Ivory Coast attack should not cause waves of fear
by George Rautenbach,
2016-03-20 15:22:53.0
THE Nato coalition led by the US, UK and France did not do the world a favour when they removed Muammar Gaddafi from the African equation. He somehow kept a lid on the extremists in North Africa, except for Algeria, which always had them and will keep them for a long time to come. The Libyan leader warned Tony Blair that if his regime collapsed it would have profound effects. He was right.
The recent events in the Côte d’Ivoire are a further example of how what was contained in North Africa has started spreading around West Africa. First it was Mali, then there where attacks in Chad, and then it moved to Burkina Faso. Now it has reached the coast of the Gulf of Guinea with the attack on a holiday resort in Grand Bassam, right on the doorstep of Abidjan, the economic powerhouse of the region.
What is to be made of this? Presidential sources in Abidjan indicated it was a clear effort to intimidate and shake the Ivorian nation and business confidence. Interior ministry insiders said the attack was poorly executed and might not have been the work of al-Qaeda. Time will tell.
Cote d’Ivoire found new stability in 2011 after the conflict that saw the ousting of president Laurent Gbagbo, who was replaced by his opponent, Alassane Dramane Ouattara. A Muslim, Mr Ouattara has stated on many occasions that Islam is a nonviolent religion. This is something we all know.
One must remember that half of the Côte d’Ivoire is Muslim and has been for centuries. The fact is that spectacular and dramatic events succeed in shaking any nation and in reaching the headlines of all major newspapers in the world.
Does this mean the jihadists have the capacity to shake the world? Yes, they do, but it does not mean they represent the biggest group in the world or in Africa.
Having lived in Abidjan, any person will tell you the hardest workers and the most modest people are the Muslims. This is not to say they are better than the Christians, but they are more devout and take their religion very seriously.
What does this mean for Africa? Some would argue that it is a major security threat to certain countries and therefore has an effect on their economies — and, indeed, the immediate effect is there. But does it really affect the day-to-day lives of people in those countries? And does it mean doing business is more dangerous than before?
No, it does not. News sells, so evidently that which creates sensation gets the better read. Thus, as an analyst, it is not clever to shoot yourself in the foot by stating that nothing has changed dramatically in those countries.
However, analysts need to be objective and try to understand what happened in its context. None of the major business interests was attacked. A soft target was identified, knowing full well it would create sensation and eventually feature in the world’s major newspapers. This was truly well chosen, as those in the know would be aware there is nothing like a Sunday afternoon on the palm beaches of this West African country.
Cool heads should prevail. The jihadists do not have the means nor the capacity to wage fullscale wars, therefore soft targets are a better option when looking for attention. This also means they are not geographically bound by anything. It can happen anywhere any time. They will be with us for some time to come but does this mean we should divert business to safer environments? It was not aimed at any business — it was a random act, like in Tunisia, with the sole purpose of creating sensation.
Business should understand the environments in which they do business, be aware of the risks and mitigate them. But in the end, jihadists cannot and should not be glorified and feared as they would want the world to do. The majority of Christians as well as Muslims are moderate in their views. This should be our driver, this should be our guide. We should not allow minorities that seek sensation to dictate the course of history.
• Rautenbach, a former chief of staff at the United Nations, is the CEO of Africa Business Experts
Africa. Picture: ISTOCK
THE Nato coalition led by the US, UK and France did not do the world a favour when they removed Muammar Gaddafi from the African equation. He somehow kept a lid on the extremists in North Africa, except for Algeria, which always had them and will keep them for a long time to come. The Libyan leader warned Tony Blair that if his regime collapsed it would have profound effects. He was right.
The recent events in the Côte d’Ivoire are a further example of how what was contained in North Africa has started spreading around West Africa. First it was Mali, then there where attacks in Chad, and then it moved to Burkina Faso. Now it has reached the coast of the Gulf of Guinea with the attack on a holiday resort in Grand Bassam, right on the doorstep of Abidjan, the economic powerhouse of the region.
What is to be made of this? Presidential sources in Abidjan indicated it was a clear effort to intimidate and shake the Ivorian nation and business confidence. Interior ministry insiders said the attack was poorly executed and might not have been the work of al-Qaeda. Time will tell.
Cote d’Ivoire found new stability in 2011 after the conflict that saw the ousting of president Laurent Gbagbo, who was replaced by his opponent, Alassane Dramane Ouattara. A Muslim, Mr Ouattara has stated on many occasions that Islam is a nonviolent religion. This is something we all know.
One must remember that half of the Côte d’Ivoire is Muslim and has been for centuries. The fact is that spectacular and dramatic events succeed in shaking any nation and in reaching the headlines of all major newspapers in the world.
Does this mean the jihadists have the capacity to shake the world? Yes, they do, but it does not mean they represent the biggest group in the world or in Africa.
Having lived in Abidjan, any person will tell you the hardest workers and the most modest people are the Muslims. This is not to say they are better than the Christians, but they are more devout and take their religion very seriously.
What does this mean for Africa? Some would argue that it is a major security threat to certain countries and therefore has an effect on their economies — and, indeed, the immediate effect is there. But does it really affect the day-to-day lives of people in those countries? And does it mean doing business is more dangerous than before?
No, it does not. News sells, so evidently that which creates sensation gets the better read. Thus, as an analyst, it is not clever to shoot yourself in the foot by stating that nothing has changed dramatically in those countries.
However, analysts need to be objective and try to understand what happened in its context. None of the major business interests was attacked. A soft target was identified, knowing full well it would create sensation and eventually feature in the world’s major newspapers. This was truly well chosen, as those in the know would be aware there is nothing like a Sunday afternoon on the palm beaches of this West African country.
Cool heads should prevail. The jihadists do not have the means nor the capacity to wage fullscale wars, therefore soft targets are a better option when looking for attention. This also means they are not geographically bound by anything. It can happen anywhere any time. They will be with us for some time to come but does this mean we should divert business to safer environments? It was not aimed at any business — it was a random act, like in Tunisia, with the sole purpose of creating sensation.
Business should understand the environments in which they do business, be aware of the risks and mitigate them. But in the end, jihadists cannot and should not be glorified and feared as they would want the world to do. The majority of Christians as well as Muslims are moderate in their views. This should be our driver, this should be our guide. We should not allow minorities that seek sensation to dictate the course of history.
• Rautenbach, a former chief of staff at the United Nations, is the CEO of Africa Business Experts
Change: -0.80%
Change: -1.03%
Change: -0.24%
Change: -1.13%
Change: -1.10%
Data supplied by Profile Data
Change: 0.13%
Change: -0.29%
Change: -0.80%
Change: 0.00%
Change: 0.03%
Data supplied by Profile Data
Change: 0.02%
Change: -0.99%
Change: -0.03%
Change: -0.15%
Change: 0.81%
Data supplied by Profile Data
Change: 0.33%
Change: 1.22%
Change: 0.06%
Change: 0.50%
Change: 1.04%
Data supplied by Profile Data