The new U.S. command for Africa began independent operations on Wednesday, after being carved out of three other Pentagon units previously responsible for the continent. President George W. Bush originally wanted Africom to be based in Africa, and Liberia has offered to host it. But the plan met with considerable hostility on the continent, especially from big powers South Africa and Nigeria and oil giants Algeria and Libya. Many ordinary Africans were also cynical, believing Africom would be a cover for Washington to counter growing Chinese influence and control vital oil supplies from West Africa — expected to provide 25 percent of U.S. needs by 2015.
The hostility forced Washington to rethink its plans and Africom, expected to reach its full complement of 1,300 by the end of next year, began work from Stuttgart, home of the existing European command, although officials clearly expect to open a base in Africa sometime in the future. It also pushed U.S. officials to emphasise that there was no hidden agenda, that Africom would not threaten the sovereignty of any nations and that a base would not be built in Africa without the full agreement of potential host nations. They also said half of Africom’s leadership would be composed of civilian agencies including the State Department. Africom’s stated aim is to help African countries face everything from natural disasters to terrorism and its targets will including drug trafficking, arms smuggling and the kind of piracy now plaguing the waters off Somalia. Experts say U.S. forces have been cooperating quietly for years with African armies, particularly in the Horn of Africa and the Sahel where rebel and al Qaeda-affiliated groups operate. They say Africom got a bad press initially because it was associated with heavy-handed U.S. policy in Somalia and as part of the U.S.-led ”War on Terror”, but now Pentagon officials are treading more carefully, realising how sensitive Africans are about suggestions Washington is trying to dominate.
Do you believe U.S. assurances about Africom or is it the thin end of the wedge, a precursor to a boosted American military presence on the continent that could attract rather than deter terrorist attacks and infringe on the sovereignty and independence of African nations?
Trackback
52 comments so far
Previous | 3 | 2 | 1 | Next
The African continent was the battleground for the superpowers proxy-wars during the Cold War. Each side was trying to place their dominance on the continent in order to cause second and third order effects elsewhere in the world. As the world changed to bring about the end of the Cold War, so did Africa. With the leaving of the superpowers militarily, that left a vacuum of power to be filled by autocratic leaders, transnational criminal organizations; that deal with drugs and human trafficking, and transnational corporations to influence fragile African democracies.
Now, America is trying to pay greater attention towards Africa than ever before with the establishment of AFRICOM. In the past, it has been strictly either a military or diplomatic focus. Now, with the establishment of AFRICOM, there is the fusion of both elements to assist in such areas as: conflict prevention, humanitarian assistance/aid, and military education and training.
For example, the US Army has sent soldiers to assist Sahel nations in the War on Terror by training the host nation’s forces in identifying and combating individuals who do not attack purely military targets, but of innocent civilians. In Sub-Saharan Africa, US Army was also present in Uganda training Ugandan soldiers in counterterrorism techniques. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ agency/dod/acri.htm). At the invite of the host nation, the US Army tries to mentor the soldiers far beyond the tactics, but also in the importance of respecting civil authority and the importance of human rights. Like any other US force conducting training with a host nation, a Medical Civic Action Program (MEDCAP) can accompany the detachment to provide medical aid to the surrounding communities. (http://newsblaze.com/story/200602151918 30tsop.nb/topstory.html)
The U.S. Army is currently supervising the training of the new Liberian Army, by private companies, making sure that it meets the standards and supports the Liberian government’s goals of protecting the nation and preventing Liberia in becoming a catalyst to regional destabilization.
(http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/ 2008-04/2008-04-14-voa40.cfm).
These are just a few positive examples of the joint partnership being established by AFRICOM with African nations. AFRICOM is not purely a “combat command”, but a command to prevent conflict and expand peaceful relations with African nations. Only the regional hegemonies, who are satisfied with the current situation, will continue to obstruct such a productive partnership. AFRICOM is a new command to conduct new missions focusing on a joint venture with Africa to establish a safe, stable, and productive setting for people, governments and nations to thrive.
William Brown
- Posted by William Brown30D
I have read the press releases by Africom and by those that hate the US, the local news articles, the blogs. The Chinese and Russian reaction, even the UN.
All are dsiturbed, but no one offers real solutions on how to direct American policy in Africa.
Assuming that America’s presence in Africa is as Inevitbal as the presence of Russia, China, or Arab Imperialist activity,
What would helps is a real, useful list of recommendations you can give American foreigh policy for African countries.
“don’t come” is as short of helpful as “tax the remitances from western countries to Africa with a export tax”
…We know neither of those things are going to happen.
So, if everyone is through “venting”, lets get on with real solutions….
- Posted by Shimron IssacharI think Africom would be more usufull and very helpfull to protect western interests than the Africans’. America should in fact maintain its long term presence in Africa in order to show some influence and blockade the increasing power of China in Africa. Even though U.S. seems to be losing and dying body in the world’s championship, but it also gives a relevant view about its addiction to take more and give less.
- Posted by Mahad DiriehI am utterly dismayed at some of the ignorant and illinformed statements people have posted (Dan). if you were to do some research you would realise that you come from a country that is ruthless beyond ruthlessness, a country that has caused utter mayhem and devestation in many parts of the world and that all that is to protect the interest of your country.
the text above states:
“Africom’s stated aim is to help African countries face everything from natural disasters to terrorism and its targets will including drug trafficking, arms smuggling and the kind of piracy now plaguing the waters off Somalia.”
if that were truly the case, the cost of this operation would never be recovered, it would be an expensive and pointless act( in the eyes of many politicians). Nobody is synical in say that there are covert aims.
- Posted by peterChimaoge Okezue conveniently forgets about the Russian and Chinese involvement in the conflicts in Africa or did these countries merely provided “support”. i have done business in a number in African countries and in 90% if not more of all cases money need to change hands before anything can be done. If these co-called leaders will stop lining their pockets and off-shore bank accounts and start looking after their people, things will look a lot different in most countries. If the western world and the US are so bad for Africa, then please stop accepting any aid from these countries as well. Accept the aid and support but make sure it goes where it is supposed to go!
- Posted by HendrikRefreshing to listen to two level headed exchanges with out aimless anger and angst;…while this debate will run in a multitude of directions, I tend to agree with Nduka’s analysis at least in short term consideration…it pretty much has to play out along these lines. However the aggressive, evolving shape of the global political landscape may well dictate that while the US and it’s Africom type approaches to foreign affairs has surely suffered a serious down turn, which didn’t start yesterday and won’t end tomorrow;… along the way, it’s go-to allies even the reluctant ones around the world, who by association suffer the same down turn… are feeling just a bit more exposed today than yesterday. Presumably they will,…eventually find their own political ways to come to the aid of their preferred arms dealer.
My sense is the bully pulpit from which they work today will be a little less used as you indicate but only for a period of short years and quite possibly very short, at which point the basics of that nation will kick in again and it will be business as usual no matter the administration of the day. The question is how long a lull…and will mutually acceptable agreements and guidelines for Africom type deals you feel might be achievable during that lull, manage to stand up once their perception of recovery is complete!
- Posted by DougChimaoge, naivety does not come into this. The Ameriacan economy is going down, as the German finance minister said, the USA has ceased to be the financial power house of the world. The USA is realising or would eventually realise that the world has moved on and that countries aint going to put up with conditions, threats and bullying tactics. Some people can deal with power in a responsible way and some do get power drunk. Africom can be beneficial to Africa if our leaders stand strong and lay down laws, Iraq is an example, the USA army unruly behaviour has been cut short due to the Iraqis government refusal to sign an extension because of an immunity clause that the USA want but the Iraqis wont give. Basically an Africom with guidlines and rules is not a bad thing.
- Posted by Nduka TolefeAt least with the Chinese, Brazilian and Indian involvement in Africa, we can be sure that their motives are purely about economics and business. But USA’s motives are usually economical as well as political and that superpower has never had any scrupules about covertly overthrowing democratic (or dictatorial) governments of African nations whenever they felt that their vested interests were not adequately protected.
- Posted by Chimaoge OkezueIf USA was able to sponsor war in Angola, Mozambique and collaborate with Belgium in the overthrow of a democratically elected government in DR.Congo without US soldiers ever setting foot in these places, imagine what US government can do with AFRICOM troops on African soil.
My fear is that we may start witnessing French-style military internventions in African countries in the guise of “spreading/protecting democracy”. Of course, the main difference between the French and US interventions is that France sticks to its former african colonies while the USA will potentially target any African nation where US economic/business interests are at risk.
Nduka, based on past US track record, it is very unlikely that AFRICOM will accomodate the interest of African nations. Like in the past, we are likely to become “collateral damage” in a new US government struggle to retain/gain influence and control over resources with emerging giants like China and India and even a resurgent Russia.
- Posted by Chimaoge OkezueAs recently as 2005/2006, America and the UK kept a blind eye while Uzbek dictator Islam Kamirov tortured people to death because the tyrant provided Military bases for US troops in Afghanistan and provided promixity to Russia. Craig Murray, British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, was harassed for exposing this embarrassing story of US-UK complicity in the media. Eventually he was sacked and US was finally forced to speak against the tortures.
You are naive if you think that US policy of vested self-interest will accomodate our interests at all.
Easier said than done mr Buffalojump, the problem is America needs resources in order to maintain its big military, gas guzzlers and its economy. Its wishfull thinking on your part if you think that the USA can survive on its own, the world needs Africa as much as Africa needs the world and we ought to be able to work together without conditions, superiority complex and unfair practises. An Africom who looks after it’s own interests whilst also accomodating others interest is welcome, irrespective of what you read here.
- Posted by Nduka Tolefepoint taken Buffalojump
Stay where you are wanted , you peodophiles of the world you will end up screwing everybody dogs, hogs , and frogs
- Posted by mary kidyausikuIt wouldnt take time before we here American Soldiers raping people in villages and towns as you always do.
Why dont you concentrate on your own life and live us concentrate on ours? Peodophiles ?
The US should reduce it’s involvement in any armed conflict area of the world. It is a no win situation and costs the US too much $$$$. World human right issues should not be the responsibility of the US.
If there are concerns closer to Europe, let the Europeans deal with it and so on.
Spend US $$$ at home. Secure the Mexican boarder with our troops. The Canadian border is fine. Why would they want to cross into the US when they already have a better life and social systems like health care.
The point concentrate on the US and close friends.
- Posted by buffalojump