Global Overview: Africa, Mexico and the Global Fragility Act

Africa: Current trends will increase political instability, promote terrorism, and eventually threaten western security as militants restore their ability to recruit, train and deploy terrorists.

US Global Fragility Act: The GFA was a small step, without any rigor. It is likely we will continue to focus on bureaucratic issues at the expense of progress internationally.

Mexico: Lacking support of the Mexican people, clear authority and responsibility between the U.S. and Mexico and the political will to see any action through to a positive conclusion means any use of military force will likely backfire.

Africa: Two steps back

The U.S. has again lost sight of the turmoil and challenges on the continent of Africa. For over 10 years terrorism’s increases, disinformation by actors such as Russia and China, and Russia’s use of food as a weapon resulted in unrest, enabling internal challenges such as Coup D’états and growth of terrorist cells to occur. Less than 20 of the 55 nations on the continent are unaffected by terrorism and instability. All the while, U.S. media and political elites continue to fight amongst themselves with increasing vitriol and decreasing awareness of world events. Although desk officers in State, DoD and other agencies such as Justice and the Treasury are concerned and focused, political leaders remain at best disinterested and at worst naive about the implications for the future if these trends are not arrested.

Terrorist organizations are thriving. Da’esh (known as ISIS in the US), Al-Qaida and affiliates continue to exploit political instability, instigate conflict, and attack legitimate governments and institutions. Once contained mostly in North Africa, these groups are expanding into Mali, Benin, Burkina Faso, Togo, and most recently Niger. Niger’s military coup was first justified as a way to stop the growth of jihadi-based violence. However, Niger continues to suffer attacks against military / security forces by groups such as the Islamic State Group and JNIM (al-Qaida) despite the new government’s suspension of military operations against terror groups.[1]

The UN reports West Africa has borne over 1,800 terrorist attacks since Jan 2023 with ~4,600 deaths. Omar Touray, President of ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States) Commission identified factors driving these issues: Terrorism, Armed Rebellion, Organized Crime, Coups, Maritime crime, environmental concerns, and fake news. Disinformation is widespread. Nations cannot convince social media providers to dedicate resources to removing false and misleading information. Previously peaceful Mozambique has seen fighting for over six years with hundreds of civilian casualties, some beheaded for not joining the Islamic militia. Factions have joined forces with ISIS-backed groups to carry out attacks in the north.[2]

In the past 10 years, 23 documented misinformation campaigns have been waged against African nations and citizens by Russia, China, Israel, Saudi Arabia and others. Russia is by far the leading broker of disinformation campaigns in Africa with at least 16 known operations on the continent. Russian tactics amplify local grievances and exploit divisions within a targeted society, resulting in political divisions and inaction while affording some measure of plausible deniability. The objective is to confuse, create false comparisons between democratic and nondemocratic actors, triggering disillusion and apathy.[3]

While undertaking these campaigns, Putin has used food as a weapon by blocking Ukraine’s shipments of wheat to the continent. While calling African leaders and lamenting the coup in Niger, Putin simultaneously cut shipments of wheat by 50% to the World Food Program.[4] Driving prices higher, the result is more food instability while at the same time ISIS and al-Qaeda insurgents use Russian backed or influenced disinformation campaigns to create the conditions for insurrection. The map on the right depicts Russia’s levels of interference in the past 10 years.[5]

Conclusion

Left unchecked these trends will continue to increase political instability, intensify food insecurity, promote terrorism and eventually threaten western security as terrorist cells once more have increased ability to recruit, train and deploy terrorists. Using Africa as a base of operations, it is likely ISIS and others will resurge in the next 5 to 10 years after suffering significant setbacks in southwest Asia. Democracy’s fragile gains will continue to deteriorate.

US Global Fragility Act

The Global Fragility Act (GFA), passed by Congress and signed into law by President Trump on December 20, 2019. A bipartisan approach, GFA attempts to equip the USG with authorities, resources, and policy guidance to reduce violent conflict, alleviate migration pressures, and prevent violent extremism. Since Bush 43, agencies of the USG (particularly State and DoD) have pointed to the lack of legislation to mandate a whole of government approach to foreign policy, and in particular, the need for policy and resource guidance to gain the initiative against terrorism instead of being reactive to world events.

The GFA is a typical Washington approach and has had a typical rollout with subsequent minimal effect so far. That approach considers the US as the center of the universe with other nations and international agencies in orbit around American leadership. Like most initiatives focused on Washington’s bureaucracy, it has some positive and negative aspects.

On the positive side is the organization with the Department of State in the lead, supported by other agencies such as Defense, Energy, Commerce, the DNI, USAID and OMB.[6] Funding is addressed, with a minute goal of just over $200M per year for five years designated. Sixteen months and another administration later, State finally published a “Prologue” to their strategy for preventing conflict. Based on the GFA, this monogram outlines intent but does not describe any mechanisms or tools to achieve the vision. For example:

To foster maximum effectiveness in implementing the Act, we will adapt, evolve, and overcome structural impediments to innovation and collaboration. We will pursue budgetary, procurement, legal and staffing mandates that are fit for purpose for today’s dynamic challenges and promote the necessary conditions for us to maximize resources and results. Our proposal is to purposefully convert our bureaucratic architecture over time to facilitate the adaptive and flexible management and implementation needed to strengthen and enable prevention and stabilization within dynamic conditions.[7]

The reader should not be concerned if they cannot understand the above. So, while Russia has been executing a strategy for undermining faith in democracy across Africa, our government is planning to “purposefully convert our bureaucratic architecture” and pursue a whole of government approach. State has nice words about working with foreign actors and leaders, but no method or mechanism of ensuring that is accomplished.

What’s missing? The means to the ends in the legislation. Ignoring reactions of nations that we arrogantly label as “fragile”, clear leadership responsible for strategy development and led by an NSC director with participation across the USG is needed. Authorities must be tied to specific appropriations, and instead of bi-annually telling Congress what is going on, provide more frequent updates. Strategies need strong metrics, tied to long term objectives and progress evaluated for each program. Finally, the US Ambassador in each country must be the primary authority on all programs and implementation.

Conclusion

Government reform is exceedingly difficult even on a good day. Reforms require legislative authorities and a clear designation of leadership for accountability and responsibility. President Trump’s 2019 designation of functions was a small first step, but until a more rigorous structure is in place, we will continue to focus on internal issues at the expense of progress internationally.

Mexico and the fight against Drug Cartels: Steps forward and back

Fentanyl is the No. 1 killer of Americans aged 18 to 45, according to Families Against Fentanyl. Fentanyl deaths have been on the rise since late 2019 to a high of over 100,000 per year.[8]

Mexico’s decades-long war against the cartels has been hindered by strategy changes (from President Fox, Calderon, Pena Nieto and finally Obrador) and thus largely ineffective, resulting in calls for US Military intervention. US policy has also been through many changes from Bush’s security assistance to Obama’s aid programs to help Mexican justice and crime prevention programs, to Trump’s focus on building a wall between the nations. President Biden inherited a tense security relationship with Mexico, with bilateral cooperation focused mostly on stopping migration, COVID-19, and trade. In October 2021, Presidents Biden and López Obrador announced the creation of a bilateral framework to address both insecurity in Mexico and the opioid crisis in the United States. Six months later, Mexico surprisingly disbanded a DEA-trained anti-narcotics force that had worked closely with U.S. law enforcement for decades.[9]

Our military is often called to react to diplomatic failures or actions that cannot be deterred by other means. A few months ago, U.S. Reps. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, and Michael Waltz, R-Fla., introduced a joint resolution to authorize the president to use the military against the cartels in Mexico. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., pledged to introduce legislation designating Mexican drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., said it was a mistake not to have bombed meth labs in Mexico when then-President Trump asked his secretary of Defense about this possibility. Former Attorney General William Barr has even pressed for military action, “whether or not the Mexican government participates.”[10]

Using the military is undoubtedly an alternative, but as former Navy SEAL Rep Crenshaw clearly understands, it requires more than a signature to be effective. If Mexico continues to resist military “assistance”, the only alternative using military force is an invasion of Mexico. Attacks from the air or the ground are an act of war. If invited into Mexico for a coalition operation, such a task would require several supporting factors. First would be acceptance by the Mexican people. Without that acceptance the US could quickly find itself under attack from both the cartels (who are generally very well armed) and a local populace who would see us as invaders, not rescuers. Fighting cartels while providing security from residents would require a significant amount of armed personnel not for action against the cartels, but for defense of lines of supply and encampments against an enraged citizenry and the cartels.

Avoiding the discussion of “who’s in charge” between the US military and the Mexican authorities (police? drug enforcement? Mexican military?) the US and Mexico must solve the issue of reliable and actionable intelligence. Given a clear target and the ability to avoid civilian casualties, the military is exceptional at destroying infrastructure. If intelligence was readily available to Mexican forces, all they might lack is logistical support and firepower. Supplying them with locations of cartel strongholds and leadership and ensuring civilian casualties are avoided could have a positive effect.

But battalions of U.S. forces moving through the Mexican countryside could destabilize the Obrador government as they would appear not only to have surrendered to U.S. demands, but also to have lost control of their country. With Obrador’s decision to free Guzman in 2021 in response to cartel actions to close the city of Culiacan, cartels realized that the Mexican government lacks the political will to follow through and enforce of the rule of law.[11]

Conclusion

Without the support of the Mexican people, a clear line of authority and responsibility between the U.S. and Mexican law enforcement/military and the political will to see any action through to a positive conclusion any U.S. military incursion into Mexico will be short lived, possibly tragic, and yet another black eye for American foreign policy. Unfortunately, the farther leaders are from a problem, the easier it appears to solve.

Learn more about the author, Advisory Board member and retired U.S. Air Force Major General Michael Snodgrass.

[9] See Mexico’s Long War: Drugs, Crime, and the Cartels | Council on Foreign Relations (cfr.org)

[10] See Republicans want US troops to fight Mexican cartels. That’s a bad idea (usatoday.com)

[11] See: Twenty-four hours of terror as cartel violence engulfs Mexican city | Mexico | The Guardian