Unholy Alignment And Interstate Wars In Africa:Explaining State-Insurgency Relations Induced Interstate Wars

It is generally agreed that external wars unlike internal wars have been rare in Africa. One main explanation given to these few interstate wars in Africa is that countries fight over territorial borders-a cancer planted in the body of Africa by the colonial regimes. The territorial explanation does not seem plausible enough because almost all African States have "portions of lands belonging for the moment to one State" that "is actively been sought after by neighbouring State". These areas of disagreement are normally of rich natural resources-oil, minerals, rivers, forest reserves. To use this explanation therefore means that all African States should be in a state of war of all against all. However, "a continent seemingly destined for war given the colonially-imposed boundaries...has not been one voluntary boundary change and very few countries have even the prospect of a conflict with the neighbour".Interestingly, all the few external wars fought in Africa were fought by authoritarian regimes that battled with one or two or more insurgent movements. Many of these insurgent movements received significant assistance from external governments especially neighbours. However, conflict and peace research into Africa has shunned these variables and mainly focused on territoriality explanation and other complementary factors such as regional pride, refugee situation, uneven benefits of economic union, etc. In this research work, I take exception from this overemphasises’of territorial explanation of African interstate wars to look at the relationship between an independent States and insurgent movements in other independent States under the topic "Unholy Alignment and Interstate Wars inAfrica:Explaining State-Insurgency Relations Induced Interstate Wars.In this paper, I focus on the assistance insurgents receive from external governments especially neighbours through the alliance or alignment between these States and insurgents to explain interstate wars in Africa. I propose a hypothesis I refer to as’War of Unholy Alignment’. I test this hypothesis by using the Ethiopia-Eritrea War (1998-2000) and Sudan-Chad war (2005-2010). I conclude that African external wars occur due to the fear and security threat this unholy alignment induces in targeted States; whose counter-unholy alignment causes counter fear and security threat in the first backer-State.Chapter One:IntroductionThis chapter introduces the work through explanation of concepts such as Unholy Alignment, Nasty Neighbours, Clients, Insurgents, Interstate wars, etc. It gives a brief account of why and when insurgents are formed-to cause an improvement in the people’s human security of wants and needs which had been destroyed through the dissipation of resources by authoritarian regimes. This chapter introduces the Unholy Alignment hypothesis and its various coding that are used to explain it. It is ’unholy’ in the sense that the international system frowns on any engagement of a Sovereign State with terrorist, insurgents or rebel movements. In general terms, such relation is regarded as unnatural, unusual and highly undesirable. Such relations are normally temporary and only happen when the Sovereign State and the insurgents share a common enemy. The alignment may end when their stated goals are met. It is alignment because it’s often private, informal and secretive.The significance of this research work and the main research question are also highlighted. Any research work which shifts from the over generation of African and worldwide wars and helps to identify the vital cause of past interstate wars in Africa is in a strategic position to do so also for future interstate conflict and war situations. It will also seek to extend knowledge on the study and conduct of international relations on Africa and the world in general. This will contribute to the development of theories capable of explaining the unique African character. This paper hopes to bridge the gap between the two types of wars on the continent. To undertake this task, the questions I intend to answer include the following:1. Why has African interstate wars been fought by only authoritarian regimes?2. What condition causes unholy alignment and what makes authoritarian States support insurgencies or rebel groups in other States to effect a regime change?3. Under what condition would unholy alignment lead to external war?The research methodology is also included in this chapter. I use qualitative analysis methodology and ’War of Unholy Alignment’ hypothesis to establish the relations between State-Insurgency relations and interstate wars in Africa after the Cold War. I focus on the assistance insurgents receive from external governments especially neighbours through the alliance or alignment between these States and insurgents to explain interstate wars in Africa. I propose a hypothesis I refer to as ’War of Unholy Alignment’ (State-Insurgency relationship). I test this hypothesis by using the Ethiopia-Eritrea War (1998-2000) and Sudan-Chad war (2005-2010).Chapter Two:Literature Review and FrameworkThis chapter takes a look at some existing work that has been done on the subject matter as well as the theoretical framework-War of Unholy Alignment. The literature review encompasses classification of war where Vasquez and Valeriano sought to build on the interstate and intrastate war typology. It also covers causes of interstate war by taking into consideration territorial explanation, personality threat perception and effects of prior results. It must be noted that territorial explanation has been overemphasized. Each of these points was critiqued and suggestions offered. The literature also extends to importance of wars taking into account Charles Tilly’s State consolidation and State building through wars. It further reviews literature on influence of external actors on African interstate wars, influence of privatized wars on African interstate wars and finally, a review on alliance formation and its effects on interstate wars.The second part of this chapter concerns with the framework, taking an expanded view on the War of Unholy Alignment hypothesis. In this hypothesis, I code all authoritarian States as ’A’ and authoritarian States with domestic insurgents are coded as ’AC’. All ’A’ provide the fertile grounds for the development of insurgents. I refer to all authoritarian States that engage in an unholy relationship with a neighbour’s insurgents as Nasty Neighbours and thus coded as (NN) and the supported insurgents are referred to as Clients with a code (C). The State that first begins the support for a neighbour’s insurgent is coded as NN-1 and its clients becomes C-1. This stage is very important in the State-Insurgency relationship induced interstate war. It is important to note that, the secret unholy alignment between NN-1 and C-1 does not take a longer time to be noticed or perceived. The Targeted State also begins its support for the insurgents in the first Backer State. I code the second authoritarian State that retaliate the actions of the first State as NN-2 and its clients become C-2.The first backer state may or may not have domestic insurgents of its own at the time it begins its support for a neighbour’s insurgents. In situation where there is no recognize insurgency activities in the first backer State or where there exist in an uncoordinated manner, NN-2 helps to create some or mobilizes them under one umbrella, funds them, provides them with training, and military logistics to start guerrilla activities against NN-1. The interactions of the first and second backer States-NN-1 and NN-2-who have both become ACs and their respective clients-C-1 and C-2-result in interstate war.On this hypothesis, I state that war does not result when there is an interaction between authoritarian States without insurgent movements but their authoritarianism results in the emergence of insurgencies. Thus the first hypothesis states "an interaction between two authoritarian States without domestic insurgents (i.e. AA) does not lead to interstate war but it’s the starting point of insurgency development" I also state that war does not result from an interaction between an authoritarian state with domestic insurgent and an authoritarian state without domestic insurgent but it would aid the authoritarian state without insurgent to have insurgents.This is derived from the second hypothesis that "an interaction between an authoritarian State without a domestic insurgent and an authoritarian State with domestic insurgent produces no interstate war but it’s the turning point around which interstate war revolves ". Finally, I state that interstate war results from an interaction between two authoritarian states with domestic insurgents because each supports the other’s insurgents. Thus "an interaction between two authoritarian States with domestic insurgents produces interstate war because each State offers support for the others insurgents "Chapter Three:Patrons and Clients RelationshipThe chapter sets forth the argument with the first case:Ethiopia-Eritrea War (1998-2000). It shows how patrons (States) develop domestic insurgents. It further shows and explains how the first case war was fought by the use of insurgents by either side. I argue that interstate wars occur because leaderships of belligerent African States are authoritarian ones-with domestic insurgents-who cause destruction to the resources meant for the populations’social security and welfare. State’s and leadership’s terrors dissipate State’s resources. This engenders the populations of the authoritarian regimes to rebel or dissent against the rule of their respective governments with the formation of insurgents or rebel groups in a bid to seek regime changes to restore or improve their social security and welfare. This causes civil conflicts and in some cases wars.These rebel movements seek alliances with a neighbor government-who in itself is a terror government-to strengthen their hands. The support an authoritarian regime grants to an insurgent group in another country causes fear and security threat in the home government (also an authoritarian government) of that insurgent group who initiates a counter support in retaliation. The availability of similar conditions-authoritarian regime and insurgent group-prompts similar maneuvers from the populations and governments of the other country. This support and counter-support for neighbor’s rivals eventually leads to war between the two States. It is this relation between a State and Insurgent that I refer to as ’Unholy Alignment’.In the first case:Ethiopia-Eritrea War (1998-2000), Ethiopia as a Nasty Neighbour (NN) used Eritrean Islamic Jihad Movement (EIJM)/Eritrean National Alliance (ENA) which were rebel movements in Eritrea as its client. Eritrea (NN) on its part used Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) which was a rebel movement in Ethiopia as its client. This makes it practicable to test the War of Unholy Alignment hypotheses using Ethiopia-Eritrea War (1998-2000) in this chapter.Chapter Four:Coupling Case Two with FrameworkThis chapter is an extension of the argument in chapter three. The second case (Sudan-Chad War) is coupled with the framework. It shows how patrons such as Sudan and Chad developed domestic insurgents and further shows and explains how the second case war, that is Sudan-Chad War (2005-2010) was fought with each side making use of the other’s domestic insurgents. Similar analysis is done to test the War of Unholy Alignment hypotheses using Sudan-Eritrea War (2005-2010). Authoritarian regimes of Sudan and Chad caused the destruction of the resources meant for the populations’ human security of want and needs. The result was resistance of the population through the formation of insurgent movements which led to civil conflicts and finally leading to interstate war because the insurgents from each side of the divide sought help from the other country.The support one authoritarian regime granted to an insurgent group in the other country caused fear and security threat in the home government (also an authoritarian government) of that insurgent group who initiated a counter support in retaliation. This unholy alignment and its associated support and counter support it engendered led to war between Sudan and Chad. In the second case:Sudan - Chad War (2005-2010), Sudan as a (NN) used The United Front For Democratic Change (UFDC)/The Union Of Forces For Democratic And Development (UFDD) as its client while Chad, the other (NN) used the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM)/Sudan Liberation Army (SLA)-rebel movements in Sudan-as its client.Chapter Five:Findings and ConclusionI conclude that African external wars occur due to the security threat and fear this unholy alignment induces in targeted States; whose counter-unholy alignment causes counter security threat and fear in the first Backer State. War is the end result. The Unholy Alignment hypotheses do not relegate the existing factors and explanations of African interstate wars to the docket. Existing explanations based on economic or resources, territoriality, hegemony, regional pride, ideological, refugee situations, among others although are important, are not independent variables for the explanations of African interstate wars. They are mere functions of Unholy Alignment playing a mediating role. The explanations of the War of Unholy Alignment hypotheses, therefore suggest that although interstate wars on the African continent are rare, they are not unlikely considering the political, social and economic situations of states like Burundi, Rwanda, Uganda, DR Congo, Central African Republic, among others, their contiguity and their approaches towards insurgencies.