5th Global Conference
Session Ten: Battlegrounds: Old and New
Chair: Elizabeth Moore
African Peacekeepers
Axel Auge
Sociology Department,
Saint-Cyr Military War College (France), Guer, France
My communication analyzes the peace-keeping africanisation with the new military interventionism of Africans Peace Soldiers. This paper defends the idea of inter Africans forces have a political action clearly superior to their militaries results. This paper is based on five monographies about peace-keeping operations in sub-Saharan Africa : African Mission in Somalia (AMISOM), African Mission in Sudan (AMIS), United Nations in Congo Democratic Republic (MONUC), Economic West African Mission in Ivory Coast and Mission in Central African Republic (MICAR).
Since extension of the peace-keeping operations and the low intensity and asymmetric war, a new African military interventionism appears for peace. This new military interventionism in African centred on peace characterizes the “third model” after political militarism (1960) against civilian political elite (Central African Republic) and ideological militarism claiming openly political responsibility like in Congo or Ethiopia.
For analyze the marginal role of Africans soldiers in the military and strategic plan, I will discuss third points.
Firstly, I answer the question how? How emerge these Africans peace soldiers in the new strategic and politic context in Sub-Saharan Africa dominated by the regional view based on African Union (AU) and regional economics communities (ECOWAS, CEEAC, SADC)?
Secondly, What are these Africans peace soldiers, from which country they come? What kind of materials and equipment they got?
Thirdly, we will examine the small military effectiveness of the Africans peace soldiers compensated for their political action. How stay without to developpe an hostile action and to appear like occupation army ?
Battlefield Interpretations and the Role of the Imagination in the Development of British Infantry Weapons, from the 1880s to the Present Day
Matthew Ford
Department of War Studies, King’s College London, Strand, London, United Kingdom
This paper places the development of weaponry within its wider socio-technical context. By investigating how the British Army sought to understand and define the battlefield it becomes clear why certain types of equipment were selected over others. What emerges is not only how different interpretations of combat shaped the choice of weapons but also how the technologies had to accommodate these differing perspectives. Consequently, the process of technical change can be used to establish the values and beliefs of the Army in relation to infantry battle. This shows that weapons are concerned with solving not only “real” combat problems but also imagined ones. In this respect, technical choices mirror how the battlefield appears to a military organisation. At the same time they are also statements about the way in which militaries want the battlefield to be. This type of analysis has ramifications for those studying contemporary warfare; by showing how these representations of the battlefield are constructed it becomes possible to show how it might be viewed differently. This paper can be viewed as a reminder to those involved in technical change that the way the world looks does not necessarily mean that it is that way.
