Poor Leadership and Civil Wars - Literature review Example

Poor Leadership and Civil Wars Introduction Leadership issues have been fronted by most scholars who have studied the African politics and stability as the main cause for the wrangles and persistent civil wars. Indeed, many agree that this is true, while on the other hand, we have a strong debate from those who perceive these problems as being a combination of various issues that continue to engulf Africans in their conquest for better leadership, political stability, development and general welfare. This paper takes a keen look at the link between poor leadership and civil wars that have and are still being experienced in the African continent. To critically analyse this, the paper borrows from literature review of two sources one being an article “Kennedy and Touré: A Success in Personal Diplomacy Kennedy and Touré: A Success in Personal Diplomacy” written by Muehlenbeck, which will be summarized in the first part, and the other a book “Africa” authored by John Iliffe. A link between what has been presented in the two works will be critically examined to establish whether they agree or differ on both concept and principle. Summary of Kennedy and Toure: A Success in Personal Diplomacy Policies fronted by John F. Kennedy were significantly different from the ones practiced by Dwight D. Eisenhower during the cold war. JFK approached the African continent with friendship for he thought this was the only best way for integrating with Africa in its quest for nationalism and establishing itself as a force to reckon. This was not the case with DDE who thought his links with the European allies was most important and that Kennedy’s policies could only be carried out to the extent of not straining the cordial relations already established with the European nations. African nationalism came at a time when the cold war was at its peak. The advent of Africa’s quest for independent came at a time of superpower competitions and Washington had a firm belief in doing the best at the moment to shape the future for Africa. This was because of the fact that Africa was seen as being a more permeable battlefield that could be manipulated by the capitalist and communist states. This idea was affirmed by Nikita, the then soviet leader, when he spoke of the mission of the communist bloc to help in the African independence wars with the aim of ending colonialism in his speech of 6thJanuary 1961. Khrushchev’s speech was not taken lightly by Kennedy and thus declared the dedication of his administration in the support of Afro-Asian self-determination wars, even though the economic impact or contribution of Africa to the USA was quite insignificant, at only 4%. This was not, therefore a struggle prompted by economic gains but pushing the US policies and affirming its position as a superpower in the world competition (Muehlenbeck, pp.70-88). Kennedy strategically sought personal diplomacy as the best political model for influencing cordial relations with Africa. This happened to be applied by many US presidents including Roosevelt, Jimmy Carter, among others. The cultural aspects of African leaders in terms of their appreciation for face-to-face conversations and means of personal correspondence approach were significant in boosting JFK’s model. This is evidenced by the many visits a number of leaders from Africa made to Washington and the famous “Africa Day” celebrations that were marked at the White House with a public declaration by JFK that physical boundaries and distance abound but they still felt closer. The personal diplomacy concept further draws contrast between communists and capitalists when we look at the number of visits of African heads of states to Washington and those made to the Soviet (Muehlenbeck, pp.70-88). Before JFK, there were cold receptions of African nationalism in the USA, especially at the time of Eisenhower when JFK was still a senator. The events were further complicated when Sekou Toure came to the centre stage advocating for the rights of French West African going to an extent of organizing a massive strike to force a 20% increment in wages to the public sector workers. Toure was largely viewed as an African leader who embraced communism and this was held by Eisenhower. What followed later were the rejections of many offers prompted by the French State and Toure declared that Africans preferred living in poverty when free rather than being rich and enslaved. All economic and technical ties between the French republic and guinea were shut down and for that reason, totally nothing was left in Guinea. Indeed, the USA had no clear policy while dealing with Africa. It could not be well established as to what direction it needed to follow. The USA president happened to support French’s attack on Algeria, poor treatment of the diplomats from Africa to Washington and there was a slower response to the requests of acknowledging guinea as an independent state (Muehlenbeck, pp.70-88). JFK was fully determined to prevent guinea from sliding into the list of Cuba and took upon the republicans as having pushed the guinea state into communist bloc. Eisenhower was largely criticised for relenting to establish good relationship with guinea despite Toure’s efforts. A special mission was send to Africa for fact finding and was charged with the duty of giving recommendations to JFK on the way forward for Africa. It became largely held in the USA that African leaders preferred leaning towards the capitalist ideologies of the western states than the communist ideologies fronted by the soviet. To further improve on the public relations between the US and Guinea, a modest aid was suggested as a show of good faith and in support of it aligning with the US, which was approved by JFK in total disregard to Charles de Gaulle, the then French president. The US interest to guinea’s development was emphasized (Muehlenbeck, pp.70-88). Various visits to Guinea were made with the major one being that of Farley and a group of Afro-Americans and Canadian students. JFK’s frontier of was seen as having elicited a deep resonance within the African continent. However, there arose some form of displeasure in the US when Guinea turned down an offer to build a minor dam at Souapiti located on Konkoure River and gave a counter offer of building a midsized plant at Kinkon on the Konkoure’s tributary. It was not taken lightly since the US feared a challenge by the soviet in case it was allowed to build a large hydro-electrical dam on Souapiti, which would have caused a massive communist presence and subsequent quashing of the US objectives. Guinea was later to rescind on its earlier counter-proposal. There was a major shift towards the west when the then soviet’s ambassador to guinea was granted persona non grata status within guinea’s territory (Muehlenbeck, pp.70-88). Guinea’s president was invited to the US for a state visit. This was followed by good dealings between the US and Guinea and Toure was charmed by JFK. The Cuban missile crisis brought to fore the strategic importance of guinea to US as far as the soviet was concerned. Toure adamantly rejected soviet’s request to refuel its aircrafts from Conakry. Toure used all means to stabilize his relations with the US and this could further be evidenced from his sending of the French officials to Washington to denounce the claims made by France regarding Toure’s view of Kennedy’s treatment of racial strife. Finally, guinea openly declared US as its best friend. This friendship was marked by Guinea’s avoidance of aid from soviet and rejection of aid from France. Toure was saddened by the assassination of JFK. The cordial relationship that existed between Toure and Kennedy serves to show the extent to which US’s personal diplomacy could go in Africa (Muehlenbeck, pp.70-88). Analysis The involvement of Africa with the outside world was prompted by the slave trade. There was a significance resistance to European control of Africa. When we put the African political history to perspective, we realize that demography, land issue, agriculture, slavery, tribal alliances and the burden of being isolated from the other continents are the major issues affecting it. The role played by the colonialists in igniting civil wars in Africa is quite clear (Iliffe, pp.1-45). As can be seen from records, the policy of divide and rule that was fronted by the colonialists brought a sense of tribal selfishness and alienation within the African states. Civil wars could be more or less attributed to the fact that there is a scramble for personal gain than just leadership. He, who controls the state, controls the wealth and would do everything possible to protect what he has. This explains the constant civil wars due to African rulers sticking to power. The resources endowed to the African continent are seen as the sources of civil strife and have been viewed more as evil than blessings. Poor leadership could be viewed as the source of civil wars in Africa. However, this is not the only cause of civil wars. Indeed Africa has been seen to have some of the world’s brutal tyrants, yet this cannot be taken as the only reason why Africa has been engulfed in civil wars. The introduction of Christianity from the colonialists and Islamic religion from the east brought about religious divisions that have seen religious conflicts, especially in the northern parts of Africa. Control of trade routes by various communities led to wars. Some of the civil wars have been known to occur between communities that have the same agricultural practices. For example, most of the tribes that are traditionally pastoralists have been known to carry out cattle rustling both as a cultural practice and as a form of adding up their flocks. Also, in countries where we have huge mineral deposits, the resource use and who benefits most has had to cause civil strife with the countries disintegrating into civil wars. This could be seen in the Congo basin where the civil war has lasted for decades. Political support and alignments creates favourable grounds for civil anarchy. The problems are intentionally created in order to gain political mileage. It is easier for a political candidate to win an election within a divided nation than a united one. The less convincing part is the argument presented by Iliffe that continual isolation of Africa from the world stage has been the order of the day. We cannot generalize the causes of wars in Africa as being from poor leadership. This is because of the fact that just as Africa is a unique continent, each and every country within it is unique in its own nature and has different political as well as cultural inclinations. What is however more obvious is the role the colonialists played in the total disintegration of Africa. What was done at that time shaped the entire future of Africa (Iliffe, pp.1-45). Conclusion It is true that poor leadership is a source of civil wars in Africa as could be seen from the two works referred to above. This is because when leaders make poor decisions, citizens more or less follow them without a second thought. However, the poor leadership cannot be solely blamed for the civil wars seen in Africa. The issues of migration, demographic transitions, agriculture, religion, technology transfers and economic resources have played a major role in shaping Africa, as observed by Iliffe (Iliffe, pp.1-45), although Iliffe is not clear as to what events or practices brings about civil wars in Africa. The contribution made by the colonialists in the disintegration of Africa should not also be assumed. Works Cited Liffe, John,. Africans: The History of a Continent. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Muehlenbeck, Philip, E.,. "Kennedy and Toure: A Success in Personal Diplomacy." Diplomacy and Statecraft vol. 19 .1 (2008): 70-88. Read More