Is terrorism proxy or new form of colonialism?

Reading about terrorist attacks in Cameroon, Mali Niger, Nigeria even Somalia or elsewhere, one thing comes to my mind. Who’s the beneficiary of this backward trend? I call this trend backward based on its history. Historically, the first terrorists were religious groups one Christian and another Muslim which used brutal ways of achieving their political goals under the cover of religion. Before delving into the history of terrorism, it is good to tell the readership that there’s no international agreed upon definition of terrorism. The lack of the definition for terrorism makes it a contentious phenomenon to legally deal with under national and international laws and in various disciplines of social science. However, there are hundreds of definitions of terrorism even within one government of one country. Despite lacking a globally agreed definition, terrorism is multidisciplinary phenomenon in nature. It spans from sociology, psychology, criminology to political science. Therefore, there’s no way one can define terrorism and meet the needs of all stakeholders, especially after the US declared the global war on terror without necessarily seeking an a globally agreed definition of terrorism or international legality.

Many people think terrorism is a new phenomenon that started in 1998 when Al Qaeda, an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist group, attacked United States’ embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi in East Africa, or when the same group attacked the Twin Towers in New York on September 11, 2001. This is so because before then, there were no buzzwords in the media about the phenomenon.  However, historically, terrorism started many year ago. Academics trace the genesis of terrorism on Zealots and Assassins, the first terrorist groups that committed violence aiming at making political statement and sending a warning to their enemies who at the time seemed to be more powerful than them. The two are ancient Christian and Islamic groups respectively. History of the dawn of terrorism goes as far back as year 74 CE when a Christian group known as Zealots or Zelos (ardor or strong spirit in Greek) committed suicide after being surrounded by the Roman soldiers. Such an act was viewed as unique, particularly at the time. Since, then other terrorist groups used suicidal tactics to target their enemies.

After the Zealots, there came the Assassins, a sect of Ismaili Shia, which means a murderer, more particularly, one who kills by stealth and treachery, whose victim is a public figure and whose motive is fanaticism or greed. These two groups are the harbingers of terrorism.  

As time went by, many terrorist groups evolved and died. Nevertheless, what’s never changed is the aim of terrorism namely to seek to achieve political gains by ways of violence. Such groups used various tactics such as hijacking people, planes and bombings. Groups such as Italy’s Red Brigade, Germany Baader-Meinhof gang and Red Army Faction, among others, were famous at certain times before disappearing or being vanquished. What made such groups unique from the modern-time terrorist groups is the fact that, although they’re known internationally, they’d narrow mission confined in their countries. One may say that the nature of communication at the time, mainly under the Cold War, might have been the obstacle for such groups to rapidly and widely expand internationally as the modern time terrorist groups have. By then, there’s no internet and other advanced means of relaying information as it is presently. The lack of such means made networking harder at the time. This is different from modern-time terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda or the ISIL whose savviness in using internet is great. Similarly, capitalist drive for profit and lust for wealth have helped modern-time terrorism to become more lethal.

After briefly exploring the history of terrorism and its controversies with regards to an international binding definition, let us now look at the major question. Who benefits from terrorism, especially in Africa? The answer is obvious that our former colonial powers do. Refer to how France is now busy in Chad, Cameroon, Mali and Niger under the decoy of purging terrorists who oft-attack these countries? Ironically, when France was attacked, no superpower such as Russia or the US went there to help it.  This creates suspicions and many questions. Are the beneficiary behind terror attacks that some countries have experienced? Why are major modern-time terrorist attacks are aimed at countries that boast having some resources such as oil or uranium as is the case in the countries above or fish in Somalia? Which type of terrorists our former colonial powers are after apart from those God put under the ground namely our minerals? Are Africans participating in such terrorist attacks under whatever pretexts, be they political or religious, aware that they’re making the second occupation of Africa much easier than it would have been? Are they aware of the size of the problem they’re creating provided that, differently from colonial times, this time, our former colonial masters are occupying Africa militarily? Refer to how our former and new colonial powers are dividing Africa among themselves as they establish their military bases, which don’t aim at protecting Africa but flexing military muscles and secure areas of influence as was in colonial times. To know how lethal this is for Africa, imagine. If missionary centers and garrisons enabled Europe to easily colonise Africa, what’ll be the ramifications of military bases?

Under the lures of money, many African countries are ready to believe in and embark on anything pointlessly for their peril. Look at a tiny country of Djibouti that’s now a hub of foreign military bases. If you ask why it has given in easily allowing its soil to be used for various military bases, you’ll be told that it receives money from countries, mainly superpowers, establishing their bases in its territory for regional interests. Such myopic and selfish take is destroying Africa for the second time. When the US sought to occupy the Middle East to weed out the terrorists God planted in the soil namely oil, just created artificial terrorists in Saddam Hussein. Similarly, when it sought to occupy the Maghreb and cox countries such as Egypt, just created terrorists such as Muamar Gaddafi and Mohamed Morsi. Interesting, when it comes to paving the way for military occupation in these countries, the citizens ran the show for their peril. Where are they now? Aren’t they mourning and yowling?

If anything, greed and selfish––based on national sovereign–– are what the division and partition of Africa envisaged. Now, the division and partition of Africa are paying dividends.  Again, why’s Africa repeating the same mistakes that cost it hugely? In my last piece I proposed that Africa must unite in order to survive. I repeat the same as my humble submission. Africa unite or perish.

Djibouti or any African country, under the pretext of national security can sell its freedom to any superpower while neighbours watch. But when the results of such myopia start to bite, all of them, like axiomatic rats in rattrap, will find themselves caught in the same trap of military occupation.

Apart from economic and political occupation of Africa, as the second struggle for Africa and military occupation of Africa, those carrying out or supporting terrorist actions because of religion or whatever individual or myopic reasons, must know: they’re paving the way for cultural imperialism, which also is a type of colonialism whose goals are indirectly economic and political. Refer to how Africans spend billions of dollars going to Mecca and Rome under the pretext of religion.  Underscoring the above arguments, I am comfortable to answer my own question that terrorism is either proxy or new form of colonialism wherein Africans are the big losers while their tormentors are big beneficiaries.

Source: African Executive Magazine today.