Western Military Intervention in Africa – A lose-lose situation

White House photo, President Bill Clinton announcing Operation Support Hope for Rwanda, July 1994. Courtesy of the Clinton Presidential Library. Public Domain (U.S. Government work).

Last Tuesday, it emerged that British military equipment was found amongst battlefields in Sudan. The discovery of British-manufactured small arms target systems and engines for armoured personnel carriers means that the UK is now implicated in the largest-scale humanitarian crisis on the planet. However, this is not the first time a Western nation has made a military invention in Africa, leading to disastrous consequences. More often than not, Western military intervention in Africa (or in some cases, the lack of it) has failed to ease conflict, sparking debate on how beneficial it really is.

Sudan 2025 - UK

The aforementioned news of the UK's involvement in Sudan comes months after the UN Security Council received information alleging that the UAE may have been supplying British-made resources to the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) of Sudan. Newer material has indicated that the British government then went on to approve further exports to the UAE for more military equipment in a campaign that has led to over 12 million people being displaced since April, 24.6 million facing food insecurity and over 150,000 civilian casualties.

Libya 2011 - NATO

NATO's intervention in 2011, leading to the overthrow of Gaddafi, was justified under humanitarian concerns and a need to protect Libyan citizens. Despite this, NATO reportedly attacked retreating Libyan forces and bombed Gaddafi’s hometown without clear justification under its ‘Right to Protect’ framework. Instances such as these have led some to assume the intervention was more aimed at overthrowing Gaddafi than protecting civilians. Following 2011, Libya was left without international support to ease through its inevitable period of political instability, leading to a power vacuum that allowed extremist groups like the Islamic State to exploit the situation and gain power. Furthermore, political fragmentation continues to remain prevalent in Libya to this day. 

Rwanda 1994 –  N/A

1994 saw Rwanda undergo a period of civil war, which then turned into genocide committed against the Rwandan Tutsi minority population. Over 800,000 Tutsi people were killed, and the long-term goal was their extermination as a group. However, Western powers, the USA chief among them, decided not to intervene, and the Clinton administration suppressed intelligence that proved genocidal intent against the Tutsis. The US government is reported to have not wanted a repeat of its failure in Somalia in 1992, another brutal conflict, and believed Rwanda had no strategic value worth intervening for. This move was heavily criticised, so much so that Clinton apologised on a state visit to Kigali in 1998 for not acting quickly enough or labelling the situation a genocide immediately.

Should Western Intervention in Africa Continue?

Whether you agree with Western military intervention in the above instances or not, one thing is for certain – its execution continues to be poor, resulting in unnecessary civilian casualties and long-term political instability. This then leads to geopolitical consequences too, including rising immigration and asylum seeking to Western countries. The question then becomes this: Is a stronger process needed to identify when intervention is necessary, or has Western military intervention shown itself to be a net negative cause of action? So much so that a ban or blanket refusal to intervene militarily would be more beneficial for all parties – African civilians and African political stability alike.

While this conversation may be worth having, it is reasonable to assume that any concrete outcomes to this debate will not be made anytime soon.