The following posting is from Andrew McFeaters. McFeaters is currently studying in the GSPIA program at Pitt where he is in part focusing on security policy in Africa. McFeaters is also a Marine, so I ask the readers to dismiss reality for a moment. Yes, a Marine who can write in complete sentences sometimes, I know--it is a slight miracle.
Since 2011, the French
have been involved in four different military interventions in Northern and
Western Africa. Surprisingly, the
Cheese-Eating Surrender Moneys have been successful, at least in considering
their initial goals for the interventions.
The initial goal of each intervention was to push back the mostly Muslim
extremist groups and secure their interests in each country. While many reports say that their actions
haven’t eliminated the opposition, but simply rebuffed them and pushed them
into other countries, such as Niger, Nigeria, and Southern Libya, the first
steps of the interventions have succeeded.
The
French don’t seem to be naïve enough to think they have “won” each
intervention, and to ensure the security and governance situation in each
country is in a position to succeed the French have left small amounts of troops
and resources in each country.
Currently, the French have 1200 troops in The Central African Republic,
with a promised additional 400 troops arriving in the near future, 450 troops
still in the Ivory Coast, a token force in Libya, and near 3,000 troops in
Mali.[1] These forces main focus is to work with
African Union, NATO, and UN forces still in the country to ensure the security
situation remains under control and the extremist groups cannot further their
footholds in the country.
France
has a long history of involvement in Africa, and their current level of
involvement seems to be a continuation of past policies. History is a vital part of these
interventions. Because France has been
involved in Africa for hundreds of years, they undoubtedly have numerous
national interests, as well as thousands of French nationals on the continent. This makes the volatile countries in Northern
Africa particularly important to the French, and a cessation of involvement in
the African continent is unlikely.
The
French President, Francois Hollande, has sought to lessen the French
involvement in the continent, but these campaign promises are eerily similar to
statements by former President Sarkozy, among other former French Presidents
and Prime Ministers. Both men promised a
smaller role in Africa, but these promises are easier to honor when French
interests and citizens are not threatened.[2] Speaking on the recent activity in the
Central African Republic, Hollande stated: (If France) “weren’t there, no other
army in this part of the world- Africa- would be able to launch such an
operation to save lives and establish peace.”[3] This statement can be readily applied to the
other French interventions in past years, and due to this very reason, there is
no reason to suggest French involvement in Africa will come to an end.
What does the French Involvement in Africa mean for
the rest of the World?
As
discussed above, the French have continued their role of
intervening in the African Continent in the name of providing regional security
and protecting civilian lives. The French have not typically acted alone in
these interventions. Often, the French
forces act in conjunction with African Union, NATO, and UN forces. Each of the recent interventions have been
done through either UN or NATO (or both) mandates calling for action within the
countries.
These actions are
mostly done in agreement with other global powers, but the French have taken
key roles in each action. This leaves
the rest of the typically intervening powers (The U.S., Britain, Germany, and
Russia, among many other smaller countries) in a unique position. With the exception of on the African
continent, many of the other military interventions have been led or greatly
supported by the U.S., either through funding or troops. So what does this mean for these other
countries?
The
U.S. has seen its African Command expand greatly in the last 20 or 30 years,
and this has been heralded by some African leaders but detested by others. In my opinion, most credible leaders in
Africa support the United States’ increased presence, but the “bad” leaders or states
where the majority of the population is Muslim have not been overly happy.
The
U.S. should look at the increased role of the French with a watchful, but
hopeful, eye. If the French are willing
to take the lead and act according to international laws, this frees up the
U.S. forces (and most importantly dollars) to focus elsewhere. The U.S. can be relieved of combat leadership
roles, and focus more on training and security roles, as well as allow a focus
in other regions, notably in Asia, where the U.S. is still trying to figure out
how to deal with China, among other issues.
As a realist, and most importantly (in my opinion at least) a pragmatist
when considering international affairs, I think this is a best possible
scenario for the U.S. and its national interests. Only time will tell if this lowly first year
grad students opinion is correct, but if I am I will loudly and vocally praise
myself for my foresight and keen opinions on international affairs.
[1] Associated
Press. "France Tries to Rewrite Its Role in Africa." Washington Post.
The Washington Post, 8 Dec. 2013. Web. 17 Dec. 2013.
[2] Lynch, Colum.
"France: Mali's 'existence' at Stake." Foreign Policy.
N.p., 15 Jan. 2013. Web. 14 Dec. 2013.
[3] Associated
Press. "France Pushing EU to Fund Military Interventions." Washington
Post. The Washington Post, 16 Dec. 2013. Web. 17 Dec. 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment