A Strategic Vision for Africa: The Kampala Movement
In 1989, a number of prominent Africans, led by Nigeria's Olusegun Obasanjo, began a push for political reform and regional cooperation with a view to improving Africa's potential for stability and development. Bypassing the ineffectual Organization of African Unity, they established a group known as the Conference on Security, Stability, Development, and Cooperation in Africa (CSSDCA), sometimes optimistically called the Kampala Movement. Authoritarian governments put up obstacles, and the initiative languished even before Obasanjo's incarceration by dictator Sani Abacha in 1995. Since then, South Africa has emerged as a regional hegemon, and Obasanjo was elected Nigeria's president in 1999. Now he has joined Thabo Mbeki in a new but similar reform initiative, the New Partnership for Africa's Development (nepad). This book was written without explicit reference to nepad, but it provides a sympathetic yet critical look at the rise and decline of Obasanjo's earlier "movement." Most notable are the authors' discussions of how the CSSDCA approached the definitions of sovereignty, security, and democracy, and why the initiative foundered during the 1990s. An important commentary on Africa's political evolution.
Related
Some threats to international security are so potentially damaging that preventing them in advance is preferable to remedying their effects. In such cases, states should judge preventive actions by a standard of legitimacy, not strict legality.
The intervention in Somalia was not an abject failure; an estimated 100,000 lives were saved. But its mismanagement should be an object lesson for peacekeepers in Bosnia and on other such missions. No large intervention, military or humanitarian, can remain neutral or assuredly brief in a strife-torn failed state. Nation-building, the rebuilding of a state's basic civil institutions, is required in fashioning a self-sustaining body politic out of anarchy. In the future, the United States, the United Nations, and other intervenors should be able to declare a state "bankrupt" and go in to restore civic order and foster reconciliation.
When the founders forged the United Nations 50 years ago, they envisioned nothing less than a messianic transformation of politics and diplomacy. But they neglected to take human nature and history into account. The concept of collective security that they bet on to keep order was dead a few years later--though it has taken the humiliations of Bosnia to demonstrate this definitively. What's a world organization to do in the confused twilight of the nation-state? Traditional diplomats have proved they are better at settling conflicts, but the dream of global community is still alive in the human imagination.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.