Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenor:
-
Jonathan Hill
(King's College, University of London)
- Stream:
- Anthropology, religion and conflict
- Location:
- G52
- Start time:
- 12 September, 2006 at
Time zone: Europe/London
- Session slots:
- 1
Short Abstract:
none
Long Abstract:
For politicians and academics alike the attacks of 11 September 2001 finally destroyed the perceived certainties of the Cold War era and ushered in a new global security environment. Instead of fearsomely armed states, Europe and North America believes its principal enemies to be trans-national terrorist networks operating out of fragile and failing states. To combat these enemies, the British government is not alone in instigating fundamental changes to both its defence policy and the structure of its Armed Forces. Yet how original are these changes? Has Britain's defence policy really changed that much? The papers of this proposed panel will address these questions by examining the development of British defence policy toward Africa over the past two centuries. The papers contend that Africa continues to be perceived as a troubled continent, a place of war, famine and strife in need of international help and guidance. Furthermore, that there remains a remarkable consistency in the ways Britain has (and proposes to) deploy its Armed Forces in Africa in pursuit of its objectives. Indeed, despite the important shifts in Britain's defence policy during this period, its view of Africa and responses to it have altered little. The panel's three papers will complement one another by examining British policy during consecutive periods, with paper one focusing on 1805 to 1945, paper two 1945 to 1990 and paper three 1990 to 2005. In this way, the panel will offer a thorough analysis of the continuities and discontinuities of British defence policy toward Africa.
Accepted papers:
Session 1Jonathan Hill (King's College, University of London)
Paper long abstract:
The period of 1990 to 2005 has witnessed perhaps two of the most profound changes in the international security environment since 1945: the end of the Cold War and the launching of the global war on terror. In response to these changes successive British governments have initiated important changes to the country's defence policy. These not only include a change in the way defence planning and management are conducted, but a fundamental re-evaluation of the main defence challenges confronting the UK and reorganisation of the Armed Forces. Despite these changes, certain significant continuities within British defence policy remain. One of the most notable is how Africa is viewed and understood. Another are the roles outlined for the UK's Armed Forces in that continent.
Building on the insights offered by the panel's previous papers, this paper will examine how, despite significant changes in both the international security environment and British defence policy since 1990, understandings of and policy toward Africa remain largely unchanged. Africa is still perceived as a hopeless continent in need of being saved by international forces. Furthermore, there are surprising parallels between the ways Britain proposes to deploy its Armed Forces in Africa today in order to achieve this, with how they were deployed during the colonial period. In this way, the paper will offer fresh insights into the continuities and discontinuities of British defence policy toward Africa.
Ashley Jackson (King's College, University of London)
Paper long abstract:
Though Britain's engagement with Africa predates it, the nineteenth century witnessed the steady and sometimes rapid growth of British military engagement with the continent. For manifold reasons, British land, air, and maritime forces operated around and across the continent, often at the behest of the British government, though usually not. Private interests in Africa - missionary, explorer, hunter, trader, or settler - often bared military teeth to the Africans among whom they walked, and firearms became as enduring a symbol of Britain's involvement with Africa as minerals, missionaries, and traders. British activity in Africa also accelerated the proliferation of firearms that contributed towards African instability and resource competition.
Away from the private sphere, British governments had occasion to sanction military expeditions to Africa, from classic gunboat diplomacy (bombardment of Zanzibar 1896, intervention of Royal Marines in Bechuanaland 1933), to humanitarian operations (anti-slavery naval patrols), to campaigns against indigenous kingdoms (Ashante, Zulu), campaigns fought with African allies against 'unfriendly' tribes (Maasai alliance), and campaigns against European rivals for supremacy on the continent (Battle of the Nile, Fashoda, Anglo-Boer wars, campaigns against Germans 1914-18). Furthermore, with the formal establishment of British rule military force became a key arbiter of the authority of the colonial state, suppressing resistance during the 'pacification' period, dealing with subsequent uprisings (Nandi, Ndebele, Shona), and providing the cold steel frame that girded the steel frame of skeletal colonial administrations.
The end of the pacification period did not diminish the importance of military power in Africa, and actions continued to be fought throughout the twentieth century before the post-war period of insurgency and nationalism that brought a return to large and costly military intervention on the continent. In the twentieth century, Britain came to rely on African manpower and bases to support its imperial system.