Defence Diplomacy Activities Engendering States’ Cooperation: Addressing Contemporary Global Security Threats in Africa

Defence Diplomacy Activities Engendering States’ Cooperation: Addressing Contemporary Global Security Threats in Africa

David Ngochi Ngari¹, Maria Nzomo² and Pontian Godfrey Okoth³

¹Department of Diplomacy and International Studies, (DDIS) University of Nairobi (UoN), Kenya., P.O. Box 832-00502 Karen, Nairobi

²Professor of International Relations and Governance, University of Nairobi (UoN), P.O. Box 30197 – 00100 Nairobi – Kenya

³Professor of History and International Relations, Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology (MMUST) – Kenya, P.O. Box 190 – 50100 Kakamega – Kenya

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2023.70833

Received: 10 July 2023; Revised: 20 July 2023; Accepted: 24 July 2023; Published: 19 August 2023

ABSTRACT

Scholars and practitioners in foreign policy deemed defence diplomacy (DD) as a contradiction or ambiguous because institutions claiming to apply it were in the realm of bearing arms for coercion. In the post-Cold War era, DD emerged as leading concept in importance as an instrument of States’ foreign defence and security policies. Globalization imperatives and the pragmatic view of State security through human security perspectives, brought in knowledge on evolution of inter-State’s security challenges. Moreover, States engagement in multilateral diplomacy were on the rise to address emerging cross-border security threats. The roles of defence and security institutions were evolved with emerging security threats particularly in the realm of human security. The paper examines DD activities engendering states’ cooperation, with a view to addressing contemporary global security threats in Africa. It adopted mixed research design employing purposive sampling techniques and strategist paradigm for primary data analyses. It revealed three key DD activities engendering cooperation in African states including: foreign defence and security policy outreach, defence and security cooperation in education and training, and defence and security partnerships cooperation. It concludes that application of DD activities engenders African states cooperation in promotion of peace and security. Finally, the paper recommends that, the African States’ policymakers, particularly in sub-regional security mechanism, should leverage defence diplomacy to promote cooperation between their defence and security institutions.

Keywords: Cooperation, Defence diplomacy, Global security, Human Security, Peace and Security

INTRODUCTION

The crux of conduct of diplomacy is the peaceful means or approach to relations of international actors where at least one of whom should be government or a government agency. The distinctive nature of interactional actors in the global system of States is the relations between States and between States and non-State actors. The substance of diplomatic conduct embroils their relations. Forster and Cottey define defence diplomacy as, “the peaceful cooperation between defence forces and their use and as well as that of the related infrastructure (primarily defence ministries) as tools or instruments of foreign and security policy.”[1]  Defence diplomacy (DD) has many references depending on the State, such as military diplomacy, soft power diplomacy, military public diplomacy or strategic communication.[2]

Contextually, defence diplomacy is viewed as encompassing both the defence/military institutions of bearing arms and those involved in security matters like the police and intelligence services, migration departments, security policy formulation bodies like National Security Council, among others. However, defence diplomacy is not in the traditional sense State department mission, but it is achieved through conduct of defence and security related activities and undertaking through execution of Foreign, Defence and Security Policy (FDSP) objectives. In this respect, there is fostering of inter-State defence and security institution relationships. It is through these relationships that States create an enabling environment for further interactions to share defence and security aspects and to reduce State’s militaristic aggression tendencies with a view to promoting peace and security.

Gregory is of the view that defence diplomacy exact definition remains uncertain.[3] However, it is generally labelled as non-violent use of State defence apparatus to advance the strategic aim of government through cooperation with other States.[4] Its origin lies in the classic military diplomacy of the ancient European times that was revived in the Napoleonic era. It has evolved gradually through time and space until the end of the Cold War when major changes emerged in the international environment coupled with complexities of global security challenges. Thus, defence diplomacy can be viewed as a subset and an implant into the FDSP of a State. The interlink is through the national interests and foreign policy objectives.

Security policy has emerged as a vital instrument of statecraft whose centre stage is occupied and orchestrated by the Ministry of Defence (MoD), the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) and related security institutions, notwithstanding State’s foreign missions. Its best expression is in the multilateral diplomacy in the United Nations’ conduct and promotion of peace and security through Peace Support Operations (PSO). Defence diplomacy entails activities and undertakings which expand mutual relations and not necessarily with associate actors. It may be with previous antagonists, such as States from which past mutual relations might have been edgy, or prospective future antagonists.

According to Leahy, many people view the concept of defence diplomacy somewhat akin to military intelligence, although in the increasing complex global insecurity environment it is proving its worth to be beyond.[5] Forster, A. et. al., observe that, in the Western world, defence diplomacy is exceptionally predominant in defence foreign relations to address the emerging security threats[6].  Moreover, dynamics of environment in the post-Cold War era recognize foreign and defence policy in principle. Further, Forster, A., et. al., argue that in the conduct of foreign policy diplomats’ delivery rely on a mix-and-match set of skills and tools of persuasion-cum-negotiation and pressures-cum-coercion that appeal to soft and hard-power resources in diverse combinations.[7]

States in the international system pursue national interests majorly for survival, economic prosperity, peace and security, and freedom of their citizens. National interests are viewed as vital, and perhaps necessary, or non–vital components which are variable. According to Morgenthau, States seek to secure their survival or identity through vital national interests which entail physical identity, political identity, and cultural identity.[8] These interests become the underpinning factors for national objectives that subsequently become the grounding perspectives for the formulation of foreign and security policy. But States formulate foreign and security policy objectives with a view to securing and strengthening their securities.  The States’ Ministries of Foreign Affairs (MFAs) are normally the lead agencies in pursuing foreign policy to strengthen State security. They work hand in hand with other government Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) inclusive of the Ministry of Defence (MoD). To ensure that matters pertaining to military/defence and security in international relations and cooperation are pursued in line with national interests. For instance, the MoD in collaboration with MFA, and other related institutions formally appoints senior security officers to attend bilateral or multilateral meetings and negotiations in various international and regional arenas. They formally contribute to decisions related to matters of security, military/defence forces activities such as PSOs or humanitarian intervention affairs particularly in some key human security issues

According to African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA) 2010 Assessment, there has been substantial progress with regard to the role of diplomacy in enhancing peace and security in Africa.[9] However, Blake and Spies are of the view that the importance of efficacy of defence diplomacy in promotion of peace and security in Africa has not been given the interest it deserves.[10] In this regard, in the execution of the Common African Defence and Security Policy (CADSP), the regional security mechanisms (RECs and RMs) partner states’ defence foreign cooperation and relationships should have been in the fore. There is no clear literature on efficacy of DD utilization in promotion of peace and security in Africa. In essence, its activities application could have established preventative measures through cooperation with respect to the contemporary global security threats, for example in human security threats. These emerging forms of security threats demand a paradigm shift in their mitigation and management from the normal hard-power approaches.

The concept of defence diplomacy as an instrument of diplomacy is yet to receive the necessary recognition it deserves[11]. Hence its exploitation as an approach to engender cooperation to address contemporary global security threats in Africa. However, from other major regions of the world, defence foreign relationships are conducted on the platform of FDSP of the state. The policy provides the underpinning objectives from which the guidelines for conduct of defence relations are embedded with the necessary ontological, philosophical and epistemological stances of defence diplomacy. Thus, the study set out to examine the key arguments/concepts underpinning defence diplomacy activities engendering state’s cooperation in addressing contemporary global security threats in Africa, and in particular in promotion of peace and security.

THEORETICAL APPROACH

The paper’s key arguments were in diplomatic analysis and not practice. Therefore, the key arguments in this paper were informed by mixed research design. Neoliberals advocate for absolute power rather than neorealist perspective of relative power. Neoliberals argue absolute power is of significance to mutual benefits from an agreement of two States than an imposition of power on one state to another in a similar situation. In this respect, they view unrestricted commerce and wealth creation activities to be encapsulated in cooperation and state interdependence environment. As a result, state interdependence was perceived as the source of resources of building state’s economic power base. In developed and diverse economies states tend to obtain national wealth through comparative advantage grounded in neoliberal cooperation more than in pursuit of national interest of self–abundance. Thus, secure free trade zones are established, thereby creating an interdependency norm between states. Ultimately a state of mutual trust between the people engulfs the zone as the benefits of cooperation yield to needs of promoting peace and security.

METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH

The ‘Kenya defence diplomacy’ application, underpinned the paper’s pragmatism research philosophy. The methodological choice was underpinned by mixed research design. It was underpinned by various research strategies of identification of target population, sampling technique, data collection and analysis. The target population comprised key strategic Military Senior Officers and Senior Civilian Staff in related security institutions and Ministries. They included Ministry of Interior (MoI), Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), Department of Migration and National Intelligence Service (NIS). They were either serving or retired and with twenty and above years in service or served. They were not only from Kenya but also from Eastern Africa Standby Force (EASF), Economic Brigade (ECOBRIG) and Southern Africa Development Cooperation Brigade (SADCBRIG). The intent was to achieve credibility of generalization of conclusions. Data was collected through survey questionnaires, interviews, focus group discussions and from archival records. Purposive sampling technique was applied due to the nature and level of information sought. Data analysis followed scientific procedures of categorised coding, conversation and discourse analysis to interpret elements of speech act and textual documents with respect to focus group discussion and archival data collected. Thereafter, study findings were applied to corroborate the secondary data.

CONTEXTUALIZING CONTEMPORARY GLOBAL SECURITY THREATS

According to Gabriel and Traian, the dominating aspects of the international security environment is underpinned by complex trends of great significance to the reconfiguration of regional and international geostrategic endeavours[12]. Such aspects include reaffirmation of the use of military power as a factor of influence in international relations, development and embracing of ICT, a resurgence of statehood and entrenchment of extremism, balkanization of ethnic, religious and ideological radicalism, likely exponential curve in terror activities as an insecurity phenomenon, and adaptation of critical infrastructure to current security needs. The world security focus tends towards multipolarity centralized on the regional importance of states as major actors in a new world political order directed to regional and subregional security mechanisms. Thus, instituting new meanings to national territorial integrity, sovereignty, and national interest.

Against the backdrop of the increasing threats complexities and unpredictability of global security challenges, their difficulties in prediction and countermeasures by military strategists and civilian decision-makers are noticeable. They seek efforts in regional bodies through defence diplomacy to address them in a regionalized multidimensional approach. The international impact of terrorism and organized criminal activities have brought the regional or sub-regional states and non-state actors to negotiating tables irrespective of their military power to seek mechanisms for early countermeasures or mitigation. In this respect, strategies and policies are formulated with focus on crisis management.

Terrorism, a complex security threat in the international system due to its dynamic character from the ‘actor’s point’ to the uniting radical religious ideology. This was exemplified by al–Qaeda (AQ) in the Middle East, Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), al–Shabaab (AS) in the Horn and Eastern Coast of Africa, Boko Haram in West Africa, among others. According to Victoroff there are several “theories and demographic data published on terrorism”, while the field is characterized by theoretical speculations based on prejudiced understanding of subjective observations.[13] Terrorism attacks or acts of aggression are normally directed to non-combatants, the outcome is not to achieve a political objective but an influencing effect to the audience change of behaviour to conform to perpetrators’ interest.[14]

The philosophical perspectives that underpin the question of definition of terrorism have made scholars of international security studies and military strategist to search without reaching a consensus on a single definition of terrorism. However, terrorism is a global phenomenon that transcends international borders, regions and cultural boundaries with different faces and characters. Vanaik posits that issues of terrorism definition and ethics are complex and difficult since they are characterized by multifaceted phenomena that can risk to sinking a scholar’s definition into a contradictory morass.[15]

Human security threat came to light in through the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) Report of 1994[16]. The Report coined the concept of ‘Human Security” in international relations discourse. Since then, scholars, practitioners, states and researchers have been struggling with this concept to demystify its conceptual meaning concerning its various security perspectives. Buzan et. al., are of the view that, human security has interconnected issues in the state and to the international system that have direct impacts on life survival on the planet.[17] The issues range from conventional models of State security in realism school of thought to individual and community security threats approaches. To put human security in a more direct perspective, Paris argues that, this recent concept has a long line of neologism or buzzwords, that include common security, global security, cooperative security, and comprehensive security, that emboldens policymakers and scholars to think about international security in a different perspective more than national military strategic power of state interest and territory.[18] Moreover, as coined by the UNDP report 1994, the human security perspectives were found to be underpinned by health, economic, environmental, personal, community/social, and political contexts. There seems to be an entanglement of defence diplomacy activities and undertaking in addressing the human security issues in discourse.

Throughout human history, man has struggled with microbes that have threatened his health. Such threats do not respect international boundaries. The word’s modernization, urbanization and globalization have multiplied the range of threats to human health. The novel Coronal Virus (COVID-19) pandemic confirmed this as the evidential fact that pathogens can circumnavigate the globe in months. The Corona Virus originated in the Chinese city of Wuhan sometimes in December 2019, and by March 2020 it had reached all the corners of the world making the World Health Organization (WHO) declare it a pandemic. Thus, emerging microbial resistance establishes a new reality for diplomats and policymakers in linking up with health practitioners and scientists to seek ways to address the threats posed to human health by the infectious disease outbreak[19] Hence the emergence of key contemporary foreign and security policy concerns and a renaissance of “disease diplomacy” that seeks to negotiate ways and means to collectively strengthen the global system of disease surveillance and control.[20]

The UN General Assembly (UNGA) for the first time in September 2011, since its inception in 1945, convened a high-level meeting on non-communicable diseases, principally cardiovascular diseases, cancers, chronic respiratory diseases and diabetes that caused about 9 million deaths before the age of 60 in the developing world.[21] Prior to this, the UNGA resolution, in 2000, the UNSC had observed that HIV/AIDS was a threat to international peace and security, hence for the first time ever on a health matter called the Member States for pre-deployment testing and counselling for Peacekeepers.[22] The WHO coined a report on Global Public Health Security in the 21^st Century heightening the major issues of human security.[23]

In this era of regionalization and globalization, infectious diseases can adversely impact on the people’s well-being and health in their social settings and socio-economic undertakings. In East Asia and among the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Member States, scholars of international relations and security studies, and health science practitioners developed interest to securitize infectious diseases to safeguard States and their people.[24] Thus, a deeper understanding of treating such issues not merely as medical issues were raised to the level of treating them as security threats to the region. In this respect, policymakers and security practitioners were seeking attention to the issue. There was an emerging trend between states as they conducted dialogues in the health, security and foreign policy towards the practice of regional health security. However, the studies portrayed that the threat of a pandemic cuts across other related issues of poverty, natural disaster, migration, and drug trafficking among other legal or illegal cross-border activities. Thus, the dialogues sought the involvement of a wide range of actors including the security institutions, veterinary and agricultural communities, among others.

Political security was identified as one of the seven aspects of human security coined by the UNDP’s HDR of 1994. It underpins the people’s ways of honouring basic human rights. At the basic level, political security was thus defined by UNDP in terms of “prevention of governing regimes’ repression, systematic violation of human rights and threats of militarization”.[25] Although the HDR 1994 observed that there was major reduction in military de-factor leadership in the world in the 1980s by handing-over power to civilian administration, Amnesty International observed 110 States were still engulfed in human rights violations. Notwithstanding, in Africa, Rwandan genocide took place in the same year HDR 1994 was released and no state or institution intervened for fear of being viewed as interfering in internal affairs of a sovereign country.

According to Hassan, political security has evolved in the last almost three decades since the Rwandan geocide, in both theory and practice.[26] In this respect, the 1994 HDR was grounded on utopian liberal connotation for peace in post-Cold War world, while the 1990s political security debates focus were underpinned on the form and legitimacy of Humanitarian Intervention/Assistance. Around the year 2000, the political security debates became refocused into institutionalization of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) agenda. Two decades past the year 2000, R2P form of political security debates complexities and nuanced discussions still range on this aspect of human security.

Obasanjo, Nigeria’s former president, observes that, bad politics and poor governance among other issues of state building processes in Africa were key drivers of contemporary conflicts in Africa[27]. Ultimately, causing a lack of proper ambiance for economic development. Governance is a critical variable that determines durable links between the regime in power and the citizens it purports to lead. The nature of the governance regime determines how authority is viewed as legitimate. Governance also has a significant dimension that ensures institutional structures and norms have the necessary capacity and capability to address various threats to security and citizen grievances before illegitimate groups take advantage.

Systemic or normalized corruption has an unrecognizable bearing on security at the national, regional or international level. Strategic policymakers and public institutions often pay little attention to corruption when formulating the kind of foreign and defence policy the State is to pursue. Thus, much knowledge on the widespread corruption and the effects it has on security would contribute to a better assessment of issues that would improve policy development to achieve desired end state. According to a Working Group on Corruption and Security, corruption should not be understood as failure and distortion of governance, but as a functioning system in power, in which the regime creates networks to use at selected levels of power to capture specific revenue streams.[28]

Corruption in governance was observed to evoke resentment in the population, especially in heterogeneous ethnic or clan-based states making it a major factor in creating social unrest that to an extent provides suitable conditions for the emergence of insurgency groups. Further, corruption becomes a threat to symbiotic relationships between states and contributes to transnational organized crime networks. Governance embroiled in acute corruption directs its objectives to the personal enrichment of the ruling network and not to the actual administration and management of state resources. It is necessary to call for foreign and defence policymakers as well as multinational corporations (MNCs) to mainstream considerations of anti-corruption measures into their decision-making process.

A good understanding of systemic and structured corruption as a functioning system enables one to acquire knowledge on how it interacts with other risk factors to aggravate threats to security. This is because bilateral and multilateral cooperation and collaborations lack agenda on corruption. Hence States and organizations miss the creative ideas of furthering anti-corruption priorities for good institutional governance. In the long run, there are no procedures and ways of security risk analysis. Flagging the Arab Spring uprising emergence in 2011 in Tunisia, then it could have been possible to pick the grievances of youth and society early enough before its explosion. The Working Group on Corruption and Security argues that clear knowledge of acute corruption makes it possible to identify methods and instrument to apply[29]. Maybe it could be more appropriate to use policy instruments early enough before the conflict erupts, or to prepare to apply paramilitary or military when conflict breaks out. In post-conflict intervention, there is a possibility of increasing chances of achieving security objectives through operational improvements.

Military politicization is real in most African countries. But African security forces are very different from one another, although the majority have similar historical colonial roots and traditions[30]. Their domestic functions and operational roles tend to be unrelated to past European experiences. African defence and security forces cannot be reduced to one single, normative developmental model of analysis. This is because they are limited in size and their budgets are relative to a single digit or less million US Dollars. Friedman observes that although African forces operate in highly conflictual environments, in absolute terms they spend 3.23% of the global defence budget[31]. Thus, African defence forces are less equipped, lack modern equipment and infrastructure and the soldier works in difficult conditions. Essentially, in most States’ defence forces, have limited or are poorly equipped with such equipment as 4×4 patrol vehicles, armoured personnel carriers, night vision devices, ammunition for training and operations, and personal and operational weapons; for instance, personal riffles and group operation weapons, while logistic and supply support is limited. Such situations are observed to lower the morale of the force in general as was cited in the cases of Nigerian, DRC and CAR soldiers when they were accused of abusing civilians through assault and rape during their counter-insurgency operations in their respective countries[32]. Moreover, mutinies and indiscipline cases correlate with resource constraint rather than an expression for political expression.

In countries like Burkina Faso in 2011 and Ivory Coast in 2014, military representatives had to act at the highest political offices to have their demands on better living and working conditions to be addressed. In Mali, rivalries between military units (Red and Green Berets) that had contributed to mutinies were a result of different amounts of resources allocation. Further, in Burkina Faso, it was a result of unequal treatment and equipment distribution between the presidential security regiment and the regular force that resulted in a coup that overthrew President Campaore. Although such mutinies, coups, or conflicts are viewed in the face of state regime failure, in actual reality it is the failure to address the moral component of the security forces through both training and in state governance.

African political landscape in most countries lacks key components of functional democratic ideals, thus, resulting in inefficient institutions that are responsible for the development of governance policies. Further, it results in the politization of military institutions. This obscures the actual progress of establishing a professional military officer corp. Notwithstanding, Friedman observes that, Africa has a solid base for professional military education[33]. There are forty-two states with military academies which provide undergraduate and military foundation training.

Nevertheless, there is neither correlation between professional military education and professional military institution present in the country with stronger military professionalism nor more trust. Among the countries that experienced coups in 2020 included Burkina Faso, Chad, Guinea, Mali and Sudan, only Sudan has three professional military education institutions, Mali has up to CSC while the others at least have military academies. The military officers who led the coups were of mid–level, thus underscoring the importance of inculcating values of military professionalism at the level.

EMERGING GLOBAL SOUTH COOPERATION

The Global South Cooperation has gained shape between the African states’ militaries and the Global South states evokes unity, equity and solidarity in peace and security. States like Turkey and Brazil anchor their relations on religion and language respectively. Since the year 2002, Turkey established foreign relations with South Africa, Sudan and the war-torn Somalia. Turkey supports the UN Peacekeeping missions in Africa financially and with personnels. Brazil is known to seek to be at the strategic level of managements of UN Missions associated with its Portuguese-speaking partners like Angola and Mozambique.

Iran’s interests in the conflict-prone Horn of Africa are notable through the establishment of bilateral relations with Sudan, Eritrea, and Djibouti based on anti-piracy in the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean. China has strong relations with Djibouti, where it has established a military base while trying to beat the major colonial powers like France and Britain in the supply of weapons and other military equipment. Chutter and Gaub, observe that China’s SALWs market in Africa accounts for 25% of the total market and is likely to rank first[34].  Nigeria stands out in Africa as the major market for China’s SALWs trade. The Chinese pragmatic approach subscribes to win–win cooperation while underpinned by the non–interference in domestic matters principle. India enjoys its closeness and historical ties to Africa, coupled with a large population of Indian descent. These aspects create positive images and attitudes toward India’s African states relations. India has been a major Troops Contributing Country (TCC) to UN peacekeeping missions in Africa since the 1960s.

It is also a country of choice for most African military training and a source of military hardware.

DEFENCE DIPLOMACY ENGENDERING COOPERATION

The African Union’s solemn declaration pledged ‘not to bequeath its future generations a legacy of wars and conflicts by silencing the guns by 2020’. It was not achieved. The pledge deadline was moved to 2030. Currently, the new deadline is seven years short. However, the AU’ security architecture needs to seek synergy from Member States’ defence and security structures with a view to propagate diplomatic ties, particularly within the regional security mechanism. Literature on the concept of DD activities underpin the objectives of FDSP. It sought to set the fundamental platform of African states to address the enduring conflicts. The researchers examined three key activities of defence diplomacy that suggested an engendering road map to states cooperation to address the African conflicts from a fundamental base. These included; states’ foreign and defence policy outreach; states’ defence and security cooperation in education and training; and states’ defence and security partnerships cooperation.

• States’ Foreign Defence and Security Policy (FDSP) Outreach

The researchers found out that conventional armies and security institutions were rethinking on transformative approaches to defence and security. In particular from the traditional soldier’s tactical operations to that of a global street worker. In this respect the new ways of soldier operations were to be underpinned in defence diplomatic paradigm to conflict resolution and management. The researchers examined the argument that foreign and defence policy outreach engendered cooperation to address peace and security threats in Africa. Fig. 1., depicts the results. The affirmation of the concept was found to stand at 64% rating level of combined high and highest rating levels. However, the researchers noted that, despite the significant of this argument, it was not embraced by majority of the AU Member States.

Fig. 1: States’ FDSP Outreach

Source: Researchers (2023)

It also established that, defence diplomacy was a tool of FDSP that focuses more on defence and security operations and activities to build relationships. Such relationships were found to fall in the neoliberal school, they tend to shape situations and to build mutual trust between states without engaging in war and conflicts. In addition, the researchers noted that, there was limited application of defence diplomacy activities in Africa, hence ‘poor cooperation’ between states to address cross border security threats. This was found to have contributed to lower impact in thwarting cross-border contemporary security threats that plagued the region since the turn of 21^st century. The findings were evidenced by the fact that defence diplomacy was an instrument that functions well in the realm of the neoliberal school. In this respect, the interconnected issues of human security threats were addressed within the state, the region or globally. This was because they had a direct impact on international peace and security. In addition, the policymakers, scholars and military strategists were found to be emboldened in the search for bilateral or multilateral policy decisions to address the threats.

The results were further supported by conventional militaries transformative operational endeavours through cooperation to stamp-out; one, proliferation of SALW in East African states of Kenya and Uganda; two, the resilience of terror groups like Boko Haram, by the multinational joint force in Lake Chad sub-region; three, al-Shabaab in Cabo Delgado in Mozambique, by the South African Development Cooperation (SADC) states, among others. Additionally, the findings were supported by the conventional forces’ change of operations to adopt their state’s R2P responses to natural catastrophic disasters like Tsunamis, disease pandemic like COVID19, environmental degradation and climate change impacts.

The researchers also noted that, the findings were also supported by states’ national defence and security structures, like in EAC, Member States cooperated by establishing defence relationships through common activities like games and training between them. Further the UNSC peacekeeping operations were found to have adopted operation approaches those that were beyond the traditional role of monitoring the implementation of peace agreements, to employment of multidimensional operations that demanded diplomatic approaches. These new diplomatic approaches demanded states cooperation in peace support training. The UN training paradigm sought to embrace full spectrum of peacebuilding activities that strand its appendages to the structures of national defence and security of contributing states.

• States’ Defence and Security Education and Training

In the contemporary security environment of neoliberal multilateralism, states’ cooperation in defence and security sought to enhance regional and international peace and security. This was found to be achieved through promotion of global cooperation in resolving conflicts through peaceful means and respect for international norms, customs and laws. It was found to be the fundamental base in which the UN widened and deepened peace support operations (PSOs) significantly in the last seven decades. However, it was noted that the global environment for the conduct of peace operations with time became complex and increasingly broad. In this respect the UN was not the only peace actor, but there were also others, despite having the mandate from UNSC. To ensure standard operating procedures with the international norms, customs and laws by the various contributors to either conflict prevention, peace enforcement, peacekeeping, peace-making, or peacebuilding, the UN introduced Peace Support Training Centres round the world. The UN further encouraged individual state’s defence and security personnel training prior to deployment for peace support operations.

The researchers examined the argument that defence and security education and training contributed to human security threats in Africa. Fig. 2., depicts the results. The affirmation of the concept was found to stand at 72% rating level of combined high and highest rating levels.

Fig. 2: States’ Defence and Security in Education and Training Engender Cooperation

Source: Researchers (2023)

The researchers established that UN Peace Support Operations (PSO) training was a cooperative aspect under the armpit of defence diplomacy. However, it was mostly referred to as civil military relation training for UN PSOs. Further, it was revealed that such education and training in Africa contributed to defence and security forces cooperation. It was found that it built appropriate relations between states when involved in UN or AU international peacekeeping operations in response to global security threats. This was also found to be in synch with the fact that, the UN had encouraged and supported the introduction of International Peace Support Training Centres (IPSTC), round the world to ensure defence and security staff, and contingent training in various aspects of PSO conduct were standardized and well understood. In addition, it was established that, individual state’s agreements in education and training of their respective defence and security personnel also exemplified the bilateral and multilateral cooperation. However, the researchers revealed that such cooperation agreements between partner states in most of the African sub-regional security mechanism were not widely employed.

Further, the researchers found out that defence and security cooperation in education and training either in bilateral or multilateral agreement had an impact through defence diplomacy in addressing human security threats in the realm human security threats. In addition, there was a gradual paradigm shift of hard power to soft power approaches in the world in terms of application of defence diplomacy to tackle human security challenges. The results were found to be in harmony with philosophical stance of African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA) in constituting the fundamental pluralistic structures to promote and ensure peace and security in the continent. However, it was further revealed that most states in the African sub-regional security mechanisms lacked the necessary cooperation agreements in education and training between them.

• States’ Defence and Security Partnerships

Improved cooperation between the UN, AU and in some of the African sub-regional security mechanisms were revealed as the fundamentals of addressing such human security threats as terrorism and international human trafficking, among other related threats. The efforts on counter-terrorism consideration were found to be pegged on socio-political and socioeconomic drivers of terrorist recruitment activities underpinned in religious radicalism and ideological dissemination through the digital space. It was noted that, Africa was perceived as a fertile ground for terrorist groups incubation, growth and expansion. It further provided human resources as fighters, illegal gun running networks as well as networks for funding. Further, it was established that, such human security threats such as disease pandemics were cross border, thus states cooperation was an imperative in addressing counter measures.

The researchers examined the argument that states’ defence and security partnerships cooperation nurtured evolution of hard power to soft power. Fig. 3. depicts the results. The affirmation was at 72% significant level of the combined high and highest rating levels. The finding was evidenced by defence diplomacy activities as the lead in the evolution of military role from hard power to soft power approaches in the 21^st century as a result of the human security threats paradigm.

Fig. 3: States’ defence and Security Partnerships Engender Cooperation

Source: Researchers (2023)

The results were in tandem with Antonio Guterres, UN Secretary-General observation that ‘just as terrorism drives people apart, counter terrorism brings countries together”[35]. The researchers revealed that counter terrorism initiatives like the military joint operation in Lake Chad Basin put efforts to degrade the Boko Haram, while some of the SADC states through ‘ad hoc procedure’ joined hands to fight al-Shabaab in Cabo Delgado province of Mozambique. However, these cases were found to be loose cooperation that could be concretized through agreements in defence diplomacy undertaking for them to be sustainable into the future.

In addition, states’ cooperation was attributed to neoliberal diplomacy on common defence and security interests. Meanwhile, military power played secondary role in neorealist aspects of the State, but could be transformed into soft power by drawing some of its resources into defence diplomacy application. However, human security threats emanated from climate change, human trafficking, illegal immigration and terrorism that underpinned neo-liberal diplomatic approaches to address them.

CONCLUSIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS

The objective of the paper sought to examine the defence diplomacy activities engendering states’ cooperation to address contemporary global security threats in promoting peace and security in Africa. The paper integrated three key empirical arguments/concepts that revealed activities of defence diplomacy. They were also considered to be among the undertaking of defence diplomacy in pursuant to implementing foreign defence and security policy. These included: 1, states’ foreign defence and security policy outreach; 2, states’ defence and security in education and training; and 3, states’ defence and security partnerships engender cooperation. The results from these key arguments/concepts were interpreted with respect to how their rating level in contributing to states’ cooperation to contemporary global security threats.

In this respect the paper concludes that the argument that States’ foreign defence and security policy (FDSP) engender cooperation to address peace and security in Africa, was of high significant and rating level. Hence, it further concludes that, application of defence diplomacy shape situations and enable partner states to build mutual trust without recourse to war. Additionally, conventional militaries are able to transform their traditional operation procedures of operations to cooperative approaches to address contemporary global security threats. While UN PSO are also transformed from traditional approaches to multidimension and diplomatic operations that also demand not only cooperating in PSO, but also in multinational training. Despite these conclusions the paper revealed that there was limited or lack of defence diplomacy application in Africa, thus the many and unsustainable loose cooperation to address contemporary global security threats in promoting peace and security.

On the argument that, states’ defence and security education and training engender cooperation to address contemporary global security threats in promotion of peace and security in Africa, the paper concludes that, it is of high significant and rating. In this respect, the UN PSO had been strengthened, widened and deepened through application of education and training as the fundamental base for cooperation between states. The UN established Peace Support Training Centres in various regions of the world. It also encouraged individual states training for their defence and security personnel prior to deployment in PSO. Moreover, some African states, like the EAC Member States, got into agreement in education and training of their respective defence and security personnel exemplifying bilateral and multilateral cooperation. Despite this conclusion the researchers established that, the African sub-regional security mechanisms were not employing the education and training as an undertaking of defence diplomacy to seize the necessary benefits of establishing mutual trust for sustainable cooperation in promoting peace and security.

With respect to the argument that, States’ Defence and Security Partnerships Engender Cooperation to address contemporary global security threats in promotion of peace and security in Africa, the paper concludes that it is of high significant and rating. The application of defence and security partnerships by the UN, the AU, and in some of the sub-regional security mechanism underpinned the cooperation efforts to address human security threats like disease pandemic and terrorism. The efforts of cooperation between states and organizations were revealed to have been grounded on counter measures to control, manage and mitigate the threats or their impacts. Further it was noted that Africa was perceived as fertile ground for such as human security threats as terrorism and disease pandemic. As result, the paper holds that there is need for engendering cooperation particularly in the African subregional security mechanisms.

In addition, the paper established that the SADC intervention force in Cabo Delgado in Mozambique, and the Lake Chad basin Multinational Joint Force efforts lacked proper impact because of loose cooperation between the sub-regional states involved. These two cooperation efforts were found to have lacked tangible agreement on ways and means of material and finance resources acquisition. Thus, the researchers concluded, that most of cooperation for peace and security in Africa were loose and lacked capacity for sustainability.

PAPER RECOMMENDATIONS

The paper recommends that, the African States’ policymakers, particularly in sub-regional security mechanisms, should leverage defence diplomacy to promote cooperation between their defence and security institutions. The focus should be to build the much sought after inter–state defence diplomatic cooperation. Ultimately, it would enable states to create enabling environment for the African or sub-regional security mechanism common agenda necessary to address contemporary global security threats. This should be achieved through state’s bilateral or multilateral agreements to seize opportunity for cooperation through application of defence diplomacy activities of foreign defence and security policy outreach, defence and security cooperation in education and training, and defence and security partnerships cooperation.

AUTHOR ABOUT

David Ngochi Ngari

Ngari, D. N., is a PhD student at Department of Diplomacy and International Studies, (DDIS) University of Nairobi (UoN), Kenya. He is supervised by Prof. Nzomo, M. and Prof. Okoth, P. G. This paper is derived from his Doctoral Thesis, ‘Efficacy of Defence Diplomacy in Promoting Peace and Security in Africa. Case Study of Kenya’. Ngari, is a serving Colonel of Kenya Defence Forces. He acquired his MA in International Relations (IR) from UoN in 2018. He has BSc (Hons.) in Military Science – Egerton University, Njoro – Kenya, 2008. In addition, he has a Post Graduate Diploma, (PGD) in strategic studies from College of Accountancy Arusha, (CAA) – Tanzania, 2014. His research interests are in diplomacy, foreign policy, military strategy and regionalism.

Maria Nzomo

Nzomo is a Professor of International Relations and Governance. She holds a PhD in Political Science and International Relations (Dalhousie); an MA in Political Science (McMaster) and a BA (Hons.) in Political Science – UoN.  She is the immediate past Director, Institute of Diplomacy & International Studies (IDIS) & later, Chair of the DDIS – UoN. Prof Nzomo served for ten years, as Director of Academic Programs at the National Defence College – Kenya, (NDC); Defence Staff College -Kenya (DSC); Kenya’s Parliament and the School of Government (KSG). She has published widely, covering issues of Governance, Diplomacy; Africa in International Relations, Gender Studies and Human Rights; among others.

Pontian Godfrey Okoth

Okoth is a Professor of History and International Relations in the Department of Peace and Conflict Studies (DPCS), MMUST – Kakamega, Kenya, since February 2012.  He holds PhD in Diplomatic History from the University of California, Los Angeles, in 1987, MA in History from the University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada in 1980, BA (Hons.) degree in History and Diploma in Education from Makerere University in 1978. He is a prolific writer, in which he has published over 180 publications, including books, book chapters, and journal articles. He is a visiting scholar at institutions of academic excellence such as Nuffield College, University of Oxford.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. African Centre for Strategic Studies. Professional Military Education Institutions in Africa. (25 Feb 2022). Accessed online on 5 Feb 2022 at https://africacenter.org/spotlight/professional-military-education-instituitons-in-africa/
2. African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA). 2010 Assessment Study. Accessed online at, https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/RO%20African%20Peace%20and%20Security%20Architecture.pdf
3. Akpan, N. U. The Struggle for Secession 1966-1970: A Personal Account of the Nigerian Civil War, Frank Cass & Co. Ltd, London. (1976) pp74.
4. Andreas Mehler. The Production of Insecurity by African Security Forces: Insights from Liberia and the Central Africa Republic, GIGA Working Paper no. 114, (2009).
5. Antonio Guterres, UN Secretary General. Speaking during the 9296th UNSC meeting, (SC/15245 dated 28 March 2023). Accessed on 5 July 2023 at https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15245.doc.htm.
6. Ashley, R. The Poverty of Neorealism, in Keohane Robert’s Neorealism and Its Critics. Columbia University Press. New York (1986) pp 256 – 300.
7. Ashley, Richard K. The Poverty of Neorealism. International Organization, Vol. 38, No. 2 (1984): pp 225-286.
8. Badey, Thomas J. Defining International Terrorism: A Pragmatic Approach, Terrorism and Political Violence, Vol 10. No.1, (1998) pp90-107, 10.1080/09546559808427445.
9. Baldwin, David A. The Concept of Security. Review of International Studies, Vol 23. (1987) pp5-26
10. Baligidde, H. Samuel. Diplomacy for Development or Doom? Epistemological Reflections on Uganda’s Recent Foreign Policy Achievements and Blunders. Estudios Internacionales, Ario 44, No. 171 (Enero-Abril 2012), pp.29-44.
11. Booth, Ken. Theory of World Security. Cambridge University Press. (2007) pp149-150
12. Burchill, Scott. Liberalism. In Theories of international Relations, Palgrave Macmillan, 3^rd Ed. (2005) Chapter 3, pp 55-83.
13. Burridge G. R. Diplomacy: Theory and Practice. (4^th ed). Palgrave Macmillan. Hampshire. (2010) pp1.
14. Buzan, B., Ole Weaver, & J. de Wilde. Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder, Co, Lynne Renner Publishers.  (1998).
15. Buzan, Burry. People, States and Fears: The National Security in International Relations. Wheatsheaf Books Ltd. Sussex. (1983).
16. Caballero-Anthony, Mely. Combating Infectious Diseases in East Asia: Securitization and Global Public Goods for Health and Human Security. Journal of International Affairs, Vol.59, No.2 (2006) pp105-127.
17. Calin-Valentin RAIU. An Ontology of good Governance: A Political Theory Approach. SOCERT. Knowledge Society, Dynamism Through Research, contract no. POSDRU/159/1.5/S/132406.  Accessed online on 6 June 2021 at http://www.revecon.ro/articles/2015-1/2015-1-8.pdf
18. Canada-National Defence. Evaluation of Defence Policy and Diplomacy. 1258-198 (Chief Review Services). (November, 2013).
19. Carl von Clausewitz. On War; (General Editor: Tom Griffith); Translated by J. J. Graham, revised by F. N. Maude. Worldworth Classics of World Literature. Worldworth Edition Limited. (1997) pg5.
20. Catalan News: The Two Spanish MSF Workers Kidnapped in Kenya 21 Months ago are Released, 18 July 2013. Accessed Online on 23 June 2022 at https://www.catalannews.com/society-science/item/the-two-spanish-msf-workers-kidnapped-in-kenya-21-months-ago-are-released
21. Cluter, David & Gaub, Florence. Understanding the African Armies. EU-Institute for Security Studies, Report No.27 (April 2016)
22. Crisp, Jeff. Forced Displacement in Africa: Dimensions, Difficulties, and Policy Directions. Refugee Survey Quarterly Vol. 29, No. 3, (2010) PP1 – 27.
23. Crush, J. & Ramachandran, S. Xenophobia, International Migration and human Development. UNDP Human Development Reports. Research Paper 2009/47 September 2009. Accessed online at http://goo.gl/OL1Pmb. On 15 December 2021.
24. Crush, J. The Dark Side of Democracy: Migration, Xenophobia and Human Rights in South Africa. International Migration, Vol. 38, No…. (2000) pp103-131.
25. Curley, M. & Thomas, N. Human Security and Public Health in Southeast Asia: The SARS Outbreak. Australia Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 58, No…. (2004) pp17-32
26. Defence Staff College (DSC): Graduation Ceremony 6 June 2019. Accessed online on 24 July 2022, at https://mod.go.ke/serve-protect/defence-staff-college-dsc/
27. Defence Staff College (DSC). Accessed online on 24 July 2022 at https://www.ndu.ac.ke/colleges-of-ndu-k/dsc/
28. Demers, Julien. Remapping the Sahel: Transnational Security Challenges and International Responses. Report. Edited by Barrios Cristina and Koepf Tobias. European Institute for Security Studies (EUISS), (2014) pp51-58.
29. Department of Defence (DOD). Defence in a Democracy: Strategic Business Plan F/Y 2004/05 to F/Y 2006/07 (DOD: Pretoria, 2004).
30. Department of Defence. Budgeting Policy within the Department of Defence. DOD Instructions, Fin/0001/2000. DOD, Pretoria, 2000.
31. Desmond Ball &Pauline Kerr. Presumptive Engagements: Asia – Pacific’s Security Policy and Defence in the 1990s. St. Leonards, NSW: Allan Allen & Unwin, (1996) pp 99-101.
32. Deutsch, Karl W. Sidney A. Burrell, Robert A. Kann, Maurice Lee, Martin Lichterman, Raymond E. Lindgren, Francis L. Loewenheim, and Richard W. Van Wagenen. Political Community and North American Area. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, (1957).
33. DFAIT. Freedom from Fear (Ottawa), Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. (2002) 40 pages.
34. Donna Winslow. The Canadian Military in the Security Environment of the Twenty-first Century. University of Ottawa Press. Canada (2003)
35. Douglas M. Flaherty. Harnessing International Relations Theory to Security Cooperation Program Design – Strategic Research Project. US Army War College. Accessed Online at, https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a561640.pdf
36. Du Plessis, A. Defence Diplomacy: Concept and Practical Dimensions with Specific Reference to South Africa. Strategic Review for Southern Africa, Vol.30, Nr 2. (2008) 87+ Available at, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A193140720/AONE?u~691adc7c&sid=googleScholar&xid-88f6372a.
37. Emy Elbitz. The Use of Military Diplomacy in Great Power Competition. Lessons Learnt from the Marshall Plan. Accessed Online on 17 October 2019 at,   https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2019/02/12/the-use-of-military-diplomacy-in-great-power-competition/
38. Falode, James Adewunmi. The Nature of Nigerian’s Boko Haram War, 2010-2015: A Strategic Analysis. Perspectives on Terrorism, Vol.10, No. 1 (2016) pp41-52.
39. Forster, A. & Cottey, A. Reshaping Defence Diplomacy: New Roles for Military Cooperation and Assistance. Adelphi Paper No. 365, Oxford University Press, London. (2004)
40. Forster, A., Jorge Heine, & Ramesh Thakur. Introduction: The Challenges of 21^st Century Diplomacy, in the Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy. Oxford. (2013)
41. Gabriel Raducany & Traian Anastasiei. Challenges to Global Security. Review of the Air Force Academy, Vol.33, No.1, (2017). Romanian Air Force.
42. Gilpin, Robert. The Theory of Hegemonic War. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 18, No.4 (1998).
43. Goran Swistek. The Nexus Between Public Diplomacy and Military Diplomacy in Foreign Affairs and Defence Policy. Connections, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Spring 2012)
44. Gregory Winger: The Velvet Gauntlet: A Theory of Defence Diplomacy. Accessed online on 17^th October 2019 at https://www.iwm.at/publications/5-junior-visiting-fellows-conferences/vol-xxxiii/the-velvet-gauntlet/
45. Hassan Oz. Political Security: From the 1990s to the Arab Spring, Contemporary Politics, Vol.21, No.1 (2015) pp80-99.
46. Ivor Roberts. Satow’s Diplomatic Practice, 6^th ed. Oxford University Press, (2009).
47. John Locke: Two Treatises of Government, from the works of John Locke. Prepared by Rod Hay for the McMaster University. Article of the History of Economic Thought. Accessed online at, http://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3113/locke/government.pdf.
48. Kenneth N. Waltz. Theory of International Politics. Addison-Wessley Publishing Company. Caligonia. (1979), pp 193.
49. Kenneth N. Waltz. Theory of International Politics. Addison-Wessley Publishing Company. California. (1979
50. Kenneth W. Allen. China’s foreign Military Relations with Asia-Pacific. Journal of contemporary China. Vol, 10. No.29. (2001) pp645-62.
51. Keohane Robert. Neorealism and Its Critics. Columbia University Press. New York (1986) pp 9.
52. Keohane, Robert O. & Nye, Joseph, S. Transgovernmental Relations and International Organizations. World Politics, Vol. 27, No. 1 (1974): pp 39-62.
53. Keohane, Robert O. Problematic Lucidity: Stephen Krasner’s ‘State Power and Structure of International Trade.’ World Politics, Vol 50, No. 1 (1997) pp150 – 70.
54. Keohane, Robert, O. International Institutions: Can Interdependence Work? Foreign Policy. Washington. (1996) pp 82 – 96.
55. Krasner, Stephen D. Sovereignty. Foreign Policy, No. 122 (2001). pp. 20 – 29.
56. Marguerite, La Caze. At the Insertion. Kant, Derrida and the Relation Between Ethics and Politics. Political Theory, 36 (6), (2007) pp782.
57. Mearsheimer John J. The False Promise of International Institutions. International Security, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Winter, 1994 – 1995) pp, 5 – 49.
58. Mearsheimer, John. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. New York. (2014)
59. Mearsheimer, John. A Realist Reply. International Security, Vol. 20 (1) (Summer 1995) pp82 – 83.
60. Moravcsik, Andrew. Liberalism and International Relations Theory. Paper No. 92-6, pp 1-53.
61. Morgenthau, H. Truth and Power: Essay of a Decade, 1960-70. Pall Mall Press. (1970).
62. Morgenthau, Hans J. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 5^th ed, Revised. (1978), pp. 4 – 15.
63. Morgenthau, Hans. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, New York. (1948)
64. Nye, Joseph S. Power and Interdependence Revisited. International Organization, Vol. 41, No. 4 (1987) pp. 725
65. Nzongola-Ntalaja, George’s foreword in African Foreign Policy in International Institutions by (ed) Warner, Jason & Shaw, Timothy. Palgrade. Macmillan (2004).
66. Obasanjo, Olesegun. On the State of Peace and Security in Africa. Accessed online 7 July 2023 at, https://cco.ndu.edu/Portals/96/Documents/prism/prism_5-2/PRISM5_2_On_the_State_of_Peace.pdf
67. Okolo, A. Harmonization of Foreign and Defence Policies, in Olu Adeniji, (ed) Essays on Nigeria’s Foreign Policy, Governance and International Security. Dokun Publishing House: Ibadan, (2000).
68. Okoth, Pontian G., Matanga, Frank K., & Onkware, Kennedy. Peace, Security and Development in 21^st Century Africa: Theory and Practice. Finnesse publishing Ltd. Nairobi. (2018).
69. Paris, Roland. Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air? International Security Vol.26, No. 2, (2001) pp87 -102.
70. Peter Leahy. Military Diplomacy. Accessed Online on 17 October 2019 at, http://www.defence.gor.au/whitepaper/docs/251-leahy
71. Richard H, Kellet. How to Write the Methods Section of Research Paper. Respiratory Care, Vol. 49 (October, 2004) 1229 – 1232.
72. Robert H. Jackson & Georg Sorensen. Introduction to international relations: Theories and Approaches. 4^th ed. Oxford University Press. (2010).
73. Robin K. Blake and Yolanda K. Spies. Non-Coercive Defence Diplomacy for Conflict Prevention. Scientia Militaria, South African Journal of Military Studies, Vol 47, Nr 2, 2019, doi:10.5787/47-1-1267.
74. Sabala, Kizito. Towards a Regional Security Architecture for the Horn of Africa: A Framework for Analysis, in Makumi Mwagiru (ed). Human Security: Setting the Agenda for the Horn of Africa. African Peace Forum. Nairobi. (1^st edition) (2008).
75. Sara E. Davies, Adam Kamradt-Scott & Simon Rushton. Disease Diplomacy: International Norms and Global Health Security. John Hopkins University Press. Baltimore (2015) pp1
76. Seidel, John V. Qualitative Data Analysis. (1998) pp1-15, available at www.qualisresearch.com (Originally published as qualitative Data Analysis, in the Ethnograph v5.0: A User Guide, Appendix E, 1998, Colorado Springs, Colorado: Qualis Research).
77. Seidel, John V. Qualitative Data Analysis. (1998) pp1-15, available at www.qualisresearch.com (Originally published as qualitative Data Analysis, in the Ethnograph v5.0: A User Guide,
78. Swistek, Golan. The Nexus Between Public Diplomacy and Military Diplomacy in Foreign Affairs and Defence Policy. Connections, Vol. 11, No. 2 (2012), pp 79 – 86.
79. The AU Constitutive Act, Art 3(3)
80. The AU Peace and Security Council. The Protocol on Establishment of Peace and Security Council, Article 2, dated 9 July 2002.
81. The US Department of Defence (The Pentagon) report between January 1, and March 31 2020. Accessed online on 6 December 2021, https://www.dodig.mil/reports.html/article/2275915/lead-inspector-general-for-east-africa-and-north-and-west-africa-counterterrori/
82. UNDP 1994. Human Development Report: New Dimension of Human Security. Available online at http://hrd.undp.org/Reports/global/1994/en
83. United Nations General Assembly Resolution – A/Res/64/265 of 13 May 2010.
84. United Nations Security Council Resolution – Res/1308/ (2000),
85. Vanaik, Achin. Terrorism: Definition and Ethics. Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 37, No. 40, (2002): 4164-168.
86. Victoroff, Jeff. The Mind of the Terrorist: A Review and Critique of Psychological Approaches. Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 49, No.1, (2005) pp 2-42.
87. Working Group on Corruption and Security. Corruption: The Unrecognized Threat to International Security. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. (2014)
88. World Health Organization. World Health Report 2007. Global Public Healthy Security in the 21^st Century: A Safer Future, Geneva: WHO (2007)

FOOT NOTES

[1]Forster, A. & Cottey, 2004.

[2]Emy Elbitz. Accessed Online on 17 October 2019.

[3]Gregory Winger: Accessed online on 17^th October 2019.

[4]Ibid.

[5]Peter Leahy. Accessed Online on 17 October 2019.

[6] Forster, A., Jorge Heine, & Ramesh Thakur, 2013.

[7]Ibid.

[8]Morgenthau, Hans, 1948.

[9]Africa Peace and Security Architecture (APSA), 2010 Assessment.

[10]Blake, Robin M. and Spies, Yolanda K., 2019.

[11]du Plessis, A, 2008.

[12]Gabriel Raducany & Traian Anastasiei, 2017.

[13]Victoroff, Jeff, 2005.

[14]Badey, Thomas J. 1998.

[15]Vanaik, Achin, 2002: 4164-4168.

[16]UNDP 1994. Available online as pdf.

[17]Buzan, B., Ole Weaver, & J. de Wilde, 1998.

[18]Paris, Roland, 2001: 87-102.

[19]Sara E. Davies, Adam Kamradt-Scott & Simon Rushton, 2015:1.

[20]Ibid.

[21]UNGA – A/Res/64/265 of 13 May 2010.

[22]UNGA – Res/1308/ (2000).

[23]WHO Report, 2007.

[24]Caballero-Anthony, Mely, 2006:105-127.

[25]UNDP; HDR 1994.

[26]Hassan Oz, 2015:80-99.

[27]Obasanjo, Olusegun, (Former president of Nigeria). Pdf accessed online 7 July 2023.

[28]Working Group on Corruption and Security. Corruption: The Unrecognized Threat to International Security. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. (2014)

[29]Working Group on Corruption and Security. Corruption: The Unrecognized Threat to International Security. Carnegie Endowment for international Peace, (2014).

[30]Cluter, David & Gaub, Florence. Understanding the African Armies. EU-Institute for Security Studies, Report No.27 (April 2016)

[31]Ibid.

[32]Andreas Mehler, 2009.

[33]African Centre for Strategic Studies. Accessed online on 5 Feb 2022.

[34]Cluter, David & Gaub, Florence. Report No.27 (April 2016).

[35]Antonio Guterres, UN Secretary General, SC/1545 dated 28 March 2023.