Africa News blog
African business, politics and lifestyle
Were NATO strikes on Gaddafi’s home town justified?
Britain’s defence secretary, Liam Fox, sounded a little scripted in Misrata at the weekend when I asked him whether NATO’s airstrikes in Muammar Gaddafi’s home town of Sirte were staying within its remit to protect civilians in Libya.
“NATO has been extraordinarily careful in target selection.”
“NATO has been very careful to minimize civilian casualties.”
“NATO has stayed within its mandate throughout.”
It’s a mantra that NATO, and the countries that have contributed to its Libyan adventure, have had to learn well. They’ve been accused of stretching the legality of the mission “to protect civilians by all necessary measures” before.
But the problem with sticking to a script, is that the Libyan conflict hasn’t really progressed with any sort of predictable narrative since the fall of Tripoli on the night of August 23rd.
If the then rebels of the now ruling National Transitional Council (NTC) expected that internal insurrections would help them and they’d race into Gaddafi’s hometown of Sirte and the other remaining holdout, Bani Walid, to a hero’s welcome, they were mistaken.
Is U.S. Africom good or bad for Africa?
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?
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
30D
“Were NATO strikes on Gaddafi’s home town justified?”
Of course. Unless Sirte was prepared to be starved into submission to protect Gadaffi’s miserable skin, and the moralisers willing to watch.
The revolutionary forces pleaded on behalf of the residents of Sirte with Gadaffi’s frontmen for months, but they made almost no concessions to the general welfare. Gadaffi’s neck was more valuable. After that, the sooner it ended the more lives were saved.
As for the bombing itself, the details are far from clear. Much o9f the so-called ‘residential’ areas struck were in fact either evacuated or not even finished. And the attack on Sima hospital is a legal minefield for Gadaffi aplogists, since his forces were installed within, making it a military target.