THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL AND THE ORGANISATION OF AFRICAN UNITY

The UN relies on regional organisations to carry out peacekeeping activities and has very good reasons for doing so: resource constraints and relevant political influence. In Africa, however, the UN Security Council seems unwilling to take decisive action when faced with complex emergencies and leaves the burden to the OAU which has its own problems. The UN charter does allow regional organisations to take enforcement action even without prior armed attack. The OAU charter converges with that of the UN in ways that should make cooperation easier than it has been. Despite the rhetoric, the UN Security Council has undertaken very little visible action in Africa when it is most needed. A lack of significant African representation in the Council is perhaps a cause. The Council will improve its global authority if it undertakes reforms that reduce the power of the US and the UK over its decisions.     

TERRORISM AND AFRICA

This article first looks at the relationship between international terrorism and terrorism in Africa. Since sub-state terrorism is already endemic to Africa, the future threat potential in the continent lies in a complex mixture of sub-national and international terrorism. Africa may come to play a central role in international terrorism. The motivation, means and targets all exist and these opportunities will not go unheeded for much longer. Africa presents both a facilitating environment and a target-rich environment for terrorists that seek to attack the United States, and indeed the global system. The article concludes with some remarks on counter-strategies.     

AFRICAN SECURITY REVIEW

As an institution of state, the military in Lesotho was marred by controversy and steeped in intrigue from the start. For much of the post-colonial period the military was used as a politicised and partisan tool, which even seized power and governed in its own name. The current problem, as this brief history aims to demonstrate, is essentially two-pronged. It involves putting in place structures, mechanisms and philosophies designed to promote the military's acceptance of civil supremacy. The process should also include alterations to political society's perception of the military as a tool to be used in partisan games that almost always have calamitous outcomes. Lesotho's political development is classified in this article into four broad phases and the type of civil-military relations is assessed under each phase. The reasons for the military coup in 1986 are analysed, the emergence of a democratic order and the challenges facing this order are highlighted, and the reform measures that have thus far been instituted are evaluated. The essay concludes with a few projections into the future course of events.     

Mapping Out a Counterinsurgency Campaign Plan: Critical Considerations in Counterinsurgency Campaigning1

This paper argues on the basis of a series of historical examples that include the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaya and Northern Ireland, that there is no perfect counterinsurgency model and that each counterinsurgency campaign is different. Counterinsurgents need to have a series of basic tenets to wage successful war against guerrillas and insurgents. These include: a clear political policy from the government under insurgent attack, a strategy to keep the population safe, successful intelligence gathering, a recognition that successful counterinsurgency is manpower intensive and a high priority on the destruction of the insurgent infrastructure. This paper urges that in period of peacetime it is essential that militaries develop a Standing Counterinsurgency Concepts Unit that can conceptualise past and present insurgent patterns and build this into military and strategic planning.     

Killing Within the Rules

It is generally accepted that rules are important, even in war, and that the adherence to them is one of the ways that the West differentiates itself from the terrorists it seeks to destroy. However, what exactly are the rules and how have they changed? In the light of high profile rulings by the UK Law Lords on the applicability of human rights legislation in theatres of military operations, some are claiming that the British military is under legal siege and is increasingly unable to do its job due to new rules, interference from lawyers and the fear of looking over one's shoulder. Is this view accurate?