Security and Disarmament in Africa

Abstract

The article begins by noting that the evolution of the earlier term ‘defence’, through a brief life as ‘collective security’ (coinciding with the life of the League of Nations), into ‘security’ is not merely a semantic variation; it signifies a qualitative change in the connotation of the term. It traces how, born in the aftermath of World War II and most commonly used in the cold war, security has come to mean, in this age of American imperialism, not just the defence of the United States against aggression, but also a wide variety of other things: security of US allies and camp followers; security of the ‘West’; security of the ‘free world’ (so called in obvious avoidance of the use of ‘capitalist international order’); security of the control of this order over resources, no matter where located (through whatever means, including the use of naked force); security for pliant regimes, security of the ruling elites against their own peoples and, in countries outside the orbit of US hegemony, destabilization, even over-throw (through covert operations or armed intervention), of governments—in short, security of the existing political and economic global system under US safe-keeping. The only thing ‘security’ excludes from its ambit is the security of the people against war, against hunger and disease, against institutional oppression, and against structural exploitation. The article goes on to spell out the implications and consequences of the application of this concept of ‘security’ in Africa and discusses ways of operationalizing the other concept of security in which the safety and well-being of the people takes the first place, which points to the need for eventual disarmament, however unrealistic it may seem today for a variety of reasons, the most important of them being the colonial bequest of conflicts and causes of conflict, and the vested interest of the international capitalist system in perpetuating African dependency and underdevelopment.