|
|
Africa: Africom vs. Peacekeeping
 |
 |
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
AfricaFocus (Washington, DC)
ANALYSIS
14 March 2008
Posted to the web 17 March 2008
Washington, DC
The Bush administration budget for fiscal year 2009 (Oct 2008 to Sep 2009), yet to be approved by Congress, allocated $1,300 million for bilateral military programs related to Africa, including $400 million for the new AFRICOM military command, covering all of Africa except Egypt.
In comparison, $1,497 million is proposed for the U.S. share of UN peacekeeping operations, leaving the U.S. $1,772 million in arrears on its UN peacekeeping obligations, in addition to some $700 million in arrears on the regular UN budget.
A coalition of U.S. NGOs is strongly opposing this acceleration of U.S. military involvement in Africa, with a campaign to Resist Africom (http://www.resistafricom.org). But so far few Washington policymakers have challenged the administration's presentation of the command as necessary for anti-terrorism and useful in supporting peace and development.
Even though the U.S. bilateral budget does include some support for peacekeeping operations, critics say that the military bias will, as in the past, contribute to human rights abuses and ongoing conflict rather than promoting security based on African needs.
The record of U.S. bilateral military engagement, whether in Africa or elsewhere in the world, provides little evidence to support the view that the effects will be positive. Those who support AFRICOM should have the burden of proof to the contrary. If anyone can cite an example of successful U.S. bilateral military engagement in terms of promoting peace and reconstruction, in the period since the post-World War II reconstruction of Germany and Japan, AfricaFocus would welcome referrals to evidence of such cases.
This AfricaFocus Bulletin contains a recent article on AFRICOM from Foreign Policy in Focus (http://www.fpif.org), an update on the U.S. budget and UN peacekeeping from the Better World Campaign (http://www.betterworldcampaign.org), and an article by Daniel Volman on military aspects of the Bush administration budget proposals.
Militarizing Africa (Again)
Daniel Volman and Beth Tuckey | February 21, 2008
Editor: John Feffer, Foreign Policy In Focus
FPIF analyst Daniel Volman is the director of the African Security Research Project in Washington, DC, and a member of the board of directors of the Association of Concerned Africa Scholars. He is the author of numerous articles and research reports on U.S. military activities in Africa. FPIF Analyst Beth Tuckey is the associate director of Program Development and Policy at Africa Faith and Justice Network (AFJN) in Washington, DC.
In February 2007, President Bush announced that the United States would create a new military command for Africa, to be known as the Africa Command or AFRICOM, to protect U.S. national security interests on the African continent. Previously, control over U.S.
military operations in Africa was divided between three different commands: European Command, which oversaw North Africa and most of sub-Saharan Africa; Central Command, which had responsibility for Egypt and the Horn of Africa; and Pacific Command, which administered the Indian Ocean and Madagascar.
The new command set up shop in Stuttgart, Germany in October 2007, as a sub-command of the European Command, and is scheduled to become a separate, fully independent command in October 2008. The Pentagon intends to establish a headquarters or set of regional headquarters on the African continent. But Liberia is the only country that has publicly offered to host AFRICOM, and the issue remains unresolved.
|
The Pentagon claims that AFRICOM is all about integrating coordination and "building partner capacity." But the new structure is really about securing oil resources, countering terrorism, and rolling back Chinese influence. Given AFRICOM's emphasis on defense over diplomacy, resistance to the initiative is possible not only from civic movements but even the U.S. State Department.
Real Reasons for AFRICOM
Professional military officers have made it clear that the new Africa Command has three main purposes. First and foremost, the new command's main mission is to protect American access to Africa's oil and other resources, preferably by enhancing the ability of African allies to guard these resources themselves on behalf of the United States. But, to prepare for the day that Washington decides to try to use American troops in a desperate bid to keep them flowing, the United States is also acquiring access to local African military bases and dramatically expanding its naval presence off Africa's coastline, especially in the oil-rich Gulf of Guinea region. Imports from Africa are expected to reach 25% by 2015, making Africa one of the largest future suppliers of U.S. oil - larger even than the Persian Gulf.
Look at it from any perspective, Africom is created from the desire by the US to acquire black Africa's natural resources by force and it will ultimately end up destroying and OBLITERATING THE BLACK RACE.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Make allAfrica.com your home page | RSS Feed | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Top | Site Guide | Who We Are | Advertising | Search | Subscribe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Questions or Comments? Contact us. Read our Privacy Statement. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
