
A U.S. Special Forces soldier instructs Malian troops in counterterrorism tactics through a translator (right, in black turban) on the outskirts of Timbuktu. Photographs by Justin Bishop (2007).
To understand AFRICOM, it is important to look at where the energy and where the money are focused.
In May b real wrote at Moon of Alabama:
… maintaining control of the perception of AFRICOM is very important in the initial stages of the new command. However, since the official public image of AFRICOM (”a new kind of command” combining humanitarian missions with the pentagon’s soft power capabilities to help Africans help themselves) hardly matches up with the command’s true mission (secure and guarantee U.S. access to vital energy sources and distribution channels while containing China’s growing superpower status), AFRICOM, and everyone involved in promoting it, will remain beset by their own contradictions and weaknesses.
An article at CNN reports:
Africom’s deputy for military operations, Vice Adm. Robert T. Moeller, said in a telephone interview Monday … “Our primary responsibility … is working with our African partners to help them build their security capacity” — mainly by training armies and peacekeepers. Moeller added that “a secure and stable Africa is very, very much in U.S. strategic interests.”
And from General Ward in another story:
“Our primary mission is to work with the nations of Africa and their organizations to assist them in increasing their capacity to provide for their own security,” Gen. William E. Ward, commander of U.S. Africa Command, told reporters during the inauguration ceremony of AFRICOM.
And yet, Refugees International reports AFRICOM’s security budget is meager:
Currently, no funds are allocated for security sector and governance capacity-building for African nations. Instead, funding is being requested for Global War on Terror priorities.
[In Africa] Global War on Terror imperatives do not address the continent’s biggest needs for security assistance.
From CNN again:
“Africans believe Africom is aimed at promoting America’s interests, not Africa’s,” said Wafula Okumu, a Kenyan analyst at South Africa’s Institute for Security Studies.
Most Africans don’t trust their own militaries, which in places like Congo have turned weapons on their own people.
As is also decribed by Refugees International:
… the Defense Department is virtually ignoring the nation’s [Congo’s] desperate need of military reform. As a result, an inadequately resourced security sector reform program has contributed to the Congolese army becoming a major source of insecurity for civilian communities.
Refugees International also describes the funding imbalances that both drive and describe the militarization of US foreign policy:
Foreign assistance represents less than one percent of the federal budget, while defense spending is 20% … Between 1998 and 2005, the percentage of Official Development Assistance the Pentagon controlled exploded from 3.5% to nearly 22%, while the percentage controlled by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) shrunk from 65% to 40%.
An article in HStoday (unintentionally) makes even more clear the contradictions in the role of the Africa command:
The CT [AFRICOM counterterrorism] officials told HSToday.us that Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda-influenced Muslim jihadists in Africa are becoming an increasingly serious terrorist threat that has forced much greater attention to be focused on the region.
… one of the Command’s fundamental roles is indeed counterterror intelligence and disruption operations.
Yet from the same article:
“in many parts of Africa it is perceived as the US bringing its war on terror to Africa. That is not what AFRICOM is about, but that is how it has been seen.”
Which is almost funny, considering the content of most of the article.
While long-term US strategic interests in Africa clearly are of concern and under the purview of AFRICOM, the more immediate problem for the US is Islamist terrorism, the CT officials told HSToday.us.
…
For the time being, AFRICOM will be based in Stuttgart, with covert intelligence operatives working out of US installations and front companies throughout Africa.
This last strikes me as nightmarishly bad foreign policy. It sounds like the US is replaying all the worst features of US foreign policy in Africa (and in Asia and Latin America) from the last 60 years. This is how you destabilize governments, with “disruption operations”. It is not capacity building, it does not strengthen human security. It is not partnering or peacekeeping. It does not help refugees return home or economies develop. It does not make things anywhere more secure and stable. It promotes trade in contraband and the destabilizing movement of money across borders facilitating more trade in contraband. As well as being destructive, covert disruption operations are not cheap, and they are not easy to justify in budget requests, which makes using and encouraging contraband for funding more attractive.
Contrast again the two statements above:
[In Africa] Global War on Terror imperatives do not address the continent’s biggest needs for security assistance.
and:
… one of the Command’s fundamental roles is indeed counterterror intelligence and disruption operations … the more immediate problem for the US is Islamist terrorism …
The representatives of AFRICOM are telling the American and African public that AFRICOM is all about peacekeeping, capacity building, and security. But the focus of the energy and funding for AFRICOM is all about counterterrorism, military development, psyops and disruptive covert operations. The public narrative is lies and illusions. The public narrative creates a false front and false face to those whose lives will be most seriously impacted.
October 8, 2008 at 10:46 pm
have you happened to come across any listing of these embassy offices yet?
from a stars and stripes article on AFRICOM
we can probably deduce the location of most of them if it comes down to it, but this seems like information that should be made publicly available, esp for the citizens of the nations involved
October 9, 2008 at 7:08 pm
I haven’t seen any listing. As you say, most of them we can guess. And also the information should most certainly be available to the citizenry. I think I’ll ask over at the African Loft.
During the Notre Dame Stanford game on Saturday there was a commercial for Notre Dame saying how exciting it is to be able to take classes with Carolyn Nordstrom. They briefly described her work and featured her saying a few words about it, interesting to see her work being mainstreamed in that way.
October 9, 2008 at 10:33 pm
good to hear that. fyi, those two books i mentioned of hers are included in uc press’ current book sale, continuing through the end of this month – Global Outlaws: Crime, Money, and Power in the Contemporary World
October 10, 2008 at 12:35 am
so is somalia not in AFRICOM’s AOR at all now, or is reuters just misinformed?
October 10, 2008 at 5:09 pm
That sounds similar to what the AP article you linked was saying. Very curious.
October 10, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Thanks also for the tip on Nordstrom’s books I ordered Global Outlaws and Shadows of War. I’ve been thinking I should read them, but holding back on ordering because it has been an expensive fall.
November 18, 2008 at 11:33 pm
here’s more evidence of what we’ve been warning of
subheading of a chicago tribune article
‘BACK IN COLD WAR MODE’
African armies receive U.S. expertise, ammo
the article then points out how the use of ethiopian forces to invade & occupy somalia didn’t work out so well for the united states — seeing as how a new popular revolution is gaining momentum & looks to soon drive out both the ethiopians (w/ their advisors) & AMISOM — to make the argument of critics that the reliance on proxy forces has backfired. (ignore the alarmist propaganda about the revolution being “a deadly Islamist insurgency”, and ignore the controlled range of thinkable thought offered in the guise of anon “critics” – there was no need for counter-terrorism ops in somalia in the first place!)
that “blowback” doesn’t discourage the cold-warrior though
November 19, 2008 at 8:25 pm
As I’ve been reading about Somalia and the DRC lately I’ve been thinking Cold War and proxy war all over again. It is exactly what I feared when I heard about the creation of AFRICOM. Although it predates AFRICOM. It is very depressing to see the same stupid mistakes that have already cost so many lives. There was this article a friend sent that gives a pretty good summary of the history of the problems in the DRC: Will President Obama Finally Bury King Leopold’s Ghost? I’d like to think it is a possibility, but I am skeptical. Assuming he wants to, nobody is going to make it easy for him. And I hope the Obama people fire Jendayi Frazer. I haven’t had much time to write lately, but this cold war proxy war business is something I want to write more about.
November 20, 2008 at 12:03 am
thanks for the erlinder piece – completely missed it. obama may respond to popular pressures (maybe africans, in general, can shame him into doing the right thing wrt certain issues?). that’s about the best i can see at this stage. so far there’s ample evidence to justify your skepticism, which i share too.
re frazer – in those july hearings on AFRICOM (pretty sure that was it, and probably the 2nd of the two) one of the panelists, male, mentioned talk in washington at the time of frazer possibly being fired or something similiar. i’d have to look it up to get the exact quote, but that was all i ever heard of it, though she did maintain a very low public profile until just recently, showing up in kenya & rwanda. the new admin will bring in their own people.
on the DRC – i haven’t had time to monitor it at all in the past week. somalia is really hopping right now & it’s eating up all my time. no idea if you’ve seen it before, but there’s a multi-part documentary on lumumba’s killers on youtube, largely interviews, candid & incredible arrogance really, that i’d recommend, but be warned – it will make your blood boil
November 20, 2008 at 12:23 pm
re cold war in africa – b flagged this article this morning – there’s probably more on it in ghanaian media
NATO chief offers to train African forces
November 21, 2008 at 10:38 pm
The coverage in the Ghana press of the NATO visitor has been matter of fact. The biggest controversy in the comments has been about his visit to the Asantehene, due to all the rumors about cocaine. However this story quoted him:
“We are not seeking to impose ourselves, nor do we pretend that we have the answers to all of Africa’s security problems. This is why we strongly support the principle of African ownership.”
(Need a little sound file of cartoon villain laughter here.)
African “ownership” means African proxies.
December 3, 2008 at 12:10 am
worth bookmarking – cftf-hoa @ google map
December 3, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Done, and thanks! We’ve had a flurry of activity with getting the broilers ready for Christmas, plus some other business. I hope to be back to writing a bit more next week.