Ebony and Ivory (and Terrorists and Guns)

At the center of the many conflicts in Africa is another war. This battle deals not with state borders, but with the items transported across them: ivory and arms. Militias, criminal groups, and even governmental forces are capitalizing on high consumer demand for ivory in Asia to fund their bullets and their violence. Several states in the region have responded with some last-ditch security measures, but the trade in this contraband is too big for them to handle alone. Ivory and guns are international problems, and they call for an international solution.

Desperate and overwhelmed by this crisis, many of the affected nations have begun increasing  their park rangers’ firepower capabilities, who act as the last line of defense against violent elephant-poaching groups. Most signs indicate, however, that attacking poaching in this way is a losing battle. Fighting on this scale increases regional violence without improvements in the conservation effort. A more effective method would be to address the problem at its source. Namely, pressuring China and other Asiatic countries that contribute to high ivory demand to educate their people against using ivory. Stemming demand in China will slow both the trade in elephant tusks and strike at the atrocities committed by groups such as Joseph Kony’s Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in Uganda or al Shabab in Somalia, who use ivory as a means to survive and perpetuate conflict.

In recent years, even with increasing international attention paid to the problem, poaching has been on the upswing, with 32,000 elephants killed since the beginning of 2012. Much of this is driven by Chinese and Filipino demand: the price of ivory in 2008 rose to $530 a pound from $71 a pound. Today a pound costs $1,300 and price inflation is even more obvious in the $30,000 tag for a pound for rhino horn powder, which makes the supposed aphrodisiac more expensive than both gold and cocaine.

China has not taken sufficient responsibility for its contribution to the illegal ivory trade. Although the country removed rhino horn powder from its medicinal registry in 1993, its people (and their superstitions) are the driving force in African poaching. As pointed out by Ethan Nadalmann of the Drug Policy Alliance, the ivory market is similar to the drug trade: suppressing ivory production in one area will lead to increased poaching in another. In other words, trying to strike at supply means little when there is sufficient demand. Zimbabwe, for example, experienced a raft of rhino poaching prior to the devastating rhino hunting in South Africa. Inability to suppress illegal poaching makes it impossible to completely curtail the trade in Africa by giving park employees AK-47s. The involvement of organized crime confirms this tendency, as the prices of ivory have risen in tandem with better-funded and therefore better-armed criminal and terrorist networks.

With an eye on these armed groups, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has called poaching a growing security concern in areas such as Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Chad, and Gabon. Even President Obama has announced a new Presidential Task Force on Wildlife Trafficking, citing security – read: terrorism – as a main concern in wildlife crime.

Terrorism has surprising ties to poaching activities. The LRA and al Shabaab are two groups strongly suspected of hunting elephants and rhinos for their tusks. Al Shabaab is a terrorist organization located in Somalia with connections to al-Qaeda and Afghanistan. The group was largely defeated by Ethiopian and Somali forces in 2006, but has since been responsible for bombings in Mogadishu and other regions of Somalia. Militants in the organization spend their time staging suicide bombings in Eastern Africa, killing peace activists and international aid workers, and preventing aid delivery by Western forces. One of the most illustrative examples occurred during the devastating 2011 famine that killed tens of thousands Somalis. To fund such terrorist activities, evidence shows al Shabaab poaches elephants in neighboring Kenya.

The LRA, known for its many human rights violations such as rape, mutilation, abduction, looting, massacres, and sexual slavery, is also known to poach elephants in the Democratic Republic of Congo’s Garamba National Park. Joseph Kony, the groups’ leader is wanted for committing massive human rights violations, brought into popular knowledge by Invisible Children’s Kony 2012 campaign. Frequently killing and mutilating elephants for tusks and meat, the group attacked Garamba headquarters in January 2009, killing 16 rangers and causing significant damage to an already underfunded and undersupplied staff.

Parks like Garamba, along with similar ones in Burkina Faso, Benin, and Niger, are the center of this war. These vast tracts of protected land provide the primary means of funding for militia groups, as well as shelter – odd laws prohibit the LRA from being pursued by government forces on Garamba territory. Subsequently the land is an LRA haven. More importantly, the effects of staging a war on militants living in national reserves and elephant territory will only serve to further harm ungulates and their local habitats.

According to Liliana Campos’s “Effects of War and Civil Strife on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitats,” modern warfare has devastating effects on local wildlife, not to mention people. Uganda in 1979-1987, Rwanda in 1990-1997, and the Republic of Congo in 1990-1997 all saw “massive declines in populations of elephants,” increased poaching, and “habitat encroachment” during their civil wars. The numerous obstacles that wildlife already face (like food scarcity and ecosystem vulnerability) are further exacerbated by combat and the presence of armies.

The militarization of poaching, nicknamed the “Ivory Wars,” continues to escalate, and the lines between elephant hunter and protector are increasingly blurry. A popular refrain repeated by the international community is to further weaponize and train local armies or rangers to fight off poachers. Game rangers have been given improved weapons, intelligence analysts, and access to helicopters and drones. Already the language used when talking about the elephant and rhino poaching epidemic is that of a war zone: “joint military command,” “real time intelligence,” and “aerial support.” Yet some armies receiving American funding are themselves directly involved with poaching and dealing in ivory. The Congolese government soldiers, Ugandan military, and South Sudan’s military are all implicated in significant poaching activities.

Despite the valiant efforts of the United States and African nations, combatting fire with fire only serves to intensify the conflict. China, for its part, has exacerbated the problem, recently agreeing to limited ivory sales supposedly to stifle poaching. Instead, the laws have failed to do anything but stimulate the illicit trade, thanks to gross incompetence and corruption. Ivory in China has a long history for its supposed healing properties and religious importance. Many carvers, collectors, and religious fanatics do not consider the elephant when it comes to ivory. Changing consumption patterns in China during a significant upswing in ivory popularity is a seemingly impossible task, yet one that is critical for preventing the extinction of the African elephant.

This will need to involve state-sponsored education initiatives. Arming park rangers to the teeth is a last resort approach to combatting a greater problem. Yes, these officers need the means to protect themselves and occasionally ward off poachers, but poaching thrives because governments are unable to exercise control over their own territory when faced with the incredible profits of the ivory trade. In the interim, parks can use more geospatial analysis of satellite imagery and better intelligence to ward of poaching helicopters before they have a chance to interrupt elephant herds. But ultimately, advertising the negative effects of such prohibited items as tobacco, cocaine, or illicit weapons has been shown to lower consumer demand. A similar campaign in China would address the ivory issue at its source without bringing more bloodshed into the African wild.

Tom Milliken, director of the Elephant Trade Information Systems, has called the smugglers “Africa-based, Asian-run crime syndicates.” In this truly globalized war, winning will not involve arming more troops and sending them out to deter or kill poachers, but will come from the market. It’s simple economics. Stopping the ecological carnage of the ivory trade – and the related proliferation of guns and violence –  will occur only when the Chinese finally curb their own voracious demand. We should remind ourselves that the pen is mightier than the sword. Then, when choosing between more education and more bullets, the option should be clear.