8:44AM
Time's Battleland: Follow-Up on African Christian-Muslim Fault Line Post
Sunday, August 28, 2011 at 8:44AM 
Good book on the observation of a religious fault line between the predominantly Muslim north and the predominantly Christian/other south of Africa:
"Dispatches From the Fault Line Between Christianity and Islam" by Eliza Griswold.
Find the book here on Amazon.
Find the NYT review here.
Read the entire post at Time's Battleland.
tagged Africa, China, Long War, US | in Time's Battleland | Email Article | Permalink | Print Article
Africa, China, Long War, US | in Time's Battleland | Email Article | Permalink | Print Article 
Reader Comments (14)
Great, I have a question (a thought experiment).
A few facts about Nigeria:
1. Population: 150 million.
2. Christian / Muslim split 50/50.
3. Ethnic diversity (estimated 250 million ethnic groups).
4. Males of military age : 26,802,678 (2005 estimate probably closer to 28 million today).
5. Population is at least six times the population of Iraq.
6. Remittances from Nigerians abroad (2009 estimate) $10 billion. (This is an indication of the ability of the Nigerian diaspora to fund an insurgency campaign).
I am a Nigerian and I would honestly like to know what AFRICOM could possibly do if Nigeria implodes due to ethnic / religious crisis tomorrow (this is a very real possibility). I can understand the urgent need for dialogue on economic matters (to keep young men off the streets), sharing of intelligence resources (FBI type work in nipping aspiring terrorists in the bud) and painstaking diplomacy.
These are the three most important issues to be dealt with and they are best handled by the (emasculated) State Department and CIA / FBI and this is where the emphasis should be.
The US (after Iraq) does not have the stomach for an Iraq style intervention. The leaders of Boko Haram are not stupid, they know this and they also know that no African nation (not Rwanda, Burundi, Ethiopia or even South Africa) is going to risk being sucked into a Nigerian sized quagmire.
(US military involvement would make sense if it was any good in counter-terrorism, but Iraq and Afghanistan prove otherwise). So what, exactly can AFRICOM do here except twiddle its thumbs / pretend to be seen to be doing something.
On the other side: In Somalia "Christian"(Ethopian) troops are fighting together with moderate Muslim militias against fundamentalist Shahaab militias.And what about the African Union---there you have a mixture of "Christian-Animist" and "Muslim" troops fighting together against Shahab.
Don´t forget the French example under Richieulleu: The Catholic-Christian France was making an alliance with the Muslim Turks/Osmans against the Catholic Habsburg Empire--for Richeliieu not religion was the main factor, but what we today call "national interest"/ raison d´etat.Therefore it is a question if the fault line will be Muslims against Christian if it comes to the question of coalition bulding and intervention.
Maduka is asking the right question: What could Africom do in Nigeria if the USA already cannot manage Iraq and Afghanistan. Except Libya Africom seems more to be a paper tiger which can only intervene in small counrties like Ivory coast as the French are doing at the moment.However: It are not just the fundamentalist Muslims who are steering up this conflict and try to polarize--the Christian Evangelicals which are mainly supported by the religious right of the USA are also an important factor for this sort of conflict. The US goverment should prohibit any religious missionary activities of Evangelical Christians in Africa--that would be much more important than the use of Africom.However, I read in Tom Barnett´s comment in the TIME that he is associated with the Pentecostalists, so maybe he won´t like this idea.
Hi Maduka and Ralf,
Personally, I think West Africa will be the first to be integrated into the global economy with 17 great nations (Nigeria, Cameroon, Mauritania, Senegal, Cote d' Ivoire, Chad, Ghana, Benin, Mali, Burkina Faso, Guinea, Togo, Guinea-Bissau, Gambia, Sierra Leone, Niger, and Liberia) through connecting the port cities(Lagos, Accra, Lome, Porto Novo, Abijan, Monrovia, Freetown, and Dakar) to eachother and extending roads and railroads out to the landlocked nations of Chad, Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso. That is the biggest strenth of West Africa, it's awesome coastline for trade.
To speak to the point of security, there is Boko Haram although that should be solved by the police since they aren't large yet. There is also the MEND organization in the south although it appears they simply want to work and have access to housing and education instead of idealogically fighting.
As far as what diplomacy can do first is invite the Nigerian business community to is discuss options for diversification of the economy to get GDP/Capita from $1500 currenty to at least $3000. I believe West Africa and the Middle East/Cental Asia happen about 2025 based on current growth. I believe this will also happen without major violence since West Africa is peaceful on the whole with a few small groups of fighters. Remember, people now want a better life to work and provide for family. What about US diplomats asking Ecowas for options on investment from China and India to provide some dollars the US could benefit? Does it always have to be the US by itself, not in this case.
Currently, there are 54 nations not integrated into the global economy with 5 having large populations (Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Ethiopia, and DRC), Tom calls this the non-integrated gap. This is NOT a permanent condition. In order to get out, internal security must be established and the economy must be above $3000 GDP/capita. There isn't much talk about it, but successful military campaigns agains insurgency requires 25 people per 1000 of the population that have NO death after major fighting of 1 month for a duration of 5 years, see Bosnia and Kosovo. Start with the population of Nigeria (150 million) which breaks down to roughly 3.8 million peacekeepers if Nigeria imploded, which I doubt. Must all come from the US? No. What about Nigeria, China, India, African Nations/Rest of World? My opinion is no one shows up without 10% of US involvement so that means 377,000 troops from the US. Nigeria would contribute about .75% of their population towards peacekeeping troops along with their current army of 78,500 so an additional 974,000 troops. China and India would both contribute 754,000 troops each and the rest of world(Turkey, Russia, Pakistan, Bangladesh) and african nations (South Africa, Egypt) would contribute the remaining 754,000.
For Africom standing by, the suggestion still remains to work closer with both the Chinese and Indian military to prepare mightily for this to NEVER happen in the first place since there isn't a mechanism for forcing nations to show up for peacekeeping duties. You could extend this scenario out for Pakistan with 176 million people although my thought is nations don't ever dissolve, unfortunately, only people perish in the 10s of thousands or hundreds of thousands. North Korea seems to keep going defying explanation.
I see West Africa as a peace watershed in the non-integrated gap with lots of people to provide a wonderful young market without major carnage although the magic won't start happening until 2025, only a short 14 years from now. I also don't see trade with only the US but Mexico and Brazil due to geography. I guess the short answer is easiest, get people to work as usual. The same applies to the US, Europe, Latin America, and Asia!
Thanks.
Derek Bergquist
This video from 2009, shows the heavy handed response of Nigerian Security operatives to Boko Haram. I have my doubts as to whether a good number of people being summarily executed were guilty of terrorism (some of them are clearly under-aged)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BT4EWz_xy8
Are these the people AFRICOM intends to work with? (Hint: have you heard about the concept of 'guilt by association?').
There are millions of young men pissed off by the heavy handedness of Nigerian Security operatives and they are willing cannon fodder for Al Qaeda. I don't think you have fully thought through the challenges and complexities of Africa's larger states (Hint: Nigeria is neither Somalia nor is it Djibouti).
Are you sure you want the US military to be associated with this? Remember the experience in Latin America (you haven't gotten over it yet). Your analysis looks great on paper, but you are about to send the US straight into an Elephant trap in Sub-Saharan Africa.
It only takes one mullah on a Friday afternoon to proclaim that brutal Nigerian Security operatives are being trained by AFRICOM - and by loudly proclaiming your military interests in Africa, you've already firmly planted your feet in a tar pit.
Derek Bergquist,
Before you can start talking about either economic or military solutions, you have to address the underlying political problems. This is what I fear the most about the militarization of US foreign policy - majoring on the minors.
Every African nation with a North South / Muslim Christian split needs a renegotiation of its political architecture by the major political pressure groups. Gbagbo was dealt with by the French, but the underlying problems still remain and trust me, they will re-emerge later this decade.
Many of us in Nigeria understand that we need a sovereign national conference to discuss the basis for nationhood. We need to ask ourselves question like "is a Confederation of semi-autonomous regions preferable to what is essentially a Unitary state?". (Sharia and Evangelical Christianity cannot peacefully co-exist in a Unitary state, but may be more acceptable in a confederation of semi-autonomous regions).
These are the complicated questions I think Western diplomats should be considering and the State Department should take a lead on that. As I have earlier proved, AFRICOM is pretty much useless for the real big hitters in Africa (Nigeria in West Africa, South Africa in the Southern Region and Kenya to a limited extent, in East Africa).
(Many of you are unaware of the immense cultural, security and economic influence both South Africa and Nigeria have on the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa.)
An implosion of Nigeria will totally distabilise West Africa and there is no nation in Africa that has the resources to deal with an influx of the tens of millions of potential refugees.
Derek Bergquist,
I think the East Africans are better placed to benefit from globalization (also progressive nations near to South Africa, like Botswana).
West Africa has several problems, it has the worst infrastructure links outside Central Africa. Francophone West Africa economies are so dominated by France (the CFA is controlled from Paris and the French still have an irrational fear of being dominated by the "Anglophone" World). Consequently, there is less economic integration than there should be.
(East Africa and Southern Africa are largely Anglophone)
Hi Maduka,
Thanks for the great feedback, I appreciate it.
Sure, I'm simplifying things on paper and do have a tendency of focusing on economics first after security. I do acknowledge that Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Ethiopia and DRC have huge populations and is quite a scary thing on paper for troop contribution to do things the correct way without an insurgency.
The only conclusion I am drawn to is the happy ending picture for not only Africa but US/Mexico/Canada, LATAM, and Asia, which is full economic integration without the scourge of warfare and famine. Like I said, that should be eliminated by 2040 based on current economic growth for all nations getting beyond $3000 GDP/Capita and 2060 for all democracies at $10,000 GDP/Capita. There will still be problems although different and focused on other things.
It is entirely possible that Nigeria may split or DRC may split, the challenge remains, how to make a living once that happens? How do the people in Northern Nigeria work or do they just fight Southern Nigeria for some money and come back to the same trading partners? Look at Yugoslavia, broke all apart only to be independent and trading with eachother 15 years later. Look at Vietnam, one nation only to go back to the US for trade 20 years after the war. What is the point? I'm trying to skip over the death and get to the happy ending of working together. I didn't say like eachother or live together but loving the concept of working together without taking up arms because you have something to lose, namely your home or your livelihood for family.
Western diplomats should focus on economics and remain sensitive to history/religion/ethnic differences. That should not stop security/health/education from moving forward with everyone. That shouldn't drag out for 30 years, 5 years for political state reconcilliation is more than adequate. Also, both Ghana and Nigeria speak english and have law based on english common law so that is a huge help. That won't mean a thing if a drought or flood devestates Nigeria or Ghana like Pakistan last year with everyone not having money to mitigate those effects.
I'm tired of this war crap coming down the pike every twenty years for the US while the world sits back and judges without providing solutions. Where was Nigeria to help with Pakistan in the 1990s after the US walked away? Where was Nigeria to help with Haiti since 1915? Where was Nigeria to stop the war in the DRC from 1998 to 2003? I have friends in the service that are changed forever from what they had to do. I am the first generation in my family that never served in a war. I am not unique and I'm sure you share my experiences too and we probably agree on 80%. I don't have all the sensitivities for all nations although I do know that they want a better life like everyone else. Until all nations are beyond $3000 GDP/Capita they can muddle to $10,000 GDP/capita and get democratic, the military question will be there. That question stops by 2040 and 2060 respectively.
Thanks for your time.
Derek Bergquist
Three points:
1) Maduka is asking the right question when brings up the idea about a confederation of more autonomuos regions within a state. Maybe he is right that Christian Evangelicals and Muslims cannot exist in a unitary state.It´s interesting to see that Philip Zelikow has the same idea in an article in the Financial Times: Instead of a dictaorship which brings all in a line and to be financed by gas- and oil incomes, it would be much more natural to sign agreemnets which give the tribes and different social groups more autonomy and a fair deal in the distribution of national income.Multiethnical societies in countries like Lybia, Iraq and Syria will make their experiments with federal and confederal structures. The unitary state, the son of a bitch of colonization will disappear.The unitary state will be replaced by somethinh new.
Therefore Maduka´s idea of a national conference to discuss this issue (confederation,etc.) before things explode is a very good idea.
2) Is it necesaary that there has to be a per capita income of 3000 dollars in West Africa? This sounds like benchmarking. But wouldn´t a more social just society and a more equal distribution of the present national income in these countries already reduce the tensions?
3)What about the political role of the Christian Evangelicals in Africa--till now nobody answered my question.Seems to be a very sensitive issue in the name of freedom of religion...
Ralf and Maduka,
Yes a conference on confederation and autonomous regions are great, as long as it completes objectives in 5 years or less not dragging on for 30 years without results. I'm sure autonomous regions are fine, too bad people can't see themselves as part of a country while recognizing their individual differences as complementing eachother. This means Christians seeing their Muslim brothers as part of a larger country with hopes and dreams of providing for family.
Yes, $3000/capita is a definite benchmark and more equitable distribution would be welcome. Although if you are not beyond that number you are disconnected from the global economy and remain trapped with disease, religious intolerance, highly unequal wealth distribution, difficulty mobilizing police with the desired effect of NOT using the military.
I am stoked for west africa since it is the wealthiest area of Africa behind the Magreb and has access to the ocean with major cities and populations. Maybe the mayors of Accra, Dakar, Abijan, Monrovia, Freetown, Conakry, and Lagos are the go-to people to get this done, while following the Brazil development model using Chinese and Indian cash and investments.
It would just seem a shame to have a large state no matter where break up only to come back to eachother for business. My point is to skip this situation entirely through economics, then politics, with the military as a last resort, NOT a first.
Thanks.
Derek Bergquist
Derek,
Even though we were not helpful in Pakistan and the DRC, we have 5,000 troops in Darfur today. In cooperation with the British we ended the Sierra Leonian conflict and we were instrumental to keeping the peace in Liberia.
So it is not just the US that contributes to ending conflicts around the World.
Hi Maduka,
That is great, and I regret not mentioning those instances in Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Darfur and apologize. It is that kind of spirit that will be needed currently to carry the day in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Iraq. I would be far more comfortable with Nigeria on board in providing more troops to Afghanistan or negotiating with Pakistan for solutions to getting the taliban or al qaida to the international criminal court.
I see really only five cases in the future with a possible military solution in North Korea (seeming more remote within 10 years), Myanmar, Sudan, Zimbabwe, and DRC. I'm sure political reconcilliation would be pursued concurrently with an economic buildout in the major/capital cities in those nations although I don't believe those leaders would allow that with the exception of the DRC. Money doesn't rule everything although it controls many things like security/health/housing/education. The US is finding that out now with our accumulated debt.
Would the mayor of Lagos pursue direct trade ties with say New York City, Boston, or Atlanta in agriculture or manufacturing or telecommunications or film? I believe so, that is why I don't worry too much about Nigeria at all, I see a great partner.
No, the US is not the only one that ends conflicts and there are legitimate complaints about our condcuct in the cold war with about 37 nations and between 30 to 60 million casualties during that time. I am responsible for that even though I wasn't there. I am responsible for US actions in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and Somalia even though I am not there. These are the toughest cases, 5 cases out of 226 current nations that require a solution this extreme.
The Nigerian people would probably come up with better solutions for the next 5 situations of North Korea, Myanmar, Sudan, Zimbabwe, and DRC although I believe would take some force to solve, mainly peacekeepers based on 25 per 1000 population for 5 years with economic buildout to $3000 gdp/capita with no one dying like Bosnia in 1995 and Kosovo in 1999. The US will share a limited role in the future with more nations outside of NATO and I beileve only 10% US contribution is necessary if the world demands our participation.
Again, thanks for the feedback.
Derek Bergquist
Dr. Barnett,
This is my last post. (I think I've spent too much time on your blog). I have a few closing points.
1. The US policy establishment seems to be either unwilling or incapable of selling AFRICOM to either the African people or African decision makers. I suspect it is the former (unwilling), your foreign policy establishment has not yet seen the need to sell AFRICOM aggressively.
2. Most Sub-Saharan nations are (albeit imperfect) democracies. That means that politicians are more responsive to the wishes of their people. The American foreign policy establishment has not woken up to the realisation that it needs to talk directly to the African people (VOA budgets are being cut and emphasis is placed on outreach to Muslim areas, neglecting the equally important Christian areas).
3. Your suggestion that the Chinese and Americans cooperate instead of compete in Africa shows that you clearly haven't been listening to African policy makers - they want you to compete. Spend some time reading Wikileaks and listening to the Nigerian Finance Minister. The feeling on the street is that Africa will get a better deal when the Chinese and the West compete.
4. Your foreign policy establishment is not equipped to fully understand the complexities of Africa and neither are the Europeans. Africa has moved on since the sixties and there is a new generation of young educated Chinese (usually multilingual), who cut their teeth doing business in Africa. They will give your future foreign service officers a run for their money. ( Hint: I have interacted with a couple of them)
5. Expand your Africa policy to include more than Oil and Gas, Counter-Terrorism, Training African Soldiers (or training future thugs and human rights abusers) and Humanitarian Aid / HIV / Malaria prevention. Africa needs business enablers (roads, power systems, ports and airports). If you think that you can simply leave that important task to the Chinese, Turks, Indians and Brazilians and still remain relevant in Africa - you are in for a rude shock. Africa is not East Asia and the dynamics are different.
6. Do you really think that a foreign policy establishment that did not fully understand the differences between Sunni and Shiite can deal with the complexities of a large continent with over a thousand different ethnic groups? Let me tell you what will happen in Somalia, you will get all the terrorists you are looking for and then lose interest (America is famous for having the attention span of a gnat). You will then leave behind the embers of what will be misconstrued as a war orchestrated by America pitting "Christian" Ethiopia against the good Muslims of Somalia.
7. Your grand theory of everything needs to be more fine-grained. It is too coarse-grained to be useful to the African context. There are too many assumptions (America's strategic competence, willingness of American people to commit to military operations in Sub-Saharan Africa etc) and there is also a gaping big hole (African reaction to these moves).
Now let me get back to my work (I am a Business Consultant).
If there was ever a time for the United States to hang up it's guns, marry the school marm and ride away into the sunset...it's when someone suggests that we send our military into Africa. Run, do not walk, away from any military adventure on the dark continent.
The French, the Germans, the Dutch and the British, all plundered, raped, ruled and died in a futile attempt to tame that vast and troubled land. Leave the Africans alone. The Europeans went there after minerals, gold, diamonds, tobacco, rice, and just plain adventure. Now we are lured by the pursuit of terrorists? And who do the terrorists attack in Africa? European embassies. Hotels where tourists stay. What is our plan? Find a new place for terrorists to attack us? The old places will go nicely, thank you.