Western Efforts to Develop African Peacekeeping

The document examines the gap between the political will of African states to manage their own security and their actual operational capabilities. It analyzes the shortcomings of the OAU, SADC, and ECOWAS, and details the 'capacity-building' programs of the US, UK, France, and Denmark. The authors argue that while these Western initiatives provide tangible training and equipment, they are primarily driven by a desire to avoid direct military involvement in African conflicts rather than a genuine commitment to African self-sufficiency.

• African regional and subregional organizations face severe institutional, financial, and operational constraints that limit their peacekeeping effectiveness. The OAU's capacity is largely restricted to small observer missions, and its plan for a stand-by peacekeeping force is described as "unrealistic" given its reliance on donors for basic equipment like boots.
• The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) lacks a formal decision-making mechanism for its peacekeeping force, ECOMOG, leading to concerns that Nigeria has used the force to advance its own foreign policy agenda.
• The Southern African Development Community (SADC) is hampered by internal divisions over military intervention, as evidenced by the rebellion in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), and its Organ on Politics, Defence and Security has not yet become operational.
• Ad hoc African peacekeeping efforts often depend entirely on Western support for deployment and logistics. For example, the Inter-African Mission to Monitor the Implementation of the Bangui Agreements (MISAB) in the Central African Republic required direct French assistance to be operational.
• The US African Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI) provides bilateral peacekeeping training and non-lethal equipment, but it is viewed as a "quick-fix" response designed to avoid committing American troops to conflicts such as those in Burundi.
• France's RECAMP programme focuses on subregional training and the pre-positioning of heavy equipment, but it is characterized as a cost-cutting measure to reduce France's traditional military exposure and expenses in Africa.
• The UK's approach to capacity-building emphasizes 'training the trainer' by focusing on officers and developing national military staff colleges into regional centers of excellence.
• Denmark's efforts are concentrated in the SADC subregion, specifically Zimbabwe, where it is developing a Regional Peacekeeping Centre and providing funding for Nordic peacekeeping courses.
• Western capacity-building initiatives are primarily motivated by domestic political concerns and a desire to avoid direct military involvement, rather than the actual limitations of African states.

APA

Berman, E. G., & Sams, K. E. (1998). Western Efforts to Develop African Peacekeeping. Institute for Security Studies. https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/Mono33.pdf

Chicago

Berman, Eric G, and Katie E Sams. Western Efforts to Develop African Peacekeeping. Institute for Security Studies, 1998. https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/Mono33.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Berman |first1=Eric G |last2=Sams |first2=Katie E |title=Western Efforts to Develop African Peacekeeping |publisher=Institute for Security Studies |date=December 1998 |url=https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/Mono33.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{berman1998western, author = {Berman, Eric G and Sams, Katie E}, title = {{Western Efforts to Develop African Peacekeeping}}, institution = {Institute for Security Studies}, year = {1998}, month = dec, url = {https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/Mono33.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }