the war mentality developed over the two decades of guerilla warfare in the countries political arena. Bear in mind this current government was founded before the birth of the state. This is a country where 85% are non wage workers who are mostly farmers and pastoralists. The remaining 15% are the political or military elite who are hell bent on solidifying absolute power or drain the country’s wealth before their turn is over. J. Peter Pham, an analyst and an adviser to the USA’s Defense Department (Africa Command) stated: "These opponents come from the fact that you have a government elected since before South Sudan got independence that has yet to face the polls, currently scheduled sometime in 2015," And "Kiir's government is notoriously corrupt. It appears that Kiir used a skirmish between military units as a pretext to move against his opponents, which points at a much deeper problem in Kiir's government”.

The above statement alone is a clear indicator that this current conflict has nothing to do with ethnic tensions between Dinka and Nuer tribes, and if anything tribal pressures are a manufactured byproduct of the corrupt political elite. I don’t usually agree with Mr. Pham: I find him to be a willing advocate for the American war machine in the past. His opinions on the war on terror have shown a complete lack of understanding of the social dynamics of the horn of Africa. Nevertheless in relation to South Sudan I couldn’t disagree with his analysis. The international community will undoubtedly claim the country is being run by a disreputable government, but nonetheless the funding will continue. In fact the US State Department has mentioned the exploitation of Kiir’s government numerous times but has continued a steady flow of aid estimated at $1.4 billion since 2011. Is this an indication of disastrous western states foreign policies, or an imperialist agenda of fuelling the fire? 

The new rebel leader Riek Machar a British Educated politician, who has constantly stated that he will be the next President of South Sudan come the elections of 2015, has decided to destabilise a country he fought to build. From a subjective angle you could say he is an authority hungry individual who should be subject to war crimes charges. Not to say that he is not such a person but from an objective point of view, one could say this is the shortcomings of democracy at its best. I have a feeling such statements leave many readers questioning my sanity but please let me explain my perceived madness.

In modest terms if rebel leader Riek Machar was to sit back and wait for the elections of 2015, he is guaranteed to lose. President Silva Kiir would undoubtedly use the wealth of the country to bribe his way back into office and further strengthen his grip on power. Riek Machar would be another Morgan Tsvangirai and the west would have another pawn in their hunger games. South Sudan is a perfect example that today’s form of democracy is a very expensive call girl paid for by our governments at our expense. This sophisticated yet fundamental struggle between these former allies is based on who gets to call the lady in Prada, and the media would have you believe we are still blowing poison darts at each other. 

There is also background context to this conflict which I have deliberately negated and this is the 1991 divisions between the SPLA, which these individuals have clearly not put aside. Such is the nature of African western imported democracy; if my argument seems flawed I would draw your attention to the undeniable facts. In the subsequent decades since the continent’s independence from colonisation, how many past or incumbent African leaders have been in office for over a decade? The number stands at 16 with 7 of these currently heading to their third decades in office. These numbers are evidential to the failings of democracy on this continent. Once you are in the presidential office of an African state you are an undemocratically elected monarch. Former Vice President Reik Machar understands this, President Silva Kiir knows this and mediator President Museveni of Uganda is an exemplary example of this practice. The question for us peasants, sorry, the common African and others who agree with my notions on African democracy is, what cause of action can we afford? Because we hesitantly acknowledge that it is all about the money. 

Hamza Egal © copyright2013 all rights reserved.