Africa: Gateway to Peace
Author: Brendon Lewis
Originally Published at Peace and Conflict Monitor on: 01/18/2005
Africa: Gateway to World Peace
If ever a place in the world needed the blessings of peace and stability
then that place is the continent of Africa.
Africa remains a volatile continent because of its continuous plague of
self-appointed military governments and would be revolutionaries. Whether
their objective is to gain possession of territory, natural resources or simply
power and control, people acting with shameless selfishness and disregard for
the welfare of others, continue to cause the problems here that base natures and
low-minded leadership always cause in the world, and we constantly see the
results of such problems reflected in the plight of the many millions of
innocent casualties and refugees that are the victims of the ‘Grab it for
ourselves’ mentality that is the ultimate cause of any conflict.
This mentality is of course not unique to Africa. Many so-called
civilised nations
have histories steeped in acts and campaigns of theft and
violence. Even today, we
still see them pursuing acts of war out of thinly
disguised motives of self-interest and acquisition.
Why Africa is more prone to problems of this nature at this particular point
in time is due mainly to the hardships and lack of restraints that exist on this
continent.
Hardship, especially poverty and starvation, bring our both
the worst and best of
human qualities: the starving mother, who gives up her
own food to see that her
children live and survive shows the best human
qualities; the arrogant soldier, who
uses his gun to take the food from the
mouths of children to feed himself, shows the very worst.
Unfortunately, because of the lack of restraints in some parts of Africa,
the first type are vulnerable to the campaigns and ravages of the second
type, and will continue to remain so until such times as some form of restraint
is set up so that any would be militia could not arm themselves and create
problems for others.
If of course, mentality of any would be military campaigners could be
elevated to the point that they would practise self-restraint and only act out
of the best interests for everyone, then any other form of imposed restraint
would be unnecessary.
Realistically however, we are more likely to see
flying pigs than to see this happening to the extent that Africa could be a safe
and secure continent.
What is the solution then? Africa has in recent years had examples of
every type of crises and conflict that might manifest in the world; Genocide,
invasion of territory, revolution and rebellion, would-be dictators vying for
power, anarchy and dissolution, struggles to control wealth and resources.
The only thing missing is the march of the Roman Empire across the continent of
Africa conquering and subjugating everyone as it went! So a solution for
Africa would be a solution for the rest of the world; if Africa could be made
safe and secure, then the rest of the world could be made safe and secure by the
same means. That’s what is good about the continent of Africa at the
moment: it can be an example for the rest of the world to follow.
Worldpeace.org.uk (our website) advocates that the only real solution to
achieving World peace, is for each individual nation or regime, to give up its
armed forces and weapons, and for there to be one central, universal army (but
not government) to maintain security in the world. We give various accounts of
how this may be brought about. Africa is one of the places that we consider to
be a good place to start.Before describing how it could be achieved, emphasis
must be placed on the integrity and character of any such army; it would have to
be of the highest principles and discipline, otherwise it would only create a
worse problem than those it is intended to resolve. We give details of how
this character and integrity can be cultivated on our website.
So how can a central army be created and what will it do? To create a
central army in Africa would of course require the support and direction of an
organisation such as the African Union, but we see it proceeding something like
this:
First of all, some relatively stable countries, Ghana, Togo, Benin and
Nigeria would be good examples, agree to combine their armies and weapons to
form one larger
single unit. Why would they want to do that? Well for
one thing, by doing that the
first advantage would be that they have a
bigger and better equipped army available to defend all four countries.
Secondly, by giving this army automation, i.e.: it acts under its own volition
and not under the direction of any of the governments of these countries, it is
also ensured that none of these countries will ever be at war with each
other. How could they- they only have one army between them? This
combined army would both protect these four countries from outside invaders, and
also ensure that no other militia were allowed to form and arm themselves within
there own borders.
Next door to Ghana is the country Ivory Coast, which is currently
experiencing
problems with rebel groups. For a legitimate government,
joining a coalition army
would mean giving up control of its own army and
weapons, but for the advantage of having a larger and more equipped army
available to deal with the problem of rebel factions. Such rebel factions
could then be disarmed and disbanded, but of course, allowed to express any
grievances that they may have through other, legitimate channels.
Any stable country could one by one be amalgamated into this coalition army
with the object of it becoming one universal army acting under its own volition
and self-
restraint, (this is not going to be an army of conquest and
subjugation), but it is useful here to show how countries with problems can be
incorporated into and benefit from it.
Liberia for example, is next to Ivory Coast. Liberia is not so much a
country with a rebellion problem, but rather two rival factions vying for power
by means of armed conflict. Both sides now are beginning to realise the
pointless destructiveness of their engagement. If there was a coalition
army in formation both sides could agree to surrender their armies and weapons
to it and settle their dispute for power via the ballot box, thereby saving a
lot of bloodshed and disruption to the lives of the Liberians.
Sierra Leone, is another country having difficulties on the West Coast of
Africa, only here it seems that it is the people who are having problems with
the government, rather than the other way round. If it was the case that
the population of a country was having problems with a government whose only
interest was to stay in power in order to get rich by controlling that country’s
natural resources (e.g.: Sierra Leone’s diamonds), then at the request of that
population the coalition army could remove that government and make it surrender
its army and weapons. The coalition army could then assume the role of
defending that country which would then be free to elect another more altruistic
government.
This then is how the central army would gradually expand and bring peace to
Africa. We appreciate that some problems are more deeply entrenched and
difficult to eradicate than others are; gorilla rebels for example, have already
proved to be more than a match for the might of the U.S. army. A universal
army however, would be better established to deal with such problems than any
other arrangement, and with a policy of intolerance and disarmament of any other
form of militia, with appropriate preventative measures, e.g.: cutting off the
supplies of ammunition to these groups. Eventually, all rebel factions would be
rousted and overcome, if indeed they still felt that they needed to rebel after
a universal army was established.
Other problems are easier to resolve. If for example, there had been a
universal army established when Eritrea invaded Ethiopia in 1998, all Ethiopia
would have had to do would be to join the universal army and enjoy the benefit
of a much larger and better equipped armed force to defend their
territory. As a result of such a conflict, Eritrea could have been
overcome and made to surrender its own army and weapons to the universal army,
who would then both police it from acting aggressively again in future, and also
defend it against any other aggressor. The border between Ethiopia and
Eritrea would then be independently determined and maintained from then
on. The same would apply to any other border dispute or invasion of
territories.
A larger, more encompassing armed body could also overcome the current
problems in Somalia. If there was a universal army they could impose a law of
disarmament in Somalia, i.e. no more militia with their own warlords, arms and
ammunitions. One militia cannot surrender its arms and soldiers at the moment
because the others would all move in and overpower it. It needs outside control,
protection and supervision.
Complete disarmament of the various factions in Somalia could be achieved
either
forcibly or peaceably depending on the agreement and co-operation of
these various factions.
If this universal African army was created and it brought peace to the
continent of
Africa, then that would be a major contribution to World peace
in itself.
However, we (Worldpeace.org.uk) see this as being only a first step, one that
the rest of the world could observe and follow. If a single, universal army
brings peace to Africa, then a single universal army will bring peace to the
whole world. To us it is self evident that it would; our mission is to
make it clear to the rest of the world. To this end we solicit your support
through our website (www.Worldpeace.org.uk).
Brendon Lewis
