1887

African Security Governance

Emerging Issues

image of African Security Governance
Africa faces a seemingly ever-increasing range of security challenges. This book is a result of research carried out over a number of years by the Southern African Defense and Security Management Network (SADSEM) on many of these new and emerging security issues, in cooperation with the Danish Institute for International Studies and the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. The broad focus is on security governance – the role of state and a wide range of social actors in the areas of both human and state security. It deals with a range of sectors, themes and national case studies and makes an important contribution to debates on security sector reform. The topics covered include policing transformation, intelligence governance, regulation of private security actors, challenges of nuclear proliferation, regional security, peace diplomacy and peace missions, the relationship between development and security and new challenges in governance of the military.

English

.

Southern African security governance: A cautionary tale

Security cooperation is not an obvious element of regional economic integration. By this I mean there is no automatic link. A region’s members can progress economically without necessarily trusting each other. Despite this, African leaders assume that countries ought to cooperate in the security arena in order to improve the prospects of economic integration (the pillar upon which the African Renaissance and the New Partnership for Africa’s Development [NEPAD] is built). In our case in southern Africa, few beyond the leadership echelons make such assumptions. It is unclear to many southern Africans whether or how the Southern African Development Community (SADC) provides human security to the people of the region. Instead, the positions of SADC member countries on the key regional challenges (trade, growth and development, security and stability) are driven by national interests rather than regional interests. As realists argue, national interests (a must-have) are hard and measurable; regional cooperation (often a nice-to-have) is hard to measure. Or should we accept a regional consciousness shaped by a shared historical experience — a problematic assumption?

English

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error