By John Ashworth
A military faction had captured some of his unit's armoured personnel carriers. He walked unarmed into their camp and, after many days of negotiations, got the vehicles back intact. A brave soldier, but also an effective and efficient one. He achieved his objective; he retrieved the vehicles; no lives were lost; he kept the peace; presumably the level of trust between that local militia and the Kenyan forces was raised a notch or two. One can only imagine how certain higher-profile “peace-keepers” from other parts of the world might have reacted – a strike by helicopter gunships and special forces doesn't seem an unlikely scenario.
There are real differences between Africa and the “international community” (which I take to mean the powerful military and economic countries, dominated by north America and Europe, but often also including China, Russia, Japan and a few others). Africa is more relational, tending towards restorative justice, not wanting to break relationships or put others in a position where they lose face. They recognise complexities, and prefer “quiet diplomacy” to confrontation. The international community takes a stand on principles, tending towards retributive justice. They like things to be simple and straightforward. Something is wrong in the world, they can fix it, and they must do it quickly, whatever the consequences. Obviously both of these characterisations are generalisations and to some extent stereotypes, but they illustrate the point.
Many Sudanese have a charming albeit naïve faith that if only the world really understood Sudan, they would immediately step in and solve the problem. In reality, the world is dominated by self-interest, and that is as true in Africa as it is in any other continent. International political and military policies favour the strong and powerful. States will only intervene if they perceive it to be in their own interest. African governments tend to support each other, regardless of the needs of the people. International bodies such as the UN and AU are simply conglomerates of governments and do as much or as little as those governments agree. The UN Security Council is particularly weak, completely at the mercy of five states with vetoes. What's more, even when international policy seems to support the aspirations of a vulnerable or oppressed group for the time being, it must be treated with extreme caution as it may have deeper and longer term implications which are negative. The situation is constantly changing, leading to a foreign policy which makes sense to the donor, for example, but is illogically inconsistent to the recipient.
But let us return to the differences between Africa and the international community, which are very pronounced in peace-keeping. Generally the armies of the larger international powers are better equipped, have better logistics and communications capabilities, and are better trained than African armies. All of these require a level of money and resources which African armies do not have. In addition, several major countries have managed to keep their armies continually in combat, honing their fighting skills on real live battlefields, whether in Northern Ireland, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Iraq or Israel. This fuels a perception that international peace-keepers are more effective than Africans. It ignores the complete debacle of US peace-keeping forces in Somalia, the fact that even where European UN forces have been present, atrocities were allowed to continue (Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia are two