Boko Haram A Blessing For Imperialism In Africa:

The Americans now admit they are training battalions of African Rangers and counterinsurgency troops. The next step is the proliferation of death squads in West Africa, as the U.S. did in Southeast Asia and Latin America. Nigeria’s schoolgirls may or may not be rescued, but U.S. and European “humanitarian” military interventionists have already gained more than they could have imagined.

“NATO’s aggression against Libya begat the sub-Saharan chaos that justified the French and U.S. occupation of Mali and Niger.”

Militarily, Africa is fast becoming an American continent. Barack Obama, who has been president for all but the first year of AFRICOM’s existence, has succeeded in integrating U.S. fighting units, bases, training regimens, equipment and financing into the military structures of all but a handful of African nations. The great pan-Africanist and former Ghanaian president Kwame Nkrumah’s dream of a militarily united Africa has been all but realized – with Americans and Europeans in charge. Under the guise of “humanitarian” intervention, Obama has vastly expanded Bill Clinton and George Bush’s African footprints, so that only a few patches on the continental map lie outside Washington’s sphere of operations. Eritrea and Zimbabwe are the notable exceptions – and, therefore, future targets.

Africa is occupied territory. The African Union doesn’t even pretend to be in charge of its own nominal peace-keeping missions, which are little more than opportunities for African militaries to get paid for doing the West’s bidding. China and Brazil may be garnering the lion’s share of trade with Africa, but the men with the guns are loyal to AFRICOM – the sugar daddy to the continent’s military class. U.S. troops now sleep in African barracks, brothers in arms with African officers who can determine who will sleep next week in the presidential mansion.

The pace of U.S. penetration of West Africa has quickened dramatically since 2011, when Obama bombed Muammar Gaddafi’s Libyan government out of existence, setting a flood of jihadists and weapons streaming east to Syria and south to destabilize the nations of the Sahel. Chaos ensued – beautiful chaos, if you are a U.S. military planner seeking justification for ever-larger missions. NATO’s aggression against Libya begat the sub-Saharan chaos that justified the French and U.S. occupation of Mali and Niger. Hyperactive North African jihadists, empowered by American bombs, weapons and money, trained and outfitted their brethren on the continent, including elements of Nigeria’s Boko Haram. The Hausa-speaking Islamic warriors then bequeathed AFRICOM a priceless gift: nearly 300 schoolgirls in need of rescuing, perfect fodder for “humanitarian” intervention.

Nobody had to ask twice that Obama “Do something!”

The heads of Nigeria, Chad, Niger, Benin and Cameroon were summoned to Paris (pretending it was their idea) where they declared “total war” on Boko Haram, as “observers” from the U.S., France, Britain and the European Union (Africa’s past and future stakeholders) looked on. French President Francois Hollande said “a global and regional action plan” would come out of the conference.

“The heads of Nigeria, Chad, Niger, Benin and Cameroon were summoned to Paris where they declared ‘total war’ on Boko Haram.”

Of course, the five African states have neither the money, training, equipment nor intelligence gathering capacity for such a plan. It will be a Euro-American plan for the defense and security of West Africa – against other Africans. Immediately, the U.S. sent 80 troops to Chad (whose military has long been a mercenary asset of France) to open up a new drone base, joining previously existing U.S. drone fields in Niger, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Somalia, the Seychelles Islands, Djibouti (home to a huge French and American base), and CIA sites that need not be disclosed.

The new West African security grouping became an instant imprint of NATO, an appendage to be shaped by imperial military planners to confront enemies chosen by Washington and Paris.

What a miracle of humanitarian military momentum! The girls had only been missing for a month, and might not be rescued alive, but five neighboring African countries – one of them the biggest economy on the continent – had already been dragooned into a NATO-dominated military alliance with other subordinate African states.

It soon turned out that AFRICOM already had a special relationship with the Nigerian military that was not announced until after the schoolgirls’ abduction. AFRICOM will train a battalion of Nigerian Rangers in counterinsurgency warfare, the first time that the Command has provided “full spectrum” training to Africans on such a scale.

With the American public in a “Save our girls” interventionist frame of mind, operations that were secret suddenly became public. The New York Times reveals that the U.S. has been running a secret program to train counterterrorism battalions for Niger and Mauritania. Elite Green Berets and Delta Force killers are instructing handpicked commandos in counterinsurgency in Mali, as well. The identity of one Times source leaves little doubt that the previously secret operations are designed to blanket the region with U.S. trained death squads. Michael Sheehan was until last year in charge of Special Operations at the Pentagon – Death Squads Central – where he pushed for more Special Ops trainers for African armies. Sheehan now holds the “distinguished chair” at West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center. In the 1980s, he was a Special Forces commander in Latin America – which can only mean death squads.

“AFRICOM will train a battalion of Nigerian Rangers in counterinsurgency warfare.”

U.S. Army Special Forces have always been political killers, most often operating with the CIA. The Phoenix Program, in Vietnam, which murdered between 26,000 and 41,000 people and tortured many more, was a CIA-Special Forces war crime. From 1975 to deep into the 80s, the CIA and its Special Forces muscle provided technical support and weapons to killers for Operation Condor, the death squads run by a consortium of military governments in Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia and Brazil, believed responsible for 60,000 murders. Sheehan was probably involved in Operation Condor and its Central American component, Operation Charly, and has perfected the art of political murder, ever since. If he is happy and feeling vindicated by events in Africa, then U.S.-trained death squads are about to proliferate in that part of the world.

There is no question that Obama is enamored of Special Ops, since small unit murders by professional killers at midnight look less like war – and can, if convenient, be blamed on (other) “terrorists.” However, history – recent history – proves the U.S. can get away with almost limitless carnage in Africa. Ethiopia’s 2006 invasion of Somalia, backed by U.S. forces on land, air and sea, resulted in “the worst humanitarian crisis in Africa” at the time, “worse than Darfur,” according to UN observers, with hundreds of thousands dead. The U.S. then withheld food aid to starve out Somali Shabaab fighters, leading to even more catastrophic loss of life. But, most Americans are oblivious to such crimes againstBlack humanity.

U.S. ally Ethiopia commits genocide against ethnic Somalis in its Ogaden region with absolute impunity, and bars the international media from the region. Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama – each of them with help from Susan Rice – have collectively killed six million Congolese since 1996. The greatest genocide since World War Two was the premeditated result of the chaos deliberately imposed on mineral-rich Congo by the U.S. and its henchmen in neighboring Rwanda and Uganda. Paul Kagame, the current leader of Rwanda, shot down a plane with two presidents aboard in 1994, sparking the mass killings that brought Kagame to power and started neighboring Congo on the road to hell. America celebrates Kagame as a hero, although the Tutsi tribal dictator sends death squads all over the world to snuff out those who oppose him.

“The U.S. can get away with almost limitless carnage in Africa.”

Ugandan leader Yoweri Museveni, a friend of the U.S. since Ronald Reagan, committed genocidal acts against his rivals from the Acholi tribe, throwing them into concentration camps. Joseph Kony was one of these Acholis, who apparently went crazy. Kony hasn’t been a threat to Uganda or any other country in the region for years, but President Obama used a supposed sighting of remnants of his Lords Resistance Army to send 100 Green Berets to the Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, Rwanda, the Central African Republic, and South Sudan. Just last month, Obama sent 150 more troops and four aircraft to central Africa, again claiming that Kony was lurking, somewhere.

Actually, the American troops were deployed near South Sudan, which the U.S, Britain and Israel had destabilized for decades in an effort to split it off from the larger nation of Sudan. South Sudan became independent, but it remained unstable – not a nation, but a place with oil that the U.S. coveted. Many tens of thousands more are certain to die in fighting in South Sudan, but few Americans will blame their own country.

As the carnage in Congo demonstrates, whole populations can be made to disappear in Africa without most people in the West noticing. The death squads the Americans are training in Nigeria, Niger, Mauretania and Mali, and those that will soon be stalking victims in Cameroon and Benin, will not be limited to hunting Boko Haram. Death squads are, by definition, destabilizing; they poison the political and social environment beyond repair, as Central Americans who lived through the 80s can attest.

Yet, that is U.S. imperialism’s preferred method of conquest in the non-white world. It’s what the Americans actually do, when folks demand that they “Do something.”

By Glen Ford 

The Consequences Of The U.S. War On Terrorism In Africa

The American military’s expansion to the continent poses significant challenges to democratization and domestic security

On May 5, President Barack Obama hosted his Djiboutian counterpart, Ismail Omar Guelleh, at the White House. The two leaders signed a 20-year lease agreement for the Djibouti-based Camp Lemonnier, the biggest U.S. military base in Africa. Covering 500 acres, the installation is a crucial launching site for U.S. military operations against militant groups in the Horn of Africa and Yemen. The U.S. agreed to pay an annual fee of $70 million for the site, which now hosts more than 4,000 U.S. military personnel and civilians.

The base is a key part of Pentagon’s plans “to maximize the impact of a relatively small U.S. presence in Africa,” according to the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, a congressional panel that conducts assessments of U.S. defense strategy and priorities. All African countries except Eritrea receive some form of U.S. military assistance, according to data from the U.S. State Department. Most of this assistance is channeled through the department’s International Military Education and Training program, which facilitates professional relationships with African militaries. The Obama administration is looking to invest in “new, effective and efficient small footprint locations and developing innovative approaches to using host nation facilities or allied joint-basing” as part of its focus on security in Africa. A handful of African nations — including Ethiopia, South Sudan, Niger, Uganda, Kenya, Mauritania, Mali, the Seychelles and Burkina Faso — already host U.S. drone sites, shared bases and military surveillance facilities. Also, the U.S. maintains a secretive program training counterterrorism commandos in states that straddle the vast Sahara, whose ungoverned spaces provide a rear base for terrorist groups.

The Pentagon’s military footprint in Africa is indeed small compared with other parts of the world. For example, in 2012, U.S. military aid and arms sales to Africa accounted for a mere 4.25 percent of the global total. (The Near East received 67.7 percent.) These military outlays were just 5.5 percent of the $7.8 billion the U.S. allocated for foreign assistance in the African region, with health care ($5.6 billion) getting the lion’s share. Regardless of the size of the U.S. military footprint in Africa, its expansion of has serious implications for the continent’s security, the consolidation of democracy and the professionalization of its militaries as well as for respect for human rights across the region. Unfortunately, these concerns do not rank high on the Pentagon’s agenda.

U.S. Africa Command

The U.S. geographic command responsible for Africa is overseen by U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), based in Stuttgart, Germany. In 2009, two years after it was created, AFRICOM had an operating budget of about $400 million and more than 1,000 staffers. Unlike other similar U.S. operations, it is fully integrated with other U.S. agencies in Africa — including USAID and the State, Commerce and Treasury departments. This arrangement informs AFRICOM’s focus on a 3-D approach — defense, diplomacy and development — in the region.

At the core of the U.S. military engagement in Africa is the war against Al-Qaeda affiliates: Somalia’s Al-Shabaab and Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb (AQIM), as well as armed groups such as Uganda’s Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) and Nigeria’s Boko Haram. To help conduct AFRICOM’s counterterrorism operations in the region, the U.S. has recruited a motley crew of African allies, including those that face direct threats from these groups. Kenya, Uganda, Burundi, Djibouti and Ethiopia are key partners in the war against Al-Shabaab, and Niger and Burkina Faso have emerged as critical hosts of U.S. operations against AQIM. But Washington’s strategic calculations and the interests of African leaders who sign on to these arrangements do not always converge with the interests of the majority of African people.

In order to preserve ongoing cooperation arrangements, the U.S. has consistently looked the other way in the face of gross human rights violations and anti-democratic tendencies of its partner states. Djibouti’s Guelleh, now in power for 15 years, scrapped term limits to pave the way for a third term in 2010, leading to the opposition’s boycott of parliament. In Djibouti, not unlike in other allied countries, the 2013 U.S. State Department annual country reports revealed cases of torture, arbitrary arrest and restriction of freedom of association. Ethiopia and Uganda, the two leading U.S. allies in sub-Saharan Africa, are serial human rights offenders. Ethiopia is the second leading jailer of journalists in Africa (after only Eritrea). In a renewed crackdown on freedom of expression, authorities in Ethiopia jailed nine additional journalists and bloggers last month only days before Secretary of State John Kerry’s trip to Addis Ababa. The country has been in the news for the recent killings of unarmed student protesters in the Oromia region. Uganda gained international infamy earlier this year by pioneering a draconian anti-gay law. In both countries, opposition parties operate under severe restriction, with Ethiopia having only one opposition member in its 547-person legislature. 

The United States has been implicated in maintaining a secretive detention program in concert with the governments of Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia and Somalia. A 2008 Human Rights Watch report, “Horn of Africa Renditions,” detailed a little-known unlawful detention policy, akin to the Central Intelligence Agency’s extraordinary rendition program. According to journalist Jason Leopold, Mohammed al-Asad, a Yemeni citizen arrested in Tanzania in 2003, claims thatU.S. forces tortured him at a black site in Djibouti. In Kenya the government has recently been accused of summarily executing radical Muslim clerics suspected of having links to Al-Shabaab. (The government denies the charge.) The war on terrorism has provided opportunities for some African leaders to enact sweeping anti-terrorism laws with the aim of silencing dissent. In Ethiopia alone, more than 35 journalists and opposition leaders have been convicted under that country’s anti-terrorism proclamation.

Militarized Solutions

In addition to turning a blind eye to human rights abuses, the U.S.’s inherent bias toward military approaches to security threats in Africa limits the options available to African governments facing domestic security challenges. In many cases, negotiations with entities designated as terrorist groups contravene U.S. anti-terrorism laws that forbid any kind of exchange that might be beneficial to terrorist groups. After initial attempts to negotiate with the LRA, Uganda has recently embarked on a purely militaristic solution backed by U.S. military hardware and advisers. Further afield, the United States’ designation of Boko Haram as a foreign terrorist group and the promise of military assistance after the kidnapping of nearly 300 schoolgirls may unreasonably limit Nigeria’s options for political and other kinds of negotiated settlements. Because of their exposure to terrorist attacks (as witnessed in Djibouti on May 25) and their economic consequences, African states allied with the U.S. must strive to maintain enough wriggle room to pursue localized solutions to their security challenges.

U.S. military operations and engagements with African militaries also risk compromising the professionalization of African militaries. Uganda offers an instructive case. Kampala has been a key U.S. military ally since the Iraq War and is the leading partner in the African Union mission in Somalia. Washington maintains an important facility at the Entebbe airport and is assisting in the hunt for the LRA leader Joseph Kony. But over the same period, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, in office since 1986, has personalized the military. Ugandan journalist Andrew Mwenda argues that Museveni has used a “strategy of fragmentation” to create factions within the military in an attempt to limit coherence in the institution. The president’s son, Muhoozi Kainerugaba, is the commander of the special forces, a group whose duties include protecting the president and the country’s oil resources. More generally, unless carefully mitigated, Washington’s unchecked war on terrorism in the region will result in overgrown military units outside normal chains of command, creating problems for effective civilian control in the long run.

The challenge for both AFRICOM and its African partners is to devise strategies that will ensure that security objectives are not pursued at the expense of democracy, military professionalization and respect for human rights. Furthermore, in the spirit of its 3-D approach, AFRICOM must be open to domestic solutions to Africa’s security needs. Such domestic solutions have the advantage of localizing the specific conflicts that create insecurity in the first place. Ultimately, African leaders must be careful not to let their countries be turned into mere venues for an international conflict between the U.S. and transnational terrorist groups. 

Ken Opalo is a Ph.D. candidate in political science at Stanford University. His dissertation research is on institutional change, focusing on legislative development in Africa. 

Africa Beware Of Imperialism’s Fatherly Advice

Washington’s military tentacles daily tighten their grip on Africa, in ever deepening collusion with France. “Allowing the U.S., France and others to essentially take charge of Africa’s militaries creates or maintains an almost childlike dependence on imperialist forces.”

Throughout Africa, supposedly sovereign, independent countries are teeming with western military personnel who claim to be friends, advisors or partners with Africans. In truth, they create paternalistic relationships that lock a continent into submissive, subordinate facilitation of its own domination and exploitation.

Perhaps no entity flings “partnership” rhetoric with greater frequency and abandon than U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM). An AFRICOM statement says: “AFRICOM’s Theater Security Cooperation programs (TSCP) remain the cornerstone of our sustained security engagement with African partners, are focused on building operational and institutional capacity and developing human capital, and provide a framework within which the command engages with regional partners in cooperative military activities and development.”

Nevertheless, it is France and not AFRICOM that is the undisputed master of paternalism in Africa. During the colonial era, a French government official boasted of a strategy to transform “the best indigenous [African] elements into complete Frenchmen.” Even during the period of decolonization France presented itself as a benevolent guardian and attempted to strong-arm its colonies into a continuing master-servant relationship. At the time, only the people of Guinea had the pride and character to sever ties with the colonizer. In recent years France has maintained an active military presence in Africa, particularly in places like Mali and Libya. It is therefore troubling that through AFRICOM the U.S. is now formally making common cause with France, which unlike the U.S. makes no efforts to disguise its troops in Africa as advisors.

A French Special Forces officer said: “The Americans want to get involved in Africa. That’s good for us. We know that with the Americans it will be more efficient. We use American logistics – that’s what we are missing. On the other hand, we provide the local knowledge.” With respect to support the U.S. is supplying France, Reuters reported: “The United States fast-tracked the sale of 12 Reaper drones to France last year, the first two of which started operating in Niger in January alongside U.S. drones already there.”

In return for U.S. support, France takes on the large, sustained military operations in Africa that are off-limits to the U.S. because of military budget cuts and a U.S. public that is increasingly war weary. The U.S. military is left to lurk in Africa’s shadows training and manipulating African armies and staging occasional quick-hit raids on alleged terrorists.

Although the U.S. must remain committed to the militarization of Africa in order to preserve its empire, the situation is nevertheless awkward. Congressman Frank A. LoBiondo said: “It’s a balancing act. Many of these [African] countries consider the U.S. a partner and strong ally, but they have serious concerns about what our footprint looks like.”

Africa’s concern should extend beyond what the U.S. footprint “looks like.” At issue is the continent’s dignity. Horrific, devastating attacks such as the recent murders of dozens of children at a Nigerian boarding school by the group Boko Haram, make it easier for western countries to persuade African governments that they lack the expertise and resources to counter terrorism. But allowing the U.S., France and others to essentially take charge of Africa’s militaries creates or maintains an almost childlike dependence on imperialist forces. Africa should have enough pride to engage in an independent analysis of its own circumstances. In some cases it is likely the solutions won’t require a military approach at all.

Human Rights Watch researcher Eric Guttschuss told a UN news service the “root causes” of support for Boko Haram are “poverty and unemployment, driven by poor governance and corruption.” Guttschuss added that one of the group’s former leaders rallied support “by speaking out against police and political corruption [on behalf of Nigeria’s] vast numbers of unemployed youth.”

Abdulkarim Mohammed, another Boko Haram researcher, noted: “Boko Haram is essentially the fallout of frustration with corruption and the attendant social malaise of poverty and unemployment…The young generation sees how [the nation’s resources] are squandered by a small bunch of self-serving elite which breeds animosity and frustration, and such anger is ultimately translated into violent outbursts.”

Thus, African leadership has the capacity to address the root causes of the Boko Haram crisis without inviting western military involvement. A regional, if not continental focus on the needs of the most desperate elements of African societies would do much to eliminate the pool of recruits for groups engaged in violent attacks on civilians. Long-term, the solution is certainly the elimination of neo-colonial governments and a continent-wide, unified approach to the mass control and use of Africa’s natural resources. However, when Africa begins to walk down that path it will almost certainly find that its current western military “partners” will become fierce military adversaries.

Mark P. Fancher is an attorney who writes frequently about the U.S. military presence in Africa.

US Promises To Go To War For More Than 54 Countries

There are 54 different countries on Earth that the U.S. is legally obligated to militarily protect and defend if they get into their own conflicts. Below is the State Department’s list of them (via Micah Zenko):

NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY

A treaty signed April 4, 1949, by which the Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all; and each of them will assist the attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force.

PARTIES: United States, Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND

A Treaty signed September 1, 1951, whereby each of the parties recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on any of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes.

PARTIES: United States , Australia, New Zealand

PHILIPPINE TREATY (BILATERAL)

A treaty signed August 30, 1951, by which the parties recognize that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on either of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and each party agrees that it will act to meet the common dangers in accordance with its constitutional processes.

PARTIES: United States, Philippines

SOUTHEAST ASIA TREATY

A treaty signed September 8, 1954, whereby each party recognizes that aggression by means of armed attack in the treaty area against any of the Parties would endanger its own peace and safety and each will in that event act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes.

PARTIES: United States , Australia, France, New Zealand, Philippines, Thailand, and the United Kingdom

JAPANESE TREATY (BILATERAL)

A treaty signed January 19, 1960, whereby each party recognizes that an armed attack against either Party in the territories under the administration of Japan would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional provisions and processes. The treaty replaced the security treaty signed September 8, 1951.

PARTIES: United States, Japan

REPUBLIC OF KOREA TREATY (BILATERAL)

A treaty signed October 1, 1953, whereby each party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific area on either of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and that each Party would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes.

PARTIES: United States, Korea

RIO TREATY

A treaty signed September 2, 1947, which provides that an armed attack against any American State shall be considered as an attack against all the American States and each one undertakes to assist in meeting the attack.

PARTIES: United States, Argentina, Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad & Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela

This illustrates rather well the sheer magnitude of U.S. commitments around the world. It’s worth remembering, too, as Nima Shirazi noted, that not every state that Washington commits itself to militarily is listed here (Israel is conspicuous for its absence). So, U.S. military commitments go beyond even this lengthy list.

Why? Politicians will tell you this is about defending freedom and democracy (right…). Policy wonks will rattle off old chestnuts about global security and international cooperation. More accurately, this helps institutionalize U.S. hegemony (that is, unrivaled power over all other states in the system).

This doesn’t merely demonstrate how taxpayer money and resources go to the defense of other countries. It illustrates the pervasive conviction in Washington that there are few, if any, spots on the planet that aren’t vital U.S. interests that require military interventionism. America’s mandate is limitless, it would seem.

(By John Glaser)

The Destabilization of Africa. A Machiavellian Intrigue of Colossal Proportions

By Carla Stea

On December 24th 2013, the United Nations Security Council voted to increase peacekeeping forces in South Sudan, whose independence from the North US-NATO powers celebrated only recently.  Democratic elections in South Sudan did not, however, lead to peace and stability.  Now, two ethnic groups, in South Sudan, the Dinka and Nuer are slaughtering each other.  UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon stated: 

“We have reports of horrific attacks.  Innocent civilians are being targeted because of their ethnicity.  This is a grave violation of human rights, which could fuel a spiral of civil unrest across the country.”

South Sudan, which contains vast oil reserves, borders Ethopia, Uganda, Kenya, Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.  Spread of its crisis would further destabilize a significant part of Africa.  Clearly, Western-style “democratic elections,” the panacea touted by Western agencies such as National Endowment for Democracy, and related Western NGOs, have not only failed to provide stability and enhanced standards of living for many countries where they have been implemented  (or imposed, militarily by US-NATO intervention, such as in Iraq and Libya and Afghanistan), but are beginning to appear to be the precursor of ethnic and social violence and disintegration in many notable instances in Africa, and not only in Africa.

On September 20, 2013, at the opulent Westgate mall in Nairobi, Kenya endured a deadly terrorist attack that slaughtered more than 40 people, including several Europeans.  The Al Qaeda affiliated Shabab, the Islamic jihadist group based in Somalia took responsibility for the attack, ostensibly in reprisal for Kenya’s participation in the African Union’s mission to combat Shabab’s domination of large areas of Somalia.

Less than two months later, in Security Council action – or more accurately described – inaction) on November 15, the Security Council failed to support a resolution submitted by the African Union, in accordance with Article 16 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, to defer, for 12 months, prosecution of Kenyan President Kenyatta and Deputy-President William Ruto.  The deferral would enable President Kenyatta to concentrate his efforts on combating the terrorism that is destabilizing Kenya, terrorism by the jihadist group who imposition of barbaric Sharia law includes the burial of young girls up to their necks in sand, and then stoning these innocent children to death.

The African Union pleaded for this deferral to prevent the serious distraction of the Kenyan President’s attention from his efforts to combat this recent upsurge of terrorism in Kenya.  The Security Council failed to adopt this resolution, thereby abdicating its primary responsibility to protect peace and security.  The Security Council’s failure to adopt this African Union resolution could also be perceived as a “double message” in the effort to eliminate terrorism.  Following the vote, in explanation, each country spoke.

Mr. Mehdiyev (Azerbaijan):

“Our decision to vote in favour of the draft resolution before us today is based on the following understanding.  First, Kenya and the region in which it is situated are facing complex security challenges.  Kenya is a front-line State in and one of the key regional contributors to the fight against international terrorism.  In that connection, the judicial proceedings against the country’s senior officials would undoubtedly create serious obstacles to the normal functioning of State institutions in Kenya and thereby pose a threat to the ongoing efforts to ensure and promote peace and stability in the region.  Azerbaijan understands the concerns of Kenya and the African Union, and deems them legitimate and reasonable.”

Mr. Gasana (Rwanda):

“Terrorism is the most serious threat to international peace and security.  It affects all the people of the world, without discrimination, from the World Trade Center in New York to the Westgate shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya.  Fortunately, we have countries;  we have leaders.  We are committed to the fight against terrorism, and Kenya and its President and Deputy President are with us.  They are at the forefront of the fight against international terrorism, and we are greateful for their commitment and determination in the fight against Al-Shabaab in Somalia – a country where African blood is shed on behalf of this Council, which is supposed to bear the primary responsibility in the maintenance of international peace and security.

In that regard, His Excellency President Kenyatta and Deputy President William Roto should be respected, supported, empowered at this time – not distracted and undermined.  That is why, after the vote this morning, Rwanda is expressing its deep disappointment over what transpired regarding the request for the deferral of the cases against the President and Deputy President of Kenya, despite the proactive efforts of Africa to engage the Security Council in a legitimate process in the interest of the maintenance of international peace and security.

That is why this is actually the right place, The failure to adopt the draft resolution before us today, which has been endorsed by the countries of the entire African continent, is a shame; indeed, it is a shame.  Let it be written today in history that the Security Council failed Kenya and Africa on that issue.”

“It is not that, in coming before the  Council today, we have sought confrontation.  No we have not.  We believed that the request was reasonable.  We believed that the request was legitimate, as it was based on the provisions of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC).  …We were therefore hoping that, after extensive consultations, the Council would express solidarity with Kenya and with Africa, by negotiating in good faith and adopting the draft resolution.  That did not happen, as some members of the Council even refused to negotiate on any single paragraph.  We profoundly regret that.

Our colleagues who did not vote in favour of the draft resolution have argued – as members have heard – that the Kenyan situation does not meet the threshold needed to trigger the application of Article 16 of the Rome Statute.  They have explained that article 16 shall be applied only when the investigation and prosecution could create, or worsen, a situation threatening international peace and security.

I am here and I am wondering:  If a terrorist attack by members of Al-Shabaab – an Al-Qaida-linked movement that has killed more than 70 innocent victims and wounded 200 others – does not meet the threshold line that other situations have crossed, then which one would?  If a clear and present threat of terrorism against the Kenyan people, resulting from their determination and courageous intervention in Somalia, does not meet the threshold, what other threat can be alleged to do so?  Are we in the wrong place today?  No.”

“May I request that all members of the Council recall why article 16 of the Rome Statute was proposed in the Council more than 10 years ago.  Let me repeat that question.  May I request that all members of the council recall why article 16 of the Rome Statute was proposed more than 10 years ago.  That article was not proposed by an African State – not at all.  It was proposed by some of the Western Powers present at the Council table to be applied solely in their interest.  In other words, article 16 was never meant to be used by an African State or any of the developing countries.  It seems to have been conceived as an additional tool for the big Powers to protect themselves and protect their own.  Is that not so?  That is how it appears here today.”

The [UNSC] President  (spoke in Chinese)

“Kenya has long been at the forefront of the fight against terrorism and has been playing an important role in maintaining peace and stability in the Horn of Africa, Eastern Africa and the entire African continent.  Deferring the ICC proceedings against the leaders of Kenya is not only a matter of concern to Kenya, but also a matter of concern for the entire African continent.  It is in fact an urgent need in order to maintain regional peace and stability.  It is therefore a matter of common sense that the international community should help the Kenyan leaders to focus their attention on discharging their mandate and to continue their role in maintaining peace and stability in Kenya and the wider region, in exercising their jurisdiction, international judicial institutions should abide by the norms of international relations, follow the principle of complementarity and respect the judicial sovereignty, legal traditions and current needs of the countries concerned. …. China believes that the request of the African countries is reasonable and well founded on the basis of the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.  Their objective is to maintain peace, stability and security in the region and to effectively fight terrorism.  They request that the democratically elected leaders of Kenya be accorded basic respect in matters of African peace, security and stability.  …The Council should therefore heed and positively respond to the common call of the African Union and the vast majority of African leaders.  China will continue to support the efforts of Kenya, the African Union and most African countries to find a real solution to the issue under consideration.”

Not only have democratic elections failed to enhance the quality of life and standard of living in numerous African countries – and elsewhere;  Kenya is a country in which democratic elections in December 2007 unleashed horrendous inter-ethnic slaughter and violent destabilization in a country that had hitherto been a model of stability and economic and social development for Africa and the developing world.  How can the sudden eruption of such clan and tribal warfare be explained in a country that had, for decades, not undergone such violent inter-ethnic conflict and destabilization?

Recently a highly placed diplomatic source accredited to the United Nations observed a pattern emerging in African countries where western NGOs with links to U.S. intelligence were based and operating:  previously non-existent inter-ethnic violence suddenly erupted, and this phenomenon was occurring in even the most stable countries.  One of these western NGOs, in particular, was based and operating in Kenya since 2003, a full four years before the sudden eruption of inter-ethnic warfare and violent destabilization that followed the December, 2007 democratic elections.

One can only question the “coincidental” nature of these violent inter-ethnic occurrences in many previously stable African countries.  Recalling that Russian President Putin prohibited USAID and particular Western NGO’s  from operating in Russia, one can only conclude that he was trying to spare Russia from the fate observed in too many African countries, and elsewhere.

In his book “The Grand Chessboard,” (1997) Brzezinski openly states, in Chapter 1:

“Hegemony of a New Type,”:  “The American global system emphasizes the technique of co-optation (as in the case of defeated rivals – Germany, Japan and lately even Russia) to a much greater extent than the earlier imperial systems did.  It likewise relies heavily on the indirect exercise of influence on dependent foreign elites.”

This “indirect exercise of influence on dependent foreign elites” could be the hidden trigger provoking and inciting the violent ethnic and political conflict that appears to be rapidly spreading, undermining previously functioning economies and national structures and institutions.

Who benefits?  A substantial part of China’s oil supply comes from Africa.  Chinese contracts with African nations are more equitable than those of US-NATO countries, and therefore have preferential status in many African countries, with China contributing to the construction of infrastructure, and offering considerably higher payment for oil extracted.  It is, however, very much in China’s interest that internal stability prevail in these African countries, in order to perpetuate this arrangement.  Chaos, spreading terrorism, civil conflict disrupt the functioning of these arrangements, and may ultimately serve the purpose of driving China out of Africa.

In the corridors of power at the United Nations, and elsewhere, is whispered that it is part of large-scale geopolitical engineering to  to disrupt and deprive China of its oil supply in Africa, thereby implementing the first part of “hegemony of a new type.”  What follows this “new type of hegemony” is a Machiavellian intrigue of colossal proportion.

US A Full Partner In Ukraine Debacle

FROM THE moment the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the United States has relentlessly pursued a strategy of encircling Russia, just as it has with other perceived enemies like China and Iran. It has brought 12 countries in central Europe, all of them formerly allied with Moscow, into the NATO alliance. US military power is now directly on Russia’s borders.

“I think it is the beginning of a new cold war,” warned George Kennan, the renowned diplomat and Russia-watcher, as NATO began expanding eastward. “I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely, and it will affect their policies.”

... policy makers in Washington have been congratulating each other for a successful American-aided regime change operation in Ukraine.

Russia is not powerful enough to emerge from the Ukraine/Crimea crisis with a full victory, neither is the United States. Diplomatic pressure and covert action supporting pro-Western factions in Ukraine will continue, but President Obama will not risk military confrontation with Russia. This crisis will not produce the grand westward realignment of which many in Washington dream.

Any solution short of partition will have to take Russia’s interests into account. Thus far the United States has shown no interest in doing that. The likely geopolitical outcome, therefore, is a stalemate.

This crisis is in part the result of a zero-sum calculation that has shaped US policy toward Moscow since the Cold War: Any loss for Russia is an American victory, and anything positive that happens to, for, or in Russia is bad for the United States. This is an approach that intensifies confrontation, rather than soothing it.

(Stephen Kinzer)

Britain's 100 Years Of Non-Stop War

British forces are set to withdraw from Afghanistan by the end of 2014. If 2015 is a year of peace for the UK, it will be the first for at least 100 years. Here the Guardian charts every conflict in which British forces have engaged since 1914

By Ian Cobain, Ewen MacAskill and Katy Stoddard

Britain declares war on Germany on August 4, 1914. Over the next four years, Britain mobilised nine million soldiers, fighting mainly on the Western Front. The fighting ranges from Mons in 1914 to the Second Battle of Ypres in 1916, from the Somme in 1916 to the Cambrai operations in 1917, and the Somme again in 1918. The British also fought at Gallipoli, in Iraq, in Palestine, Salonika and Italy. The war ended in November 1918. The British War Office listed the number of its dead or missing as 908,371, which included colonial soldiers. The Royal Navy dead and missing was put at 32,287.

Read the Guardian's original report of Great Britain's declaration of war on Germany.

1916

Easter Rising

British troops put down the Easter Rising. More than 450 civilians, troops and members of the IRA are killed during the fighting or executed afterwards.

Read the Guardian's original report of the Easter Rising.

1918 — 1920

Russia

British navy and soldiers form part of international coalition engaged on the side of the ‘White’ Russians in civil war against the Bolsheviks. The Royal Navy, in a campaign named Operation Red Trek, lost 112 dead along with a cruiser, two destroyers and a submarine in clashes with Bolshevik navy. British troops were deployed in Murmansk, Archangel and Siberia. A British mission advised the Polish army during war with the Bolsheviks.

1919

Afghanistan

British forces blocked a 50,000-strong Afghanistan force from invading India. An RAF bomber flew from Peshawar over the mountains to bomb Kabul, scaring the Amir’s harem and leading half the capital’s population to be evacuated. British and Indian colonial forces suffered 1,751 killed, and the Afghans an estimated 1,000.

1919 — 1932

Southern Iraq

A force of 4,500 British soldiers and 30,000 Indians was stationed in Iraq, taken from the Ottoman Empire after World War One. A British decision to make Iraqi soldiers redundant contributed to an uprising in 1920, a prelude to the US disbandment of the Iraqi army after the 2003 invasion. Aircraft were used to sow terror among the villages of the Marsh Arabs and others involved in uprisings elsewhere. Bombing villages by airplanes was described by one British officer as “unsporting”.

1919 — 1924

Northern Iraq

The British reneged on a promise of independent Kurdish homeland in northern Iraq, resulting in unrest that was put down with the help of the RAF using (non-lethal) poison gas against villages. Churchill was not squeamish about this, writing in 1919: “I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes.” British forces also engaged in fighting against Turkish troops. Hostilities ran from 1919-1924, and again from 1930-1932.

1919 — 1921

Anglo-Irish War

After the declaration of Irish independence by the Dail, the British army - backed by a paramilitary police force, the “Black and Tans", made up mainly of former soldiers - fought the IRA. British forces pulled out of the Free State in 1922.

1919 — 1939

North West Frontier

There were repeated clashes throughout the interwar years on the borderland between Afghanistan and India, the North-West Frontier. The British Army and its Indian colonial force were engaged against both the Afghans and tribes in Waziristan. One of the biggest conflicts came in 1919 when British forces stopped a 50,000-strong Afghanistan force posing a threat to India. British and Indian colonial forces suffered 1,751 killed, and the Afghans an estimated 1,000. There were further outbreaks of fighting, mainly involving Waziristan, between 1919 and 1925;1927; 1930-1; 1933; 1935; and 1936-9.

1919 — 1920

Somaliland

The resurgence of the Dervish revolt was led by Mohammed bin Abdullah, known as the ‘Mad Mullah’ (he was neither mad nor a mullah). The British dispatched the world’s first aircraft carrier, the Ark Royal, plus six bomber aircraft. They were complemented by a quick-reaction force of 700 men, the Somaliland Camel Corps. British success against the Dervishes was attributed to the air attacks. The picture shows wounded men ('cot cases') being evacuated by plane.

1927 — 1939

China

British forces joined an international coalition to protect Shanghai’s European Quarter at the start of the Chinese civil war in 1927 between the nationalist Kuomintang and the Communists. The Kuomintang carried out a massacre of Communists in the city in 1927.

1928

Sudan

A great many air sorties are flown against tribes, including an attack on Bahr al-Jabul that left an estimated 200 dead.

1928

Aden

RAF in action after unrest encouraged by Imam of Yemen. Two-thirds of the population of Sana flee.

1929

Kuwait

Royal Navy intervenes to help embattled Sheikh of Kuwait.

1929 — 1938

Palestine

Following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, Palestine and Trans-Jordan are mandated to Britain. The British maintained a garrison of more than 7,000 troops, mainly to keep the peace amid tensions between Palestinan Arabs and Jews. There were British naval landings in 1929. But hostilities began in earnest in 1936 when there was an Arab revolt that continued through to 1939. By 1938, about 20,000 soldiers were stationed in Palestine.

1939 — 1945

Second world war

In September 1939, the British government mobilises armed forces in anticipation of German air raids. After initial setbacks, culminating in evacuation from Dunkirk in 1940, the British began to see a change in fortune, with the Battle of El Alamein in 1942. British forces were engaged all round the world, from the Arctic campaign to the Battle of Atlantic, from Italy and France, from Singapore to the Pacific. At its height, more than 3.5 million served in the army. The British army death toll, including those from the Commonwealth, amounted to 383,000.

Read the Guardian's original report of Britain's declaration of war on Germany.

Read the Guardian's original report of the fighting in northern France following D-day.

Read the Guardian's original report of an airborne attack by British parachute troops the day after D-day.

1944 — 1946

Greek Civil War

Anxious to dominate the eastern Mediterranean at the end of WWII, Churchill agreed with Stalin that the Soviets could dominate Hungary and the Balkans if Britain could dominate Greece. Around 26,000 troops were dispatched in October 1944, as German forces retreated. Soon fighting broke out between Royalists and right-wingers, and the Communist-dominated resistance movement, the EAM. British troops fought alongside the anti-Communist forces – their allies against Germany just weeks before - with RAF Wellingtons bombing targets in Athens. After flying to Athens on Christmas Day 1944, to help the Greek general Nikolaos Plastiras broker peace talks, Winston Churchill quipped: “Let's hope General Plaster-Arse doesn't have feet of clay...” The civil war continued until 1949.

1945 — 1946

French Indo-China

The British wished to see the French and Dutch repossess their imperial possessions in the Far East. The French had no ships and few troops to send to Indo-China, so London sent British troops and a division of the Indian Army to occupy the country. As fighting with Viet-Minh forces quickly escalated, Japanese prisoners were rearmed, placed under British command and compelled to join the conflict. The British held the ring until large numbers of French forces arrived in early 1946.

1945 — 1946

Dutch East Indies

In their attempts to help the Dutch repossess their Indonesian colony, the British suffered far more casualties than in Indo-China, and inflicted far more casualties upon a local population that was determined to win its freedom and independence. In one battle for control of the port of Surabaya, one and a half divisions of troops backed by aerial and naval bombardment found themselves fighting the city's population. An estimated 15,000 civilians were killed. There were mutinies among British troops who were sickened by the ferocity of their Dutch allies. In February 1946, British and Indian troops threatened to turn on the Dutch if the slaughter of civilians continued. Later that year, the last British troops to leave the country greeted disembarking Dutch conscripts with raised fists and the Indonesian battle cry Merdeka - Freedom!

1945 — 1948

Palestine

Thousands of British troops were stationed in Palestine when the Jewish insurgency began in October 1945. Within two years, two divisions of British troops were engaged in a conflict which was deeply unpopular, both at home and abroad. London decided to pass the problem to the United Nations and announced that the British Mandate would end in May 1948. Some British forces withdrew overland to Egypt, passing elements of the Egyptian army that were travelling in the opposite direction to invade the newly-declared state of Israel.

Read Alistair Cooke's original report for the Guardian on the Arab states' rejection of a UN plan to partition Palestine.

1948 — 1951

Eritrea

British troops ousted Italian forces from their east African colony in 1941. After the war, London continued to administer the country under a UN mandate, and British troops spent several years skirmishing with Eritrean guerillas who favoured unification with Ethiopia.

1948 — 1960

Malaya

Although the Malayan Emergency lasted 12 years, the British were always confident of eventual victory. “By far the easiest problem I have ever tackled,” said the British commander, when hostilities began. His communist opponents were almost all ethnically Chinese, and faced opposition from most Malays as well as the colonial authorities. It was the first modern counter-insurgency campaign in which the “winning of hearts and minds” was said to be critical to success, and it ended in defeat for the communists. At the outset, however, villages were torched by police and villagers massacred by British troops. According to official figures, 10,700 insurgents were killed, captured or surrendered during the war. Some 519 members of the military and 1,346 police lost their lives, along with 3,283 civilians.

1949

China

While steaming up the Yangtze River in April 1949 to evacuate British and Commonwealth citizens from Nanking during the Chinese civil war, HMS Amethyst came under fire from shore batteries of the People's Liberation Army. The ship's commander was among those killed, and the vessel ran aground. It was trapped for three months, and other ships that attempted to come to its rescue also came under fire. Forty six sailors died and dozens were wounded.

1950 — 1953

Korea

The Cold War turned hot in June 1950 when North Korean forces mounted a surprise assault across the border. Britain and 13 other countries agreed to reinforce US and South Korean forces, and pushed so far north that China also entered the war. By the time an armistice was signed in July 1953, up to four million people were dead, most of them civilians.

1951 — 1954

Suez Canal Zone

Tens of thousands of British troops faced three years of sporadic attacks by the Egyptian army and police after the Egyptian government abrogated a treaty that permitted London to base forces along the Suez canal. Eventually Britain agreed to withdraw its forces; the Egyptian government agreed they could return if the canal was threatened by an outside power.

1952 — 1960

Kenya

By far the most bloody and controversial of Britain's war of decolonisation, the Mau Mau insurgency was characterised by savage conduct on both sides. The colonial authorities failed to understand the cause of conflict, with some officials believing the Kikuyu people were suffering a form of mass breakdown. It is now accepted that they were reacting to the expropriation of their land. Thousands of people were detained in a vast network of prison camps, and while the abuses they suffered were officially denied, the massacre of one group of prisoners caused such revulsion in Britain that independence became inevitable. The numbers of casualties are disputed: the British and African security forces suffered around 200 deaths, while estimates of the number of civilians and Mau Mau fighters who died vary from the official count of 12,000 to as high as 100,000. Last year the British government settled a claim that a group of elderly Kenyans brought at the high court in London by expressing its “sincere regret” the use of torture during the insurgency, paying £19.9 million to 5,000 former prisoners.

1953 — 1954

British Guiana

After the the left-leaning People's Progressive Party won a general election in 1953, Churchill wrote to the foreign office suggesting it was time to ask for US assistance to topple the newly-elected government. “We ought to get American support in doing all that we can to break the Communist teeth in British Guiana.” Five months later British troops were despatched to topple the government. The following year a number of demonstrators were shot dead.

1955 — 1959

Cyprus

The British colonial authorities were taken by surprise when insurgents from the Greek nationalist organisation Eoka launched their first attack in April 1955, initially assuming them to be communists. Fighting continued until 1959, and Cyprus gained independence the following year. Some 370 British servicemen died along with more than 40 police officers, and hundreds of Greek and Turkish Cypriot civilians.

Read an original Guardian report on fears that EOKA fighters were disguising themselves as priests.

1956

Suez Crisis

When the Egyptians nationalised the Anglo-French Suez Canal Company, London and Paris conspired with Israel to attack – an Israeli invasion providing the justification for British and French intervention. The war was halted on the insistence of the United Nations after it triggered international outrage.

Read an original Guardian report on the start of British and French bombing of Egypt.

Read an original Guardian piece published after the UN ceasefire.

1957 — 1959

Muscat and Oman

When a Saudi-backed insurgency threatened the UK-backed sultan of oil-rich Muscat and Oman, British forces including SAS troops were landed. During just a few months of the campaign against tribal fighters from mountain-top villages, the RAF dropped twice the weight of bombs that the Luftwaffe had dropped on Coventry in November 1940.

1960 — 1961

Cameroon

In the run up to a referendum in which the people from the north of British Cameroons voted to join Nigeria, while those from the south voted to merge with Cameroun Republic, British troops engaged with rebels from the Chinese-backed Armee de Liberation Kamerounaise, twice crossing the border to attack their camps.

1961

Kuwait

When the Iraqis laid claim to newly-independent Kuwait, a British task force of an aircraft carrier, several destroyers and half a brigade of troops was sent to the country. No shots were fired. It was the first major operation after Suez, and helped to develop the military concept of rapid deployment.

1962

Brunei

As Britain attempted to divest itself of its colonies on Borneo, a three-way conflict over the future of Brunei – between its sultan, Malaysia and Indonesia – resulted in an uprising by pro-Indonesia militiamen. The British were taken by surprise: one of the army units dispatched to put down the rebellion found that it had no maps of Brunei, and was forced to break into its ammunition stores as the man with the key was on holiday. The insurrection was soon followed by war with Indonesia.

1963 — 1966

Borneo

The undeclared four-year war that Britain and its Commonwealth allies fought against Indonesia was one of the least-reported conflicts of the last 50 years. It was fought by small companies of men, strung out along the border between Indonesian and Malaysian Borneo. British forces secretly carried out attacks deep inside Indonesia territory. British and Commonwealth losses numbered 114, while the Indonesians suffered at least 600 deaths in combat, and hundreds more as a result of starvation. A change of government in Jakarta brought the war to an end.

1963 — 1976

Oman

Said bin Taimur, the reactionary and repressive ruler of Oman who kept slaves and banned his people from wearing sunglasses or listening to the radio, had faced repeated rebellions in the Dhofar region of the south of the country. He could rely on British support to suppress them. By the late 60s, the sporadic attacks had developed into a well-organised insurgency, with both Russian and Chinese support. Determined to protect the narrow Straits of Hormuz, through which a giant oil tanker passed every ten minutes, the British placed the Sultan's armed forces under British command and drafted in young British officers. One of them was a young Ranulph Fiennes, who later wrote: “The people were oppressed and poverty stricken. The Sultan had no friends but the British. ” Later SAS troops were dispatched, and the Shah of Iran also sent forces. British-led counter-insurgency operations lasted more than a decade, and for most of that time were conducted in complete secrecy. Just 24 British soldiers were killed, alongside around 900 Omanis and Iranian. There are believed to have been several thousand insurgent and civilian deaths. The campaign is regarded as a model of its kind and is still taught at the British military staff college.

1963 — 1967

Aden

The insurgency against British rule in the south Arabian colony of Aden began in December 1963, when a hand-grenade was hurled at a group of British diplomates at the airport. Over the next three years the British struggled to suppress the mounting violence. Two insurgent groups, the Marxist National Liberation Front and the Arab nationalist Front for the Liberation of Occupied South Yemen, fought both the British and each other. In 1964 Britain found itself facing a second insurrection in the Radfan mountains near the border with Yemen. By 1967, the British were retreating behind a steadily-shrinking perimeter, eventually controlling just the harbour and the airport. One reporter described how the grounds of his hotel became a battlefield. “Gun battles raged furiously with thousands of rounds of ammunition whining and pinging around every building as NLF gunmen poured concentrated fire into every British position on a front of 400 yards.” When the British departed at the end of the year they left behind 125 dead, including several British civilians shot at their homes or offices. Dozens of soldiers and police loyal to the British also died, along with an estimated 1,900 civilians and insurgents.

Read an original Guardian report from 1967 of the deteriorating security situation in Aden.

1969 — 1998

Northern Ireland

The British army was deployed on the streets of Northern Ireland in 1969, initially to help restore order amid widespread sectarian rioting. Operation Banner, as the British military calls its campaign in Northern Ireland, was officially declared to be at an end in 2007, although the conflict subsided dramatically with the signing of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement. The campaign had lasted 38 years: the longest uninterrupted operation ever conducted by UK forces. More than 500 soldiers died, along with 509 police and members of the security forces, 562 paramilitaries and 2,074 civilians, most of them Catholic.

Read original Guardian dispatches by Simon Hoggart and Simon Winchester from Derry in the aftermath of Bloody Sunday.

Read the Guardian's original report of the British government's decision to deploy the SAS to County Armagh in 1976.

1982

Falklands

The ten-week war between Britain and Argentina over control of the long-disputed Falkland Islands and South Georgia resulted in the deaths of 255 British servicemen, 649 Argentinians, and three civilians. More than 2,400 were wounded. Mary Watson spent the war worrying that her only son Tony, a sailor on HMS Glamorgan, might never return home. When he did, she was there to greet him off the ship. "It was good to hold him," she said later. "It was a sad occasion as well. As we were crying with joy, others would be crying with sorrow, because some of the boys hadn't come back. The whole experience of the Falkland War changed my life - I'm frightened of what's around the corner."

Read the Guardian's original report of domestic political recriminations in Britain following Argentina's invasion of the Falkland Islands.

Read Gareth Parry's original first-hand report for the Guardian of the task force landing at San Carlos Bay and his reflections on reporting the conflict alongside British forces.

Read the Guardian's original report of the Argentinian surrender and leader article on the end of the war.

1990 — 1991

First Gulf war

More than 50,000 British troops, 6,000 RAF personnel, an aircraft acarrier and several destroyers were deployed to the Gulf after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, to serve alongside forces from 11 other nations. UK special forces, meanwhile, began operating inside Kuwait and Iraq's Western Desert shortly after the invasion. Forty seven British servicemen were among the 400-plus coalition personnel who lost their lives, along with thousands of Iraqis. Nine British soldiers were killed in a “friendly fire” incident when their armoured convoy was attacked by a US aircraft. One, Conrad Cole, was just 17.

Read the Guardian's original report of international reaction to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

1992 — 1995

Bosnia

British forces joined the UN peacekeeping mission in 1992 when war broke out between the Bosnians - who declared independence after the break-up of Yugoslavia – and Bosnian Serbs and Croats. Although the conflict largely ended in 1995, British troops weren't fully withdrawn until 2007; 59 died in total.

Read Maggie O'Kane's original account for the Guardian of her escape from a besieged Sarajevo.

1999

Kosovo

Amid the continuing break-up of the former Yugoslavia and the murder and mass deportation of Albanians in Kosovo by Serb forces, the UK joined Nato's 78-day air campaign against Serbia and then contributed to the peacekeeping force that occupied the country.

Read an original Guardian analysis of the military situation in Kosovo, published the day after Nato airstrikes began.

2000

Sierra Leone

A peace accord was signed in 1999 following almost a decade of civil war, but a year later Revolutionary United Front rebels renewed fighting and advanced towards Freetown. In May 2000 British troops were sent to support the Sierra Leone Army against the RUF. One paratrooper was killed during Operation Barras, a mission to rescue soldiers held hostage by the West Side Boys militia. A ceasefire was called in November 2000 and peace declared in January 2002. A small number of British troops remain in the country to train Sierra Leone's forces.

2001 — 2014

Afghanistan

Thirteen years of war began with the UK assisting military operations to topple the Taliban regime that had given al-Qaida the space to plot the attacks of 9/11, then contributing to peace-keeping operations around Kabul. In 2006, the Ministry of Defence announced it was sending 3,300 personnel into Helmand province in the south of the country, and 2,500 more were dispatched the following year. By the end of last year, 447 British soldiers and civilians had been killed and 2,171 wounded in action. Civilian deaths are running at more than 2,000 each year across Afghanistan, and parts of Helmand remain the most contested areas of the country.

2003 — 2008

Iraq

The decision to join the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 has been condemned by some as Britain's biggest foreign policy disaster since Suez. During the six years that the British were present in the south east of the country, some 179 British servicemen and women died.The civilian death toll in Basra as a result of the conflict is estimated at between 3,300 and 3,760.

2011

Libya

Britain was involved in international operations against Muammar Gaddafi's forces, with the RAF and Navy taking part in Nato strikes. Special forces also provided clandestine on-the-ground training and support to opposition rebels. Gaddafi was captured and killed on 20 October 2011, and Nato forces withdrew at the end of that month.