The African Union’s “Permanent” Peacekeeping Force
StrategyPage published a short commentary on the African Union’s (AU) proposed “standing African peacekeeping ‘army’” (aka the African Standby Force, or ASF).
It’s not a new idea. A number of people –including me– have argued that an “all-African standing force” would be very useful. I recall discussing the concept in the early 1980s at the US Army War College. (One name bandied about was the “African Crisis Response Force.”) In 1997 –when I was a War College student– I wrote a paper advocating an all African force. Having ready troops for peacekeeping and other security missions isn’t the only reason to do this. If the “standing force” training program includes engineering and sanitation classes, and classes on respect for human rights, etc., the secondary pay-off for participating nations can be substantial: a more professional military with useful skills useful in local social and economic development programs.
StrategyPage outlines the program:
The goal was to have five or six such brigades, multi-national peacekeeping brigades of 3,000-5,000 troops each, ready for operations by 2010.
These will be permanent active multi-national brigades, with specialized staff and tactical training to maximize their effectiveness as peacekeepers. Each brigade is intended to be mono-lingual, with French, English, or Arabic as the most likely languages of command. will be So far two brigades have been created, and will begin operations shortly, an ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States) brigade and a Southern African one. East African and Central African brigades are in various stages of formation.
In my view, a common peacekeeping doctrine must be employed. The AU’s operational goal should be to provide security for aid programs and NGOs.
The Council on Foreign Relations has a short commentary on the peacekeeping force and the timeline for fielding it. Global Policy Forum has more.
I’m interested in feedback from the FSO/military attache crowd on the AU peacekeeping force-in-being.
Fine idea — the US should especially promote English; and open source English as a Second Language resources for learning English. For more efficient communication.
Comment by Tom Grey - Liberty Dad — 2/17/2006 @ 11:29 am
I’d be a little worried if they settled on Arabic as an official language. Arabic is the lingua franca of Islamists, who are already troublesome enough in Africa as it is. The last thing Africa needs is to have Islamists infiltrate the higher echelons of this peacekeeping force so they can hijack it to advance their political aspirations across the continent at gunpoint.
Comment by Joshua — 2/17/2006 @ 1:03 pm
I thought the idea of the United Nations was supposed to handle situations such as this.. It is obvious what has happened to AFRICA.. When every ethnic group of Africans were allowed form their own Nations. This essentially insured that Tribal Warfare would be returned and Africa would return to Pre-Colonial Rule of Tribal Chieftains..There is nothing the World can do about the Tribal Hatred that has existed since the beginning of time….
Comment by John Garnett — 2/17/2006 @ 7:25 pm
Its a fine idea, and seemingly destined to succeed. However, without the political will to utilize these troops properly, they won’t be of much use. Look at what is happening in the Congo, you have nations criticizing the UN peacekeeping force there for actually using “force” against the bloodthirsty militias there who have specialized in wiping out villages the past few years. Could you imagine a permanent peacekeeping force being effective in Darfur, where a majority of the AU nations still oppose stringent action against the Janjaweed militias that have murdered hundreds of thousands of people in the past two years and made another million refugees? The political will doesn’t, and probably won’t exist to get much done with this force. Instead of building a force that would only be paralyzed by political considerations and missing political will, the US would be better off developing the military and peacekeeping abilities of steady allies, like Senegal, Rwanda and South Africa, while developing better relations with other nations in order to influence their governments to seriously address the continent’s many porblems, especially the militia problem.
Comment by Eddie Beaver — 2/17/2006 @ 7:28 pm
I believe the latest article in Parameters (a while back; perhaps a year” was called “A Prayer for Marie”.
Comment by Klug — 2/17/2006 @ 10:34 pm
I heartily concur. A strong standing African force, perhaps two divisions strong, would be a superlative step towards responsibile self government. The anchor nations could be South Africa, Egypt and even Libya. Despite their shaky past, present some of the more professional and well funded forces on the continent. Follow on nations could be Kenya and Madagascar. A few hundred multinational trainers would provide the corps of the professorial ranks and could enforce a solid curriculum.
Comment by Citizen Deux — 2/17/2006 @ 11:44 pm
Didn’t there used to BE a standing army in Africa? I think it was called the British Army. Whatever happened to them?
Comment by Barbara Skolaut — 2/18/2006 @ 12:26 am
Peacekeeping forces don’t. Look at recent history. What they are is an attempt to soothe our guilt at what is happening in somebody else’s yard. Take Sudan for instance. What is going on is state sponsored genocide by any definition. Dealing effectively with the problem means GOING TO WAR WITH THE SUDANESE GOVERNMENT. But the GoS isn’t a threat to the US, France, etc, etc. Only to its own people. The only other states immediately affected by this either aren’t in a position to do anything about it or don’t care. Human rights classes. You don’t learn human rights in a class, you learn them at your mother’s knee. “Human rights” are a cultural artifact, not something laying around on the ground, waiting for unenlightened savages to pick up and have somebody show them how to use them efficiently. If a culture doesn’t believe that these “rights” are real and should be respected, don’t expect their soldiers to do anything but pay lip service to the concept. I have friends, African and American, who have worked with ECOWAS. They described them as a “horde of locusts” stripping the land wherever they went. We all know what Clauswitz said about war. I feel that a peacekeeping force in Africa is a short term solution with extremely limited effectiveness and poor ROI. Personally, I think we should have Sudan before the UN on human rights violations, blockade their ports and prevent their leaders from traveling, oh, I forgot, they’ve got oil, lets just send a totally ineffective “peacekeeping” force instead. There are two ways to create peace. One, find something that both sides are willing to compromise over. Two, totally destroy one of the opposing sides. Standing around wringing your hands and saying, “Gee Golly Gosh, this you shouldn’t be doing, oh my,” doesn’t work. Doesn’t matter what you call it, Crisis Response, Crisis Initiative, Crisis Mumblers for Peace and Prosperity, underwhelming military force does not work. If you want peoce in Africa, send in the Marines, and get out of their way. Or get out of Africa and let africans deal with african problems and let us deal with them based on how they treat their own people, such as the embargo of South Africa in the 80’s. Patrick LaRocque
Comment by Patrick LaRocque — 2/18/2006 @ 1:12 am
I live in Grahamstown, South Africa - the home of Rhodes University and 6 SA Infantry Battalion. 6 SAI has taken part in peacekeeping operations in Burundi, the DRC, and currently has a contingent of troops in Darfur. The present SA National Defence Force is a professional volunteer force with nowhere much to go, and nothing much to do, and the members of 6 SAI that I’ve spoken to welcome the opportunity of going out and doing this sort of thing. Their families, after all, form part of this community and, in a sense, peacekeeping offers job security. The fact that these troops have been involved for several years now shows there’s a pattern and that it seems sustainable. The more blurry side of this is that there isn’t mmuch, or any, local press publicity about these activities, and it’s not clear how these operations are funded. I suspect quite a bit of my tax money is going on this sort of thing, rather than hypothetical UN or AU funds. Anyway, if it means Grahamstown gets to retain a military base in addition to the University and schools, I’m all for it. In their spare time, the troops from 6 SAI provide both the red coats and the impi for an annual re-enactment of the 1819 Battle of Grahamstown: http://people.ru.ac.za/~ccfj/shooting/bog2004/ http://people.ru.ac.za/~ccfj/shooting/bog2005/
Comment by F. Jacot-Guillarmod — 2/18/2006 @ 1:32 am
I served with “Allied Students” during IOBC in the early 80’s. I later trained others in TOW. These students came from Zimbabwe, Sudan and other countries. Seems the ideas didn’t take. One of the students I trained with was a Saudi prince who had gone through OCS. What has happened since then? The idea that junior officers and NCOs are going to change things in the African Kleptocracies is not a good strategy. Bakunin argued that the Revolution wouldn’t really occur until all the people had been properly educated. Neither will democracy. In practical terms I find the idea that armies are the _directed_ agent of social change to be a stretch. We ought not misconstrue what happens to American society through its deep involvement with the military to be indicative of all armies and societies. I think that Wiegley would have made that clear, and Geoffrey Perret makes some great points in his books, which follow closely on the trail Weigley spoke about. Society and military actions are closely intertwined, but that does not mean that the affect is what you speak of. I served with “Allied Students” during IOBC in the early 80’s I later trained others in TOW. These students came from Zimbabwe, Sudan and other countries.
Comment by Quilly Mammoth — 2/18/2006 @ 1:37 am
As a US military officer currently serving with the UN in Africa, I also think it would be a good idea. John, the recent history of the more successful UN interventions has been that interested third party nations and regional communities have gone in first, provided initial stabalization efforts, only to don the blue beret weeks later and provide for a larger, lasting UN presence in the country. Examples are the role of NATO in the Balkans, ECOWAS in Sierra Leone, the US and ECOWAS in Liberia, France in Ivory Coast, the US in Haiti, etc… The fact that these are regional organizations gives them a vested interest in the stability of the country. As a result, the (regional) peacekeeping forces are more willing to take necessary risks that many UN contributers are not willing to take. For example, here in Liberia, the Nigerian troops are very effective at cracking heads when other contingents act more passively. Once the initial stabilization has taken place, much of the role of the UN is to provide a visible presence during the time required to stand up local government institutions. I also agree with Austin about the secondary benefits of such forces, and the US should welcome them, and utilize any chance for mil-mil relations with these forces. As for the (vaguely racist) comments about the use of the Arabic language, it is more important that the intervention forces be functional. All of the North African force contributing contries are native Arabic speakers, so that one Brigade should utilize Arabic. I don’t think the intention was to have all four or five brigades settle on the same standard, just for each individual brigade to be mono-lingual within itself. I can tell you that working for the UN, the language barrier is frequently significant, and it is more important that these troops be operationally effective.
Comment by Reid — 2/18/2006 @ 4:36 am
Actually, there was an effective multi-national force of peacekeepers previously in Africa. Composed of British, French, Italian, Belgium, and an odd German or two. That of course was treated as Colonialism and evil. The old Chinese curse, “Be careful what you ask for.” From Monty Python’s Life of Brian: Reg: All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us? Attendee: Brought peace? Reg: Oh, peace - shut up!
Comment by Don — 2/18/2006 @ 7:21 am
Movement on Darfur Years too late. Millions of dollars too short. Yet…yet (that tantalizing word) it appears that the US, the UN, and the rest of the international community might be moving toward taking serious action in the Darfur region of Sudan. What
Trackback by Weapons of Mass Destruction — 2/18/2006 @ 9:32 am
Well, Mr. LaRocque is exactly right. Given that - and the need to A) Feel good about something, and B) perform a useful function, let me propose something I’ve been pushing for awhile now. For me, it’d be NASA. For the rest of you all - whatever you call it. Let’s have the monies flow through NASA. NASA and the Admin are big on going back to the moon, and then to Mars. Great. But let’s test everything her, first. I call it “Mission to Africa”. Of course, there is NO SUCH THING AS AFRICA - unless you’re an anthropologist. Why is that so hard for strategists to say? But let’s put that aside for the moment. Any rate, yeah - “Mission to Africa”. The whole thing is nothing but a test bed for sustainable habitation on Mars, but with none of the huge costs involved in doing it on the moon. We just pick some lawless, nasty, central-belt part of the continent and land there. US (and western co-signator) military support on the periphery. But nothing inside the “test-zone” that wasn’t thrown into orbit, kept circling for the requisite amount of time, and then landed in the “test-zone:. Now then, the outer Military belt would also be the place where your Log Base and Science facilities would be - here think a secured -site version of the current Antarctica project. Except that since it’s a habitable continent, the beaten zone would spring-up with merchants - here think of the outlaying communities around every Western military base in a home country. I’d encourage it, along the lines of Mr. LaRocque’s thinking, and just keep doing the eminent domain thing. As adjacent areas became civil city-states, and then countries, spin them off. Why not? What’s to stop us? We get a cheap version of a moon-phase of our Mars colonization effort, and the planet gets an increasing sphere of working nations on the African continent.
Comment by Tommy G — 2/18/2006 @ 12:57 pm
I think the concept of an ASF is a fantastic one, and it’s both sorely needed and long overdue. In a time when Western nations are no longer willing to commit more than a few token troops to peacekeeping efforts, and when most UN peacekeeping missions are hamstrung by stifling bureaucracy and an insistence on lightly-armed forces, the ASF could prove immensely useful in both ending current conflicts and preventing new ones from getting out of hand. First of all, Barbara Skolaut, the British Army never had control over all of Africa, nor did it have a single Africa-wide standing army. Besides, this is irrelevant, Africa’s countries are no longer colonies of Europe. The concept of dividing the ASF into regional brigades, rather than having a single continent-wide force, is a sound one. This is because these brigades will be made up of countries who are by and large already in regional alliances or agreements, such as SADC and ECOWAS. Moreover, these regional groupings tend to be more or less monolingual in their dealings with each other anyway, so the language issue becomes less of a problem. It’s also far easier in terms of command and control, with each regional brigade having its own planning and force employment HQ, and its own intelligence office. Not only should this decentralisation cut down somewhat on unnecessary overhead bureaucracy, but it will be far easier for regional brigades of 5 or 6 countries to standardise on tactics and equipment than it would be for all of Africa’s 53 countries to do so. The most important reason for Africa to create a force like this, however, is that nobody else is going to. The lesson learnt from Rwanda is that in real crises, the rest of the world turns its back. Despite the huge number of forces available to the world’s powers in 1994, the Hutu rampage was stopped not by them, but by a rag-tag Rwandan Tutsi rebel force advancing from Uganda. There’s a desire to avoid a repeat of that inaction. So Africa’s leading nations are forming a force to prevent it from happening again, a force to help solve Africa’s problems while doing what it can to prevent genocide. While it’s true that there are still numerous problems in Africa, and that serious question marks still linger about most African leaders, the creation of the ASF is something even the habitual afro-pessimists should embrace. After all, this represents, finally, Africa’s nations taking responsibility for their own problems. Instead of whining to the West continuously, they are being pro-active in creating a military force capable of doing what the West will not. Rather than denigrating this attempt, we should all be welcoming it for what it is: The first step towards Africa’s regeneration.
Comment by Darren — 2/18/2006 @ 2:13 pm
The solution is to take Africa under colonial administration again. Natter on about mil-mil relations and multilateralism all you want. No Muslims wanted, thank you.
Comment by David Davenport — 2/18/2006 @ 4:42 pm
A permanent, professional standing force to do what, exactly? An earlier comment used Haiti as an example. An example of what? Years after intervention and aid the place is a disaster. I know it’s fun to move soldiers around a map and requisition guns and ammo, but the military isn’t the solution to Africa. Have you seen the AIDS infection rates in sub-saharan Africa? It’s the Black Death all over again. Zimbabwe is a total basket case and Somalia is utter chaos. The French made a stand in Africa recently and, predictably, had to beat a retreat. A couple of thousand guys in some uniforms with guns aren’t going to get anything done at all. Without a culture of the rule of law and a respect for property rights, well-trained military units only serve to more efficiently enforce the bad habits of the governments.
Comment by K T Cat — 2/18/2006 @ 11:48 pm
David, I regard that comment as seriously insulting. Colonial administration, especially when administered by the French and Belgians, is part of the reason for the mess we’re in now. There were only something like 4 black university graduates in the whole of the Belgian Congo (later Zaire) when the Belgians gave that colony independence. How can you run a country with four university graduates? Yet things are improving. A new emphasis on the rule of law and democracy is moving slowly across the African continent, and it’s a key element of NEPAD and the goal of the African Renaissance. Just take a look at South Africa: 12 years after the advent of black majority rule it is not only still a constitutional democracy, but the economy is stronger than ever, and growing at sustained rates not achieved since the period immediately after WWII. But hey, I guess “re-colonisation” is the only option, eh? KT Cat, forget Haiti, take a look at Burundi. Four years ago it was a hellhole, embroiled in a seemingly interminable ethnic civil war. Now, following the deployment of South African led AU and later UN forces, the country is not only at peace, but has democratically elected a new government. Clearly, the use of force worked there. Another example: The DRC. Five years ago, it was the world’s worst war, with over 3 million dead, enough rebel groups to make even an acronym lover cry, and an economy that was rather non-existent. Though MONUC, the UN force in the Congo, got off to a slow start and made many mistakes along the way, it evolved into the UN’s most heavily armed and pro-active mission, going after rebels instead of just observing. The result is that the war has quietened down drastically, with most rebel groups laying down their arms and entering the peace process. Not only has this made it possible to hold a constitutional referendum without widespread violence, but it has paved the way for democratic elections this April, something that would have been considered impossible just two years ago. Plus, the DRC army has been reconstituted, and is slowly re-establishing the central govt’s authority over the entire country. Would you not call this progress? Is it not blindingly obvious that the intelligent use of military force can indeed solve seemingly intractable problems? Yes AIDS is a phenomenally serious problem, but it’s one that Africa’s nations are doing their utmost to deal with. Yet we cannot focus entirely on AIDS while ignoring all other problems. To do so would be stupid. Finally, kindly stop referring to “Africa” as if it were one country with a uniform set of problems and characteristics. Many African countries DO have respect for property rights, and a culture of the rule of law, and all the rest that goes with constitutional democracy.
Comment by Darren — 2/19/2006 @ 1:36 pm