Ten Reasons why United States Intervenes in Political Crisis in African Countries: Survey - Research Paper Example

Module Ten Reasons why United s Intervenes in Political Crisis in African Countries: Survey Throughout its timeline as a superpower i.e. when it shared the title with the USSR and now as sole super power, United States has intervened in the affairs of other countries in several ways including militarily. Africa has received its fair share of US military influence in times of humanitarian emergencies and during the race for supremacy against the USSR. US military activities have in recent times taken three courses. The first being a direct approach through the US military outfit AFRICOM (Warner 6), military support through the American-led African Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI) (Omach 73) and lastly, in conjunction with other countries such as the recent intervention into Libya through NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) (Shah 2011). US military involvement in Africa is a subject of much debate due to a number of factors. This study will analyze the reasons for US military intervention in Africa as put forth in literature and opinions before establishing a hypothesis to be tested through a survey to determine the reasons behind US military intervention. One of the reasons that the US has strongly used to justify or legitimize its military intervention in Africa is for the purposes of humanitarian aid. On several occasions, African states have degenerated into chaos and civil crisis with governments unable to protect their citizens such as Somalia and Comoros (Ramuhala 1). In my view, this explanation does not stand scrutiny since the US failed to intervene in Rwanda where genocide unfolded. In other instances, the US has intervened using military force in a bid to protect its own national security due to the advent of terrorism. African states may provide fertile grounds for terrorism breeding in two ways; direct support to terrorists or poor law enforcement. Libya, Somalia and Sudan have all been observed to train and facilitate terrorist activities such as Al Qaeda cells (Carafano and Gardina 3). This appears as a strong reason behind military intervention in Africa. Critiques of US military intervention in other countries including in Africa point out that it does so solely for own interests especially for the vast African resources. Political turbulence in the Middle East are shifting the attention of the US and other economic powers to African oil resources, with Dixon (2007) arguing that humanitarian intervention through military action is just a scapegoat for the US. I believe this is a strong reason especially in light of the fact that the US failed to intervene in Rwanda, the reason being lack of US national interests. A reason related to the previous one is based on global economic dominance. China, India and a resurgent Russia have made advances into Africa and placed themselves in a good position to gain access to important resources. Specifically, China has emerged as a strong challenger to the US. Africa is a key player in global economics, and the US uses military intervention whenever they get the opportunity to counter such competition (Dixon 2007). This to me appears to be a plausible explanation since the US position, as an economic superpower, is clearly under threat from the likes of China. Besides economic hegemony, the US is interested in maintaining its position as the world’s sole superpower, which involves diplomatic means, aid and economic partnerships. However, this objective may be pursued through military intervention in African states where political upheavals may be precipitated to dispose uncooperative governments, or cooperative governments supported against rebelling elements seen as not sharing similar ideologies to the US (Wright 2011). This is also a strong explanation since it was clearly at play during the Cold War. The US may also take advantage of political crises in Africa to accomplish revenge or removal of enemy governments from power. It is well documented that the US has on several occasions tried to remove Muammar Gaddafi the formerly the Libyan leader from power through planned assassinations. This is due to his opposition to perceived US domination and his support for terrorism activities such as the 1986 Berlin Discotheque Bombings. The US recently capitalized on the Libyan Revolution to finally have Gaddafi removed albeit through NATO (Hu 2011). This reason is also acceptable on a personal level. Another reason that has been advanced to explain US military intervention in Africa is in its commitment to help friendly governments against rebellion that is perceived as not being friendly to the US. It is for this reason that the US reiterated its commitment to help Nigeria in the Niger Delta crisis against militants (ASRP 2009). I agree with this view especially considering that there have been several similar situations such as the one in Nigeria in other parts of Africa such as Madagascar, where the US did not intervene in any military sense. In other instances, the US has carried out military interventions in African states so as to secure its embassies and evacuate or protect American citizens in times of political turmoil. This was the case in Liberia in 1990 and Zaire in 1991 where reinforced forces were sent to evacuate US citizens and protect US embassies during times of widespread violence and riots in Monrovia and Kinshasa respectively (CSR 2008). Embassy protection is also a plausible explanation for military action in Africa from a personal point of view. On several occasions, the US has used the explanation of ensuring that international peace is not disturbed to engage in military activities in Africa as demonstrated by intervention in Somalia in 1992, 2004 and 2005. While this explanation appears strong especially considering that the threat to international peace is quite real, it still does not explain why the US would only intervene selectively and ignore areas with much higher threats to international peace and more widespread conflicts (CSR 2008). This is indicative of the national interests in US military activities in Africa as prevailing over concern for international peace. The last explanation for US military involvement in Africa is in its search for a strategic position from which to monitor and react to anti-US military operations in the Arab world. Military operations in Africa provide the US with opportunities to set camp for example in the Horn of Africa from which events in hostile Arabian states can be closely monitored. Here, the US also sets up cooperation modalities such as ACRI and military bases. This argument does not appear to be particularly convincing since the US has close allies in the Arab world from where it could set up military bases. Hypothesis The reasons generated in the introductory part can generally be categorized into national interests versus genuine humanitarian concern, and this classification is used to generate the hypothesis of this study. Null Hypothesis: people most likely agree that the US mainly pursues its national interests when it intervenes militarily in African political crises. A Survey into the Public’s Perception of the Reasons for US military Interventions in Africa In order to test the hypothesis, a survey was undertaken in which people’s opinions were sought in the issue of US military intervention in African states. Survey Design The survey design was quantitative with matrix-rating scale questions based on a 5-point likert scale based on agreeability of each statement (Brace 66). Close-ended questions were employed, developed from the ten reasons in the introduction upon which the respondents will judge agreeability (45). The questionnaire used in the survey also collected demographic data from the respondents (age and sex) in order to provide more insight into the issue. The ten questionnaire statements were as follows: The US uses military interventions in Africa for humanitarian purposes (Q1). The US employs military action in Africa in order to fight terrorism threats (Q2). The US intervenes in Africa through use of the military in order to take advantage of the continents resources such as oil (Q3). The US uses military intervention in Africa to counter economic threats from countries such as China (Q4). The US employs military interventions in African conflicts in order to remove uncooperative elements for the ultimate goal of consolidating its super power status (Q5). The US uses military intervention to take advantage of conflicts which provide an opportunity to overthrow enemy governments (Q6). The US intervenes in Africa through the military in a bid to protect its allies from enemy threats (Q7). The US employs military intervention so as to secure its citizens and embassies in African states (Q8). The US uses military intervention in order to ensure that threats to international peace emanating from Africa are nullified (Q9). The US uses military interventions to take advantage of opportunities to set up military bases from which events in the Middle East may be monitored (Q10). The 5-point likert scale used was as follows: Strongly Agree Agree Not Sure Disagree Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 The survey was undertaken through issuing the questionnaire to ten random individuals of whom men were 6. Results and Data Analysis Table 1: Respondent Agreeability to Questionnaire Statements Respondents Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 R1 4 2 1 1 1 2 4 2 3 2 R2 3 2 2 2 3 1 4 2 2 2 R3 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 5 4 R4 2 5 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 3 R5 2 2 4 2 2 4 5 2 2 2 R6 4 4 1 4 2 2 2 5 4 2 R7 2 4 2 2 3 4 2 2 4 2 R8 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 R9 2 2 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 2 R10 1 1 3 2 4 5 2 1 1 5 This can be further presented according to agreement to each question as follows: Table 2: Responses according to Questions Question Number of people who: Strongly Agree Agree Not Sure Disagree Strongly Disagree Q1 1 5 2 2 0 Q2 1 6 0 2 1 Q3 6 2 1 1 0 Q4 5 4 0 1 0 Q5 2 5 2 1 0 Q6 1 6 0 2 1 Q7 0 5 2 2 1 Q8 1 5 1 2 1 Q9 1 2 1 4 2 Q10 0 6 1 2 1 From the survey questions, Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6 and Q10 are categorized as own national interests while the rest are humanitarian and genuine reasons for US military interventions in Africa during political unrest. Basing on this, the following analysis can be done basing on the likert scores: Table 2: Responses According to Question Categories Strongly Agree (X/50) Agree Not Sure Disagree Strongly Disagree National Interests 13 (26%) 24 (48%) 4 (8%) 7 (14%) 2 (4%) Genuine Humanitarian Interests 4 (8%) 23 (46%) 6 (12%) 12 (24%) 5 (10%) Generalization of this data reveals that 74% of respondents feel that the government engages in military action in Africa for own national interests while only 16% think otherwise. 54% of the respondents also feel that the government intervenes through the military for humanitarian purposes. However, a significant 34% are of the opinion that the US does not seek humanitarianism in its military intervention in African states. Respondent demographics basing on the likert scores: Table 4: Responses According to Demographics Sex Age Male Female 35 National Interests Agreement 25 (67%) 12 (33%) 20 (54%) 17 (46%) Disagreement 4 (44%) 5 (56%) 4 (44%) 5 (56%) Humanitarian Interests Agreement 11 (41%) 16 (59%) 13 (48%) 14 (52%) Disagreement 10 (58%) 7 (42%) 9 (52%) 8 (48%) As the table above shows, more men generally agree that the US pursues national interests in its military interventions in Africa than women (67%:37%) and that more women agree that the US quests for humanitarian action when it intervenes in Africa (59%:41%). Of the individuals who generally disagree with the view that the US pursues humanitarian interests in Africa when it intervenes through the military, men are the majority at 58%. There are no significant differences in opinions according to age however. Discussion of Resources Ramuhala (1-2) discusses the entire aspect of military intervention for humanitarian purposes, first generating a brief timeline on how military intervention came about. He observes that non-violent humanitarian intervention was muted as the best strategy as an alternative to unilateral or multilateral military intervention. The 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks in the US spurred the return to military intervention, which was later watered down to military humanitarian intervention. The author takes multi-perspective approach, observing that military humanitarian intervention is usually controversial when it happens (US in Somalia) and when it fails to happen (failure of the US to intervene in Rwanda). At the center of the debate is the issue of territorial integrity and sovereignty and international human conscience for numerous individuals whose governments have failed to offer security. In terms of military intervention for exploitation of resources especially oil, Dixon (2007) argues for this view, dwelling on the case of Sudan. Pre-2007, there was a general drive in the US to try and get popular support to intervene in Sudan under the guise of stopping the genocide. Dixon observes that this was a ploy to tap into Sudanese vast oil resources, providing several arguments for his position. He first observes that the US has failed to intervene in Congo, where the genocide is on a higher scale, approximately 5 million compared to about 400,000 individuals in Sudan. He also argues that it would not be the first time the US government has lied to the public to justify invading other nations, for example the invasion of Iraq on the premise of weapons of mass destruction which were not found. Wright (2010) argues that the US is intervening militarily in Africa with the aim of countering Chinese advent to global economic domination. He observes that the US has experienced decline in production of natural resources while China has seen the opposite fortunes. The Chinese no strings attached approach to Africa has placed it at a vantage point in terms of access and exploitation of African natural resources. The US appreciates that it will have to counter China’s influence if it is to remain the industrial power it is, and as a result has undertaken renewed intervention in Africa, which takes a military course when all other diplomatic efforts fail. Protection of US embassies and evacuation of its citizens during periods of instability in African states is documented by the CSR (2008) in a fact sheet on historical US involvement in Africa. Several reasons given for military interventions in a good number of occasions center on fortifying embassy security and protecting American citizens in times of political turmoil in Africa. Cases of these include Zaire 1991, Sierra Leone 1992, Somalia 1992, Rwanda 1994, Liberia 1996, Central African Republic 1996, Guinea-Bissau 1998 and after the terrorist attacks on American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. Ugboaja (66-75) details US military interventions in post-colonial Africa in which the sole purpose was to counter challenges to US position as a super power. Here, the US government either supported governments against USSR-backed rebellion or supported rebellion to communist-leaning governments. Cases of this include US cooperation with Sudan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia to support its favored faction in Chad’s 1982-83 civil war and shipping arms to West-leaning factions or countries during intra-state and interstate warfare in countries such as Ethiopia, Morocco and Somalia. The last resource under consideration is Carafano and Gardiner’s explanation that US seeks military intervene in Africa due to the very real threat of terrorism emanating from certain states. The authors classify states that foster global terrorism activities into two: enabler states are those willing to facilitate terrorists through training, harboring, provision of intelligence and arms sales, for example Libya. Slacker states are those with lax law enforcement, chronic instability and porous borders, allowing transnational terrorists to operate within their countries. CONCLUSION Several reasons can be obtained from literature, and the public’s perception of these in terms of agreeability measured through a survey. In this study, the hypothesis is found to be correct, with 74% of respondents generally agreeing that the US seeks own national interests in military intervention in Africa, while the research undertaken also majorly supports this view. There is also need for more research especially in terms of more demographics besides the sex and age in this study. Particularly interesting demographics may include citizenship status and ethnic background. Works Cited ASRP. U.S. Military Involvement in Nigeria. 2009. Web. 3 November 2011. Brace, Ian. Questionnaire Design: How to Plan, Structure and Write Survey Material for Effective Market Research. UK: Kogan Page Publishers, 2008. Print. Carafano, James J and Gardiner, Nile. U.S. Military Assistance for Africa: A Better Solution. USA: Heritage Foundation, 2003. Print. CSR. Fact Sheet: History of U.S. Military Involvement in Africa. AFRICOM. Web. 3 November 2011. Dixon, Bruce A. Ten Reasons Why "Save Darfur" is a PR Scam to Justify the Next US Oil and Resource Wars in Africa. BAR. Web. 3 November 2011. Hu, Raymond. In Defense of the U.S. Response to Intervention in Libya. Princeton Students Editorial. 2011. Web. 3 November 2011. Omach, Peter. “The African Crisis Response Initiative: Domestic Politics and Convergence of National Interests.” African Affairs. 99.394 (2000): 73-95. Ramuhala, Godfrey M. Military Intervention in Africa After the Cold War. 2010. Web. 3 November 2011. Shah, Anup. Crisis in Libya. Global Issues. 2011. Web. 3 November 2011. Ugboaja, Festus. U.S. Policy in Postcolonial Africa: Four Case Studies in Conflict Resolution. Germany: Peter Lang, 2004. Print. Warner, Jason. “Perspectives Engaging Africa: Prospects for U.S. Foreign Policy.” Yale Journal of International Affairs. 2009. Web. 3 November 2011. Wright, Paul C. U.S. Military Intervention in Africa: The New Blueprint for Global Domination. 2011. Web. 3 November 2011. Appendix 1: Survey Questionnaire I would like to thank you for agreeing to take part in this survey. The aim of the survey is to collect public opinion on the reasons for US military intervention in political crisis in African countries. I assure you that personal information will be protected and will not be used for any other purposes besides that of this study. You are free to withdraw from the survey at will. Please rank your agreement with the following statements on a scale of 1-5 where: 1= Strongly Agree, 2= Agree, 3= Not Sure, 4= Disagree, Strongly Disagree. Statement 1-5 Score The US uses military interventions in Africa for humanitarian purposes The US employs military action in Africa in order to fight terrorism threats The US intervenes in Africa through use of the military in order to take advantage of the continents resources such as oil The US uses military intervention in Africa to counter economic threats from countries such as China The US employs military interventions in African conflicts in order to remove uncooperative elements for the ultimate goal of consolidating its super power status The US employs military interventions in African conflicts in order to remove uncooperative elements for the ultimate goal of consolidating its super power status The US intervenes in Africa through the military in a bid to protect its allies from enemy threats The US employs military intervention so as to secure its citizens and embassies in African states The US uses military intervention in order to ensure that threats to international peace emanating from Africa are nullified The US uses military interventions to take advantage of opportunities to set up military bases from which events in the Middle East may be monitored Please tick as appropriate: Are you Male Female Above 35 Years Below 35 years Read More