By Avril Ndjipuina
Africa is paying a heavy price for a foreign policy approach that has repeatedly treated the continent as a theatre for military intervention, counterterrorism and geopolitical competition.
From the Sahel to the Horn of Africa and the Great Lakes region, instability is spreading across borders.
Coups, insurgencies, civil wars, displacement and humanitarian crises are no longer isolated events.
They are increasingly connected by weapons, fighters, political interests and foreign intervention.
The uncomfortable question is whether some of the international powers that claim to be bringing stability to Africa are, in fact, helping to deepen the instability, for example, the United States, in particular, deserves greater scrutiny.
This is not to suggest that Washington is responsible for every conflict on the continent.
Africa has serious problems of its own.
Poor governance, corruption, weak institutions, political exclusion, poverty and unresolved ethnic and political tensions have contributed to many of these crises.
While we are argue that African governments must take responsibility for their failures, this does however, not absolve foreign powers of theirs and the affects of their actions.
Ion such case, is the consequences of the 2011 intervention in Libya remain one of the strongest arguments against the belief that military force can easily produce political stability.
NATO’s intervention helped bring down Muammar Gaddafi’s government and destroyed the structures of the Libyan state.
The consequences did not remain in Libya.
Weapons and fighters moved south, contributing to the deterioration of security across the Sahel.
Other nations such as Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger subsequently experienced military coups amid growing insecurity and frustration with civilian governments.
There is a striking irony here.
Western countries spent years training and supporting African militaries in the name of stability, only to see some of those same militaries eventually overthrow elected governments.
Washington then condemned the coups while continuing to rely heavily on security cooperation as the preferred response, but that approach deserves serious reconsideration.
Military force may kill insurgents, but it cannot eliminate the political and economic conditions that allow extremism to grow.
A young person without employment, education or hope is not necessarily persuaded by another military operation.
A community that loses civilians in a foreign airstrike is unlikely to see that intervention as liberation be at times, military action creates the very anger and resentment that extremist groups exploit.
This is one of the central failures of the War on Terror in Africa.
Too much emphasis has been placed on military solutions and too little on understanding the political realities on the ground.
Sudan offers another painful example of what happens when domestic conflicts become arenas for foreign interests.
The war between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces has devastated the country and displaced millions.
Regional powers have been accused of backing competing sides, turning Sudan into something larger than a domestic conflict.
Ordinary Sudanese civilians are trapped between armed groups and the interests of countries seeking influence.
The same pattern can be seen in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where decades of conflict in the east have continued despite repeated diplomatic efforts.
Congo possesses enormous mineral wealth, yet its people remain trapped in poverty and insecurity.
Armed groups, neighbouring countries and international interests have all played a role in the region’s instability.
Peace agreements are important, but agreements signed in conference rooms mean little when the political and military interests sustaining a conflict remain untouched Africas has seen this before.
During the Cold War, foreign powers treated African countries as pieces on a global chessboard.
Governments and rebel movements received support according to the strategic interests of Washington and Moscow.
This should concern Namibia and the wider Southern African region.
Namibia has consistently supported sovereignty, multilateralism, peaceful settlement of disputes and African unity.
These principles should remain at the centre of our foreign policy.
That does not mean Namibia or Africa should reject cooperation with the United States, Europe, China, Russia or any other international partner.
Africa needs investment, trade, technology, education and security cooperation, but partnerships must be based on mutual respect and mutual benefit.
They should strengthen African sovereignty, not weaken it.
Foreign military bases, security arrangements and political alliances should therefore be examined through one simple question: do they serve African interests?
African leaders must also recognise that foreign powers will always pursue their own interests.
Washington has its strategic priorities.
Beijing has its economic ambitions. Moscow has its geopolitical interests. European and Middle Eastern powers have theirs.
There is nothing wrong with countries pursuing their interests but the problem arises when African governments allow those interests to take precedence over the interests of their own people.
Africa cannot continue to be a continent where others define the security agenda while Africans live with the consequences.
The continent needs stronger African institutions, stronger regional diplomacy and greater political will to resolve conflicts before they become internationalised.
- Avril Ndjupuina, is political science scholar, a philanthropist and social commentator
