When many people think of terrorism, there are often racist and Islamophobic connotations associated with it. The current and common depiction of a terrorist usually involves a vest with dynamite strapped to a brown man with a headdress of sorts, a grotesque bastardization of Islamic culture. It should go without saying that there are a plethora of reasons as to why associating terrorism with certain ethnicities and religions is problematic, and yet the stereotype still prevails, reigning supreme in American society and politics.
The Trump administration’s recent “success” in implementing a travel ban, a goal they’ve held since the primaries, has prompted a much needed conversation regarding which countries are more “threatening” than others. The ban calls for “extreme vetting” of citizens and refugees who come from the nations of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, and Libya, the latter three being the only African countries mentioned under the current regulation. Let me preface this by stating, a ban on citizens from certain countries has been proven by many courts to be unconstitutional and un-American, but I do wonder, why those specific countries? Libya and Somalia do indeed have a significant terrorist presence within their nations, but with different groups. With Sudan however, the justification is a bit less apparent. The country has seen their share of turmoil in the last decade, that much can be said. The violence however, was through bloody strife between the people and the government. Sudan’s government was found to have committed crimes against humanity specifically acts of genocide perpetrated against the people of Darfur. The conflict is still ongoing and the Sudanese government definitely should be held on a type of a watch list, but the foreign government poses more of a threat to its constituents when compared to the threat the people pose to the United States, especially when you realize the lack of “terror cells” in the country. Sudan just seems extremely out of place when compared to its other African counterparts of Libya and Somalia who have a significant ISIS and Al-Shabaab presence, respectively. But the most important thing is that aside from the mention of these three African countries in the recent regulation, the United States government has blatantly failed to actually acknowledge terrorism in Africa, much less forming concise plans for necessary aid. To understand the lack of diplomacy on behalf of the United States let me phrase it better:
The only time America has EVER drafted an ‘effective’ prominent form of legislation to combat the threat of terrorism in Africa was when Donald Trump, of all people, enforced an executive order banning travel from three African countries.
You can dismiss it as white republicans not caring about the overwhelmingly black Muslim continent, but this disregard is on both sides of the aisle.
Now let me make it clear, I do not support nor advocate for the travel ban in any way whatsoever, but I do find it peculiar that no one thinks it strange that the countries most affected by terrorism failed to make the list. In fact, no country with an overwhelming Boko Haram presence was listed. If that name sounds familiar, it’s because the Global Terrorism Index has declared it the largest terrorist organization in the world as of 2015, snubbing its more talked about brother ISIS. You might also know them as the group that kidnapped 276 girls from their school at Chibok in April of 2014, with all but about 206 having either escaped or been confirmed dead. If you are like most people, you probably didn’t know that the girls have still not been returned.
Just because you shared a pic of Malala Yousefzai or Michelle Obama holding a sign that said “Bring Back Our Girls” does not mean that your congressional representatives decided to provide this issue with long term solutions.
At the time of this article, Boko Haram still ravages Nigeria, Cameroon, Benin, Niger and Chad, and it doesn’t seem like they will stop anytime soon. And alongside Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, the second most prominent terror threat on the continent, continues to be active in Somalia, Kenya, and Ethiopia. Al Shabab, just in 2017, has claimed responsibility for at least two attacks so far, most recently being a bombing and gunning that took place in a hotel in Mogadishu that ended in about 62 casualties. In Trump’s defense however, (yes I did just say that), he is like many Americans and doesn’t know what’s going, the media doesn’t cover Boko Haram as much as they do ISIS (media including CNN, MSNBC, and FOX.) So more than likely, like many Americans, he isn’t aware they exist or isn’t aware how serious of a threat to international security they are.
When reading up on the United States’ interactions with groups like ISIS, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban, you are likely to be swamped with legislation that would be sure to overwhelm many. But when you read up on U.S interactions with Nigerian terror groups like Boko Haram and even Al Shabaab, to an extent, it’s evident that the reading material is much more digestible, mostly due to the fact that there’s not that much. To play devil’s advocate it is important to address the fact that a lot of the inability to combat the threat is due to years upon years of corruption on behalf of the Nigerian government that degraded trust between the two nations, but on the other side of the coin, we still have “cooperative diplomatic relations” with countries like Iran,Syria, and other “frenemy” countries when it comes to the threat of terror.
After going over all of this, many people are still left with two questions. So the first question, “What has the U.S done?”
The answer is, as much as they can. You might’ve expected for this article to reach a climax of American indifference but the truth of the matter is that the U.S military is trying, but how hard they are trying is relative. The U.S. has supplied the Nigerian army with trucks and equipment but had blocked the sale of Cobra helicopters. The U.S. State department maintains that they will not supply Cobra helicopters because of concerns over Nigeria’s ability to use them without endangering civilians. Which may seem like patronizing to the point of absurdity, but they have helped in other ways. In December of 2014 the United States discontinued training of troops as per request of the Nigerian government. This being more of a failure of diplomacy more than any other assertions of U.S neglect. In late 2015, the U.S donated 45 million to train the militaries of the countries affected. That’s something. Finally, and most notably, in 2015 the United States announced the deployment of 300 troops to Cameroon to conduct airborne ISR. Those troops will remain in Cameroon till they aren’t needed. If you paid attention to this article, you’ll notice I stressed the value of significance. The things the United States has done to combat the threat of African terrorism is concrete, but the value of it is anything but. Boko Haram continues to grow seemingly unbothered by American efforts and the U.S has been noticeably silent on future plans.(The latter most likely due to the change in administration)
That leaves the final question. If you haven’t guessed it already, it’s in the title, “ Why does the west ignore the growing terrorist threat in Africa?”
The answer to that, unfortunately, can’t really be looked up. There’s many theories that range from beautiful cynicality to ugly truths, and frankly they all can be right from certain perspectives. Unlike the first answer however, these ones may leave you feeling a bit less satisfied. Many may say that Africa, specifically the nation’s involved, offer no substantial gain to the U.S. Nigeria struggles to refine their immense wealth in oil, the other countries are still developing so they’re less likely to develop nuclear arms, and sub Saharan Africa will most likely never hold a grudge or retaliate against the U.S due to their internal conflicts.
America can barely look after the safety and well being of the blacks and muslims in America, imagine a senator trying to rally support for black African muslims.
At the end of the day, issues of race are starting to die down when you consider them in relation to issues with islamaphobia. Although, the two prejudices aren’t mutually exclusive in an individual, they can be in terms of government. Racism, for the most part, has been stigmatized while islamophobia is often warring between normalization and stigmatization itself. It all goes back to the terrorist stereotype. It’s the same reason why Mass Media has a problem calling the likes of Dylan Roof, and the Quebec shooter “terrorists”, what they actually are. The image of terrorism for Americans isn’t just Muslim, it’s anything but Brown. Isis harbors the same if not less of a threat than Boko Haram or Al Shabaab, but from what I can ascertain, its not even about “protecting U.S citizens” from terrorists anymore. Islamophobic Americans and racist Americans are not mutually exclusive. This isn’t about protection. This is about getting revenge on anyone who looks like anyone that was involved in 9/11.
Boko Haram and its leaders have vowed to kill any dissenters and can stand to be a serious threat to American security. We are so busy trying to attack at the neck of a two headed snake we don’t even realize that the other head is preparing for a strike.
The stereotype of a terrorist being a dynamite clad Arab doesn’t just hurt Arabs or anyone who may look like it. It hurts people affected by terror in Africa. It hurts us all.
