Concerns are raised that African armies’ newly acquired skills and equipment are more likely to be directed against domestic opponents than against global terrorists

The following article appeared in the March-April issue of NewsNotes, the bimonthly publication of the Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns.
By September 2008, the Department of Defense will create a new U.S. Africa Command headquarters, to be known as AFRICOM. According to an article on the State Department website, it will coordinate all U.S. military and security interests throughout the continent. President Bush said it will “enhance our efforts to bring peace and security to the people of Africa and promote our common goals of development, health, education, democracy, and economic growth in Africa.”

The Defense Department uses its unified regional commands to coordinate U.S. military interests worldwide. The new AFRICOM will encompass the entire continent of Africa except for Egypt, which falls under U.S. Central Command. AFRICOM also will include the islands belonging to Equatorial Guinea, as well as the islands of Cape Verde and Sao Tome and Principe, and the Indian Ocean islands of Comoros, Madagascar, Mauritius and the Seychelles.

U.S. officials claim that by creating AFRICOM, the Defense Department will be able to coordinate better its own activities in Africa, as well as the work of other U.S. government agencies, particularly the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development. Regional commands are typically focal points for all U.S. government interactions in a given region.

Officials say that this decision reflects the long-term strategic value of Africa and is not aimed at protecting oil, fighting Islamist militants or countering China’s growing involvement on the continent. Theresa Whelan, deputy assistant secretary of defense for Africa affairs, specifically said that the creation of AFRICOM is not a response to recent military actions in Somalia.

At the same time, official documents and statements referring to AFRICOM discuss the importance of a coordinated U.S. government effort in sub-Saharan Africa to “mitigate ungoverned regions and promote development and health polices.” The draft mission statement for the new command emphasizes “working with African nations to encourage stability and help prevent future conflicts.” It reads in part: “U.S. Africa Command promotes U.S. national security objectives by working with African states and regional organizations to help strengthen stability and security in the AOR .”

Many U.S. policy observers are worried about an increased militarization of U.S. policy toward Africa. The Center for International Policy writes about the “establishment of an African military command – AFRICOM— to spearhead an ‘oil and terrorism’ policy, which will oversee the deployment of U.S. forces in the area and supervise the distribution of money, materiel and military training to regional militaries and proxies. Pentagon analysts and generals claim that vast ‘uncontrolled spaces’ in Saharan and Sahelian Africa … are rife with terrorists seeking to damage the United States, even though the evidence for such claims is woefully thin.”

CIP raises the specter that given internal security problems and existing tensions in several African countries, newly acquired skills and equipment are more likely to be directed against domestic opponents than against global terrorists. Some would say that democracy and civilian rule in some countries will be in jeopardy. Furthermore, the U.S., in its relentless pursuit of oil, it is likely to “replace one set of insecurities with another.”
While the new command’s assigned tasks will include building partnerships, enhancing humanitarian assistance, disaster mitigation and response, fostering respect for human rights, and supporting African regional organizations, it also is charged with “increasing counter-terrorism skills of partner nations, conducting region-wide security cooperation and military operations, if necessary.”

The Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns is deeply concerned about this development. In extreme emergencies and natural disasters, logistical support from the U.S. military can be very helpful, but we strongly oppose the militarization of U.S. foreign policy. We have seen the deadly impact in Latin America when “newly acquired skills and equipment” from U.S. government military maneuvers and training programs (from, for example, the U.S. Army School of the Americas - now the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation) (see SOA Watch for more information) were viciously “directed against domestic opponents.” U.S. relationships with the people of Africa and their governments and U.S. foreign assistance programs should be based on global “good- neighborliness,” not on U.S. national security or economic interests.

For additional information, see Convergent Interests: U.S. Energy Security and the “Securing” of Nigerian Democracy by Paul M. Lubeck, Michael J. Watts and Ronnie D. Lipschutz, February 2007.