East Africa's Future Instability- Causation- Watch Eritrea!

The Geopolitics in East Africa are very 'interesting'. I define that as being 'stable but unpredictable'. Security and stability considerations have a wide catchment. We have previously written a number of articles for Oil and Gas Magazines that outlines some of the key factors 'why'. These hopefully provide that 25,000 foot view.

Mitigating Risks in Africa- TC

Plan for the Worst- TC 

 

We are advocates of mapping the human terrain and ensuring community outreach and liaison to develop robust civil affairs strategies. This will ensure Community Based Security (CBS) whereby local support and 'buy-in' can be achieved. We believe you can’t dissociate countries from each other in East Africa. Indeed, negative security interrelationships exists between most countries - transnational terrorism, weak political systems and ungoverned spaces are but some examples 'why'.

And the Role of Eritrea and Ethiopia? Eritrea/ Ethiopia interplays remain a significant issue. Recent attacks (Ethiopian incursion) continued into March 2012 albeit with little media fanfare. This is largely due to:

1. Ethiopia being a valued 'partner' to the West on the 'Global War on Terror'. Hence incursions are regularly ignored.

2. The Ethiopia/ Eritrea conflict is simply a long standing and tired media message.

Eritrea is fast becoming (become?) a failed nation state which may have implications for Ethiopia and the wider region. NB: Eritrea remain accused of supporting Al Shabaab in Somalia and other anti Western Groups as well as sheltering Ethiopian rebels. Its political instability is well documented and concerns most observers, analysts and commentators.

Ethiopia continue to contribute troops against Al Shabaab into Somalia.This will continue to push Al Shabaab to seek regional support (expect from Eritrea and probably Yemen as well as Sudan?) which could create the preconditions for spiraling regional instability. Already our interlocutors in Somalia have confirmed that active operations against Al Shabaab have driven the pro Al Qaeda group north into the State of Puntland.

We also know from our Nairobi Office that Al Shabaab are openly conducting administration (and operations) into Kenya.  Al Shabaab's influence in recent attacks in Nairobi, albeit low level and unsophisticated, have shown both capability and intent.

Some other interesting neighborhood conclusions have been captured by the UN Monitoring Group at : http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2011/433

Stay safe......  Tim 

Putting Lipstick on that Donkey

Australian officials have rejected a report commissioned by the government agency AusAID that is critical of the security assessment in Afghanistan, insisting it be rewritten to match upbeat claims of dramatic progress. The report, by independent consultants for the aid and development agency, stated that the Taliban, while weakened in Oruzgan province - where Australian troops operate - were far from defeated. The assessment, born out by a resurgence of violence in the past two months, is at odds with the government's optimistic assertions about conditions in the province.

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/war-file-vetted-to-clear-the-shadow-of-a-doubt-20120407-1wict.html#ixzz1rQcr53Pd

COMMENT:

As we have previously espoused, what confronts the international community and NATO forces (including the Australians) in Afghanistan is largely a locally (ie: district and provincially) motivated insurgency. Whilst Anti Government Elements (AGE) are often involved, the centre of gravity of the insurgency remains in its locally generated, popular support base. The genesis is quite simple: Xenophobia and Nepotism.

 

Hence any 'snapshot in time' of military progress in any one particular province or area, whilst always possible, will unlikely be reflective of gains nor development nor outlook. END COMMENT.

__________________________________________________________________________________

While AusAID denied trying to dictate the content of the report, a spokeswoman said the agency had sought corrections to ''factual inaccuracies'' and ''clarifications between fact, perception and analysis''. She confirmed AusAID ''suggested'' the consultants cut a chapter on Afghan views on Australian and US troops in Oruzgan, as this ''did not fit within the terms of reference''.

COMMENT:

The irony is that the one chapter that was cut in the Assessment was the one that was based on local opinion. Afghan views are entirely relevant- some would argue solely relevant. 'Acceptance' and 'tolerance' are key behaviors that are highly desirable (if not essential) in winning the counter insurgency battle. This is all about 'tongue instead of gun'. END COMMENT.