ECOMOG: A model for Africa?


INTRODUCTION

Since its intervention in Liberia on 25 August 1990, ECOMOG — the Monitoring Observer Group of the Economic Community of West Africa States (ECOWAS) — has entered other trouble spots along the West African coastline, notably Sierra Leone and Guinea-Bissau. Although ECOMOG encountered several difficulties, as will be discussed below, it has been labelled a prototype or future model for African peacekeeping by some within and outside Africa. Not since the attempt by the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) to set up an Inter-African Force for Chad in 1981 had a peacekeeping force been established on the continent to respond to internal conflicts. The OAU had tried, on several occasions, to create an indigenous body that could police Africa’s wars, but has been unable to obtain consensus from its member states. It is therefore no surprise that one of ECOMOG’s strongest supporters is the OAU.

Similarly, the United Nations and the major powers (Britain, France and the United States), growing wary of intervening in regional conflicts, see ECOMOG as a possible model that could be replicated throughout Africa, hence, the variety of declarations to build the peacekeeping capacity of ECOWAS member states. ECOMOG not only provides an answer to those Africans who want Africans to find solutions to their own problems, but it serves the interests of those in search of another body to respond to conflicts in areas not necessarily with strategic impact, but with large-scale and tragic humanitarian crises. Yet, this article asks: Is ECOMOG a model for Africa? Should it or can it be replicated in other regions of the continent?

There is a fundamental question about developing an institutional approach to conflicts in Africa that needs to be addressed seriously. After nine years of responding to crises in West Africa, ECOWAS is still struggling to find a collective security system that ensures that all member states act in concert when responding to conflicts in the region. Each operation by ECOMOG has not seen a substantial improvement on its previous attempt, nor any credible peace left in the countries it entered. Rather, ECOMOG stumbled from pursuing aggressive military tactics in Liberia to collaborating with mercenaries in Sierra Leone to enforce peace and finally, to mandating a force that did not have the capacity to respond to a complex internal conflict in Guinea-Bissau. In all three cases, one shortcoming seemed glaringly obvious: West African heads of state had not established any guidelines, principles or rules of engagement for managing internal conflicts. Instead, ECOMOG operated on an ad hoc basis, allowing states either to exploit its weakness (e.g. Nigeria), or use war and instability as a means of expropriating the resources of another country (e.g. Liberia). With such evidence stacked against it, how can ECOMOG serve as a model for Africa?

This article argues that a major challenge facing ECOWAS and the rest of Africa is that not all states are willing to work together or within institutions to ensure a regional response to conflicts. Rather, a significant trend is to ‘go it alone’ where the geostrategic interests of one state is threatened by the internal politics of another state. It is partly for this reason that the main conclusion of this article is that proponents of ECOMOG need to treat the argument with caution that it can serve as a model for conflict management in Africa and even in West Africa where it faces several challenges.

 ECOMOG AND THE EVOLUTION OF AFRICA'S SECURITY SYSTEM

When ECOMOG intervened on three occasions in West Africa, the international community witnessed a major evolution in inter-African affairs. Several African states were devising a collective system or capacity to respond to conflicts rather than relying on an outside force like the UN to intervene. The interventions by ECOMOG marked an important turning point in the practice of peacekeeping by regional or subregional organisations. Its importance also lies in the fact that it has reignited an old debate within Africa about the creation of a continental capacity to respond to matters related to peace and instability. The idea of an African peacekeeping force to manage African conflicts was first proposed by President Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana when the OAU was created in 1963. Since then, several unsuccessful attempts have been made to create a body that could tackle conflicts on the continent.

The OAU Inter-African Force, set up in 1981 to monitor the civil war in Chad, was the first practical example of inter-African co-operation in the field of peacekeeping, but it ended in failure. Inadequate planning, confusion over the mandate, absence of an OAU command and control structure, the perceived partiality of some troop-contributing countries, minimal financial and logistic resources and, above all, the lack of political will, not just of the parties to the conflict, but also of third-party mediators in the surrounding region, contributed to the failure of the first attempt by the OAU to deploy a peacekeeping force on the continent.

The intervention by ECOMOG in Liberia therefore represented a watershed in African collective security by a regional or subregional body. The states of West Africa embarked on a journey that would eventually lead them to intervene in the internal affairs of three member states, but more importantly, to develop various frameworks for enhancing the capacity of regional states to mount a peacekeeping force. The ECOMOG intervention in Liberia preceded many of the changes and initiatives that were taking place at the OAU.1 In fact, the efforts made by ECOWAS gained influence on the African continent, especially within the OAU, which has long argued for an African capacity to manage the continent’s conflict.

Between 1991-1993, the OAU Secretary General, Salim Ahmed Salim began to draw up proposals for a continental peacekeeping force that was not much different from ECOMOG. The debates within the OAU on conflict management capacity and how to build a response mechanism reflected the issues that ECOWAS had grappled with when it mandated the ECOMOG mission to Liberia. Other regional bodies like the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), the East African Community (EAC), the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and the Southern African Development Community (SADC), have drawn on the examples and experience of ECOWAS to create a security apparatus within their regions. These subregions were developed primarily to promote economic and political co-operation. The idea that they might play a military or security role is quite novel. African leaders, in the 1990s, were seemingly prepared not only to build security apparatus within these subregional entities, but to operationalise the capacity of these bodies to intervene in regional disputes. Thus, in 1994, SADC member states took the decisive step of playing the role of peacemakers in Lesotho when hostilities broke out between King Letsie III and the Prime Minister, Ntsu Mokhehle and the elected Parliament. The impact of ECOMOG can also be seen in a news briefing given by the Ugandan Defence minister, Stephen Kavuma to the UK defence magazine, Jane’s Defence Weekly in May 1999. Kavuma predicted that the EAC would have a regional peacekeeping force with joint command structures within three years. Stemming from discussions with Tanzania and Kenya, Kavuma stated that he would like members of the EAC to focus, as ECOMOG has been doing for several years, on developing common standards for military training in national armies.2 With other regions in Africa using the ECOMOG model, the idea inspired by Kwame Nkrumah and the pan-Africanists of yesteryear was finally being fulfilled.

A HISTORY OF ECOMOG INTERVENTIONS ON THE WEST AFRICAN COASTLINE

Several events in the nine years since ECOWAS created an intervention force to tackle instability in West Africa, suggest that it should be seen as a model for the rest of Africa. That a body created in 1975 for the purpose of enhancing economic and political co-operation could transform itself into a security apparatus for its entire region should certainly be hailed as innovative and a significant evolution in the thinking of African states. The complex web of regional relations, the history of claims and counterclaims that one state was trying to destabilise another state, plus the lack of consensus over political and economic progress, should have meant that ECOWAS was not a candidate for conversion to the management of security issues. However, since entering Liberia in August 1990, ECOWAS has tried to transform and expand its mandate from political and economic matters to that of managing, resolving and preventing conflicts.

With the spiral of conflicts emerging in the region and the changing international environment, the case has been successfully made by prominent member states of ECOWAS that the region needed to set up a mechanism for managing regional security. When it appeared that the international community would not sanction peacekeepers for the Liberian conflict, Nigeria — the dominant regional power in West Africa — won the argument for creating an indigenous security apparatus to oversee the conflict. At various ECOWAS summits, Nigeria garnered support for building a regional security framework. The first major step came with the revision of the ECOWAS treaty and protocols in 1993 which made provision for maintaining ‘regional peace and security’.3 Since then, member states have agreed, in principle, to set up formal mechanisms to respond to conflicts in West Africa and to establish structures that would allow ECOMOG to function as a security apparatus for the region. Significantly, in October 1998, member states endorsed the draft framework of West African ministers of Defence for an ‘ECOWAS Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management Resolution, Peacekeeping and Security’ with the objective of arming ECOWAS with the capacity to standardise its operations in managing conflicts in the region.

Events that took place on the ground also suggest that ECOMOG should be a model for Africa. In Liberia and Sierra Leone, for example, the state had either collapsed or was failing, and various armed opposition groups challenged their central authorities. The widespread displacement of civilians, plus the flow of refugees into neighbouring countries not only posed a humanitarian challenge for ECOMOG, but also threatened its attempts to prevent regional instability. In Sierra Leone, for example, more than a million persons had been displaced and at least 300 000 refugees had fled to Guinea. As rebel groups frequently crossed borders and used neighbouring states as launchpads for their insurgency, ECOMOG also found itself responding to instability on various borders: Sierra Leone-Liberia, Guinea-Liberia, Guinea-Sierra Leone and Guinea-Bissau-Senegal. It was partly due to the impact of ECOMOG that West Africa did not see the outbreak of regional interstate conflicts. There were various accusations that could have exploded into full-scale fighting between member states, for example, when President Kabbah of Sierra Leone accused President Charles Taylor of assisting and training the main Sierra Leone rebel group, the Revolutionary United Front (RUF). However, through a mixture of force and diplomacy by ECOMOG and ECOWAS member states, interstate conflicts were avoided. In fact, during its nine years, ECOMOG widened its task of managing internal conflict to that of monitoring crossborder clashes and preventing the possibilities of regional conflicts. It had emerged, in many ways, as a security umbrella ready and willing to manage violence in the region.

On an operational level, the interventions in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea-Bissau exposed the military capabilities of troop-contributing states in ECOMOG to launch peace enforcement strategies. ECOMOG encountered numerous problems during its operations ranging from inadequate structures for rapid deployment from troop-contributing countries, problems in the areas of command, control, organisation, logistics and co-ordination, harmonisation of tactics and problems of force projection.4 In all three interventions, poorer troop-contributing countries relied heavily on Nigeria’s military capacity, but even Nigeria found itself challenged in providing airlift capability to launch and sustain its troops across various borders. Yet, despite these operational dilemmas, ECOMOG continued to extend itself across West Africa and, in doing so, improvised and shifted its operations between peacekeeping and peace enforcement strategies. After its first intervention, ECOMOG Chiefs of Staff worked hard to increase co-ordination, standardisation, and regional military training among national armies. Various meetings also focused on operational shortcomings in terms of command and control, force composition and troop deployment.

The experience of ECOMOG has opened possibilities for other regions to pursue mechanisms and structures to manage conflicts. However, in an analysis of ECOMOG operations in the West African region, the following three sections raise doubts whether ECOMOG can or should be a model for the rest of Africa. The sections argue that, in the process of responding to conflicts in their region, several states pursued aggressive strategies that eventually prolonged and widened conflicts, thus challenging the assertion that ECOMOG should be a model for Africa.

ECOMOG in Liberia: Regional sensitivities and aggressive military tactics

Under the auspices of the Standing Mediation Committee set up to respond to Liberia, a total of 2 700 troops from Nigeria, Ghana and Guinea entered Monrovia, the capital of Liberia on 25 August 1990. The Liberian civil war began on Christmas Eve 1989, when the National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL) led by its rebel leader, Charles Taylor, invaded the country from neighbouring Côte d’Ivoire. The purpose, according to Taylor, was to end the brutal regime of Liberia’s head of state, Samuel Doe. The armed incursion soon degenerated into carnage and the massacre of civilians as fighting broke out between the NPFL and the Armed Forces of Liberia (AFL) that consisted mainly of Doe’s ethnic group, the Krahns. The NPFL soon controlled most of the Liberian territory. Over seven years, four other warring factions emerged to contest power and territory in Liberia’s civil war.5

The ECOMOG mandate in Liberia was "to conduct military operations for the purpose of monitoring the ceasefire" and restore "law and order to create the necessary conditions for free and fair elections."6 ECOMOG, however, soon found its mandate complicated by the violent and brutal capacity of the warring factions. Not long after its deployment, ECOMOG shifted from being a peacekeeper to perform peace enforcement tasks. ECOMOG found itself embroiled in a war with the NPFL, inevitably compromising any supposed neutrality that a peacekeeping force might have. In the process of purportedly attempting to interpose itself between various warring factions to keep the peace, ECOMOG supported and armed other rivals of Charles Taylor. Of the troops that intervened under the auspices of ECOMOG, Nigerian troops were seen as notorious for their aggressive military campaign against Taylor. In fact, the whole story of ECOMOG in Liberia is bound by the open desire of Nigeria to challenge, dominate and dictate the outcome of the conflict, but more importantly, to prevent Taylor from seizing power in Liberia. The tactics employed by Nigeria backfired, resulting in major clashes between ECOMOG and the NPFL and substantially prolonging and widening the conflict.

It is thus possible to argue that Nigeria, with the support of regional allies, used ECOMOG not for the stated objective of maintaining peace and restoring law and order, but for protecting an ailing head of state, Samuel Doe. At the time ECOMOG was created, its principal leaders (Ibrahim Babangida of Nigeria, Jerry Rawlings of Ghana, Lansana Conte of Guinea, Dawda Jawara of The Gambia and Joseph Momoh of Sierra Leone) were all military men or civilian autocrats that, according to Max Sesay, were like an "... unholy alliance of reactionary regimes in 19th century Europe", well-schooled in authoritarian tactics to maintain their respective regimes in power.7 The same principle was applied in Sierra Leone, when Nigeria extended the ECOMOG operation to protect Momoh against attacks by the rebel force, RUF. Ironically, Momoh and Jawara were deposed in 1992 and 1994, respectively, while the political chaos resulting from the annulment of the June 1993 election in Nigeria precipitated Babangida’s downfall. ECOWAS was sending out a message that challenged the assertion that ECOMOG could be a model for Africa. Rather than seek political solutions, a group of states deployed troops under the guise of regional peacekeeping to maintain the status quo by supporting a friend and ally that had a history of violent repression and human rights abuses against his population.

Nigeria’s aggressive stance also led to political outbursts and disputes between member states of ECOWAS. In part, it engendered internal wrangling between Anglophone and Francophone countries. The two key Francophone states in the region, Burkina Faso and Côte d’Ivoire, interpreted the ECOMOG intervention as an Anglophone exercise in regional domination, while Nigeria’s forceful intervention was seen as the country’s desire to flex its muscles further in the region.8 The tension between Nigeria and its Francophone partners in ECOWAS led Côte d’Ivoire and Burkina Faso to support Charles Taylor and the NPFL in their campaign to capture Liberia. Both countries were instrumental in supplying arms and training facilities to Charles Taylor and his rebel movement. The only Francophone state to have supported the Nigerian-led intervention in Liberia was Guinea, which had ceased to be part of la francophonie when the former president, Sekou Touré, refused to maintain links with its former colonial master in the 1960s.

Internal wrangling and divisions are not unique to ECOWAS. Tension between the US and its allies over the use of air-strikes rather than ground troops during the Kosovo crisis between March and June 1999, illustrates the problem of trying to achieve consensus among a number of states. Divisions among members of the UN Security Council over NATO’s sidelining of the UN with regard to Kosovo, but more importantly, over how the operation was being conducted, led to angry exchanges between NATO powers in the Council (Britain, France and the US) and other permanent member states (China and Russia). Similarly, the various rifts and political entanglements between Nigeria and its allies during the Liberian crisis nearly led to the break up of ECOWAS. It was not until 1995 that ECOMOG changed its tactics against Charles Taylor. This was partly due to the change of administration in Nigeria, but also to low morale within the Nigerian army that was by now militarily exhausted. The financial strain of sustaining forces over a long period had taken its toll on Nigeria’s population. In fact, by 1997, Nigeria had reportedly spent between US $1 to $2 billion on the Liberian war and contributed 70 per cent of the force capacity.

The change in tactics by ECOMOG was also due, in part, to the conciliatory leadership of Ghana’s head of state, Jerry Rawlings. In fact, Rawlings not only brought Taylor and other warring factors to the negotiating table, but also managed to reconcile divisions between Nigeria and its Francophone detractors. The death of the Ivorian leader, Felix Houphouët-Boigny in 1995 also eased tensions between Nigeria and the Francophone states. Charles Taylor, however, was crucial to the events that took place from 1995. Having spent four years demanding the withdrawal of ECOMOG, in particular Nigeria, Taylor now adopted a friendlier stance. Nigeria was the only real challenge blocking Taylor’s road to the presidential palace in Monrovia, and a conciliatory approach towards the government in Abuja, Taylor argued, would quicken his advance to the ultimate prize: political power. Nigeria began to mix diplomacy with force, when it turned its strategy to one of dialogue with Charles Taylor. From 1995, ECOMOG worked to achieve a peace agreement that would lead to an internationally supervised election on 19 July 1997 and the start of Liberia’s transition from war to peace.

ECOMOG in Sierra Leone: Enforcing peace with mercenaries

Clashes on the Sierra Leone-Liberia border and Charles Taylor’s decision to exploit instability in Sierra Leone forced ECOMOG, in particular, Nigeria, to deploy troops on the border of both countries in 1991. By 1993, Nigeria’s peacekeeping presence had extended into Sierra Leone. Since then, ECOMOG and Nigeria have been embroiled in the Sierra Leone civil war. The civil war began on 23 March 1991 when the main rebel group, RUF, with the assistance of some NPFL fighters and a small number of mercenaries and soldiers from Burkina Faso, invaded eastern Sierra Leone at Bomaru in the Kailahun district, and the Mano River bridge linking Liberia and Sierra Leone. The civil war was led by Alfred Foday Sankoh, a former corporal in the Republic of Sierra Leone Military Force (RSLMF) who was jailed for plotting to overthrow the regime of Dr Siaka Stevens in 1971. Despite elections in February 1996 and the signing of the Abidjan peace agreement in November of the same year, conflict intensified when dissident forces from the RSLMF formed themselves into the Armed Force Revolutionary Council (AFRC) and launched a coup against the government of Ahmed Tejan Kabbah on 25 May 1997. The RUF and AFRC joined forces and together conducted a brutal war against the civilian population of Sierra Leone before signing the Lomé peace agreement with the government in July 1999.

The intervention by ECOMOG was controversial from the outset. If the most significant aspect of the ECOMOG operation in Liberia was the division and near break-up of ECOWAS, then the introduction of the mercenary option in Sierra Leone was certainly the defining moment in West African attempts to manage conflict. In fact, Sierra Leone introduced the international community firmly into the world of the ‘privatised peacekeeper’ where mercenaries step in to keep or, as Sierra Leone demonstrated, to enforce the peace. The involvement of mercenaries, or private military companies, as they prefer to be called, is not a new phenomenon in Africa. Mercenaries have fought in African conflicts since the 1960s when the secessionist leader, Moise Tshombé used white mercenary forces from South Africa and elsewhere in his 1964 war campaign in Congo-Kinshasa. Notorious mercenaries like Bob Dénard fought in various parts of Africa, mounting a coup in Benin in 1967 with only 60 paratroopers. ‘Mad’ Mike Hoare also gained a reputation for his mercenary activities in the Seychelles in 1977 and 1982. These figures were as seen as lawless and ‘gung-ho’, prepared to destabilise or fuel conflicts in already volatile regions.

In the post-Cold War era, mercenaries have acquired an executive or corporate identity. They package themselves neatly as defenders of legitimate regimes and claim to ensure peace and stability.9 In post-Cold War Africa, former soldiers from South Africa’s security forces claim that their operations in two of Africa’s brutal conflicts, Angola and Sierra Leone, were aimed at restoring law and order. Under the name Executive Outcomes, South Africa’s former servicemen who could not or did not want to find positions within the restructured and racially integrated post-apartheid South African National Defence Force (SANDF), became prominent in fighting against rebel movements like the União Nacional para a Independencia Total de Angola (UNITA) between 1993-1995. Executive Outcomes extended its services to Sierra Leone at the request of Valentine Strasser, the leader of the National Provisional Ruling Council government after seizing power in a coup in 1992. Executive Outcomes withdrew its services in January 1997 as stipulated in the Abidjan peace agreement of November 1996.

However, it was reports linking the British Labour government to the involvement of the London-based Sandline International in Sierra Leone during 1997-1998 that sparked the controversy surrounding the use of private military companies in African conflicts.10 The extent of their activities was exposed when President Kabbah and the Nigerian-led ECOMOG force, with the knowledge of the British High Commissioner of Sierra Leone, Peter Penfold, employed the services of Sandline International to prosecute the war against the AFRC and the RUF. The ‘Sandline affair’, as it was dubbed by the British press, led to the accusation that Britain was unprepared to mandate its troops to fight in African wars, but would privately sanction private military companies to participate in peacekeeping or peace enforcement operations. It also sent mixed messages about the future of major power military involvement in Africa: if countries like Nigeria were unable to maintain the peace, or if subregional organisations like ECOMOG needed extra manpower or resources, better to pay others to maintain the peace than place national armies at risk.

The use of private military companies is part of a growing trend in international peacekeeping where states, because of the cost and risk involved in sending national armies, turn to bodies that are able and willing to do battle in volatile regions of the world. The use of international peacekeepers is still apparent, but claims about the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of privatised soldiers have increased their involvement in managing several conflicts. Witness their use in the Balkans where prolonged warfare in the region has cost Western powers a considerable amount in humanitarian assistance. The US registered company, Military Professional Resources Incorporated (MPRI), has been heavily involved in the Balkans, most notably in Croatia in 1995. MPRI won a contract with the US State Department to help create and train a civilian controlled army in Croatia. Another US company, DynCorp was also asked by the US in 1998 to supply a contingent for the observer mission in Kosovo to observe the withdrawal of Serb forces.

Although the use of private military companies is not specific to Africa, their presence is more pronounced on the continent. Yet, while much of the debate, particularly in the UK, has focused on issues of legitimacy, ethics, regulation and the proper place of private military companies, a more serious question is whether this marks a significant trend in the management of peace and security in Africa. The involvement of private military companies constitutes a major development in post-Cold War Africa, more so if a subregional organisation like ECOMOG, as it did in Sierra Leone, appears to legitimise their role as peace enforcers. If ECOMOG is to be used as a model for other regions, the use of such actors remains an unanswered question in the debate on the nature of the security apparatus emerging on the continent. Let us leave aside, for a moment, the argument that the gradual retreat of Western powers has meant that private military companies are increasingly the only option available to African leaders in responding to conflicts and focus instead on what is taking place in African states.

Private military companies are not only in Africa because Western powers are unwilling to respond to or wary of African conflicts. A serious dimension that needs to be acknowledged is that private military companies are also on the continent because African leaders find them attractive as an extra security apparatus to protect them and their regimes. The conflict in Sierra Leone marked a dangerous phase in the future of security in the region, but also throughout the African continent. When the newly elected government of President Kabbah was deposed by dissident soldiers in May 1997, Sandline International formed part of the force, along with Nigeria and the Kamajors, an ethnically based civil defence force, that reinstalled Kabbah’s government in March 1998. Here was an African leader, increasingly prepared to ‘buy in’ private military companies to secure peace, but more importantly, to exert control rather than seek political solutions to internal violence. Yet, while Sandline International was partly instrumental in restoring Kabbah’s leadership, it did not bring stability to Sierra Leone. Rather, Sandline terminated its contract in Sierra Leone while rebel forces rearmed, with reports suggesting military and financial assistance from Charles Taylor and the President of Burkina Faso, Blaise Campaoré.

From December 1998 until the signing of the Lomé peace agreement on 7 July 1999 in Togo, the RUF and the AFRC launched a devastating attack throughout Sierra Leone. Kabbah and ECOMOG were not alone in relying on mercenaries. Charles Taylor’s network of mercenaries, mainly from the Ukraine, was effective in supporting the RUF/ACRF military campaign. The ECOMOG contingent of 15 000 was unable to respond to the jungle warfare tactics of the RUF and the AFRC. Instead, the Kamajors and other civil defence forces orchestrated much of the fighting that took place between January and June 1999.11 The ECOMOG peacekeeping-cum-peace enforcement operation in Sierra Leone was dealt a damaging blow and once again raised questions about how much of the ECOMOG style should be replicated in other parts of Africa.

The use of private military companies did not disguise the fact that, while some troop-contributing countries did have experience in numerous UN-led peacekeeping operations, they nonetheless "... lacked the necessary ingredients for responding to those conflicts that require peace enforcement strategies."12 Only NATO or a US-led coalition has the capacity to pursue peace enforcement, and even its operational experience in the Balkans has exposed its weakness in interoperability, intelligence-sharing, distant deployment and the sustainment of troops on the ground. Alongside NATO states that are still building structures to enhance their operational capabilities, West African states have a long way to go in creating the "... necessary physical and political infrastructures or financial capacity" to operate successfully in their volatile region.13

A significant aspect of the Sierra Leone conflict was that member states of ECOWAS did not openly attack the use of Executive Outcomes or Sandline International throughout the country’s eight-year civil war. Yet, how could they, when the stated purpose of their involvement was to protect the government of Sierra Leone? It would seem from the statements supporting ECOMOG interventions, that member states were giving tacit approval for the use of private military companies. The lack of success of Executive Outcomes, not only in Sierra Leone, but also in Angola, and of Sandline International in Sierra Leone, undermines the assumption that such actors can provide stability. Sandline International failed to defeat the rebel forces in Sierra Leone. Surely, this is one aspect of ECOMOG that cannot be replicated or used as a model in other parts of the continent? Yet, while some analysts condemn private military companies, a harsh reality is that they may become an alternative security apparatus in weak, fragile or collapsed states like Sierra Leone where state institutions, plus the infrastructures (i.e. technical and central ethos) that support them, have broken down or have suffered years of decay.14

While the debate over the use of private military companies in Sierra Leone raged on, another ECOMOG operation took place further along the West African coastline in Guinea-Bissau. This time, neither private military companies nor Nigeria’s aggressive military tactics were features of the operation. Rather, the use of West African troops trained under American and French peacekeeping exercises introduced another dimension to ECOMOG operations and raises further questions about its usefulness as a model for Africa.

ECOMOG and Guinea-Bissau: An attempt to correct past mistakes

As battle-hardened ECOMOG forces contemplated their ability to stamp out the spiral of violence, Guinea-Bissau was supposed to be an opportunity to prove that it was an able and responsible force in the region. Conflict in Guinea-Bissau broke out on 6 June 1998 between the army and the government after President João Bernado ‘Nino’ Viera sacked his army chief, Brigadier Ansumane Mané. President Viera had accused Mané of trafficking in arms with the rebel secessionist force, the Forces démocratiques de Casamance (MFDC) in the Casamance region of neighbouring Senegal. Mané, however, also accused President Viera of trafficking in arms with the MFDC.

What triggered the eventual conflict was Viera’s appointment of a new army chief, but also his decision to send a contingent to arrest Brigadier Mané at his home. Mané’s home was surrounded with heavily armed troops loyal to him and in mutiny against the national army. The army mutineers immediately formed themselves into the Junta Militar in protest against the failure of President Viera to institute democratic governance in Guinea-Bissau. As fighting continued between supporters of Mané and the army, Senegal and Guinea sent forces to support President Viera. Senegal’s decision to send as many as 3 000 troops was partly to counter the support that the MFDC were reportedly receiving from Mané. As heavy artillery rained down on Bissau — a small and crowded capital — hundreds of citizens were killed and many fled to the outskirts of the city.

The initial mediation to stop the fighting was mainly led by Portugal and foreign ministers from the Community of Portuguese Language Countries (CPLP): Angola, Brazil, Cape Verde, Mozambique, and São Tome and Príncipe. However, it was Nigerian officials who brokered a breakthrough in the conflict on the sidelines of the ECOWAS meeting held between 1-2 November 1998 in Abuja, Nigeria. A peace agreement was signed between President Viera and Brigadier Mané on 2 November under the auspices of ECOWAS. The peace agreement called for a weapons amnesty for both sides; the immediate formation of a unified government; elections set for no later than March 1999; the withdrawal of foreign troops (that is, Senegalese and Guinean troops) from Guinea-Bissau; and the introduction of a buffer force of ECOMOG peacekeepers.15 ECOWAS trumpeted the peace agreement as a sign that the troubled West African region was on the way to stability after years of endless conflict. ECOWAS had negotiated the accord, worked hard to win support for the peace process, and agreed that ECOMOG send an interposition force to monitor the peace agreement.

The ECOMOG operation was largely led by Francophone countries in the region (Benin, Niger, Mali and Togo) and one Anglophone country, The Gambia. In addition, the operation was supported logistically and financially under the French peacekeeping training initiative for African countries, Renforcement des capacités africaines maintien de la paix (Reinforcement of African peacekeeping capacity — RECAMP). However, the forces involved were drawn from small countries with inexperienced soldiers. Benin provided an estimate of 150 troops that had been trained under the US peacekeeping training programme, African Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI), the first time troops trained under this initiative had been used in a peacekeeping operation. Finally, Togo gave 150 troops, while Mali gave 120. Yet, these troops were expected to provide a strong buffer to block rebel activities within the country and on the borders of Senegal. ECOMOG, however, found it difficult to deploy the proposed force of 1 500 men.

However, the assistance provided through RECAMP and ACRI still exposed the fact that, beyond Nigeria, many West African states were militarily weak and consequently unable to launch the force necessary to quell the tide of conflicts like that taking place in Guinea-Bissau. The extent of the weakness facing the troop-contributing countries could be seen in the letter written by the Executive Secretary of ECOWAS, Lansana Kouyate, and later addressed to the UN Security Council by the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan. In it, Kouyate stated:

"It would be particularly useful to acquire for ECOMOG appropriate logistics for the deployment of a naval unit, made necessary by Guinea-Bissau’s geographical make-up. The acquisition of an aeroplane or a helicopter is also essential to enable ECOMOG to make important, urgent trips between Bissau and points outside the country."16

Essentially, what Guinea-Bissau required was a combat-style operation, but the states involved could only supply "sub-unit sized contributions."17 Furthermore, ECOMOG lacked adequate radio communications equipment not only to contact troops dispersed throughout Guinea-Bissau, but also the ECOMOG headquarters. The outbreak of renewed violence in May 1999 not only served to demonstrate that ECOMOG could not prevent conflicts when warring factions prefer war to peace, but also undermined the credibility of ECOWAS claims that ECOMOG could provide security in the region. Although the interim president, Malam Bacai Sanha, the prime minister, Francisco Fadul and General Mané asked ECOMOG to remain until the elections scheduled for 28 November 1999, ECOMOG troops withdrew from Guinea-Bissau.

SUBREGIONAL INTERVENTION BEYOND WEST AFRICA: CAN ECOMOG BE REPLICATED?18

After nine years of active peacekeeping-cum-peace enforcement operations, ECOMOG has become an important factor in managing violence and disorder in West Africa, but not without the forceful and aggressive tactics of the regional hegemon, Nigeria. It is primarily because of Nigeria’s role that all within the region do not favour ECOMOG as a model for regional security. In its nine years of operations, Charles Taylor, for example, has challenged the role of ECOMOG and Nigeria.

Since the ECOWAS decision to intervene in the Liberian civil war, Taylor has held ECOMOG, in particular, Nigeria with contempt, seeing it has an obstacle against his struggle for power in Liberia. Taylor blamed ECOMOG for the duration of the seven-year war in Liberia. Although Nigeria was quick to establish close relations in Liberia following Taylor’s inauguration on 2 August 1997, Taylor made it clear that he rejects the participation of ECOMOG, in particular, that of Nigeria in the rebuilding of Liberia’s armed forces. Nigeria is also unsure of Taylor’s role or reliability to maintain stability in Liberia or in the region, particularly in terms of the future of Sierra Leone.

Taylor is held responsible for atrocities committed by the RUF and later the AFRC in Sierra Leone. When renewed fighting broke out towards the end of 1998 in Sierra Leone, he was accused of providing a network of mercenaries, as well as weapons and money to the RUF. Taylor consistently denied the existence of five RUF training camps in Liberia. However, the links between Taylor’s forces and the RUF are strong and bound by long-lasting personal ties and business interests that extend back to the start of the Sierra Leone civil war in 1991. More importantly, Taylor successfully exploited links with the RUF when he developed a clandestine regional trading network based on the capture of diamond-rich regions by the RUF. In a study of the Liberian and Sierra Leone civil war, William Reno provides an illuminating insight into Taylor’s commercial activity. Using interviews with NPFL soldiers, Reno draws attention to Taylor’s use of dissident Sierra Leoneans and NPFL fighters "... to grab Sierra Leone’s diamond mining fields" in an effort to add to his mini-empire of rubber and timber plantations captured during the seven-year civil war in Liberia.19 More importantly, Taylor’s mini-empire is also based on diamonds smuggled from Sierra Leone, an indication of the extent of Taylor’s business networks in the region.

Charles Taylor is a destabilising force in the region, capable of surrounding himself with numerous dissident groups who see him as an icon for rebel movements seeking to overthrow their leaders in the region. In fact, Taylor’s initial recruitment in the NPFL during the Liberian civil war included young left-wing radical intellectuals, university graduates, army deserters, dissenters and coup plotters from Guinea-Bissau, Niger, The Gambia and Sierra Leone, and Burkinabe soldiers seconded by President Campaoré. Taylor’s key ally in the region is President Campaoré and together they are reported to be building a network of "... informal (often criminal) business operations" from Monrovia (Liberia) to Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso), via Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Niger and The Gambia. Given Taylor’s ruthlessness and claims that he wants to destabilise the region for the purpose of setting up an association of rogue regimes that will provide refuge for international criminal gangs and diamond smugglers, ECOMOG may find it difficult to exist as a force aimed at creating regional stability.20

Yet, despite difficulties with Charles Taylor, ECOMOG has raised the expectations of the international community and the OAU that it can be a model for conflict management in Africa. Crucially, ECOMOG has managed to overcome the perception that it is essentially an Anglophone enterprise. A plan is under way to harmonise matters of regional security between ECOWAS and the West African Francophone defence body, L’accord de non-aggression et d’ assistance en matière de défence (L’ANAD).21 Nothing concrete has been established, but there are suggestions that L’ANAD could become the security wing of ECOWAS. The prospect of collaboration between these bodies would signal a positive development in West Africa’s attempt to build a security apparatus.

However, based on evidence of events taking place in other regions of Africa at the end of the 1990s, it might be difficult to see the ECOMOG model being replicated throughout the continent. The advent of subregional conflict management seems limited (and even this is not certain) to the West African region. Subregional conflict management is largely a West African phenomenon that is determined by how Nigeria balances its use of aggressive force with that of building a more institutional approach to the management of conflicts with its regional partners that are largely sceptical of Nigeria’s force capacity and power projection in the region. The other regions of Africa — the Horn of Africa, Central and Southern Africa — have not displayed a similar zeal in steering their subregional bodies to manage violence and disorder like ECOMOG. In fact, a notable feature of inter-African affairs in these regions is that no subregional hegemon or institution seems able to mediate conflicts.

In the Horn of Africa, an unremitting overlap of conflicts, civil wars, proxy wars and, in 1998, interstate war, undermined IGAD.22 IGAD was initially established in 1986 under its previous name, the Inter-Governmental Authority on Drought and Desertification (IGADD), to respond to drought and famine in the Horn of Africa. It was renamed IGAD in 1996 with a mandate to mediate conflicts, in particular, the Sudanese civil war. The Horn of Africa, comprising Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia and Sudan (and peripheral states, Kenya and Uganda) has never been renowned for its political, economic or social stability. Yet, the early 1990s appeared to presage a new era where, despite the disintegration of Somalia and the continuing conflict in Sudan, the region was attempting to resolve its difficulties through IGAD.

After fourteen years of rule under Mengistu Haile Mariam, Ethiopia had thrown off the shackles of authoritarianism and repression and Eritrea emerged as a new independent nation after thirty years of conflict. Uganda was labelled a regional power due to the energy and vibrancy of President Yoweri Museveni. Along with Museveni, Zenawi Meles, prime minister of Ethiopia, and Issayas Afewerki, president of Eritrea, were seen as new leaders who characterised the African Renaissance. All three emerged from complex civil wars and war-ravaged societies. Their agenda was the consolidation of national unity and reconstruction. At a regional level, these leaders emphasised the need to build political co-operation, but more importantly, to initiate economic recovery through the revitalisation of bodies like the EAC and IGAD in the hope of improving Africa’s economic development.

However, IGAD has struggled to present itself as a credible organisation capable of resolving regional problems, primarily because its main leaders were embroiled in many of the conflicts occurring in the region. Rather than mediate conflicts in the region, member states of IGAD continually exacerbate conflicts by supplying weapons and ammunition, or by allowing rebels to use their territories as launchpads for insurgencies. In a policy of retaliation and counterretaliation, the governments of Sudan and Uganda continually engage in destabilising proxy wars on their borders by backing rebels opposed to their governments. For example, Museveni continually aligned his forces with the Sudanese People’s Liberation Army in south Sudan. In return, the Islamic regime of Omar al-Bashir in Khartoum, Sudan, sent arms to rebel opponents of Museveni — the Lord’s Resistance Army and the Allied Democratic Force in the northern and western parts of Uganda. Thus, regional meddling — a growing feature of inter-African affairs with various states pursuing hegemonic aspirations by challenging regional stability — has challenged the possibility of regional co-operation in security matters. The likelihood of implementing an ECOMOG model in this part of Africa seems bleak. More worrying for the future of regional security, however, was the outbreak of interstate war between two of Africa’s principal states in the Horn of Africa, Eritrea and Ethiopia.

However, it is in Central and Southern Africa — where a wave of seemingly endless conflicts converged in the DRC — that subregional conflict management has been severely undermined, and some might argue, has failed. The conflict in the DRC from July 1998 was partly the outcome of internal conflicts in Burundi and Rwanda in the mid-1990s. Both conflicts exposed the regional implications of deadly civil wars. The devastating effects of genocide are still being felt in the Great Lakes region, and in Central and Southern Africa, in particular, in the DRC, a member state of SADC.23 Kabila sought the assistance of SADC members, and Angola, Namibia and Zimbabwe intervened under the SADC defence agreements stipulating support for a member state facing aggression. Other members, in particular South Africa, preferred diplomatic negotiations to the use of force.

The creation of SADC in 1992 was a reflection of new co-operation among Southern African states as the structures of the apartheid system in South Africa were gradually dismantled. Since its creation, SADC has been trying to get agreement on developing into a multinational instrument for conflict prevention and resolution in Southern Africa. However, the conflict in the DRC exposed differences in approach among SADC member states. The lack of consensus made it difficult to formulate a document that discusses subregional involvement in security co-ordination, conflict mediation, and general military co-operation. This has meant that SADC leaders have resorted to unilateral decision-making in resolving conflicts in the region. The main problem for SADC, and consequently for South Africa, is that there are no like-minded allies in the region.

The failure of neighbouring countries to work through bodies like SADC to resolve the conflict in the DRC demonstrates the difficulties of self-policing among African states. The conflict in the DRC certainly compromised the position of SADC and, far from fulfilling its aim to become a credible regional security organisation, SADC became a source of tension between the major powers in the region. Ironically, SADC invited the DRC to be a member state in the hope that this would stabilise the country, but the exact opposite has happened and the unity of SADC has been severely compromised. The decision to bring the DRC into SADC was a rational one, for it meant that the region could control President Laurent Désiré Kabila, an incompetent leader, but the policy has not only boomeranged,24 it has also raised doubts about SADC’s ability to manage regional conflicts.

The prominent role taken by the South African president, Thabo Mbeki since winning the elections in June 1999, raised hope that this major power could build regional consensus. Along with regional heads of states from Botswana, Mozambique and Zambia, states intervening in the DRC signed the Lusaka peace agreement in July and were later joined by rebel groups in August 1999. Yet, the peace agreement has not lessened tensions between the countries surrounding the DRC. What the DRC exposed, was the interplay of internal and interstate disputes. In fact, the two close allies in the DRC conflict, Rwanda and Uganda clashed on several occasions during 1999. Both appeared to have diverging strategic and diplomatic interests on the prosecution of the war. The divisions also show how fragile the possibilities are of devising regionally based security apparatuses to deal with conflicts in this region of Africa.

CONCLUSION

The establishment of a peacekeeping-cum-peace enforcement capacity within ECOWAS gives practical expression to the co-operation envisaged by the UN. The ECOMOG interventions were fully endorsed, not just by an international community that could no longer find solutions to African conflicts, but by Africans who wanted to break the dependence on outside military assistance in responding to African conflicts. In the aftermath of Cold War interference by the major Western powers in Africa, the desire of Africans not only to keep their own peace, but to define their security apparatus is welcomed.

This article has presented an appraisal of ECOMOG, challenging assertions that it could be a model for Africa. It might be necessary to conclude on a more optimistic note, pointing to the positive aspects of ECOMOG. Leaving aside questions about the quality of the intervention and the peace and stability ECOMOG tried to achieve, ECOMOG did shed light on the potential for African regions to develop mechanisms for managing conflicts. As security in the 21st century will largely be an African responsibility, the advent of subregional conflict management in various parts of Africa should not be overlooked. More importantly, with the minimal involvement or participation from the international community in resolving Africa’s numerous wars, Africans need to build various regional capacities to manage conflicts. There is no alternative to ECOMOG, IGAD, SADC or the EAC. However, the challenge for Africans is to work closely in devising institutional approaches and rules on managing conflicts. ECOMOG has opened the door for Africans to determine the future of security; the task is for the rest of Africa to build upon its various trials and tribulations.

However, it cannot be overstated that a degree of caution is needed by all who wish to promote ECOMOG as a model for Africa. Throughout its nine years of operating in difficult circumstances, the simple fact cannot be overlooked that ECOMOG fell victim to the geopolitical machinations of Nigeria, a powerful regional hegemon. Now that this hegemon has embarked on the road to democratisation, seasoned observers of ECOMOG can only hope that it uses ECOMOG as a ‘force for good’, not only in managing West African security dilemmas, but in informing other subregional organisations as they attempt to respond to conflicts.

Endnotes

I would like to thank ‘Fumni Olonisakin for her comments on an earlier draft of this paper.
  1. C Ero, ‘The evolution of norms in international relations: Intervention and the principle of non-intervention in intra-African affairs’, unpublished PhD thesis, London School of Economics, 1999a, p 218.
  2. A England, ‘Uganda predicts ECOMOG-style local units in 3yrs’, Jane’s Defence Weekly, 5 May 1999, p 20.
  3. ‘Highlights of treaty’, West Africa, 19-25 July 1993, p 1248.
  4. C Ero, ‘The future of ECOMOG in West Africa’, in J Cilliers & G Mills (eds), From peacekeeping to complex emergencies: Peace support missions in Africa, South African Institute for International Affairs and Institute for Security Studies, Johannesburg/Pretoria, 1999b, p 60.
  5. The other warring factions were the Independent National Patriotic Front of Liberia (INPFL) which broke away from Charles Taylor and was being led by ‘Prince’ Yormie Johnson; the National Patriotic Front of Liberia — Central Revolutionary Council (NPFL-CRC), another breakaway faction led by Tom Woewiyu and Sam Dokie, murdered by Charles Taylor’s security guards in November 1997; the Lofa Defence Force (LDF) led by Francis Massaquoi; Alhaji Kromah’s Mandingo-based United Liberation Movement for Democracy in Liberia (ULIMO-K), a Krahn-based ULIMO splinter group led by Roosevelt Johnson (ULIMO-J) and another Krahn-based group, the Liberian Peace Council (LPC) led by George Boley.
  6. Decision A/Dec.1/8/90 on the ceasefire and establishment of an ECOWAS Ceasefire Monitoring Group for Liberia, Economic Community of West African States First Session of the Community Standing Mediation Committee, Banjul, The Gambia, 6-7 August 1990, Article 2(2), p 3.
  7. M Sesay, ‘Collective security or collective disaster? Regional peacekeeping in West Africa’, Security Dialogue, 26(2), 1995, pp. 212-213.
  8. The degree of disunity between Nigeria and the two main Francophone countries did not stem from the Liberian civil war, but is tied up in the complex historical relations between these states in the region. Relations between Nigeria and Côte d’Ivoire have tended to be fraught with tensions, especially when the latter called for the recognition of Biafra during the Nigerian civil war in 1967. Attempts were made to facilitate co-operation through the creation of ECOWAS in 1975, but relations have remained strained.
  9. For example, see the statement by Sandline International in which the company claims to "improve the state of security, stability and general conditions in client countries", <www.sandline.com/site/index.html>. See also C Coker, ‘Outsourcing war’, paper presented at the Non-State Actors Conference, London School of Economics, 27-28 September 1999. For a general analysis of the trend towards mercenaries in Africa, see J Cilliers & R Cornwell, ‘Mercenaries and the privatisation of security in Africa’, African Security Review, 8(2), 1999; and A Musah & J Fayemi (eds), Mercenaries: An African security dilemma, Pluto Press, London, 2000.
  10. For an analysis of mercenary activity in Sierra Leone, see D Francis, ‘Mercenary intervention in Sierra Leone: Providing national security or international exploitation’, Third World Quarterly, 20(2), 1999; F Olonisakin, Mercenaries fill the vacuum, The World Today, June 1998; and D Shearer, Private armies and military intervention, Adelphi Paper, 316, International Institute for Strategic Studies, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1998.
  11. The Kamajors were essentially a local defence force fighting to defend their communities in the absence of help from an incompetent and corrupt state army. In a sense, their response was ‘a plague on both these houses’ — to the RUF for its brutality and to the RSLMF for failing to protect the population. However, the Kamajors also inflicted widespread atrocities and summary executions against those suspected of supporting the RUF/AFRC. See The impasse in Sierra Leone — Centre for Democracy and Development briefing paper on current developments in Sierra Leone and prospects for conflict management, Centre for Democracy and Development, London, January 1999.
  12. Ero, op cit, 1999b, p 65.
  13. Ibid, p 65.
  14. C Ero, Restructuring the security sector: Lessons and challenges for Sierra Leone, Working Paper, Conflict, Security & Development Group, Centre for Defence Studies, forthcoming, 2000.
  15. A Clewlow, ‘Peace pact may mark end to Guinea-Bissau crisis’, Jane’s Defence Weekly, 11 November 1998, p 22.
  16. Report on the situation in Guinea-Bissau prepared by the ECOWAS Executive Secretary, UN Security Council, Doc S/1999/432, 16 April 1999.
  17. Ero, op cit, 1999b, p 69.
  18. This section and the parts that follow are taken from research conducted while at the International Institute for Strategic Studies and form part of ongoing research at the Institute.
  19. W Reno, Warlord politics and African states, Lynne Rienner, Boulder and London, 1998, p 98.
  20. ‘West Africa according to Mr. Taylor’, Africa Confidential, 40(2), 22 January 1999, p. 2; Ero, op cit, 1999b, p 66.
  21. L’ ANAD was established in 1977 under a defence pact between France and Francophone states in the West Africa region to respond to matters of defence and security.
  22. The member states of IGAD are Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan and Uganda.
  23. SADC was established in 1992 to replace the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference (SADCC). Its members include Angola, Botswana, the DRC, Lesotho, Namibia, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
  24. Discussions with Chris Landsberg, Deputy Director, Centre for Policy Studies, South Africa, 24 March 1999.