The French "African Cell" and a Eurocentric UN?
On the evening of March 4, 10 French paratroopers reached Birao, Central African Republic, and dropped near an airstrip captured by rebel militia. The paratroopers ambushed the rebels, killing several and reclaiming the airport for the government.
In France, neither the public nor parliament was informed of the attack for three weeks. Coordinating the mission was the "Cellule Africaine," a three-person office nestled behind the Elysée, France's presidential palace. This wasn't the first time the office has been involved in the Central African Republic's internal affairs: In 1979, France toppled the former colony's self-proclaimed emperor and reinstalled his predecessor.
For the past half-century, the secretive and powerful "African Cell" has overseen France's strategic interests in Africa, holding sway over a wide swath of former French colonies. Acting as a general command, the Cell uses France's military as a hammer to install leaders it deems friendly to French interests. In return, these countries give French industries first crack at their oil and other natural resources. Sidestepping traditional diplomatic channels, the Cell reports only to one person: the president.
But with France's new President Nicolas Sarkozy preparing to assume office later today, the African Cell's days may be numbered. There are accusations the French military bears some responsibility for the genocide of 800,000 Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994, charges the government strenuously denies. There's fierce debate over the French military's continuing presence in the Ivory Coast, where soldiers were dispatched in 2002 when rebels threatened to overthrow President Laurent Gbagbo.
This kind of secretive involvement may reveal some shortcomings with the current set up of the United Nations. One of the bloggers over at the Belmont argues it highlights Europe's trouble letting go if its colonial ambitions from the past century. “With the Cold War seemingly over and the goals of the postwar U.N. substantially achieved,” Wretchard argues that “it may be reasonable to ask whether the world needs international institutions and diplomatic arrangements better suited to addressing the problems of the Third World, whose ferment is most currently manifested in terrorism. Europe has already gotten its money’s worth out of international institutions and American protection. The 21st century may be the time to refocus on cleaning up the terrible legacy that European empires – including the Marxist empire – have left on the planet for so many decades.” He even goes so far as to argue President Truman made an error in allowing the UN to be primarily aimed at protecting Europe. Further pushing the argument, Wretchard argues "Many of today's terrorist movements are rooted in the geopolitical time bombs sophisticated Europe left planted all over the world in the last century. Colonial Africa may be the least malevolent. But the crazy map of the Middle East, the artificial country of Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to name a few, were explosive situations that were left ticking at the end of World War 2, when the Old Continent made a show of retiring from history, leaving the EOD clearance to an eager and somewhat feckless United States."
Was the UN was set up primarily to protect Europe from another World War? Perhaps, and if so that effort has been successful; but the UN or another multinational body needs to step in to help the developing world in Africa, Asia, and South America. Whether that needs to be the UN or a league of democracies, I think we can agree that the current situation does little to help the cause of the developing world. I think the failure of the UN to act in Darfur, and the election of Zimbabwe to a symbolically important position on sustainable development only weakens the standing of the UN, especially in a climate in which the US has been downright unsupportive of much of the UN's efforts.
Of course France isn't the only powerful nation to undertake secretive missions in the developing world in recent years. But the troubling aspect is that countries like France, which purport to have eschewed their colonial ambitions continue to meddle in the developing world by supporting rebel groups and dictatorships. If nothing else, the travails of the US military in both Iraq and Afghanistan show how organized guerilla groups are able to fight toe to toe with a superpower. A more effective "national security strategy" should aim to help these nations develop, to prevent radical and violent elements. Perhaps Sarkozy will be able to eliminate these French ambitions, but if nothing else, the last century has taught us that these ambitions are a hard habit to break.
Comments