John Campbell

Africa in Transition

Campbell tracks political and security developments across sub-Saharan Africa.

Print Print Cite Cite
Style: MLA APA Chicago Close


U.S. Policy: Reconciling Democracy Promotion and Counterterrorism

by Guest Blogger for John Campbell
June 15, 2012

General Carter F. Ham, commander of the U.S. military's Africa Command, speaks during a news conference at the U.S. Embassy in Algiers June 1, 2011. (Stringer/Courtesy Reuters)


This is a guest post by Asch Harwood. Asch is the Council on Foreign Relations Africa program research associate.

Yesterday, the White House released its new Africa policy. The top two pillars—support for democracy and economic growth—remain the same from previous policy statements. The new policy reorganizes conflict prevention, presidential initiatives, and transnational issues to reflect increasing concerns over terrorism on the continent.

Nevertheless, recent comments by Africom’s commander, General Carter Ham, that “countering the threats posed by al-Qaeda affiliates in east and northwest Africa remains my number one priority,” underscores how U.S. foreign policy establishment priorities can occasionally be at odds.

For example, counterterrorism efforts, unfortunately, do not always complement democracy promotion. Take Mali. Alleged international terrorist training camps in that country have most certainly caught the attention of the American counterterrorism establishment. And yet, who will it partner with after the March 22 coup and Azawad’s de facto independence (or as one interlocutor put it, “Azawad’s occupation”)? Should we collaborate with the military government, and how can we support the reestablishment of democracy?

Nigeria is another difficult case. Readers of this blog will know that there are questions about the legitimacy of Nigeria’s Goodluck Jonathan administration and its heavy-handed response to Boko Haram in the North. (Not to mention what Boko Haram actually is.)

Do we partner with the Nigerian government at the risk of attracting the ire of the hitherto domestically focused Boko Haram?

These are tough questions. And favoring one approach can easily undermine another. Think about constructive engagement with South Africa’s apartheid government—a policy that has not been forgotten in that country—but was particularly problematic given our own dark history of segregation.

The answer, I believe, lies in a principled approach. As Americans, we value democracy, human rights, and the rule of law above all else. U.S. foreign policy should reflect that.

Post a Comment 1 Comment

  • Posted by Chike Chukudebelu

    “Do we partner with the Nigerian government at the risk of attracting the ire of the hitherto domestically focused Boko Haram?”

    If you lack the simple courage to do what is right, please stop opining on our internal affairs.

    Boko Haram has passed the hypothetical “is it a terrorist organisation linked to Al Qaeda worthy of the FTO designation?”.

    Such speculation is useless (and so is as the misguided belief that Northern Nigeria is too stupid to recognise that Boko Haram is a threat to its existence).

    And so are the silly statements about “Jonathan’s legitimacy”. That’s not the point.

    We have a very real possibility of a nation-wide religious/ethnic crisis and we (and our friends) have to work hard to stop it.

Post a Comment

CFR seeks to foster civil and informed discussion of foreign policy issues. Opinions expressed on CFR blogs are solely those of the author or commenter, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions. All comments must abide by CFR's guidelines and will be moderated prior to posting.

* Required