Paper short abstract:

For the past decade security in East Africa has gained focus internationally. However there is a growing ambition among African states to handle such issues by themselves, sometimes through regional institutions. This has been supported by many Western states but potential risks are often forgotten.

Paper long abstract:

Risk of Duplication

IGAD, EAC and EASF are regional institutions that represent three different security perspectives. IGAD has a focus on human security, EAC mainly focuses on economic security and EASF is mainly concerned with political and military security. With such different security agendas is there a risk that donors might unintentionally cultivate parallel and competing security initiatives?

2. Institutions as instruments to pursue national interests and military capacity building

Institutions in East Africa might be used as 'tools' through which specific states pursue national security projects 'disguised' as regional security. This represents a risk to donors insofar as it implies that they (implicitly) support the national security agenda of a specific state, which is different from supporting a move toward regional security.

Risks of Non-intervention in Internal Affairs

The prevention of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes is a vital part of APSA. However, this leave us with the question of how to handle other "lower" conflicts as well as the question of whether there is a distinction as to whether intervention is more acceptable in a smaller state than in a bigger state.

Complex Relationships between states and institutions in the region

Here the paper will explore the implications of the fact that there is no unanimous hegemon in East Africa. IGAD and EAC can be accused of cultivating a north south understanding a over time divide the region into two. What are the prospects and where does this but EASF ambition of becoming a stronger political actor?

Paper Download (197 KB)