Into Africa - Part Two
In the first part of this
article, Humphrey took a look at the current laydown and commitment of UK
forces in Africa, and what sort of engagement is currently undertaken. In this
part, he intends to focus more on what future engagement could look like, and some
thoughts on what is, or is not, a likely model of future UK interest in the continent.
Stand Off?
As noted originally, the UK
has long since moved out of its permanent bases in Africa – while a small
training footprint remains in Kenya, this is very much a training location,
optimised for supporting pre-deployment exercises and not operations. When
there is a presence, it is very much built around a temporary deployment and
not permanent basing. The UK as a whole has also tried to avoid significant
intervention in the continent, with only two substantial military interventions
involving kinetic operations (Sierra Leone and Libya) occurring since the end
of UK colonial rule, plus the deployment of a variety of training teams. So any
future presence in Africa should be set against the expectation that there is
little if any real appetite for major commitment which sees UK troops setting
up on a permanent footing in the continent. Unlike France, which has retained a
number of bases, particularly in West Africa, the UK has never sought any
meaningful operational footprint.
Therefore, the model for
future UK engagement in Africa is likely to be one of expeditionary operations
and not one of long term sustained presence. When UK troops deploy, they will
do so using short term facilities, and the infrastructure of the host nation
and not their own sovereign bases. While such a move means UK presence is going
to be more fleeting in nature, it does reduce the need to be dependent on a
host nation for sustaining a long term base. Arguably, much of what has driven
French interests in Africa for many years is as much setting the conditions for
a supportive local government to see through the continuation of French bases
as it is about anything else. Additionally the longer term the base, the more
likely it is that it acquires an expatriate population to match. There are over
250,000 French nationals living in Africa, often near to where current French
military bases exist (particularly retired personnel) – this in turn places a
significant burden on any NEO planning – the more permanent and long term the
base, the more people you’ll need to evacuate in an emergency.
It is worth remembering though
that even if the UK is exceptionally unlikely to set up a long term permanent
presence in the region, it still possess two Permanent Joint Operating Bases
(PJOB) of value nearby – in Gibraltar, where the air and naval base provide useful
mounting facilities for onwards operations, and in Ascension where the airbase
can carry out a range of support to airlift into West Africa. Both bases do not
have the same challenging political relationship with the host nation, and also
remove the possibility of having bases tied to policy – e.g. operating a base
in Africa means a long term basing commitment which in turn aligns you closely
to the host nations foreign and security policy. While the UK has a close
relationship with many African countries, an unexpected change of Government,
or decline in interstate relationships makes the land base vulnerable to pressure.
Far better to avoid any such entanglements and ensure presence is handled via
short term detachments, not long term commitments. The ongoing UK mission in
Mali is an excellent example of where UK presence is likely to be seen in
future – short term small teams working out of shared basing.
![]() |
Image by Ministry of Defence; © Crown copyright |
Why go there at all?
So, assuming there will be no
permanent presence in Africa, what is the likely sort of work that the UK will
do? Looking back at international engagement in Africa over the last 40 years
or so, particularly UK involvement, and looking forward, the likely range of
work seems to be fairly similar:
a. High
intensity conflict against a nation state (OP ELLAMY)
b. Intervention
to support failing state Government (OP PALLISER)
c. Intervention
to evacuate foreign nationals (Ivory Coast)
d. Support
to Counter Terrorism / Counter Insurgency campaign (Mali)
e. Training
to support capacity building and stability (South Africa/ Zimbabwe / Kenya)
f.
Other training / defence engagement (Continent
Wide)
For the UK this means a
requirement to be prepared to engage across the full spectrum of military
operations as laid down in the SDSR. Ironically, one could argue that for a
continent in which the UK has long avoided any permanent basing, it is perhaps
notable that the UK has involved itself in a broader range of military
operations in Africa than in any other continent since the end of the Cold War.
It is very difficult to predict where
specific engagements will occur, however looking to the future would suggest
that a combination of resource conflict, border clashes, internal tensions and
other simmering issues will continue to present a real risk to wider stability.
At one end of the spectrum
then the UK needs to be prepared to commit to ongoing and sustained military
operations in a variety of areas for the first three challenges (a-c). These
may occur at very short notice, and often in areas where UK understanding and
presence is limited – for instance Mali occurred at a very short warning
period, and quickly committed a substantial UK presence to a region where there
has long been next to no UK presence of any kind. This in turn means the UK
needs to invest time and resource in enhancing its diplomatic, aid and other forms
of engagement across the country in order to invest in the best possible
indicators and warnings of future problems which could impact us. More than any
other part of the world, the lack of a ‘on the ground’ HMG presence (as opposed
to a purely military presence) could reduce the ability to have real
understanding and planning about a looming crisis.Additionally a lot of investment is required to support development and governance to help create the skills to keep African governments working effectively and not collapsing in on themselves - while a military intervention is far more impressive on the pages of the worlds media, its a lot more expensive to do than deploy some governance and stabilisation advisor's who could have helped avoid it in the first place. It is essential we understand that now more than ever, defence and security engagement is not just about what the military bring to the party.
This in turn also needs to the
logical deduction that the UK needs to invest heavily in logistics, airlift,
sealift and other enablers to ensure that it has the ability to deploy a
meaningful force when required. There is no point investing heavily in hundreds
of tanks and APCs if there is no means of moving them quickly to the crisis.
One senses that Africa highlights that the real challenge of the future is
going to be equipping the UK armed forces to be simultaneously light and agile
enough to move at speed to a crisis, but resilient enough to defend themselves robustly
against a variety of threats and sustain themselves for an indeterminate time-frame.
Tanks would seem to have little place in the UK commitment to Africa, but the
ability to counter an armoured threat from legacy forces remains essential.
For the last three areas (d-f)
there is a need to provide niche capabilities and small assets to intervene as
appropriate. What is often needed is not a ship visit or impressive combined
arms exercise demonstration, but the deployment of a couple of training NCOs to
increase the capability of a host nations armed forces in a specific area. Where
the UK needs to focus is on its ability to do as it did in Mali, merging both
world class ISTAR assets like Sentinel with the provision of a limited training
team to up skill the armed forces. By intervening in a small way now, this has
hopefully prevented a longer term need for a major deployment to the region to
intervene more kinetically.
Additionally capacity building
calls for the UK to add value by providing assets and capabilities that African
nations may not possess. For instance, when seeking contributions to UN
missions, the ability of the UK to deploy A330 or C17s to move an African
forces troops, equipment and vehicles may make the difference between that
nation contributing or not. This is a continent where there are significant capability
shortfalls for the military, which impact on their ability to work effectively.
A limited UK commitment (such as in Mali where C17s were used to enormous effect)
can often prevent a need to deploy UK troops on the ground to participate in a peacekeeping
mission. Therefore UK engagement should be seen in terms of not just what the
British Armed Forces can do in terms of offensive missions, but also as
enablers to allow others to carry the burden instead. Until a truly capable regional
power emerges in Africa the UK and other powers will need to invest to carry
the burden.
It is increasingly clear that
the presence of training missions, liaison officers and defence attaches can
make a real and valuable difference in improving stability. Future engagement
will almost certainly focus on uplifting resources in this area, seeing an
increased number of UK staff officers (particularly now HERRICK is almost over)
deploy into singleton positions to work with the plethora of international
missions in Africa. It is likely that over the next 5-10 years, the numbers of
UK personnel deployed in these roles will increase, providing a commensurate increase
in UK awareness about the region as a whole. Additionally, it is likely that
the UK will take on a far more comprehensive approach than perhaps previously
seen – seeking to better integrate the work of the multitude of UK interests in
the region – DFID, FCO, UKTI, MOD and others, and ensuring that they work to a
much better combined effect to get the best out of this sort of engagement.
Finally the provision of
training, both in the UK and in Africa will become increasingly important. The
offer of places at institutions like Sandhurst and RCDS will remain the crown jewel
in the UK training package, providing a chance to influence future leaders and
strengthen African militaries. But these places are limited and often come at
huge cost, so in turn expect to see much more of the pocket deployment in small
numbers where trainers uplift skills in one specific area (e.g. NCOs teaching
drill or tactics) and slowly work over many years to bolster an effective
relationship.
Training courses though are
two way affairs – it is easy to fall into a perhaps patronising assumption that
the UK cannot learn much from African militaries. But, as Humphrey found some
years ago when talking on a course once, their people often have enormous
experience – for instance the African participant in question spoke of his
background, explaining that on leaving university he had joined an insurgency
against the despotic ruler, fought in the jungle for years and that his last
job (in a more normal stable environment) had been containing an outbreak of
the Ebola virus.
Why does this matter to the UK?
It is a reasonable question to
ask what the UK gains from continuing to maintain the ability to intervene in
Africa if required, and why is it in the national interest? Stability in Africa
arguably matters more now than ever before – the collapse of a nation state
like Mali or the CAR threatens regional stability – in turn a cycle of war,
human disaster and anarchy can create instability, refugees, economic problems
and lead to a fertile recruiting ground for insurgents and terrorists. By being
able to intervene to limit problems before they become too great, or spending
time training local military forces now, the UK is helping prevent problems
emerging downstream.
Africa has enormous potential
too – a region with a rapidly growing middle class, and with huge resource
wealth. A more assertive Africa, home to countries willing to take a proactive
step onto the world stage through UN missions and support benefits us all. By training
them, supporting them and engaging in a genuinely meaningful relationship, and
not one seen purely through the prism of commercial sales, the UK has an
opportunity to create influence which can be to our long term foreign policy benefit.
A credible set of African military forces, able to support and uphold the rule
of law, and help bring about regional stability is a good thing, and helps the
UK achieve its own defence and security aims. The worry is that inaction leads
to vacuums which in turn creates conflict and strife. It is very easy to say that
West Africa is a long way from home and that it is no concern of ours – but one
can only imagine the demand to intervene in the event of another humanitarian
catastrophe akin to Rwanda in the mid 1990s happening. Far better to engage at
a low but meaningful level now and try to avert this before it happens.
To some, it is perhaps tempting
to link Africa to arms sales and see UK training as a means of securing UK
economic success. In reality it is hard to see UK influence directly having a
major impact on economic exports – the bulk of African countries need cheap and
easy to maintain equipment which can get spares easily sourced – e.g. T55s or
AK47s. The UK has a world leading defence and security industry, but much of
what is offered now is probably too capable for a continent where the
requirement is about equipping large numbers of soldiers on a very small budget
– instead nations like China or Russia are far better placed to capitalise on
this. But, as time passes and budgets increase and improve, a more discerning
customer may well emerge. One only has to look at reports of Angola seeking to
acquire an aircraft carrier to realise that when money is no object (and many
of these nations sit on potentially vast oil or other reserves), then
acquisition of high capability equipment is possible. Longer term engagement by
the UK, building local capability helps build relationships where the countries
may well in due course want to turn to UK companies for help and support –
playing for the long haul could be a very sensible move indeed.
So, Africa remains a continent
where the UK has huge interests, a long history of low level engagement and a
regular military presence. It is somewhere with enormous potential, and where
an investment of time money and equipment now could make a huge difference to
the long term interests of the UK as a whole. It is in short a region where the
UK and Defence have a tremendous vested interest in engaging with and getting
the most out of it, because failure in Africa can have a direct impact on security and way of life at home in the UK.
Savetheroyalnavy would disagree with you.
ReplyDeleteIn a way Western aid and development has failed Africa but do you think they will stop? Bono and Geldof and others will make sure the West will stay there.
ReplyDeleteSir Humphrey - as always, a fascinating post and great analysis - I agree that our ISTAR capabilities will remain vital should we wish to engage in conflict in Africa. But at least on a first reading, I feel you may be in danger of making the assumption that the character of conflict within Africa will remain the same as it has done over the past 50 years. However Africa is increasingly becoming both urbanised and cyber-savvy, which is likely to change the sources of instability and the style in which conflict manifests. It is also likely to suffer increased droughts and other disasters as a result of climate change, affecting human security - will we see more water conflicts e.g. Darfur? And more experienced commenters than I are increasingly citing the Sahel region as a rising threat for religious extremism and potential terrorism, e.g. Boko Haram - in our increasingly globalized world, might this be a source of insecurity in the UK? So if the UK decides it is in our interests to offer intervention in parts of Africa, are our hard military enablers the right tools for the job? Or should we also think more in terms of working towards security sector reform, urban security and policing, assisting with disaster relief, and engaging in defence diplomacy?
ReplyDeleteI agree we definately do need to engange with Africa at all levels, diplomatic, trade, humanitarian and militarily. If we do not the Chinese most certainly have and will continue to do so. How long before they start claiming international waters right up to the coast of East Africa because they built the adjacent ports (not to mention the railway lines and roads inland and exploiting the natural resources). OK a bit over the top, but ask the Phillippines how they feel about that red line China has drawn just off their coast! We may not be the worlds policeman but in coperation with our allies we need to go out in the world an engage with it as we always have. We cannot just stick our heads in the sand, otherwise the world may soon become a place we do not like at all!
ReplyDeleteAt least in decades to come when UK servicemen touch down in the Dark Continent it will be comforting to know they will have access to good Chinese food and the railways will be nice, clean, and modern. :)
ReplyDeleteI am continually amazed at the parallels between corporate thinking and military strategy, the latter more influenced by politicians than generals, probably.
ReplyDeleteIt is nowhere better illustrated than in Dr. Mike Martin's tome of a book, 'An Intimate War', about the massive ignorance, about Afghanistan, of the Allied forces when they poured into Helmand Province. Likewise British Mercantile management when attempting to unravel the niceties of Indian personnel management when their new ex-English public school boys found themselves out of their depth amid byzantine Indian Civil Law.
Upon getting a job in India, I was given a book on Hindustani and my local management expected me to be fluent in 6 weeks! Or be sent home. One was thrown in at the deep end in the warehouses, godowns and quays of downtown Bombay and I am eternally grateful to all those Indians who patiently put up with my early attempts to learn the language and customs.
How many Brits are learning the more useful bits of Swahili or Kiswahili before polishing the bar stools.
We have not only pulled down the edifice, we've burnt the drawbridge.
This is an intresting blog that you have posted, you shares a lot of things about Offshore Insurance UK, Offshore Liability Insurance UK and Oil and Gas Contractors UK. Which are very
ReplyDeleteinformative for us.Thanks
Independent Mumbai Escorts Model to make all your dreams true. I can offer you such a energetic Mumbai Escorts Service that will be everlastingly stamped in your mind.
ReplyDeleteIndependent female Escorts in Mumbai
Mumbai Independent female Escorts
Escorts Service in Mumbai
Female Escorts Mumbai
Hello
ReplyDeleteAm a private loan lender,fully registered and licensed,i give out the best loan to my client at a very convenient rate.The interest rate of this loan is 3%. I give out loan to public and private individuals.For more information contact us, for Personal loan, Business loan, Home Loans, etc,we got you covered.
Please,only serious and genuine people should apply,no early repayment penalties,no matter your financial score,just a Valid ID,house address and you will be approved a loan. If you are a serious and ambitious person and wishes to apply for a loan contact us today at Email: hamzakumarfinance@gmail.com
call or add us on what's app +1 (646) 902-5821