Colonial ghosts: The hidden hands behind Africa’s shadow conflicts
Resource-rich regions of Africa have often found themselves entangled in murky geopolitical maneuvers where foreign actors covertly arm rebels, repressive political factions and insurgents by usually disguising it as aid to trade influence and power.
This practice dates back to the colonial era when colonial powers backed factions that championed their ideals and policies through funding in the form of military aid, training and clandestine shipments of weapons.
US hand in DR Congo
Notable is the US support for Colonel Joseph-Désiré Mobutu in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (then Zaire), who President George H.W. Bush described as “one of our most valued friends.”
Mobutu was the army chief of staff and mastermind behind the military coup in 1960 that overthrew Patrice Lumumba, the first democratically elected prime minister of Zaire.
Mobutu ruled Zaire from 1965 to 1997, propping up his wealth to over $6 billion by 1997 with US assistance in the form of “aid.” This support was not intended to enhance the living conditions of the people of Zaire, as he was largely unpopular among the people after ascending to power, due to high levels of corruption and political repression, including a ban on all existing political parties.
US support stemmed from the fact that Mobutu was seen as bulwark to counter the influence of the Soviet Union, which at the time was supporting liberation movements in Africa such as the FRELIMO (Frente de Libertação de Moçambique, the Mozambique Liberation Front) in Mozambique, the Nelson Mandela-led ANC (African National Congress) in South Africa and even in the DRC itself under Patrice Lumumba.
Lumumba, however, was later assassinated by opposition figures with alleged support from the CIA and Belgium.
French style
These actions run contrary to the lens of reactionary missions through which they are usually depicted and are actually carefully planned systematic acts, argues Maurice Robert, a former French minister in Africa:
“An operation of this scale involves several phases: the collection and analysis of intelligence, the development of an action plan based on this intelligence, the study and implementation of logistical means and the adoption of measures for the implementation of the plan.”
Robert’s comment was in reference to France’s sinister operation of 1960 codenamed ‘Operation Persil’, aimed to destabilize Guinea after its population under President Sekou Toure voted for freedom from French colonial rule and dictates. As Robert recalls:
“To destabilize the country, we (the French) used Guinean exiles who had taken refuge in Senegal as well as organized opposition under the supervision of French experts in clandestine operations. We (the French) armed and trained these Guinean opponents, many of whom were Fulani, so that they would develop a climate of insecurity in Guinea and, if possible, overthrow Sékou Touré.”
NATO’s legacy in Libya
The slightest sight of pandemonium has seen countries that created the chaos retreating from the scene at the speed of sound, leaving the warring factions at the mercy of their own ruthless bloody matchets, as in the cases of the Rwandan genocide, the Sudan conflict and the Libyan crisis. However, one issue to consider is the source of the ‘matchet’ with which these factions devour each other.
President Barack Obama’s alleged signing of a ‘finding order’, authorizing the US government support for rebel groups that sought to overthrow the legitimate government of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya serves as a poignant example.
Such support, involving transfer of weapons extensively occurred through third parties, arguably violating UNSC resolution 1970 (2011), which placed an embargo on arms shipments to any of the warring factions in Libya in 2011. Nevertheless, the transfer of weapons within Libya by the rebels from one location to the other to fight the Libyan government and ultimately to overthrow Gaddafi was of no secret to the NATO.
For instance, according to a video posted by NATO itself, a Canadian frigate known as HMCS Charlottetown stationed in the Mediterranean Sea to enforce UN resolution 1970 (2011) found out that a rebel tugboat which initially claimed to be transporting food and medicine was instead carrying 105-mm howitzer rounds munitions, explosives and small arms which were all banned under section 9 of the UN resolution 1970 (2011). These weapons were being shipped from Benghazi to Misrata in Libya. However, after contacting the NATO headquarters, the rebels were allowed free passage with the weapons, to fight the government of Libya, contrary to the intent of the UN resolution.
Hiding behind the veils of international law
The UN Security Council later passed another resolution, 1973 (2011), which authorized all necessary measures to protect civilians in Libya. This was largely championed by the United Kingdom, France and the United States. However, considering the ambiguities in the resolution and how delicate the situation was, Brazil, China, Russia, India and Germany abstained from it. The ambiguities were driven by humanitarian concerns, but also ulterior colonial motives of some of the proponents of this resolution, if not all.
This potentially explains why France recognized the opposition National Transitional Council of Libya as the legitimate government in March 2011, even before Gaddafi was killed in October the same year.
According to a 2016 report by the British parliament, France’s intentions under President Nicolas Sarkozy towards Libya were mainly driven by the five pillars, including a desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production, to increase French influence in North Africa, to improve Sarkozy’s internal political situation in France, to provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world, and to address the concerns of his advisers over Gaddafi’s long-term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa.
These actions emboldened the rebels, capitalizing on their newfound firepower to capture and kill Gaddafi in October 2011.
“An attempt to call everyone to come and do whatever they want”
Despite NATO’s much touted “humanitarian intervention” in Libya under the veils of international law, the intent of some member states such as France appears contradictory to this view, thereby raising questions about the motives behind the actions of the organization itself in Libya.
Vladimir Putin, who was the then-prime minister of the Russian Federation, in a passionate address in 2011 heavily criticized NATO for these actions:
“When the entire so-called civilized community pounces on a small country with all its might and ruins infrastructure that has been built over generations – well, I don’t know, if this is good. I do not like it.”
Putin also reiterated that the resolution passed was just “an attempt to call everyone (western community) to come and do whatever they want.”
Undoubtedly, Libya found itself tangled in a web of backroom alliances with ulterior motives and covert arm deals under the cover of international law.
This potentially explains why, despite the years of civil war that have ravaged the former economic powerhouse of the African continent, killing many and displacing hundreds of thousands of civilians, barely any accountability mechanism has been employed against the external forces that lit the fuse.
Ukraine following French-style colonialism in Africa?
It’s 2024, and support for factions against the will of the African people continues, allegedly from even unpopular sources such as Ukraine. This marks a significant shift, given that Ukraine as an independent country has not been a significant actor in Africa’s geopolitical relations.
When Tuareg insurgents ambushed a military convoy carrying members of the Russian Wagner Group private military company and Malian soldiers late in July in the village of Tinzaouaten, located in the north of Mali, killing dozens, Andrey Yusov, spokesperson for Ukraine’s military intelligence agency (HUR), made a speech on the national TV, admitting Ukraine’s involvement. He called the incident a “successful military operation against Russian war criminals” carried out with the “necessary information” provided to the militants by his agents. He vowed that “there will be more to come.”
However, this statement marks a troubling contradiction considering the fact that African states are not party to the Ukraine conflict and PMC Wagner was authorized by the Alliance of Sahel States, comprising Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso, to help fight terrorism in the Sahel region.
Kiev’s alleged support for rebels in the Sahel raises significant strategic and ethical questions about the role of Ukraine and its allies in the security dynamics in the Sahel region. This also risks putting Ukraine on the dark side of African history for perpetrating French-style colonialism in the Sahel.
