May 30, 2007
Posted by xcroc under Africa command
, foreign policy
, proxy war
, US military base
Leave a Comment
Darfur – It’s about the oil.
The US started the current conflict in Darfur over oil, by funding military aggression, a proxy war, using Chad. As part of this proxy war, the US has continued to arm the larger of two rebel groups, the SLM. China needs oil, and now possesses 1.2 trillion US dollars in its banks. The oil business is done in dollars, and China has plenty. China has been making loans to African governments with no strings attached. This has shored up authoritarian rulers. But China has also funded and helped build schools, roads, and other infrastructure projects in the African countries with which it is dealing.
Over the last 3 decades, the United States and the big oil companies have completely wasted the opportunities they had to build and cement long term positive relationships in Africa. The US government and Big Oil have preferred arrogance, neglect, and single minded exploitation. They have used “military assistance” to deal with anyone who they think may stand in their way.
With the Nigerian government unwilling to build infrastructure in the Niger Delta, Shell could have done this relatively cheaply on its own, in partnership with local communities. Shell should have been less arrogantly careless about polluting the land and the water. It would have cost more. But if Shell had been willing to think long term, it would have paid off more. US support for the grotesque government in Equitorial Guinea is both foolish for long term US interests, and morally inexcusable. And former support for Savimbi and Unitas in Angola was another moral abomination that achieved nothing but death and suffering.
F William Engdahl details the history and describes the present situation in Darfur and Sudan:
(The) present concern of the current Washington administration over Darfur in southern Sudan is not, if we look closely, genuine concern over genocide against the peoples in that poorest of poor part of a forsaken section of Africa.
Instead, we now have:
. . . a new Cold War over oil, where the dramatic rise in China’s oil demand to fuel its booming growth has led Beijing to embark on an aggressive policy of – ironically – dollar diplomacy.
. . .
China is using no-strings-attached dollar credits to gain access to Africa’s vast raw material wealth, leaving Washington’s typical control game via the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) out in the cold. Who needs the painful medicine of the IMF when China gives easy terms and builds roads and schools to boot?
. . .
China has been generous in dispensing its soft loans, with no interest or as outright grants, to some of the poorest debtor states of Africa. The loans have gone into infrastructure, including highways, hospitals, and schools, a stark contrast to the brutal austerity demands of the IMF and World Bank.
. . .
This oil-related Chinese diplomacy has led to the bizarre accusation from Washington that Beijing is trying to “secure oil at the sources”, something Washington foreign policy has itself been preoccupied with for at least a century. No source of oil has been more the focus of China-US oil conflict of late than Sudan, home of Darfur.
. . .
With its oil demand growing by an estimated 30% a year, China will pass the US in oil import demand in a few years. That reality is the motor driving Beijing foreign policy in Africa.
. . .
Merchants of death -
The United States, acting through surrogate allies in Chad and neighboring states has trained and armed the Sudan Peoples’ Liberation Army, headed until his death in July 2005 by John Garang, trained at the US Special Forces school at Fort Benning, Georgia (the notorious School of the Americas).
By pouring arms into first southeastern Sudan and since discovery of oil in Darfur into that region as well, Washington fueled the conflict that led to tens of thousands dying and several million driven to flee their homes.
. . .
The Pentagon has been busy training African military officers in the US, much as it has trained Latin American officers for decades. Its International Military Education and Training program has provided training to military officers from Chad, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Cameroon and the Central African Republic.
Much of the arms that have fueled the killing in Darfur and the south have been brought in via murky, protected private “merchants of death” such as the notorious former KGB operative, now with offices in the US, Victor Bout, who has been cited repeatedly in recent years for selling weapons across Africa. US government officials strangely leave his operations in Texas and Florida untouched despite the fact he is on the Interpol wanted list for money laundering.
US development aid for all Sub-Saharan Africa, including Chad, has been cut sharply in recent years while its military aid has risen. Oil and the scramble for strategic raw materials is the clear reason. The region of southern Sudan from the Upper Nile to the Chad border is rich in oil. Washington knew that long before the Sudanese government.
. . .
Chad oil and pipeline politics -
Condoleezza Rice’s Chevron is in neighboring Chad, together with the other US oil giant, ExxonMobil. They’ve just built a $3.7 billion oil pipeline carrying 160,000 barrels per day from Doba in central Chad, near Darfur, via Cameroon to Kribi on the Atlantic Ocean, destined for US refineries.
To do it, they worked with Chad “President for life” Idriss Deby, a corrupt despot who has been accused of feeding US-supplied arms to the Darfur rebels.
. . .
Supplied with US military aid, training and weapons, in 2004, Deby launched the initial strike that set off the conflict in Darfur. . . . The US military support to Deby in fact had been the trigger for the Darfur bloodbath. Khartoum reacted and the ensuing debacle was unleashed in full, tragic force.
. . .
The Chinese economic presence in Chad, ironically, may be more effective in calming the fighting and displacement in Darfur than any AU or UN troop presence ever could. That would not be welcome for some people in Washington and at Chevron headquarters, as they would not secure the oil.
Chad and Darfur are but part of the vast China effort to secure “oil at the source” across Africa. Oil is also the prime factor in US Africa policy today. George W Bush’s interest in Africa includes a new US base in Sao Tome/Principe, 124 miles off the Gulf of Guinea, from which it can control Gulf of Guinea oil fields from Angola in the south to the Democratic Republic of Congo, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Cameroon and Nigeria. That just happens to be the very same areas where recent Chinese diplomatic and investment activity has focused.
. . .
Darfur and Chad are but an extension of the US Iraq policy “with other means” – control of oil everywhere. China is challenging that control “everywhere”, especially in Africa. It amounts to a new undeclared Cold War over oil.
There is much more information in the article, and it is well worth reading. The information in this article is available in bits and pieces in a variety of sources. Mr. Engdahl has put it together with succinct precision.
I think two of the particularly telling quotes from the article are:
US development aid for all Sub-Saharan Africa, including Chad, has been cut sharply in recent years while its military aid has risen.
The Chinese economic presence in Chad, ironically, may be more effective in calming the fighting and displacement in Darfur than any AU or UN troop presence ever could.
The cuts in US development aid, with increased military aid, is exactly the wrong way for the US to go, both in terms of US interests, and African interests. This is what the US did in the Cold War, and accomplished nothing good. This will cause enormous harm. In this context, the Africa Command appears to be an extension of the disastrous Iraq policy. I hope the US can find more positive ways to make friends and secure markets. The Iraq approach is an obvious and miserable failure. The American brand could become popular and successful again, but only if the US is willing to act in mutually beneficial fashion. So far the Cheney hand on foreign policy has steered relentlessly in the wrong direction.
May 27, 2007
May 23, 2007
Charles Onyango-Obbo of the East African tells us a bit of truth, and gives us something to smile over, concerning the legacy of Paul Wolfowitz at the World Bank.
Half the world seems to have come down on Wolfowitz from the time the scandal broke. Typically, a British columnist wrote, “In contemplating the near downfall of Wolfowitz, it’s hard to know whether to laugh to cry. Does one weep at the outrageousness of it all: the president of the World Bank, self-appointed apostle of ‘good governance’ and scourge of corruption, caught in a blatant act of nepotism and cronyism – exactly the vice he wants to stamp out in Third World countries his government lends money to??”
. . .
While the World Bank has done some good, it is an imperial institution supremely unaccountable in its relationship with poor countries. Not too long ago, in many African countries, the second most powerful person after the president was not the army commander or the vice president, but the World Bank country representative.
The policy prescriptions of the Bank (of which I support the ones on economic liberalisation) and loan conditions could neither be reviewed nor questioned by elected parliaments and cabinets.
The longer Wolfowitz held on, the more the Bank would have been disgraced. In the process it would have come to seem ordinary and less intimidating. Indeed, it could be argued that by the time Wolfowitz leaves in June, the World Bank will have been much diminished.
To regain its prestige, it will have to eat humble pie and relaunch itself as an institution that listens. The democratisation of the World Bank that campaigners and critics have fought for for decades, could finally be around the corner.
In scandal, Wolfowitz may have done more to reform the Bank than if he had been scrupulously honest. We have to thank an African woman, Riza, for these blessings. And the best part is that there’s an international whispering campaign that the person to save the Bank today is another African – South Africa’s Finance Minister Trevor Manuel.
May 22, 2007
Africom – it’s about the oil. It has always been about the oil. Peaceful and secure living conditions for the residents of the Gulf of Guinea have nothing to do with it. See the recent headline in Bloomberg:
Securing African Oil a Major Role for New Command
May 18 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. military’s new Africa command will help safeguard West African nations’ oil and other energy production against rebel or terrorist attacks, the general organizing the command said today.
The U.S. wants to help countries such as Nigeria, its fifth- largest supplier of oil, improve its military’s ability to thwart the kind of attacks by militants (my emphasis, see the quotations about the militants below) who in the past year halted production by about 600,000 barrels a day.
“You look at West Africa and the Gulf of Guinea, it becomes more focused because of the energy situation,” U.S. Army General Bantz Craddock, head of the European Command, told reporters in Washington. Safeguarding energy “obviously is out in front.”
This kind of safeguarding will have the opposite effect of its alleged intentions. None of us will be safer. Of course farther down in the article is a bit of the cosmetic coverup:
U.S. lawmakers’ will likely examine whether the command’s mission is well defined and ensure that training and equipment provided to African security forces isn’t used to suppress internal dissent or threaten other nations, Lauren Ploch, an analyst for the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, said in a May 16 report.
Unfortunately, it looks like the US military already has a hand in suppressing internal dissent (consider Nigeria and Equitorial Guinea) and threatening other nations (consider Somalia.) I’m hoping the Democratic congress will look at this more critically. Though I’m not holding my breath. And I’m hoping if we get a Democrat in the White House, it will be someone who understands you can’t do diplomacy with a military force. Diplomacy must be lead by diplomats, people who talk, who talk for a living, who can make deals, and who keep talking.
Four US oil workers, being held hostage in the Niger Delta, were recently allowed to talk to reporters. The US has worked with the Nigerian Federal Government and labelled the Delta protestors as terrorists. The hostages had been held 11 days at the time of the interview. I have watched and read many interviews with hostages and captives. The words of these four are the most passionate endorsement of their captors cause I have heard. Stockholm syndrome aside, in their circumstances it would be foolish to be critical of ones captors. But what these four have to say has already been reported in many other sources, and there is power and conviction in their words.
Stop treating Niger-Delta people like animals, 4 American hostages tell FG (Nigerian Federal Government) By Emma Amaize, Regional Editor, South-South Posted to the Web: Saturday, May 19, 2007
The hostages: Mike Roussel (anchor operator), Chris Gay (anchor operator), Larry Plake (anchor operator) and Kevin Faller (barge foreman), all workers of Global Industries, a Lagos-based oil servicing company to the Chevron Nigeria Limited (CNL) spoke to the Saturday Vanguard exclusively in the base camp of the militants, Thursday evening.
. . . “the people are starving; they want schools for their children. That is the most important to them. They want jobs also, they don’t have money. Just look at the water they bath with and drink, which tells you right away that something has to be done.
“I want the Nigerian government to bring us out of here to enable me go home to my family as soon as possible. The government should come in here and try to help these people out and their children. Everybody needs education because without education, you have nothing and here, they don’t have schools”, he said.
Kevin Faller, who quivered, as he spoke said he had learnt many lessons from his stay so far in the creek. In his words: “Yes, I have learnt many things, the nature of how these people are being treated, how they have to live and you see, everyone is a human being and not an animal and these people deserve the good things of life like others too. There is no way they would not be provoked to carry arms and do what they are doing when they are not provided with basic amenities.
“They are very poor and from what I can see, there are no schools, hospitals, no roads and if something happens, it will take a long time to get to the hospital and maybe, the person being rushed to the hospital will die before they get there. It hurts to see human beings live the way these people are living in the Niger-Delta, no one deserves to live like this”, he added.
. . .
“our eyes have been opened to a lot of things we didn’t know about the sufferings of the Niger-Deltans. The militants have showed us a lot of things that we did not know before of their position. Things like how they live, how they are treated and all that, it is not right, I must say.“They have nothing. And what they have at all is from their own land. Have you not seen their houses, they bring down trees to make their ramshackle buildings, they bath and drink from the same water they pollute. The food they eat here, we cannot eat it.
“I want the government to understand the plight of these people first. Let the eyes of the leaders of Nigeria be opened on the real problems of the Niger-Delta people. It is only when their eyes are really opened that they can tackle it. A human being does not have to live the way these people are living in the creek. They should have schools, hospitals, houses to live, not these ramshackle huts they live in, not things they have to build like what we have seen. There should be electricity and spring water. In fact, so many things are missing here”, he asserted.
Meanwhile, the militarization continues:
Nigeria, others raise special force on Gulf of Guinea
Abuja, Nigeria, 05/19 -
Nigeria and seven other countries have set up a special force to monitor their common interests in the oil-rich Gulf of Guinea, the Defence Minister Thomas Aguiyi-Ironsi, has said. The Minister told a briefing here Thursday, the establishment of the Gulf of Guinea Guard Force (GGGF) by Nigeria, Cameroon, Equatorial-Guinea, Sao Tome and Principe, Gabon, Angola, DR Congo, and an unnamed country, (emphasis mine) had become imperative because of growing interest of the international community in the area.
. . .
“The Gulf of Guinea with an estimated 30 billion barrels of crude oil reserve is the largest single bloc of crude oil deposit in sub-Saharan Africa and it is fast becoming an important and strategic area in the emerging global oil politics,” the Minister added.
Gee, I wonder who that unnamed country could be? And who are they defining as potential enemies? It does not look good for the people who live in the Delta.
From the crawl along the top of the home page of United Ijaw:
****”The Nigerian State tolerates leaders from the Niger Delta so long as they support the enslavement of their people. But the moment they show signs of independent thinking and preparation for action or opposition to the negative policies of the Nigerian State, all the coercive apparati of State power and might are brought to bear on them without pity or without human touch”….Gani Fawehinmi****
****Only the fear of a volcanic social eruption from below can stop barbaric behaviour by holders of political power – Gani Fawehinmi ****
May 20, 2007
A quote from Gandhi: “We must be the change that we want to see.”
From a street mural in Esteli Nicaragua.
Once again the US is getting it backwards. The neocons running US foreign policy like to think the end justifies the means. When people say the end justifies the means, they miss the point entirely.
The means you use determine the ends you get. Military means beget military ends, diplomatic means beget diplomatic ends, violent means beget violent ends, democratic means beget democratic ends. There are a few exceptions, but if you base your planning on assuming you will be the exception, it is the same as basing your financial planning on assuming you will win the lottery.
UPI reports that Africom is seeking 25 percent of the billets in the new command to be filled by the departments of State, Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services and other agencies. Those agencies, who have generally seen their budgets slashed, are not eager to anti up. Why should they turn over scarce resources to the Pentagon whose budget is gargantuan in comparison to theirs? Supposedly:
AFRICOM will be untraditional in that its staff will focus not on preparations for military action in Africa but instead on stabilizing governments, training their militaries, encouraging their economies and helping governments address destabilizing problems like AIDS and famine. AFRICOM’s aim is less to be prepared for military conflict than it is to avert the possibility of it.
Recent actions against the government of Somalia and Somali citizens, and the alliance with Nguema in Equatorial Guinea, put the lie to these claims of helpful intentions.
Army Gen. Bantz Craddock, EUCOM commander appears to understand what is needed. As a member of the US armed forces, I am sure he is doing his best to fulfill his mission. Unfortunately, the mission itself is flawed. As he says:
“Very few (of Africa’s) challenges can be solved by the department of the military,” Craddock told reporters Friday. “It’s Health and Human Services, Commerce, Department of Justice, Energy, Agriculture.
Diplomatic and technical problems need to be addressed with diplomacy and technology. If the US wants to address the real challenges in Africa, it needs to do so with skilled diplomacy, working through the State Department, allied with other departments of the US government who can bring their expertise. The US must show by example it believes in what it preaches. Military assitance yields militarized results.
One way to understand Gandhi’s words is that in order to effect change, one must assume the nature of the change one wishes to effect. In other words, the word justify is irrelevant, the means determine the ends.
May 19, 2007
May 17, 2007
Bad judgment is Dick Cheney’s trademark.
. . .
What is always overlooked with Dick Cheney is how he performs when he arrives in his various jobs. The answer is, in truth, not very well.
. . .
An examination of Cheney’s career reveals that it is marked by upward mobility and downward performance.
. . .
The issue of Dick Cheney’s judgment must be raised because he is the catalyst, architect, and chief proponent of Bush’s authoritarian policies.
. . .
It was Cheney, and his mentor, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who convinced Bush to go to war in Iraq.
(from: Conservatives Without Conscience, by John Dean, ISBN 0-670-03774-5, p.159-161)
This is the background on Dick Cheney, as Josh Marshall writes in Vice Grip:
Dick Cheney is a man of principles, disastrous principles.
. . . mistakes–on energy policy, homeland security, corporate reform–abound. Indeed, on almost any issue, it’s usually a sure bet that if Cheney has lined up on one side, the opposite course will turn out to be the wiser. Yet somehow, in Washington’s collective mind, Cheney’s numerous stumbles and missteps have not displaced the reputation he enjoys as a sober, reliable, skilled inside player.
Cheney is conservative, of course, but beneath his conservatism is something more important: a mindset rooted in his peculiar corporate-Washington-insider class.
. . . few groups are so accustomed to self-dealing and self-aggrandizement as the cartel-capitalist class. And few are more used to equating their own self-interest with the interests of the country as a whole.
May 16, 2007
Posted by xcroc under Africa command
, Bush administration
, foreign policy
, proxy war
, US military base
Leave a Comment
2006 victory in Somalia of the Islamic Courts
I remember reading or hearing that everything that guns can do for a country, they have done for Somalia. Of course the guns don’t get there by accident. And the US is throwing its weight behind expanding violence on the Somalis. The satirist Jesus’ General calls the Bush/Cheney foreign policy the “Glorious Eternal War to Resubjugate Brown People“, and the more one watches, the more this description appears to be literal truth and not a joke.
Somalia has been a failed state for well over a decade. That is why northern, mostly European countries can dump nuclear and toxic waste off Somali shores, waste that was washed up and strewn about by the tsunami, left to be cleaned up by people with no protective gear.
I remember a couple of years ago I was talking about doing business back home with a Somali cab driver. He said he would really like to go back home and set up a business. But with the endless cycle of war, anytime you establish a business, some group comes along and seizes or destroys what you have built. To try and do business in these circumstances is pointless.
And now the US is compounding the problem, allegedly in the name of fighting Al Qaeda, but Al Qaeda has not found a welcome or a haven in Somalia. Somalia is hostile to Al Qaeda. And the US is sponsoring its Ethiopian proxies, an army of Ethiopian Christians fighting Somali Muslims (does the word crusade ring a bell?) trying to reinstall a hated and non-functioning warlord government.
Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda has failed for more than a decade to establish an operational base in Somalia due to the country’s austere environment and inhospitable clans, a new U.S. military report says.
. . .
“Al Qaeda found more adversity than success in Somalia,” states the report by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point. “In order to project power, al Qaeda needed to be able to promote its ideology, gain an operational safe haven, manipulate underlying conditions to secure popular support and have adequate financing for continued operations. It achieved none of these objectives.”
. . .
“Al Qaeda is predominately an Arab organization, and Arabs tend to stick out in Somalia, so it’s difficult for them to establish large covert bases. The only thing they (Somalis) hate more than their own homegrown radical Islamists casting themselves as holier-than-thou are foreign terrorists coming in and telling them they are not good Muslims and acting holier-than-thou.”
But this does not stop Bush/Cheney from killing wounding and displacing hundreds of thousands of people. At present the number of refugees that have fled Mogadishu in the last few weeks is around 400,000. The US bombed civilians allegedly to kill or capture the bombers of the embassy in Kenya. As Chris Floyd writes:
Bush killed dozens of Somali civilians in bombing raids on fleeing civilians in an attempt to knock off a couple of the alleged dastards. He failed, of course; but at least the men, women and children who had their guts ripped out and their heads blown off and their limbs torn from their bodies died in a good cause. . .
The Somali “regime change” op intensified last month when Bush’s Ethiopian proteges launched a ferocious attack on resistance forces in the capital of Mogadishu. Tanks and artillery rained shells on residential areas, killing hundreds of people and driving hundreds of thousands more from the city. Many fled toward Kenya, where most were turned away, and others were captured by Kenyan security forces and American agents, then “rendered” to torture chambers in Ethiopia. The victims included a pregnant Swedish woman and a New Jersey man.
But don’t worry, neither of them were white, so it’s OK. If they had been of paler hue, of course, perhaps the Bush-backed bloodbath would have attracted more than a modicum of carefully massaged notice in the American media.
The US bombed civilians, and has monitored the conflict from its base in Djibouti. The Guardian tells us:
The Islamic Courts government was popular in Mogadishu after bringing relative order and driving out clan warlords responsible for 16 years of death and mayhem.
. . .
Washington encouraged the Ethiopian military – at the “invitation” of Somalia’s interim national government which was so unpopular it was unable to remain in Mogadishu – to invade and oust the Islamic Courts administration. The new Somali government includes some of the warlords who previously caused so much destruction.
Bush/Cheney will only allow a Somali government if it is composed of these warlords. The Islamic Courts are not a government I would want to live with, but some rule of law, and some order, is far better than none. The Guardian continues:
A report by the Royal Institute of International Affairs said that US and Ethiopian strategic interests in supporting a weak and factionalised government that is far less popular than the Islamic Courts administration are an obstacle, not a contribution, to rebuilding Somalia.
“In an uncomfortably familiar pattern, genuine multilateral concern to support the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Somalia has been hijacked by unilateral actors – especially Ethiopia and the United States.” (emphasis mine)
(added May 17) Its about the oil, the same reason as the destruction and occupation of Iraq. Remember the Iraqi Hydrocarbon Law? As Carl Bloice says in US Sponsored Bombing of Somalia: The Hidden War for Oil:
Actually, there is no more reason to believe the Bush administration promoted this war, in clear violation of international law and the UN Charter, ‘to catch a handful of al-Qaeda men’, than that the invasion of Iraq was to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. What has unfolded over the past three months flows from much larger strategic calculations in Washington.
The invasion and occupation of Somalia coincided with the Pentagon’s now operational plan to build a new ‘Africa Command’ to deal with what the Christian Science Monitor dubbed ‘strife, oil, and Al Qaeda’. . . .
Last week came the news that the US now imports more oil from Africa than from the Middle East; with Nigeria, Angola and Algeria providing nearly one-fifth of it – more than from Saudi Arabia. . . .
On file are plans – put on hold amid continuing conflicts – for nearly two-thirds of Somalia’s oil fields to be allocated to the US oil companies Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips.
It was recently reported that the US-backed prime minister of Somalia has proposed enactment of a new oil law to encourage the return of foreign oil companies to the country.
May 14, 2007
In 1986 Mr Reagan welcomed Savimbi to the White House and talked of Unita winning “a victory that electrifies the world and brings great sympathy and assistance from other nations to those struggling for freedom”.
I remember back in the 80s and early 90s my friends and I would joke about getting US military assistance to back us up in our petty arguments with each other. Military assistance seemed to be readily available to anyone who claimed to be anti-communist. Reagan and Bush Senior didn’t care about your goals or behavior if you said you were anti-communist. But our joking was also a cover for our shock at the suffering and destruction US military assistance created.
In 1988 Ronald Reagan said:
In a region as underdeveloped as Africa, which has relatively little access to private sources of capital, our ability to achieve our objectives depends in very significant measure on effective economic and security assistance programs. Too often security assistance is portrayed as a tradeoff against support for development. In Africa, this distinction is particularly ill-founded. Our security assistance programs promote a stable political and economic environment that permits the exercise of individual choice and the development of human talent. Without that environment, sustained development is not possible.
. . .
U.S. military training programs are an invaluable instrument for promoting professionalism and respect for human rights. The exposure to Western values that comes from such programs may foster a respect for the United States and democratic institutions among individuals who play a key role in determining the level of freedom and stability in African countries. Many of these programs also contribute to economic security.
Just how well did that turn out? Can we point to a single country in Africa that benefitted from Reagan’s military assistance? Is there a single country in Africa that Reagan “assisted”, either overtly or covertly, whose people are more successful and better off now than they were then? Has respect for human rights improved? In fact the opposite of his words has proven true, and security (military) assistance has been a huge tradeoff for development. And development, and respect for human rights, have suffered or died all over as a result.
Before Bush Junior the US had moral authority in the world, despite the actions of some US governments. Bush Junior has thrown that all away.
Compare Reagan’s words to the words of Theresa Whelan the deputy assistant secretary of defense for African affairs announcing the creation of the Africa Command:
A U.S. Africa Command would work at “preventing problems from becoming crises and crises from becoming catastrophes,” Whelan said. “Instead of the United States being reactive, … we want to be more proactive in promoting security, to build African capacity to build their own environments and not be subject to the instability that has toppled governments and caused so much pain on the continent.”
Her words sound very much like Reagan’s. They may be very well intentioned, but the approach is wrong. The result will be far different from what the words describe, just as Reagan’s results were far different than the sunny vision he described, witness the work of “Dr.” Savimbi in Angola.
When Jimmy Carter was elected president, he announced that support for fundamental human rights would be the foundation of US foreign policy. The US shone as an example for all the world as a country who takes seriously the rights of human beings everywhere. But this genuine commitment to human rights was lost when Reagan was elected. And commitment to human rights has been missing in every Republican government since. People talk about human rights, but only to cover their less benign intentions and behavior.
Carter sought to spread democracy through diplomacy, while the neoconservatives now seem to embrace aggressive and unilateral intervention in foreign affairs.'”
(Conservatives Without Conscience, by John Dean, ISBN 0-670-03774-5, p.100)
And that is the chief problem with Africom, it was created by people who have an aggressive authoritarian view of the world, and who do not believe in equality. No matter how good and well intentioned US soldiers are, Africom is military assistance. With Africom, what we get is military policy, not diplomacy. Without genuine diplomacy, it is not possible to foster stability or development.
May 12, 2007
May 9, 2007
For comprehensive information about avian flu, what you need to know, and what you may need to do, see the Flu Wiki. The Flu Wiki, fluwikie.com, brings together all the information about avian flu, where it is, what is happening, what you can do, and any other news and developments.
The arrival of bird flu in Tema is most unfortunate. The virus has already circled the globe through the migrations of birds, so it can break out anywhere. If a pandemic flu hits, we can expect around 30% of ourselves and our neighbors to become ill and incapacitated. This will have a devastating effect on commerce, government, the water, food, and energy supplies, because around 30% of the workers will be ill and unable to work. H5N1, when it does effect humans, kills 56% of the people who get it. Luckily, so far, it is not easy for humans to get, although it can be devastating for domestic poultry.
The one circulating now in Asia and Africa and Europe in birds is H5N1, a particularly nasty character that kills more than 56% of those people who get it. While ducks and other birds can get H5N1 and live, it’s especially deadly to chickens and domestic poultry. It’s very difficult to catch, and even more difficult for humans to spread because the receptors in human airways for the current H5N1 are deep in the lungs of humans and not in the nose and throat.
. . .
We don’t fully understand exactly how flu is spread, but the above basics apply. However, should something happen that would make a novel bird flu like H5N1 easier to spread, such as having the virus mutate to a form that likes the nose and upper airway receptors (so that it’s easy to catch and easy to spread by sneezing), or prefers the temperature of the human nose, it could start to spread in a human population.
. . .
This has happened before. in fact, in 1918-9 H1N1 spread around the world, killing 50 million people. There were milder pandemics in 1957 and 1968, and we really haven’t seen one since, at least on that scale. But since we get around three each century, we are due, and that’s why scientists say that a pandemic of some sort is inevitable.
If you are worried about bird flu, can you eat poultry? Here is what the World Health Organization has to say about that:
Is it safe to eat poultry and poultry products?
In areas experiencing outbreaks, poultry and poultry products can also be safely consumed provided these items are properly cooked and properly handled during food preparation. The H5N1 virus is sensitive to heat. Normal temperatures used for cooking (70oC in all parts of the food) will kill the virus. Consumers need to be sure that all parts of the poultry are fully cooked (no “pink” parts) and that eggs, too, are properly cooked (no “runny” yolks).
Consumers should also be aware of the risk of cross-contamination. Juices from raw poultry and poultry products should never be allowed, during food preparation, to touch or mix with items eaten raw. When handling raw poultry or raw poultry products, persons involved in food preparation should wash their hands thoroughly and clean and disinfect surfaces in contact with the poultry products Soap and hot water are sufficient for this purpose.
In areas experiencing outbreaks in poultry, raw eggs should not be used in foods that will not be further heat-treated as, for example by cooking or baking.
Avian influenza is not transmitted through cooked food. To date, no evidence indicates that anyone has become infected following the consumption of properly cooked poultry or poultry products, even when these foods were contaminated with the H5N1 virus.
May 6, 2007
Posted by xcroc under Africa command
, Bush administration
, foreign policy
, Gulf of Guinea
, US military base
Leave a Comment
DAVE CLARK/AFP/Getty Images ODIOMA, NIGERIA: A villager walks through the ruins of the southern Nigerian community of Odioma, a fishing and trading centre, and a historic centre for the Ijaw people in the oil-rich Niger Delta. It was burned to the ground on 19 February 2005 by government troops. 17 people were reported to have been killed and two women raped when soldiers raided the town of Odioma. The attack was ostensibly to arrest members of an armed vigilante group suspected of killing 12 people, including four local councillors. Some of the raiders were reported to have been recruited by a sub-contractor of Shell’s subsidiary in Nigeria and to be responsible for security in an area where oil exploration was being conducted, despite their alleged criminal record. The suspects were not captured but 80 per cent of homes in Odioma were razed. . . . “We have nothing… If we protest, they send soldiers. They sign agreements with us and then ignore us. We have graduates going hungry, without jobs.” Eghare W.O. Ojhogar, chief of the Ugborodo community in Delta State
Here is the core of the debate over African oil development:
- Can oil revenues be made to work for Africans or will they profit only the corrupt few?
- Are oil revenues destined to fuel civil wars and pay for the abuse of human rights or can they build peace and prosperity?
- Is oil development in Africa’s interest or in the interest of the United States (or, I would add, can the two interests be balanced)?
- Can African oil and gas reserves be exploited without harming the environment, or is the expansion of the world’s oil-based economy ultimately inimical to our collective future on this planet?
There has been an enormous amount of contact and activity between the US and African countries in recent months.
From oil rich northern Angola up to Nigeria, from the Gulf of Guinea to Morocco and Algeria, from the Horn of Africa down to Kenya and Uganda, and over the pipeline routes from Chad to Cameroon in the west, and from Sudan to the Red Sea in the east, US admirals and generals have been landing and taking off, meeting with local officials.
They’ve conducted feasibility studies, concluded secret agreements, and spent billions from their secret budgets. Their new bases are not bases at all, according to US military officials. They are instead “forward staging depots”, and “seaborne truck stops” for the equipment which American land forces need to operate on the African continent. They are “protected anchorages” and offshore “lily pads” from which they intend to fight the next round of oil and resource wars, and lock down Africa’s oil and mineral wealth for decades to come.
. . . it’s about the oil. And the diamonds, and the uranium, and the coltan. But mostly about the oil.
When we ask the question; is oil development in Africa’s interest or in the interest of the United States? I would argue that unless it can be made in the interest of both, it is in the interest of neither. Unfortunately, the leadership in both places seems to have very little interest in the well being of the people they govern. And the leadership in both the US and in Africa seem to be thinking very short term. Even those countries in Africa that have some form of democracy, seem to want to practice something closer to a Bush administration style kleptocracy, rather than practicing more representative democracy.
And without more local and democratic participation in the decision making, and the profits, we have an unfolding environmental nightmare that is a political nightmare as well.
“West Africa alone sits atop 15% of the world’s oil, and by 2015 is projected to supply a up to a quarter of US domestic consumption.” A foretaste of American plans for African people and resources in the new century can be seen in Eastern Nigeria. US and multinational oil companies like Shell, BP, and Chevron, which once named a tanker after its board member Condoleezza Rice, have ruthlessly plundered the Niger delta for a generation. Where once there were poor but self-sufficient people with rich farmland and fisheries, there is now an unfolding ecological collapse of horrifying dimensions in which the land, air and water are increasingly unable to sustain human life, but the region’s people have no place else to go.
. . .
In a typical gesture of disregard for local black lives and livelihoods, the natural gas which sits atop many oil deposits but is more expensive to capture and process than petroleum is simply burned off or flared at African wellheads. Throughout the 1990s it is estimated that 29 million cubic feet per day of Nigerian natural gas was disposed of in this manner. Many of the flares, according to local Niger delta residents, have burned continuously for more than twenty years, creating a toxic climate of acid fogs and rains, depositing layers of soot and chemicals that stunt or kill ocean and riverine fish and livestock, and poison the few surviving crops. For this reason, flaring at oil wells has long been outlawed in the US. But many African communities near the mouth of one of the planet’s largest rivers are now entirely dependent on water trucked in from outside.
. . .
Local Africans are demanding respect and a share in what is after all, their oil. They are now routinely, viciously suppressed in eastern Nigeria, in Equatorial Guinea and elsewhere, by African troops trained and equipped with American tax dollars. When resistance continues, as it certainly will, America is preparing to up the ante with more American equipment, with military and civilian advisers, with bombs, bullets and if need be, with American bodies. That’s what AFRICOM is about, and what it will be doing in the new century.
I hope this is an unduly pessimistic view. But keep in mind that it’s the Bush administration that is “looking after” US interests here. With the history of western involvement in Africa in mind, which continues to the present day, and the track record of Bush/Cheney, this pessimism looks like matter-of-fact realism, maybe even sunny optimism.
This is probably the single largest foreign policy-related failing among American politicians and members of the policy and media elites: A failure to make a serious effort to ask how things look from the perspective of other countries.
May 5, 2007
May 4, 2007
The Council of Foreign Relations has published a Backgrounder on The Pentagon’s New Africa Command.
Though Africom will be led by a top-ranking four-star military general, unlike other regional commands, its deputy commander will be a State Department official.
. . .
Even if interagency personnel are brought into the command, it is not clear how instrumental they will be in the command’s decision-making process.
. . .
Some defense officials say that Africom could function like the interagency task force within Southern Command; in that structure, interagency members have the authority to make decisions without consulting Washington.
. . . lack of information extends to other aspects of the command.
Before Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense, the US had the best trained and best equipped military in the world. There are many smart people in the military, patriotic people who understand the ideals and principles on which the country was founded: representative democracy, and the rule of law. Many soldiers understand these principles far better than the people currently running the US government. Training and cooperative agreements with the US military might be very beneficial in many countries, improving professionalism and competence.
Unfortunately, Rumsfeld and Cheney are the creators of the Africa Command. These two have never been right about anything in US policy. With Bush, they have broken the US military in Iraq, and it will take decades to recover. Their destructive incompetence has damaged or destroyed everything it has touched.
With all the talk of good intentions and cooperation, the actual deeds we can see do not look good. Immediately after the announcement of the creation of Africom:
. . .the Bush administration organized the overthrow of the first stable government Somalia has had since 1991, stirring up a hornet’s nest of regional rivalries in the strategic Horn of Africa.
And then there is Equatorial Guinea. It has huge oil deposits, and its leadership has been been described by a variety of human rights organisations as among the worst abusers of human rights in Africa.
Given the modest population size of Equatorial Guinea, about half a million people, one might expect there to be plenty of money for everyone by way of revitalizing the economy and building up infrastructure. But most Equatoguineans are malnourished, typically with no running water or electricity. Malaria and yellow fever are rampant. The average life expectancy is 54. Sewage runs free on the streets of Malabo, the capital city, and there is no public transportation. Most citizens eke out a living, as best they can, farming rice, yams, and bananas
. . .
For 1998, the IMF, which Obiang stated will never learn how much money he takes in, calculated that Obiang’s government received $130 million in oil royalties. The government had only reported $34 million (9). This record of mismanagement of revenues has led the World Bank and the IMF to discontinue many aid programs since 1993
. . .
African officials claimed that international oil interests influenced the U.N.’s decision to stop regular human rights monitoring in the troubled country.
The US government is good friends with Nguema in Equatorial Guinea, and US military assistance to date seems intent on shoring up his repressive regime.
The country is unstable, desperately poor, and run by a repressive government that is being challenged by a persistent armed resistance. . . With extensive “under-governed spaces” as potential terrorist havens and bordering countries with equally uncertain futures, the country was termed “a model country for security assistance” by the regional combatant command. Civilian embassy officials, however, are demonstrably less keen. They question the rate at which military programs are rapidly escalating and the sizable and still growing presence of U.S. military personnel in-country. . . It would be a major setback if the United States were to be implicated in support of operations shoring up the repressive regime, regardless of the stated intent of such training.
This is exactly what the US should not be doing. It is exactly what the delegations traveling around Africa are claiming is not happening, and that this is not the intention of Africom. But even if US citizens are not informed, other people around the world can see what is going on. And it does not look good.
May 2, 2007
The US is doing much to try and alleviate fears, and give its new Africa Command, Africom, a positive image in Africa. US military personnel have been visiting a number of countries, and there are reports in the press in all these countries, all saying pretty much the same thing as this from Jane’s Defense Weekly:
The main focus of the command will not be military operations; rather, it will emphasise training programmes, civil affairs and the professionalisation of African armed forces.
A delegation of senior US officials recently visited Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal and South Africa to help explain and clarify the concept to African governments.
Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Ryan Henry said on 23 April that the visits were intended to clear up ‘misunderstandings’ about the scope and mission of the new command and better explain US strategy in the region.
“One [misunderstanding] is that [the establishment of] AFRICOM does not mean that there would be additional US forces put on the continent,” he said. “It is an organisational and a staffing structure; it is not an operational entity. It will co-ordinate the efforts of operational forces but those would principally be in the areas of joint exercises.”
This is press release speak that sounds helpful, but no one is saying what is being discussed behind the scenes. Unfortunately there are plenty of worrisome precedents in US foreign policy.
The Safari Club was a regional alliance put together under Henry Kissinger. It came to light in documents revealed after the 1979 Iranian revolution. It was formally created Sept. 1, 1976, and signed by heads of intelligence agencies of France, Egypt, Iran, Morocco, and Saudi Arabia. The focus of the Safari Club was Africa.
The Safari Club vindicated the essence of the Kissinger perspective: the constraints of democracy at home required that the United States work through proxies in the international arena.
. . .
As they looked for ways to bypass legislative restrictions on the freedom of executive action, these ideologues embraced proxy wars enthusiastically and terrorism gradually. (emphasis mine) CIA chief William J Casey eventually took the lead in orchestrating support for terrorist and prototerrorist movements around the world – from Renamo in Mozambique to Unita in Angola, and from contras in Nicaragua to the mujahideen in Afghanistan – through third and fourth parties. In a nutshell, . . . the US government decided to harness and even to cultivate terrorists in the struggle against guerrillas who had come to power and regimes it considered pro-Soviet.
(from Good Muslim, Bad Muslim by Mahmood Mamdani, pp 84-88, hardback ISBN#:0-375-42285-4)
Does this sound familiar? Substitute the words pro-Al Qaeda, or anti-Big Oil, for pro-Soviet, and it looks a lot like Bush policies. Proxy wars don’t require more US forces on the continent. The early announcements about Africom made it clear that oil and terrorism were the main reason for creation of the command. Africom could make it much easier to manipulate and guide proxy wars.
The big question I see is, will anyone who questions the legitimacy of US oil interests be labeled a terrorist? And does that label justify a by any means necessary, read terrorist, response? That has been the approach and argument of Bush and Big Oil so far.
The Bush administration has worked very hard to avoid or destroy the constraints of democracy at home and abroad, even while preaching democracy to others. Their behavior in Iraq tells us that oil interests are more valuable than lives, including more valuable to them than American lives.