Today there’s a big conference in London with about 80 Defence Ministers from all over the world gather together to talk about peacekeeping.
Why? Well some might say it’s about making the world a safer place for all people. Some might say that it’s a way to coordinate the efforts of many to prevent further states failing and descending into chaos. They might even say, at the end of their list of reasons, something about preventing mass migrations.
I suspect that, if the politicians from Western countries were being honest, they’d admit that this is all about preventing further mass migrations from the likes of Sub-Saharan Africa to Europe and North America. An issue that is fast becoming THE political hot potato.
So the idea is that more peacekeepers being sent to the likes of Sudan and Somalia will reduce the flow of refugrants to Europe to a more easily handled trickle.
I have to ask the obvious question. Is that going to make any real difference? I think the answer is no.
Peacekeepers are usually put in place to do just that, maintain the peace. They don’t have the military power, or political authority, to repair broken countries. They cannot repair broken economies or boost them up. Often, they’ve been left hard-pressed to defend their own lives.
And they are expected to stem the flow of refugrants, many fleeing not war or direct danger but corrupt states with moribund economies?
Someone, somewhere, is having a toffee crisp! (I.E. they have made a barmy decision on their tea break.)
The only way the Western nations are going to truly put the likes of Sub-Saharan Africa’s house in order is taking direct control of those “failing” states. The same applies to the likes of Syria. Sending a few peacekeepers in isn’t going to suddenly restore the infrastructure of a war torn nation nor transform it into a stable society.
So are we actually really looking at a return to direct imperial control of so called failing states? A situation where European nations are allocated a couple of nations each (the UK has been allocated South Sudan and Somalia according to some media reports I have heard) and then expected to govern them? To repair the damage caused by both conflict and ineptitude as a way to keep the flow of refugrants to a politically acceptable minimum?
It looks like a form of imperialism by the back-door to me. How welcome will that be in the new vassal states of Sub-Saharan Africa?