August 31, 2007
SADC, the 14-country Southern African Development Community, has said NO to hosting the US Africa Command, as Defence Minister Mosiuoa Lekota said on Wednesday.
There is broad consensus among African countries that foreign forces – specifically in the form of the United States’ new African Command – would not be welcomed to establish themselves on the continent.
Defence Minister Mosiuoa Lekota expressed this sentiment Wednesday . . .
. . . Africa has to avoid the presence of foreign forces on her soil,” Mr Lekota told reporters on Wednesday.
“If there was to be an influx of armed forces into one or other of the African countries, that might effect the relations between the sister countries and [would] not encourage an atmosphere and a sense of security,” he added.
. . .
In reply to a question as to whether this decision had been communicated to the United States, he indicated that a decision made by the continental body, the African Union (AU), would likely be communicated by the Addis Ababa administration through the relevant channels.
. . .
Should a particular country choose to break ranks with this decision, he said: “I would imagine that any country that wants to go against the decision of the Africa Union would consider what the implications might be – where other sister countries may refuse to cooperate with it in other areas other than that particular area.”
This is very good news. This is a NO to occupation, recolonization, and imperialism. It is still not a big enough no, but it is a step in the right direction. And it makes things a little more difficult for any other country to host Africom, or any who might be enticed in that direction.
The following comment provides more detail, so I have copied it into this post.
transcript of lekota’s stmts here
zambia’s president mwanawasa, also the chair of the SADC, announced that his nation was turning down a request to provide a u.s. military base
Zambia refuses US military base
The Zambian government has turned down a request by the United States to establish a military base in the South African country.
“As Zambia, we will not be giving sanctuary and I think I can speak on behalf of the SADC region that none of us is interested,’ said President Mwanawasa, while rejecting United States’ plan to establish a military base in his country.
no word on zambia’s previous agreements to allow u.s. military planes to refuel at zambian airfields (“lily pads”) or its partner status in the u.s. ACOTA and IMET programs.
By 1:29 PM, September 01, 2007
August 28, 2007
Full Spectrum Dominance
Full spectrum dominance is not the method of a democracy. Full spectrum dominance IS imperialism. It is at direct odds with democratic principles. When a country espouses democracy, this should be the approach of last resort, if at all. It may be an appropriate approach for a military organization. The military has a more narrow and specific mission. However, the US has a civilian government. A democratic government should avoid wars when possible, and only engage as a last resort. Although it has migrated away from democratic institutions and principles, the US still preaches democracy. With luck it will alter its direction and return to democratic principles. It still has the tools. The military needs to support and uphold the principles of democratic government, at home and around the world.
“Full-spectrum dominance” is the key term in “Joint Vision 2020,” the blueprint DoD, Department of Defense, will follow in the future.
Full-spectrum dominance means the ability of U.S. forces, operating alone or with allies, to defeat any adversary and control any situation across the range of military operations.
. . .
Joint Vision 2020 addresses full-spectrum dominance across the range of conflicts from nuclear war to major theater wars to smaller-scale contingencies. It also addresses amorphous situations like peacekeeping and noncombat humanitarian relief. Key to U.S. dominance in any conflict will be what the chairman calls “decision superiority” — translating information superiority into better decisions arrived at and implemented faster than an enemy can react.
The development of a global information grid will provide the environment for decision superiority.
In fact Joint Vision 2020 involves the dominance of space.
Control of Space (CoS) is the ability to ensure un-interrupted access to space for US forces and our allies, freedom of operations within the space medium and an ability to deny others the use of space, if required.
. . .
Global Engagement (GE) is the combination of global surveillance of the Earth (see anything, anytime), worldwide missile defense, and the potential ability to apply force from space.
. . .
Full Force Integration (FFI) seamlessly joins space-derived information and space forces with information and forces from the land, sea, and air.
. . .
Global Partnerships (GP) augment the military’s space capabilities by leveraging civil, commercial, and international space systems. This operational concept results from the explosive growth of commercial and international space capabilities.
After reading this I thought that for the military, full spectrum dominance is the obvious goal in any military scenario. The problem is that the present US government, the Bush administration, sees every scenario as a military scenario. A military approach or “solution” should be the last resort. For Bush, it is the first choice. And full spectrum dominance is not just about scenarios, it is about controlling the whole globe, imperial control of the whole world, from and including space.
The Bush administration has been following an economic policy designed to make the US the economic equivalent of Argentina in the 50s and 60s, spending huge amounts of borrowed money that do not contribute to increases in productivity or infrastructure, a rich country making itself poor. The result has weakened the country and severely weakened the military. The Bush war on science has damaged the US scientific and technological edge. The stature of the US as a global leader has been severely damaged by the unprovoked occupation and destruction of Iraq. And because of all the money wasted in Iraq, the US is farther away from any positive accomplishment or constructive goal.
The US needs to find a political solution to its relationship with just about every country in the world. And it needs an internal political solution to its own dreadful behavior.
Because of oil, and a number of other extractive resources, but mostly the oil, the US has set its sights on full spectrum dominance in Africa. At the same time celebrity condescension and “humanitarian” ad campaigns portray Africans as afflicted and helpless. By painting Africans as people unable to help themselves, the celebrity humanitarian narrative, and the media attention it gets, make it much easier for nations, specifically the US, to engage in imperial acquisition in the name of humanitarian aid and development. And that is exactly the purpose of the Africa Command, and why it keeps describing itself in terms of diplomacy and humanitarian aid. (Pay no attention to the fact that by pouring arms into Africa throughout the cold war, and by backing terrorist organizations in Africa, the US contributed more than its share to the destabilization and suffering in many African countries. This continues through the present.
Those days are gone, as a friend says. Although the US can, and it looks like it plans to, make things very unpleasant in the short term. African countries now have people who can and will push back effectively.
To see a few of these people, and a more positive and productive vision, check out TED Global 2007 (TED = Technology, Entertainment Design) and listen to some of the speeches by Africans at TED Themes – Africa the next chapter. I’ll probably write about these again.
August 14, 2011: To date President Obama has continued and expanded these Bush policies, and has expanded the ongoing militarization of Africa through the Africa Command.
August 26, 2007
In Ramblings of an African Geek, Kwasi provides as neat and clear an explanation of the background and the issues of ODF and OOXML for Ghana and other developing countries as I have seen anywhere.
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) will be voting on this September 2, so it is currently a matter of interest and importance. I’ve included an excerpt, but it is worth reading the whole article, particularly if you may need to explain some of this at some point, or have the opportunity to ask questions.
Background information on ODF, OOXML and why It matters in the developing world
Developing countries are still building the vast majority of their IT infrastructure. This means that they do not have a massive base of old documents in a restricted format. Those documents are on paper. Their offices are still being computerized. Their people are still learning how to use those computers. If you are going to teach someone to use an office suite anyway, what difference does it make if that suite is MS Office, Openoffice.org or Google Writer? What difference does it make if those legacy paper documents go to ODF or OOXML? Either way the work has to be done and the money has to be spent.
The problem is, what happens when you lock yourself into a company’s proprietary format because they are giving you free stuff and claim the format is open, then they start charging you for it and you realize all those alternatives they assured you existed can’t fully open your documents and you are stuck with them and their licence fees?
In an earlier post he tells us more about why open source is important in Ghana as well as the developing world, particularly in Africa. As he says, money is the most often cited reason but it is not necessarily the most important. From a presentation he has posted:
Problem: At this point in time Africa is overwhelmingly a consumer of other people’s ideas and technology.
Why is this a problem?
Well, it isn’t if we have no issues with playing in second place for all time. Assuming we have a problem with that though, we will not achieve parity while we are dependent on outside brain power to solve all our problems while we sideline local talent and ability.
How does the Open Source movement help us to address this?
The free flow of information gives us a huge chance to level the playing field.
Lowers the barriers of information access.
Gives us a look at their tools and their processes.
This we can use to leverage those tools as we use them, and to create our own.
In other words, this is about more than just getting cheaper consumer goods.
Its about contributing back to the global share of information as equals.
India and Brazil have indicated they will vote in favor of ODF rather than OOXML. And Slashdot has a number of articles with good discussions in the comments. Two of them are here and here.
August 25, 2007
African Union troops in Darfur
What Nzimande has to say seems exactly on target according to what I have been reading. Because he is a Communist, many Americans will not give his words credibility. In fact, very few people in the US will even see them. Nevertheless, what he says about AFRICOM is important:
Blade Nzimande, general secretary of the South African Communist Party, issued a statement Aug. 14 calling upon progressives to study, discuss and oppose the “brazenly unilateralist” project.
AFRICOM, he suggested, is emblematic of U.S. militarization of its foreign policies and a trend toward merging development assistance and imperial strategies. AFRICOM represents colonial intrusion into African multilateral initiatives, in his view. Nzimande dismissed Senate testimony Aug. 1 by Assistant Defense Secretary Theresa Whelan justifying AFRICOM on grounds of efficiency. More relevant, he asserted, is a 2006 State Department report on “National Security Strategy” that “positions the U. S. as the custodian of human civilization.”
Calling for “autonomous development” and use of African resources for Africans, Nzimande connected the fight against AFRICOM with “a strong continental peace movement.” He condemned U.S. “hegemonic intentions” to station troops “in practically all parts of the world.”
As Vijay Prashad stated:
Under the guise of the War on Terrorism, the U.S. government has moved forces into various parts of Africa, where they were able to train African armies and to intervene in the increasingly dangerous resource wars.
And specifically about the situation in Sudan and Darfur he writes:
For a time the African Union was able to stabilize the situation, although it did not succeed in crafting a political solution to the problem. The African Union, created in 1999, has neither the financial ability to pay its troops nor the logistical capacity to do its job. The European Union, who paid the troop salaries, began to withhold funds on grounds of accountability, and it gradually killed off the peacekeeping operations. . . . “There is a concerted attempt being made to shift the political control of any intervention force inside Darfur from inside Africa to outside Africa.” In other words, the U.S. and Europe are eager to control the dynamic of what happens in Africa and not allow an indigenous, inter-state agency to gain either the experience this would provide or the respect it would gain if it succeeds. The African Union has been undermined so that only the U.S. can appear as the savior of the beleaguered people of Darfur, and elsewhere.
Or, as John Dean says of the Bush administration:
. . . 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)
August 23, 2007
The Economist has a rather nice article about investing in Africa this week, The sunny continent. It is mostly about two businessmen, Mo Ibrahim and Sam Jonah, and their thoughts and plans about the future.
Mr Ibrahim . . . is ebullient about the potential for mobile phones and mass entrepreneurship to deliver even more dramatic growth and poverty reduction in future, in Africa as well as elsewhere. He recently established a $150m fund to invest in African business.
Mr Jonah is a larger-than-life hail-fellow-well-met Ghanaian, who made his first fortune by selling Ashanti Goldfields, a Ghanaian mining company, to South Africa’s mighty AngloGold . . . He is now doing well in private equity. As evidence of his bullishness, Mr Jonah is trying to raise $250m to build long-distance roads across Africa—the lack which is one of the most obvious failures in the continent’s infrastructure. His goal is to find 50 successful African business people, each willing to invest $5m in the fund, and then to use multilateral funds to leverage the money into the billions.
. . .
There is increasingly a pro-African mood in the global business community nowadays, says Mr Jonah.
. . .
. . . much of the “help” Africa has had from outside has been of the wrong sort. By way of illustration, Mr Jonah points to three once impoverished European countries—Spain, Portugal and Greece—that might have stayed poor had they not been “rescued by their sugar daddy, the European Union.” The point, he says, is that richer European countries invested in these poor countries, “not as charity, but because they saw a win-win opportunity.” The same is now true of Africa, he argues. With a handful of headline-grabbing exceptions, “everyone in Africa is now getting their act together, with free markets and democracy.”
This is where Mr Jonah and Mr Ibrahim are somewhat at odds with each other. Last year Mr Ibrahim endowed an annual prize for leadership in Africa, which will recognise a retired African leader who did a good job in office. Mr Ibrahim, one of Africa’s first home-grown philanthropists, believes this prize will help raise the standard of leadership across the continent.
I have read elsewhere, I think it might have been in the Wall Street Journal a few years ago, that if Africa had received the same kind of investment eastern Europe did after the fall of the Berlin wall, there would have been even more to show for it. The United States has mostly engaged in military assistance, that has destabilized and impoverished its targets.
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 . . . in terms of violence, instability, and economic collapse.
The US is always claiming to be businesslike. It should act a bit more businesslike.
Business investment can have its downside, think Enron as just one example, and some of my friends think Jonah is a crook. I know very little about Ibrahim. But both men are on the right track in what they are saying. I hope the optimism and investment continue and pay off.
(If the Economist link does not let you in and you would like a copy of this article, or others I cite, email me at crossedcrocodiles, on gmail, I can email a copy.)
August 22, 2007
Africa at night by satellite
The Economist has an article this week in which it points out that power shortages are one of the biggest brakes on development.
SEEN from space, Africa at night is unlit—as dark as all-but empty Siberia. With nearly 1 billion people, Africa accounts for over a sixth of the world’s population, but generates only 4% of global electricity . . . most of the attempts at electrification in the 1970s and the 1980s failed. In some countries, dictators pillaged power stations for parts and fuel. In others, power stations were built but not maintained. Turbines were run at full capacity until they broke, then were abandoned. By some counts, only 17 of Nigeria’s 79 power stations, many dating from this period, are still working; . . . The World Bank reckons that 500m sub-Saharan Africans are without what it calls “modern energy”.
I know the constant lights out in Ghana this summer have been devastating for small business, and for employees in any business that uses electric power, which is most all of them. Rawlings got rural electrification under way. But if there is no power, power lines don’t help a lot. The Economist reports there are a number of plans and projects underway throughout the continent:
Many African governments are looking at alternative sources of energy to make up their projected shortfalls. Hydropower is clean, from the point of view of greenhouse-gas emissions, but most of the easy alternatives, notably coal, are dirty. Donors committed to cutting global carbon emissions are unlikely to favour more dirty coal-fired power stations of the sort that predominate in South Africa, although the government there claims that it wants to clean them up. Some fossil fuels, however, are less damaging than coal. A pipeline planned for west Africa, which will carry gas that is now flared off in oilfields, could stabilise electricity supply in coastal cities.
Few Africans in rural areas have access to electricity. Connecting them to national grids will be slow and expensive. Yet Lilliputian windmills, water mills, solar panels and biomass furnaces could have a big collective impact. The cost of lighting a shack takes 10% of income in the poorest households and the kerosene lamps are highly polluting. In response, the World Bank has rolled out “Lighting Africa”, an ambitious effort to get 250m of the poorest Africans on clean-energy lighting by 2030.
Talk of the mass production of biofuels in Africa is premature, but advances have been made. Some investors are backing jatropha, a plant whose seeds produce an oil for burning in generators. There is also an effort to tap geothermal energy. The Great Rift Valley, from Eritrea to Mozambique, could produce 7,000MW. Kenya hopes to get 20% of its energy from geothermal sources by 2017.
Engineers think they can also use the steady winds in Africa’s mountain ranges for power production. And if the costs of using the sun’s warmth can be reduced to 30% below its present cost, vast solar farms could offer cheap, clean energy for African cities and in doing so boost incomes in rural areas. Egypt, which relies mostly on natural gas, is looking hard at solar power.
The biofuels worry me a bit. If Africa goes into biofuel production, will it be for African power? or for US and European use? Much of what I’ve been reading lately talks about Africa growing biofuel for the US market. And although this article talks about how hydropower is clean, it can still have profound environmental impact, which is not mentioned here. We can see examples of this with the Chinese dams on the Mekong, and the consequent effect on water supply in Southeast Asia.
Small scale local projects can make a huge difference.
I was relieved the article did not mention nuclear power. Some are talking about that, and it would be an unmitigated disaster. No one has figured out what to do with nuclear waste. It is a huge, though mostly silent problem in the US. Europe has been dumping nuclear waste off the coast of Somalia, some of which washed up with the tsunami. And the regulation and management, which is unreliable here in the US, would, depending on which government in which country, be likely to be less dependable, more erratic, and a danger to everyone.
ADDED 8/23 – After studying the map above, it looks like the brightest spots are Cairo, the Niger Delta, and Pretoria. Everything I read about the Niger Delta says there is little to no electricity, and what there is, is frequently off. So what is causing the light? Other things I read say that you can see the fires from space that flare the gas off the oil, and that there are children in the delta that have never known a dark night. Is the light coming out of the Niger Delta from gas flares?
August 19, 2007
buildings in the shape of ships
Ethiopia is a landlocked country. And yet the US is planning to build a huge new embassy there in the shape of a ship.
The United States (US) government is soon to erect perhaps its largest single structure in Africa, in the compound of its Embassy in Addis Ababa . . . the four-story building is projected to consume a total investment of 140 million dollars.
. . .
The four-story building, depicting a ship, will be erected right in front of his (the ambassador’s) residence, on the vast green area. It will serve as offices to the various bureaus the Embassy has inside the compound.
Consider the following:
- US builds a new embassy in Ethiopia in the shape of a ship.
- The US Navy will play a major part in the new US Africa Command.
- As reported in a comment: Ethiopia desperately wants a coastline & the U.S. probably wants them to have it too.
- Ethiopia shares borders with both Somalia, and Eritrea, both of which have coastlines.
- Ethiopia recently invaded Somalia with US assistance, allegedly to root out terrorists.
- The US is talking about designating Eritrea as a state that sponsors terrorism.
Is the US planning interventions and more regime changes in Africa?
Do the US accusations of terrorist activities have anything to do with terrorism, or are they about something else?
August 17, 2007
“Prophets everywhere gaze upon the
horizon and declare
That judgment will come
As the savage hands of unscrupulous
Men defile everything pass by
Time is running out as we eat and drink
Species at the brink of being extinct
And I think no one can deny that the
price of progress is high, real high”
‘Progress’, sung by King Austin, was voted ‘Calypso of the Millennium’ by the Trinbago Unified Calypso Organisation (TUCO). Progress is a haunting song that calls attention to nature and direction of our development.
The words of ‘Progress’ really struck a chord in view of what I’ve been reading and writing recently. The song has been going through my head ever since I stumbled across the review of this book, The Progress of Winsford Devine, which is described as being more a collection of his works than a biography. If you are a soca fan, you should know the name of Winsford “Joker” Devine, but even if you don’t know his name, if you listen to soca and calypso music, you have heard his work.
. . . his themes span science, geography, civics, economics, civilization, culture, technology, history, socialization, development and a multiplicity of subthemes.
. . .
Winsford Devine’s mass of writings are an eclectic mix of poetry, social commentary and party songs.
And it is a wonderful mix, joining society, science, politics, sex and satire.
I only found one place online in the US where I could buy it, here. Although if you live in a large and international metropolitan area, you may be able to find a local bookstore that carries it.
Otherwise, if you are in the mood for soca and more, check out the Labor Day Carnival in Brooklyn September 3.
August 15, 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”.
In Darfur, before we talk of genocide or terrorism, we need to look at the US role in the beginnings of state sponsored terrorism in Africa. What is below is some background necessary to understand the situation in Sudan and Darfur, and necessary for understanding many African reactions to AFRICOM. In the words of Mahmood Mamdani
We need to keep in mind . . . the history of state-sponsored terrorism in that part of Africa begins with the US providing a political umbrella to South Africa to create a state-sponsored terrorist movement in Mozambique: RENAMO. And it is after a full decade of that impunity that others learn the experience, and Charles Taylor begins it in Liberia, and the Sudanese government begins it in the south.
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: “Renamo’s Washington office shared an address with the Heritage Foundation” and by 1987, right-wing pressure “brought Senate Minority Leader Robert Dole into the pro-Renamo camp.”
. . .
(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.
. . .
America’s role when it came to perpetuating the reign of terror that Renamo unleashed in Mozambique and that Unita periodically resorted to in Angola was one of political support.
. . .
The Reagan administration called that embrace “constructive engagement,” . . . Without American political support, the South African government could not have continued to prop up a terrorist movement in a newly independent African country for more than a decade and done so with impunity.(from Good Muslim, Bad Muslim by Mahmood Mamdani, pp 89-92, hardback ISBN#:0-375-42285-4)
Proponents and opponents of AFRICOM, and interested parties, need to look at this history. People in Africa have not forgotten it. Many are still living it.
. . . peace cannot be built on humanitarian intervention, which is the language of big powers. The history of colonialism should teach us that every major intervention has been justified as humanitarian, a ‘civilising mission’.
August 13, 2007
The Stars and Stripes speaks of AFRICOM having military and charity roles. Africa has already had too much of both. What Africa needs is investment and business development.
In the Senate and House hearings on AFRICOM held August 1 & 2, these questions emerged:
- How come Congress wasn’t consulted on this? Or Africans, for that matter?
- What if China, which now sells weapons to African nations and buys their oil, wants to set up its own Africa Command?
- Why do the Defense Department and White House think that Africans are interested in furthering “U.S. interests” on their continent?
The first question strikes me as the most important - How come Congress wasn’t consulted on this? Or Africans, for that matter? And nobody should even need to ask the third question. Though based on Defense Department and White House behavior, I guess it needs to be asked.
No answers were forthcoming. The Defense Department is running the policy, and so far it is running it alone. This is the same outfit that has been running Iraq policy, and their record does not inspire trust. If the Defense Department did not consult in creating the command, why would it consult anyone once the command is in place.
“I read about the administration’s plans to establish a new command in the newspaper,” said Rep. Donald M. Payne, D-N.J., chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health, during a hearing on AFRICOM last Thursday.
“There has been no consultation with this committee about the establishment or structure of the command. The few briefings that we have had — which by the way are not consultations — have not been particularly informative.”
Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., former chairman and now ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, warned that the military should not create a humanitarian-sounding command before consulting the humanitarians.
August 11, 2007
J. Peter Pham writes:
More often than not, American perspectives on Africa were framed almost exclusively in terms of preoccupation over the humanitarian consequences of poverty, war, and natural disaster. Alas, as noble as these moral impulses have been, they lacked the “staying power” needed to sustain a long-term commitment. Rightfully, many of our African friends viewed us as well meaning, but unreliable.
The American public at large may believe US involvement in Africa has been mostly humanitarian. That perception is being fed most recently by celebrity condescension. It is misleading. The US government’s actual involvement with Africa has been a policy of arming and fueling conflicts for decades. US policy has been quite the opposite of what J Peter Pham describes in his article on Selling AFRICOM. US policies have not been well meaning, certainly not in their effects, but rather, violent and manipulative. If the “noble” “moral impulses” Pham describes existed, they were quickly buried. The problem was never with noble moral impulses, the problem was always the behaviour that occurred instead, arming the worst authoritarians, and promoting discord.
As William Hartung and Bridgit Moix wrote in 2000:
The reality, however, is that the problems facing Africa and her people — with eleven armed conflicts under way, political instability, and the lowest regional rate of economic growth worldwide — have been fueled in part by a legacy of U.S. involvement in the region.
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.
. . .
During the 1990s, the U.S. supplied over $227 million in arms and training to African nations. In addition, U.S. special forces have trained troops from 34 of Africa’s 53 nations under the Joint Combined Exchange Training program, including forces fighting on both sides of the Congo’s civil war.
. . .
Meanwhile, even as it fuels military build-ups, the U.S. continues to cut development assistance to Africa and remains unable (or unwilling) to promote alternative, non-violent forms of engagement. While the U.S. ranks number one in global weapons exports, it falls dead last among industrialized nations in providing non-military foreign aid to the developing world.
And in 2004 we learn:
Since the beginning of the war on terrorism in 2001, the United States’ top 10 sources of oil imports have experienced a 350 percent increase in U.S. military aid and training. In 2003, the United States plans to provide these countries with $58 million in military assistance. In fiscal year 2001, their military assistance totaled $12.2 million.
A large part of the increase is explained by Washington’s rewarding of regimes like Algeria and Nigeria for their ability to cloak domestic repression in the rhetoric of the “war on terrorism.”
. . . Washington’s desire for Nigerian oil and territory triggered deeper military relationships. During the reign of Gen. Sani Abacha military ties were frozen. But since his death in 1999, the thaw has been quick. That year, Nigeria purchased $74,000 in U.S. weaponry. By 2001, the United States delivered thousands of times that-a total of $3.1 million. Military aid also skyrocketed, from $90,000 in 1999 to more than $4 million for 2003.
How increased military aid will improve human rights and efforts toward democratization is unclear.
How increased military aid will improve human rights and efforts toward democratization remains unclear with AFRICOM. If the US wants to help Africa, it needs to listen to Africans. Pham is rather blatantly disinclined to listen, for example, calling the testimony of Dr. Wafula Okumu “rather incoherent and self-contradicting“. Although if you read the testimony with an open mind, you will learn a lot about African points of view. Dr. Okumu was certainly clear and coherent. I think it was the message that Dr. Pham did not like.
It is not possible to work cooperatively unless you are willing to listen to the people you are “cooperating” with. I don’t see any sign that the US has a clue about this when it talks about AFRICOM.
The US needs to stop arming repressive governments, and stop arming and inciting opposing factions. There is almost nothing I read in the US press or see or hear in the US media, that indicates people in the US are willing to listen or learn from Africans, or change the US approach to Africa away from the emphasis on military assistance. AFRICOM just offers more of the same militarization and destabilization the US has been offering Africa for decades, as a “payment” for taking away the natural riches of the continent.
August 11, 2007
Posted by xcroc under cartoons
Leave a Comment
August 10, 2007
U.S. Navy Seaman fires an Mk-38 25mm machine gun during a general quarters drill aboard the dock landing ship USS Fort McHenry. This machine gun system is a single-barrel, air-cooled, heavy machine gun capable of firing 175 rounds per minute. The USS Fort McHenry will be in the Gulf of Guinea for 6 months starting in November of this year. U.S. Navy photo by Seaman Marvin E. Thompson, Jr.
Military aid and questionable trade are the twin pillars of US involvement in Africa. The Ruin of Nations by Karamoh Kabba has more detail on this. This article reminded me of a lot of things I had forgotten, and would be better forgotten if it did not look like the same behavior and the same mistakes all over again.
From Africa Media:
Just another aid agency — with really big guns. (See the YouTube question that wasn’t asked of the US Presidential candidates about this plan. For a general consideration of YouTube and the debates, see Jewels in the Jungle‘s post.)
August 10, 2007
Here is a little something to keep in mind when considering the Africa Command and why Africans may be skeptical about the reasons for the command. From the article The Ruin of Nations by Karamoh Kabba.
There is far more in the article than what is here, with more detail on what happened in Liberia and Sierra Leone in West Africa.
From the testimony of Wayne Madsen, an expert on intelligence and privacy issues in international investigative journalism before the US House of Representatives in 2001:
“It is beyond time for the Congress to seriously examine the role of the United States in the genocide and civil wars of central Africa, as well as the role that P.M.C.’s [private military companies] currently play in other African trouble spots like Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Equatorial Guinea, Angola, Ethiopia, Sudan, and Cabinda … At the very least, the United States, as the world’s leading democracy, owes Africa at least the example of a critical self-inspection.”
These actions leave Africans pondering aloud why Africa is being treated by the West as a place “where it pays to play.
August 7, 2007
3 Cs – Crude, Capital, and China
I published an (inadvertently incomplete) comment by b real in an earlier post, AFRICOM offers Africa 3 shiny new Ds. As b real points out, the US via AFRICOM is now offering Africa 3 Ds, defense, diplomacy and development, after the fashion of the 3 Cs of the nineteenth century, commerce, christianity, and civilization. The 3 Cs didn’t exactly work out as promised.
As Dr. Wafula Okumu testified:
To paraphrase Kenyatta’s allegory, “when the Whiteman came to Africa, he was holding a Bible in one hand and asked us to close our eyes and pray. When we opened our eyes after the prayer, his other hand was holding a gun and all our land was gone!” Africa’s colonial history was characterised by military occupations, exploitation of its natural resources and suppression of its people. After testing decades of independence, these countries are now jealously guarding their sovereignty and are highly suspicious of foreigners, even those with good intentions.
I copied the critical piece I omitted when I first published my earlier post, and am reproducing it below here, linked to the entire comment.
b real said…
. . . the USAID official stated
We believe that AFRICOM can significantly advance the “Three D” concept, and facilitate the coordination of defense, diplomacy and development to advance American foreign policy interests on the continent of Africa.
the “3 D’s”? well, that’s hardly a step above the “3 C’s” of the earlier scramble, isn’t it? whereas livingstone’s plea for bringing commerce, christianity and civilization to the indigenes led to a plethora of euro humanitarian colonizers in the late nineteenth century, even bringing up the idea that the u.s. would like to bring “3 D’s” to the continent strikes me as an inside joke on their part.
so they’re gonna tell the peoples of africa that this unified combatant command will have a humanitarian face that really wants to “help africans help themselves” (more like “helping u.s. american elite to help themselves to africa’s resources”) and this will entail bring three shiny new D’s?
are they serious? this project seems to be failing rapidly. they have many weaknesses that need to exploited both domestically & internationally. the negative reactions across the globe are having some real effect. part of their problem is that those who actually know what the real impetus was behind the formation of the command have to find other reasons for public dissemination (or risk an even greater public fury) and those that don’t know are struggling to fit a square peg into a round hole & make sense of their nonsense rational & ignorance of the real africa.
i’ll tell you what though, if they do suceed in establishing a larger military presence (w/ civilian trimmings), it will not be used to bring those 3 D’s to the peoples of africa. it will be used to take another set of 3 C’s out of africa — crude, capital and china!
Next Page »