INTERNATIoNAL BY Bola A. Akinterinwa
The use of terror in international relations is dated to the time of French Revolution in 1789 when the word, terrorism, was first coined. Terrorism began as an instrument of protesting great power policies: sending letter bombs and parcel bombs to the diplomatic agents of the United States, France, and United Kingdom in particular; putting bombs under or near their diplomatic vehicles and detonating it from far away when the targeted person enters the vehicle. And true, it is mainly because all diplomatic agents are protected internationally by the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations that the diplomatic agents are always violated.
Additionally, when efforts were made by various embassies to contain letter bomb attacks, kidnapping of people was introduced by the terrorists. This was later followed by hijacking and skyjacking of planes. Hijacking is about illegal attachment of aircraft, ship, and vehicles while in transit or on the ground. Skyjacking is about the illegal use of force to commandeer and rerouting an aircraft when it is already airborne. In these cases, many Euro-American ambassadors have been brutally killed, meaning that terrorism has an international character in design, execution, and effect. Its preparation can be national, its operation can be national and transnational. Terrorists have different nationalities and do not carry any name tags. They are anti-societal orderliness. Their tactic is hit-and-run and therefore do not have any specific battlefield. Their objective is political and religious. They are very brutally, brutish, inhuman, and very indecent in their attitudinal disposition. This is most unacceptable.
More disturbingly, from their uncivilised attacks on targeted individual countries, terrorists are now asking for a change in, if not a change of, world order in which Christianism is seriously being threatened and Westernisation is unwanted. Contradictorily, terrorists used and still use Western education and weapons to conduct and manage their battles against the same western world. Currently, in Nigeria, Boko Haram has compelled parents to withdraw their wards from schools and has displaced 151,380 villagers in 30 communities. (Daily Trust of 24th November 2021, p.8). This development supports Samuel P. Huntington, an American political scientist, who has theorised that future war, particularly in the post-Cold War era, may not be fought between countries but between cultures. He is right and cannot be more correct.
The world is currently playing host to Islamic terrorism, a major security challenge in the Sahel, which does not constitute a region in Africa as defined in Articles 1(d) and 1(e) of the 1991 Abuja Treaty Establishing an African Economic Community. Sahel is the area between the Sahara to the North and the Sudanian Savanah to the South. It comprises portions of northern Senegal, southern Mauritania, central Mali, northern Burkina Faso, southern Algeria, southwest Niger, northern Nigeria, central Chad, central Sudan, and northern Eritrea. Terror in Sahel raises how to battle terrorism: neo-colonially or African solution?
French Neo-colonialism and Africa
From the foregoing, the Sahel comprises seven Francophone countries out of ten. All of them are former colonies of France, and are currently under recidivist terrorist attacks, particularly in Nigeria, a non-Francophone, prompting calls for international help on all sides. Attitudinally, African leaders once told the world that they wanted African problems to be given African solutions, and there is nothing to suggest that Africa has the capacity to do so alone. It is in this regard that the blockade of the passage of a large French military army logistics convoy in Kaya, the capital of Burkina Faso’s north central region, should be understood: neo-colonialism or African solution? Is the al-Qaida-driven terrorist jihad in the Sahel meant to dislodge former colonialists or to ensure the establishment of Islamic Caliphates? Is the current jihad in Africa not between Islam and all others? The Boko Haramist insurrection in Nigeria clearly shows an Islamisation agenda and the quest to throw any other religion, culture and mania into the garbage of history.
On Tuesday, 2nd November 2021 terrorists attacked Banibangou in the Tillaberi region of Western Niger and several dozen civilians were killed. France, showing much concern for the dastardly attacks, made it clear that she would stand, along with the members of the Coalition for the Sahel, with Niger to combat terrorism and protect the people by supporting Nigerien defence and security forces.
On 20 November 2021, several thousands of people demonstrated against the passage of a large French military army logistics convoy in Kaya, Burkina Faso. The convoy was coming from the Côte d’Ivoire and was en route Republic of Niger. As reported by the Africa News and relying on the Agence France Presse (AFP), ‘French Army get out,’ ‘Free the Sahel’, ‘No more French invasion and recolonisation military convoy,’ could be read on signs and banners held up by demonstrators, gathered at the entrance of Kaya.’
From the banners, the Burkinabe want the French to ‘free the Sahel.’ If the people of Burkina Faso want the French to free or liberate the Sahel, how can the French accomplish this objective if their military convoy is blocked from operating? Is this blockade not counter-productive? This question is necessary because the same demonstrators are complaining that the French are not doing enough to protect them in the country’s five-year fight against al-Qaida jihadists. They complained that thousands of people had been killed and more than 1.4 million people displaced internally.
Additionally, anti-recolonisation is one of the critical objectives of the Burkina demonstration, but French military presence in Africa goes beyond the myth of neo-colonialism or recolonisation and seeking African solutions to terrorism. Islamic jihad in the Sahel uses terror as their main tactic and strategy and terrorism is a global phenomenon with uncontrollable tentacles in the whole of Africa. In this regard, and without jot of exaggeration, Africa does not have any magical power to use in helping to contain terrorism in the continent. Africa therefore needs international understanding, solidarity, and active foreign support in nipping terrorism in the bud. This is where the issue of non-interference and non-intervention in the domestic affairs of Africa constitutes another irritant.
In this regard, many points are noteworthy about the blockade of the French convoy. First, the convoy had earlier, on Wednesday, 17th and Thursday, 18th 2021, been blocked in Ouagadougou, the Burkinabe capital but Government tear gassed the protesters to force them away and allowed a free passage for the convoy. As explained by the Agenced’Information du Burkina (Burkina Faso Government News Agency, AIB), ‘the French army was cornered and carried out some warning shots in the middle of the day on Saturday (13th). But demonstrators who had left, returned on their steps, determined to turn back the French military convoy coming from the Côte d’Ivoire to Niger.’ Demonstrators alleged some of them were killed during the warning shots, but the French have denied any killing but admitted possible injuries when people run helter-skelter into safety.
The demonstrators did not know the exact destination of the French convoy but simply did not want any French military presence on the territory of Burkina Faso. Put differently, they do not want recolonisation in whatever form again. Apart from this, they rightly or wrongly believed that France was aiding and abetting terrorism in the Sahelian region. They suspected that the French military convoy, which is the French anti-terrorist force, were carrying weapons and motorcycles in their containers which are likely to be used by the terrorists. As reported, the demonstrators stated thus: ‘we are not against the French people. The French people are our friend. We need France to come back so that we can revisit our agreements. We have the feeling that they are interested in our resources and not us.’
This statement is important in the sense that, even though the Burkinabés see the French as friends, the friendship cannot be to the extent that the existing agreements with France should not be reviewed. It implies that something is wrong with the agreement that has to be put right.
The reason given by the demonstrators is thought-provoking: ‘we decided to blockade, because despite the agreements signed with France, we continue to record deaths and our countries remain under armed.’ In other words, the purposes of the agreements have not been fulfilled. In the eyes of the people of Burkina Faso, the French are only interested in the Burkina resources but not in the people.
If, on last Tuesday, 16th November, several hundreds of people demonstrated in various parts of the country to demand the resignation of the Burkinabe president, Roch Marc Christian Kaboré, the reasons should not be far-fetched: He is seen to have not been able to stop recidivist terrorist attacks since 2015. Whereas one major reason for the French military convoy in transit to Niger Republic is related to the anti-terrorism struggle. In this regard, will the blockade in Kaya put an end to the terrorist attacks? Is the blockade an expression of an African solution to African problems? Is French effort to contain terrorism an expression of neo-colonialism or recolonisation? Why invite France in the first instance or sign defence agreement with France?
Apart from Djibouti, which is still territorially considered as part of France, France only has military cooperation in training and peacekeeping agreements with most African countries. This cannot but be so because Nigeria used to be vehemently opposed to foreign military interventions and bases in Africa. Nigeria is against the use of Africa ordinarily as a source of raw materials for the development of Europe. And true, Dr OkoiArikpo, Commissioner for External Affairs under General Yakubu Gowon, was always at logger head with France on this matter. But, France, in this regard, also had valid explanation for her military presence in Africa. She argues that she is in Africa on the invitation of sovereign countries like Nigeria. Besides, France had signed defence and military cooperation agreements with many Francophone countries, and on the strength of the agreements, France has a legitimate basis to interfere and intervene in countries with which she secured a military understanding. This is one of the pillars of France’s military presence or recolonisation in Africa. It is also in this context that France’s military convoy en route to the Niger Republic should be explained.
Ending Recolonisation and Terrorism
Neo-colonialism, as defined in The Britannica, is the control of less developed countries by developed countries through indirect means. It is about foreign dependency of former countries. Wikipedia has it that neo-colonialism is ‘the practice of using economic imperialism, globalisation, cultural imperialism and conditional aid to influence a developing country instead of the previous colonial methods of direct military control or indirect political control (hegemony).’
In this regard, has French colonisation really come to an end? It is only if we admit that it has ended that we can begin to rightly posit about recolonisation. We do not believe that French colonisation has ever come to an end based on the foregoing definitions. It has only been mitigated, especially in terms of domination and scope of areas of cooperation. The transformation of the European Economic Community to European Community and eventually to European Union largely contributed to the mitigation.
In the context of the Burkinabe, it can be argued that their main concern is probably not re-colonisation per se, but more of terrorist attack fatigue for which they are indirectly holding the French responsible.
The 20 November public demonstration against the French military convoy is an illustration of the Burkinabe’s terrorist fatigue. Before the demonstration, there had been 30 French military convoys that had come from the Côte d’Ivoire and passed through Burkina Faso to Niger Republic. November 20, 2021 was the very first time the French military convoy would be blocked. On Sunday, 14th November, the Burkina State Security forces suffered their heaviest loss, 49 soldiers, public officials and four civilians were killed. The killings cannot but rankle the people, especially that in early November, the opposition parties in Burkina Faso had had to give a one-month ultimatum to the Burkinabe President to ensure national security or they would organise protests to demand his resignation. The demonstration was scheduled to take place on Saturday 27th November. These are some of the dynamics of the 20 November saga, but is blockade a solution to recolonisation?
Recolonisation of Africa has taken a new toga, a new format. ICT is an instrument of recolonisation, apart from the fact that the Francophones are still tied to the financial aprons of France’s Central and EU Banks. 25% of foreign reserves of the Francophone countries must be saved in France. How many Francophone countries do not have French support in sustaining their government and maintain security? Are there no French citizens, though naturalised, in several Francophone countries? How do the Burkinabe want to put an end to French recolonisation when the official language is still French language, when the mania of dressing is still largely French, and when the mania of thinking and living is that of France’s l’honnȇte homme’ of the 17th Century, and when the currency is made convertible to the Euro through France? Opposition to French recolonisation must begin with de-Frenchification of mentality. Burkinabes cannot have official dependence on France for political survivaland be seeking freedom on the streets. It is illogical to expect French protection against jihadist terror and at the same time complaining of French mainmise.
And perhaps more interestingly, the Burkinabes, like their many African brothers, do not have any antidote to terrorism in Africa. Neither the ECOWAS nor the African Union has any exclusive means of containment. Since the French intervention in Mali in 2013 to help stop the jihadists from moving from the northern region of Mali southwards to take over the government, terrorism has remained a feature of insecurity in the Sahelian region. Consequently, there is the need for re-thinking. Recolonisation should be opposed but the opposition must begin with self-capacity building, national identity in terms of self-reliance.
What the people of Africa requires is continental policy of self-reliancism in which other policies of ‘’African solutions to African problems,’’ ‘’made in Africa,’’ ‘’new scientific breakthrough and inventions,’’ etc. will be accommodated and sustained. Africa must stop always crying wolf while not taking the necessary bold steps required to be great.
In essence, the challenge of blockading French military convoy in Kaya, Burkina Faso is how to reconcile conflicting national interests on the one hand, and how to reconcile national and foreign interests, especially in the context of the international struggle against international terrorism, on the other. The Burkinabe do not want French military presence on their soil while the French military convoy was only passing through Burkina Faso to Niger Republic by agreement. The military convoy is to strengthen its anti-terror war, which is in the interest of France, Burkina Faso, and Niger Republic. If this is so, is French intervention a recolonisation agenda or a resultant of pacta sunt servanda? The Burkinabe want a review of the agreements based on the belief that the French are only interested in their resources but not in them as a people.
Good observation. However, preventing the French from protecting the same resources against terrorist exploitation and preventing the people who are to take advantage of the resources from reckless killing by the terrorists ought to be the top priority. African leaders have no good and constructive response to the current Islamic jihad, which is worst than re-colonisation. In ending recolonisation and terrorism, the approach should not be through demonstrations, but learning how to respond to foreign exploitations, how to take advantage of them. Crying about exploitation is not a solution.
