The West should intervene in Africa

New Zealand would push Uruguay to offer a solution which does not offer intervention. It's easy to be a critic but these problems need to be sorted out. That is, unless we leave the world outside of the West to self destruct.

Uruguay doesn't believe it's the role of the West to deal with this. As the representative for Botswana has said, the affected countries' national governments must stand up and be counted.

What would the response be to the argument the countries in Africa are too weak to stand up against this larger threat which receives more income than the entire GDP of most African countries?

Botswana believes this is a matter for the AU to deal with, and the Kenyan government, they have been seen not protecting areas north of the country, an attack like this was bound to happen, also we should not be calling the West to solve all our problems. It's a matter of organising an robust continental intelligence agency to specifically deal with terrorist attacks before they happen.

May we add that we don't like how the Nigerian government has dealt with Boko Haram in their country, they have the biggest army in Africa and they can't contain a militia, it's disgraceful how they blame the west for not intervening, when their own rampant corruption has thrown their own country into this security instability.

(Side note: Not trying to sound like a prick but it's annoying when people are not specific when talking about Africa, for example, there's extremism
in max 11 countries out of 56, including Libya, Nigeria, DRC, and Kenya etc. so it's not accurate putting it under 'Africa'. It's like saying 'Russian aggression in Europe,lets intervene' when it's only Ukraine in an indirect war with Russia. Like I said, not trying trying to offend,just venting but, being from Botswana, and living there, seeing some generalizations of the second biggest continent on the internet can sometimes be annoying, though sometimes funny.)

I ask Botswana the following:

Could it not be the case the Kenyans are incapable of defending the north? 25,000 extremely poorly equipped soldiers with not enough guns to go around, in lightly armored vehicles from the Soviet era or earlier, spending a mighty $800m per year does not seem like a credible force against extremists.

Is the slightly better funded and slightly better equipped Nigerian forces inability to defeat Boko Haram not a sign of how difficult the task is to defeat extremist groups? If the superior Nigerian military cannot defeat a group why can the Kenyan military?

Corruption and lack of capability hamper efforts to coordinate a response. During peacekeeping missions several African nations (Nigeria, Algeria, SA, Kenya) have asked the West for transport support to move their troops to where they need to be. Assuming a situation in which the West stays out, the combined forces of the AU will be unable to even reach the conflict zones. The intelligence agencies also don't exist to start a simultaneous plot against extremists. In what way does Botswana think a combined response will work? At the moment, there's a bigger incentive for the West to step in securing natural resources all over the continent exploiting the countries in the continent. Where is the benefit in having the West sit out letting the, so far ineffective, AU deal with the growing problems?

Mexico believes assistance should not be provided by the West to Africa, instead we should be looking at self-improvement both economically and socially.

Unless East Africa steps up its game, it will have to go alone.