Afri … um EuroAfriCom

/in , /by

Scout prime has been tracking something I’ve been watching, too. The new AfriCom military command? Well, the entire continent of Africa has told us, "no, thanks."

The Pentagon’s plan to create a US military command based in Africahave hit a wall of hostility from governments in the region reluctantto associate themselves with the Bush administration’s "war on terror"and fearful of American intervention.

A US delegation led by RyanHenry, principal deputy under-secretary of defence for policy, returnedto Washington last week with little to show for consultations withdefence and foreign ministry officials in Algeria, Morocco, Libya,Egypt, Djibouti and with the African Union (AU). An earlier round ofconsultations with sub-Saharan countries on providing secure facilitiesand local back-up for the new command, to be known as Africom and dueto be operational by September next year, was similarly inconclusive.

The Libyan and Algerian governments reportedly told Mr Henry that theywould play no part in hosting Africom. Despite recently improvedrelations with the US, both said they would urge their neighbours notto do so, either. Even Morocco, considered Washington’s closest northAfrican ally, indicated it did not welcome a permanent militarypresence on its soil.

"We’vegot a big image problem down there," a state department officialadmitted. "Public opinion is really against getting into bed with theUS. They just don’t trust the US."

The article cites public opinion and the desire to avoid building obvious terrorist targets in their countries. But I suspect two more things are at work, too. We’re not going to establish an AfriCom headquarters without negotiating an agreement with the host country that gives our soldiers some immunity from local law enforcement, gives us a big financial bonus for establishing the headquarters, and a whole bunch of other goodies. (Read Chalmers Johnson’s Nemesis if you’re interested–here’s a taste.) Once upon a time, such an arrangement was a good acceptable deal for the host country because, well, the US was the uncontested hegemon of the world.

But now, particularly in Africa (where Hu Jintao has been very busy making friends in recent years), that’s no longer true. So I suspect that, when faced with the opportunity to cede a good deal of sovereignty so the US’ cowboys can come in and push local folks around, that doesn’t look like such a great deal anymore.

image_print
  3. Anonymous says:

    My bet? Getting turned down by the most popular means they’ll have to settle for the…ahemmm…â€less†popular.

    They’ll still be going to the prom, but they won’t be interested in getting their picture taken.

  4. Mike in Denmark says:

    Wow, the hegemon is truly falling. Latin America is electing socialists again, Africa is turning to China who is growing more and more powerful with the help of your money and Europe is ashamed by your unwillingness to work on the problems the world is facing in every other aspect than the military one. That’s a lot to throw away in less than 20 years.

  5. Anonymous says:

    A friend kindly alerted me to your post. It is very nice to see some interest in AFRICOM. It presents grave dangers for both the US and Africa.

    US military assistance in Africa has poured arms into the continent for several decades. Most Africans see Africom, and troops stationed in Africa as an attempt at recolonization, to coopt oil and other resources. To paraphrase Henry Stanley about the Ashanti king, explaining the British Ashanti wars, Africa is too rich a neighbor to be left alone.

    William Hartung and Bridgit Moix wrote Throughout the Cold War era, from 1950 to 1989, the United States delivered over $1.5 billion worth of weaponry to Africa. Many of the top U.S. arms clients –Liberia, Somalia, the Sudan, and Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo or DRC) — have turned out to be the top basket cases of the 1990s in terms of violence, instability, and economic collapse.

    The Bush administration has been pouring arms into Africa since Sept. 11.

    This reflects the views of many Africans – Isdore Guvamombe writes Having tried to effect illegal regime change in over 50 countries in addition to invading 35 others in 56 years, the U.S. made its bed and so must lie on it.

    And those of us who have been around awhile remember, as Mamdani tells us in in Good Muslim, Bad Muslim:
    Renamo: Africa’s First Genuine Terrorist Movement:

    Renamo was created as a terrorist outfit by the Rhodesian army in the early 1970s and was patronized by the South African Defense Forces after the fall of Rhodesia in 1980 . . . it never ceased to use terror with abandon.

    (The alliance of UNITA) . . . with apartheid South Africa opened it (Unita) to learning the tactics of (Renamo’s) terrorism by example. . . . In sharp contrast to its unabashed support for Unita, the US government never openly supported Renamo. But this did not rule out collaboration between the political right in the United States and representatives of Renamo: â€Renamo’s Washington office shared an address with the Heritage Foundation†and by 1987, right-wing pressure â€brought Senate Minority Leader Robert Dole into the pro-Renamo camp.â€
    . . .
    (The reason for US sponsored terrorism, backing Unita in Angola, was) . . . if only the level of collateral damage could be made unacceptably high, the people would surely vote the terrorists into power as the price of peace.
    . . .

    Political terror had brought a kind of war never before seen in Africa. The hallmark of the terror was that it targeted civilian life: blowing up infrastructure such as bridges and power stations, destroying health and educational centers, mining paths and fields, and kidnapping civilians – particularly children – to press-gang them into recruits. Terrorism distinguished itself from guerrilla struggle by making civilians its preferred target . . . What is now termed collateral damage was not an unfortunate by-product of the war; it was the very point of terrorism.

  6. brat says:

    Yeah, I’m surprised that the US is surprised. The countries of Africa have no desire to be yet another colonial proxy.

    Jeez–the Bushies really are incredibly stooooopid.

  8. Anonymous says:

    OT: The NYT had a piece yesterday about the Hunt Oil deal with the Kurds:

    “We believe these contracts have needlessly elevated tensions between the K.R.G. and the national government of Iraq, […] The senior official said the State Department had advised Hunt Oil, before the signing, that contracts with the Kurdistan Regional Government might contravene Iraqi law once national oil legislation was passed by the Iraqi Parliament. “We think they are legally uncertain,†the official said of Hunt’s contracts with the Kurdistan government.

  9. radiofreewill says:

    The TomDispatch article on Johnson’s Nemesis tastes like the bitter Truth, but it fits the Bush MO of [Pleasure for Me Now/Pain for You Later].

    Vengeance for Hubris and Arrogance is a Face Plant for the Ideologically Blind and Deaf.

    It’s frightening that the Bush Loyalists can’t ’see’ that there is no level high enough – no Power, no Money, no Position – high enough to be ’safe’ from the historically documented Resource Collapse of trying to ’Control’ everything on a Global Scale:

    Empire = Doom

    Democracy = Recovery

    Let’s keep ringing the Liberty Bell of Clear Seeing and working the help our Brothers and Sisters recover their senses.