Search

Hegemony and its discontents in the RMA debate: An African Perspective The literature on the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) so far suggests that the RMA debate is generally waged from a Western perspective and in particular from a US perspective. This may be due to the conception of the RMA as a process grounded in technological break-throughs and driven by the military, a process that will give rise to a more sophisticated type of warfare. Given the low levels of IT penetration (a digital divide, compounded by underdevelopment in economic, education, health sectors and infrastructure) as well as the security predicament of Africa that makes for much less sophisticated warfare when contrasted with the so called Western Way of War, current literature marginalizes Africa when it comes to IT and security. [The Western Way of War (according to Lawrence Friedman) is characterised by professionalism of armed forces, intolerance of casualties and intolerance of collateral damage - elements that supposedly drive the RMA . In contrast, African warfare, most often intra-state in nature and symptomatic of political collapse, is intermingled in civilian life, involves child soldiers, militias and warlords, and is sustained over long periods by the illegal trade of mineral resources, drugs and arms.] If Africa does enter the RMA debate it is in the context of the asymmetry paradigm, that is, the realisation that there are political/diplomatic, military (doctrinal) and ethical possibilities and techniques to circumvent or annul the effects of the RMA on power. Asymmetrical threats most commonly cited are terrorism, cyberwars, transnational organised crime, the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles, but examples of low-tech asymmetric means are also cited, for example, Mohammed Farah Aideed communicated by courier, low-power cell phones and drums; or an asymmetric conflict, such as in Mogadishu where the US rangers were drawn into an urban environment and suffered 19 casualties. The subsequent US withdrawal also makes clear the asymmetry of interests at play in African interventions. Going beyond the inclusion of Africa in the RMA debate solely in the framework of the asymmetry paradigm, I am proposing that an RMA is occurring in Africa. However, this is not accounted for, because the conception of what constitutes an RMA is framed within a traditional security paradigm that focuses on the state as the primary actor in international relations, the actor with a monopoly on the use of organised force. Moreover, the emphasis on the technological dimension of the information revolution means that economic and political processes such as the privatisation of security and state collapse, are neglected within the description of how the environments to which militaries have to respond to, change. As such, the role of private military and security companies as agents of RMAs in Africa is but one neglected aspect of the debate. As far as these companies incorporate many of the technological, operational and organisational elements that have been highlighted in the RMA debate, and have trained, advised, served as procurement agents and even fought on behalf of militaries in certain African countries, it is worth exploring to which extent they induce an RMA in Africa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]