From: wolda002@umn.edu
Date: Mon Jul 21 2008 - 23:33:18 EDT
http://washingtonindependent.com/view/u-s-africa-relations
U.S.-Africa Relations to Militarize?
Report Finds Jobs Once Performed by Ambassadors Moving to Pentagon
By Matthew Blake 07/21/2008 | 3 Comments
When President George W. Bush toured Africa in February, he found African
leaders steering the conversation to the Pentagon's new U.S. Africa
command, or Africom.
Africom is slated to begin operations in September. It marks the Pentagon's
first centralized operation for Africa, like the Defense Dept. now has, for
example, Eucom for Europe or Centcom for the Middle East. The Pentagon,
though, has envisioned using Africom as more than a military command. It is
designed to help build U.S. soft power in Africa, through what it calls
"active security" missions -- like building schools and digging wells.
(Matt Mahurin) To many African political leaders, this sounds a lot like an
imperialist enterprise. They say Africom's "active security" will result in
the construction of military bases across the continent in order to
interfere with sovereign political systems -- and access the region's oil
reserves. Currently, the Pentagon has only one African base, at Dijbouti in
the perpetually unstable, resource-poor Horn of Africa.
On the last day of his six-day tour, Bush finally addressed the topic of
Africom, telling the president of Ghana, John Kufour, that it was "baloney"
and "bull" that Africom will mean U.S. military bases in Africa.
Bush's denials were continued last week by Pentagon officials who
steadfastly repeated at a Congressional hearing Tuesday that Africom will
follow the wish of almost every African country and not build military
bases.
Left unanswered from the Bush administration, though, is what, then,
Africom will do. A government audit released at the hearing indicates that
there is great confusion between the Pentagon and State Dept. over whether
Africom means that military officials, instead of relief workers and
ambassadors, will work on Africa's humanitarian and economic issues like
combating AIDS and poverty. Without a clear plan, the administration has
left itself vulnerable to critics, who think Africom will exploit Africa's
oil, and to lawmakers, who are simply confused.
"There is no strategy here that anybody can pinpoint or put a budget on,"
said Rep. John Tierney (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform's National Security and Foreign Affairs
subcommittee, which held the hearing.
"It's not clear to me what's happening here," said Rep. Betty McCollum
(D-Minn.). "I wish we knew if it was a mission to help Africa with its
problems or have Africa help the U.S. with our problems."
The new Government Accountability Office audit released Tuesday explained
that Bush announced the creation of Africom in February 2007 as a way to
provide a U.S. military presence on the continent -- but one that wouldn't
engage in conflicts. Instead, the military would do "conflict-prevention
programs," ranging from training African military officers to conducting
HIV/AIDS education.
Africom is also a response to what the president called the "emerging
strategic importance" of Africa, in terms of both counterterrorism
operations and China's growing relationship with the continent. The
president's fiscal-year 2009 budget has put $400 million toward launching
Africom.
But, as the GAO explains, Africom has set off alarm bells among both
Africans and Americans already working in Africa. State Dept. officials as
well non-governmental organizations are concerned that the Pentagon's
active security and conflict-prevention missions will be "militarizing U.S.
foreign policy." U.S. assistance to Africa has been traditionally left to
ambassadors, the State Dept's U.S. Agency for International Development and
groups like the Red Cross.
Africom has also upset African nations who equated the planned construction
of five Pentagon offices in Africa with the implementation of military
bases and U.S. troops patrolling the continent. Anxious about bases, all 53
African countries, except Liberia, have said they don't want a U.S.
military command in their country. Instead, Africom's headquarters will be
in Stuttgart, Germany, until at least 2011.
Maj. Gen, Michael Snodgrass, the chief of staff for the U.S. Air Force
Africa Command, said at the hearing that the military will "absolutely not"
build bases in Africa. And Theresa Whalen, dep. assistant secretary of
defense for African affairs, told lawmakers, "I totally and completely
disagree that Africom does non-military operations."
So Africom appears to be scaling back some of its original humanitarian
ambitions. But what that leaves the military command doing is not known.
The GAO report notes that between February 2007 and March 2008, "Africom's
mission statement went through several iterations that ranged in its
emphasis on humanitarian-oriented activities to more traditional military
programs."
The result is uncertainty at the State Dept. and in Africa.
"State Dept. officials said that they had difficulty in responding to
African's concerns," the report stated, "Because of their own confusion
over Africom's intended missions and goals."
This lack of understanding has bred suspicion that an increased military
presence in Africa is about African oil. Lauren Ploch, Analyst of African
Affairs at the Congressional Research Service, noted at the hearing that
the U.S. now extracts as much oil from Africa as from the Middle East.
Nigeria alone is expected to produce about a quarter of the oil imported to
the U.S. by 2015. Ploch's testimony notes that the Pentagon has identified
assuring a stable, U.S friendly government in Nigeria as a key African
goal.
"Bush is starting to look past the Middle East to Africa as the source for
oil," said Emira Woods, a foreign-policy expert at the liberal Institute
for Policy Studies and a critic of Africom.
But if the Bush administration has any plans to use Africom as a vehicle
for oil, it was not mentioned by Pentagon officials Tuesday. Instead, the
hearing was bogged down in Defense Dept. denials about military bases and
rarely discussed the original motivations for Africom.
The creation of Africom stemmed from the work of a planning team led by
former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. The team spent part of 2006,
Rumsfeld's final year at the Pentagon, on how to establish a centralized
command of Africa.
Rumsfeld worked from the White House's 2006 national security strategy
report that said it's a U.S. priority to "partner with Africans to
strengthen fragile and failing states and bring ungoverned areas under the
control of an effective democracy." One idea to promote Democratic
institutions in Africa was through the creation of provincial
reconstruction teams similar to those currently rebuilding Iraq.
But the Pentagon officials at the hearing appeared to be still sorting
through how civilian construction assistance, counterterrorism and many
other Africom-related ideas will be implemented.
"We're talking about a continent that has 900 different languages and
cultures," said Snodgrass, the Air Force's chief of staff for Africom. "It
is an extraordinarily diverse set of cultures and interests that we're
trying to understand and work with."
"OK, then," Tierney said to laughter. "We'll give you a week or two more to
look at it."
Actually, the Pentagon has until September.
Comments:
poeticjustice
Posted 07/21/2008 10:09am with +0 votes
It is worth while for journalists to explore this topic, and a key
ingredient that should be addressed is: how is this development related to
China’s move into Africa? What conflicts can we expect? Does China have a
“State Department” equivalent in Africa?
ajm8127
Posted 07/21/2008 11:47am with +0 votes
The humanitarian effort sounds like a ruse just like the confirmation of
WMDs in Iraq and the fact that Iraq had a direct link with al Qaeda. It
seems like the Bush administration, after securing their interests in oil
in Iraq, is ready to move on and disrupt more people’s lives for the sake
of having free flowing oil. Not only is this bad for the people of those
nations, but it does nothing for our dependence on foreign oil. Also,
keeping all that oil flowing will give consumers no reason to cut back, or
explore other technologies. Burning fossil fuels is, of course, not helping
climate change. Do we forget where Bush came from? He has a history of
interest in oil in the private sector, and I kind of think he’s keeping his
interests alive as president, at the cost of the nation.
tahut
Posted 07/21/2008 01:15pm with +0 votes
To steal a quote from the movie Time Bandits…this Administration is so
mercifully free from the ravages of Intelligence.
If they wanted to have a covert military presence in Africa, then using the
State Department Embassies would be their perfect cover. It amazes me how
juvenile this group is when it comes to foreign relations in other
countries.
When you use a military force to prosecute diplomacy you end up alienating
everything you come in contact with. All stick and no carrot doesn’t make
friends you can count on. Iraq and Afgan are fine examples of what happens
when force trumps diplomacy.
This country is like the Boy Scouts…in dire need of adult leadership.
--
Million.
Mpls MN
***HeGeRey ZBeLet LBe GhiDN'u Kt'ReKeBi AsBei***
AWET N'HAFASH!!!
----[This List to be used for Eritrea Related News Only]----