Violent spasms constantly shake the frame of African politics. Wars erupt between insurgents and government forces; stories of violence, rape, and mutilation are told and retold again and again, to the point where the international community becomes numb to the cry of Africa’s victims of war. Insurgencies seem to be almost commonplace in everyday African politics. It is as if something particular about Africa makes it prone to violent outbursts and stories of destitution. Media coverage has been unrelenting in catching every bloody detail that occurs each day, but while they do capture the horror and atrocity of war, the root causes of the conflicts seem to be obscured amidst what appears to be an endemic state of affairs. What comes to be increasingly common is the idea that much of these conflicts are due to primordial ethnic divisions – deep-seeded hatreds between peoples that have raged on until this day. Worst of all, this constant influx of war, struggle, and desperation in the news seems to naturalize the idea that African people are simply prone to violence and corruption. To top it off, when African countries do not suffer from the strife of civil war, they suffer from severe mismanagement of their resources. However, the two are connected.
What may seem to be “ethnic” in origin is in fact part of a bigger picture. Much of the conflict is undoubtedly over power, and much of the time, it is power over who will control the country’s resources. When there is little conflict, the resources themselves serve as a curse. This is not only limited to Africa, but also worldwide.
When origins of conflict are attributed to ethnicity, it is important to remember that many of these so-called “ethnicities” were actually imposed upon groups of Africans by their colonial occupiers. Take the grisly reminder of Rwanda as an example – Tutsis and Hutus did not exist prior to colonial occupation. Based solely on physical appearance, people were given ID cards designating them as ‘Hutu’ or ‘Tutsi’. For anyone who was disturbed enough by the lack of involvement by the international community, further research revealed that this was not as much an ethnic conflict as a struggle for political power. Hutus targeted those who may have been affiliated with the RPF – mostly Tutsis – but some moderate Hutus were killed as well. The problem was that news coverage had interpreted it to be an ethnic conflict rather than a political one, and by doing so the general feeling was that this was a primordial ethnic hatred against which little could be done, and that this was in fact the nature of the two groups. So then, if ethnicity is not at fault, what is it that causes so many insurgencies in Africa? By looking at what there is to gain, it seems that this is where the politics of resources comes into play.
Paul Collier and Anke Hoeffler from the University of Oxford came up with two motivations for insurgencies: greed and grievance. Upon closer inspection, many insurgencies seem to be related to the capture of resources, or greed. The risk of civil war seems to be directly related to a country’s income. In countries with entrenched poverty and the lure of natural resources, the potential for insurgency is high. When two or more groups enter into a power struggle for these resources, grievances are sure to follow for those on the losing side. Politics in Africa is usually a zero sum game.
This is where ethnic conflicts can also come into play. Because there is little class differentiation, most politics tend to be based on the one thing that can bring people together – ethnicity, real or imagined. Politicians must play on these identities to gather support in their game for resources. With resources like oil concentrated in a specific area, this spells trouble for ethnic groups, which tend to be regionally clustered. Coincidence or not, a combination of natural resources and ethnic identities sets the stage for a conflict of access to wealth. The conflict in southern Sudan is eerily similar to this situation. While both sides claim it is a border dispute, the territory in question – Abyei – is oil-rich land. The northern government in Khartoum and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) are using the Misseriya nomads and the southern Ngok Dinka. As stated in a May 22, 2008 Economist article on Abyei, “since time immemorial they have clashed over land and water…such issues can usually be resolved…but the groups have become pawns in a bigger game.” This bigger game is one over resources.
Liberia is another resource rich country beset by conflict. Liberia’s war was not the cause of its poverty, but it was definitely a consequence of it. A BBC news report states that the reliance on exporting their raw materials was a factor in propagating that poverty. It was a small portion of the elite who ended up dominating the indigenous Africans, who then resented the government and its institutions. The rural youth joined the militia groups early in the civil war. It is over, but now the peace remains fragile because of the unresolved issue of who will exploit and benefit from Liberia’s natural resources. In addition, Liberia’s diamonds are a resource that served to propagate the war as well as its spread into neighbouring Sierra Leone. Resources are not only a main cause of conflict and corruption, but also a means to sustain new conflicts.
Liberia’s case is not an unusual one. Many economists believe that natural resources in poor countries serve as a trap that paradoxically prevent them from becoming as rich as developed nations. Resource riches should not be seen as the answer to sustained growth. In fact, economists refer to this problem as “the Dutch disease,” after what happened from the effects of North Sea oil on the Dutch economy. A BBC report on the issue explains this as when the resource exports boost the country’s currency to rise in value against other currencies. This in turn makes the country’s other exports uncompetitive in the market. If such is the case, why not diversify exports? In many African countries, the simplicity of picking out easily exploitable resources crowd out the potential for any additional economic growth created by manufacturing industries. In addition, the volatility of raw material prices does not serve Africa’s interests well; as the price of oil fluctuates in today’s market, it is hardly conducive to long term investment. The legacy of colonialism cannot be forgotten either – many African colonies were reduced to farming a very limited variety of crops to their colonial powers, and once the bondage of colonialism was broken, the newly independent countries had little else to work with. It is unfair to expect so much from a continent that has suffered for so long. For those who follow African literature, Chinua Achebe’s novel, A Man of the People, has a passage that perfectly sums up the situation.
“A man who has just come in from the rain and dried his body and put on dry clothes is more reluctant to go out again than another who has been indoors all the time. The trouble with our new nation…was that none of us had been indoors enough to say ‘To hell with it’. We had all been in the rain together until yesterday. Then a handful of us…had scrambled for the one shelter our former rulers had left, and had taken it over and barricaded themselves in”.
Before Africa can be dismissed as an inherently violent, corrupt, and poor continent, careful consideration must be given to how this all took place. The international community, especially the former colonial powers, must help bear this responsibility. Africa must be recognized as a continent of potential instead of one prone to “ethnic” or “tribal” warfare. The questions are, of course, where to start. How should resources be managed? What sort of international intervention is needed? What new strategies can be implemented? These are no easy answers. The best bet is with Africa’s citizens, who know the troubles they face more than any other. Until their condition is stabilized, no progress can be made.
