Who has the responsibility to protect Africa?

The question of who has or should have the responsibility to protect Africa preoccupies my studies on contemporary issues on the continent and is especially relevant to recent developments in Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Congo, and the Central African Republic. I often refer to an essay titled Who is protecting Africa: Sovereignty, Validation, and Africa’s International Relations on this blog because the assignment for the essay helped me to identify African political theory and "war/peace studies" as areas in the larger African development discourse of particular interest to me.  

In the essay, I assert that because the sovereignty of African states, both internal (relation between states and its citizens) and external (inter-state relations), is at the very least contested, at the extreme, viewed as nonexistent, and largely believed to be fragile and/or weak, the question of who protects African lives, livelihoods, and the environment continues to be pertinent to developments in the continent.

In the case of state "failure" or incompetence, especially in violent conflict and post-violent conflict, should another state intervene? More specifically, the question of interest to me is this: do former colonial powers have an obligation to intervene in the conflicts of their former colonized states; why or why not? And how?

Those of you who follow current events in Africa have probably come across reports on political instability, security concerns, and humanitarian crises in the Central African Republic (CAR), Mali, Congo, and Guinea Bissau. In the last month, Western media agencies have provided by the hour/day reports on the situation in CAR and Mail. Though not normally the case, today, you will be flooded with information should you google and search for recent news in these countries.

I am concerned here with the BBC and NYTimes articles on CAR and Mali respectively because they address the issue of France's intervention on the continent as it relates to the security situation in these countries. As both former colonies of France, France's response to the CAR and Mali, respectively, allows for an insightful and focused case study of Western policy on intervention in contemporary Africa.

On the CAR: During the early weeks of the advance by the Seleka rebel coalition, the embattled president of the Central African Republic, François Bozizé, asked France and the US to come to the CAR's aid. His call was rejected by both countries. According to reports, "French President François Hollande said that France would not interfere in the conflict". He explained, "If we are present, it is not to protect a regime. It is to protect our nationals and our interests, and in no way to intervene in the internal affairs of a country".

The Associated Press reported that although France agreed to broker a deal between the rebels and the government, "French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, spoke via phone with Bozize, asking the president to take responsibility for the safety of French nationals and diplomatic missions in Central African Republic." [What about President Bozize taking responsibility for protecting all citizens, including his own?]

Expressing a perspective shared by many, a market vendor in Bangui, the capital of CAR asked to a BBC reporter, "Why is France refusing to help us fight the rebels?" "They colonised the country, but now they say they don't want to help. Meanwhile, we are afraid, and our relatives who are in the north are suffering." 

On Mali: In Mali, France has done the opposite. There was a coup d'etat in Mach 2012 and the northern two-thirds of the country is controlled by Tuareg and Islamist militia (who were supposedly armed and trained during the Libya civil war). After repeated pleas for help from the international community, and the agreement to deploy ECOWAS troops (although this hasn't bore fruit given the lack of resources, militarily and otherwise, of ECOWAS and other African regional groups), the interim president, Dioncounda Traore, requested, yet again, for assistance from France and the help has finally arrived. Although adament that the days of France acting as "Africa's police force are over" (after recent interventions in Libya and Cote D'Ivoire by predecessor, Nicholar Sarkozy), President Hollande has sent French troops and military resources to the country. Reports abound today of French air force bombing raids. 

President Hollande said the following regarding the situation in Mali: “The terrorists must know that France will always be there to support a population that lives in democracy. At stake is the very existence of the Malian state”. Hollande has promised that France’s participation in the fighting would “last as long as necessary” .

What do you make of these statements and developments?

According to the NYTimes article, ".. an Islamist leader in Mali said France had “opened the gates of hell” for all its citizens by intervening, reinforcing concerns that the far-flung military operation in Africa could inspire vengeance in mainland France." But similar sentiments were expressed by the president of Sudan, Omar Al-Bashir,  during the war in Sudan but instead, towards UN intervention. Al-Bashir asserted that the UN "wants to colonize Africa" and stated that "we do not want Sudan to turn into another Iraq."

To be clear, I believe that there are many ways in which the situation in Mali is strikingly different from the situation in the CAR. But is it? The president of the Central African Republic, François Bozizé, also called the rebel group terrorists (calling into question, once again, the designation of the label terrorists), but France still refused to help. It appears to me that there are some inconsistencies in speech and action in France's recent engagements in Africa and these inconsistencies are a little unsettling. What do you think?

Ofcourse, talking about conflict and wars on the continent is in itself difficult because of the "single story" of war torn post independent Africa and the fact that this story has promulgated the narrative of Africa's political inferiority and ingrained in all of our psyches that its people are "dark, uncivilized, war-prone, and backwards". As former French President Nicolas Sarkozy claimed in 2007, the "African man had not yet entered history" and in her recent speech by IMF president Christine Lagarde called this "the curse of history". For this reason, a lot of young Africans and Africanists I know do not want to engage in this dialogue and would rather do, what is to me, 'another single story" of elitism and prosperity (but more on this later). 

But if we can do due diligence to understand the complexities and nuances of a situation, event, and/or movement, I still think that we can and must continue to talk about war, conflict, and peacebuilding on the continent. So my question stands: who should protect Africa in the case of state failure given the global power dynamics and resource limitations of other African states and regional organizations, especially in light of the fact that African heads of states constantly request of former colonial powers their help. Do former colonial powers have an obligation to intervene in the conflicts of their former colonized states; why or why not? And how? Am I even asking the right question?