Cheney


Police violence following Kenya election, inset Ambassador Ranneberger

Police violence following Kenya election, inset Ambassador Ranneberger

The energetic continuation of Bush administration policies in East Africa and the Horn of Africa are damaging the United States. Though far less well known, these policies are as mishandled and misbegotten as the Iraq war, the handling of the Katrina disaster, and the global financial meltdown.

US Ambassador to Kenya Michael Ranneberger bears much responsibility for the disasterous handling and direction of these policies. He actively undermined democracy in the Kenya elections a year ago. As a result Kenya is less democratic, and less safe and secure. Extra judicial murders are on the rise.

The New York Times finally wrote some of this up in A Chaotic Kenya Vote and a Secret U.S. Exit Poll. Much of this was reported at the time in a variety of places, you can read an account with links in this article, including the comment thread: The Coup in Kenya.

What the NYT article makes clear is that Ranneberger had determined Kibaki should win the election before the election occurred.

Heading the institute’s Kenya operations in 2007 was Mr. Flottman, on leave from his job as a senior counsel for a major defense contractor. … Mr. Flottman said he was surprised when, before the election, Mr. Ranneberger made public comments praising Mr. Kibaki and minimizing Kenyan corruption.

Behind the scenes, Mr. Flottman recalled, the ambassador was even more direct. A few months before the election, Mr. Ranneberger proposed releasing a voter survey showing Mr. Kibaki ahead and trying to block a roughly simultaneous one favoring Mr. Odinga, according to Mr. Flottman, who said he witnessed the episode during a meeting at the ambassador’s office. The suggestion was dropped, he said, after the embassy learned that the pro-Odinga results were already out.

“It was clear, in my opinion, that the ambassador was trying to influence the perceptions of the Kenyan electorate, and thus the campaign,” Mr. Flottman said.

Many of us watched the polling in Kenya and felt the soaring optimism that democracy might really be working. It was quite clear to any observer that the trend was strongly in favor of Mr. Odinga, and the polling was reasonably orderly and peaceful. As the ballots were being counted, President Kibaki and his cronies made a coup, seized control, and declared Kibaki the winner. Ambassador Ranneberger was quick to congratulate Kibaki on his win, although in the face of international opinion he had to retract this later. Then the US through Ambassador Ranneberger and Jendayi Frazer did its best to prevent completion of the vote count, and prevent a recount. Terrible violence followed the elections, and it was clear the security forces were responsible for a majority of the killings. Since it was clear and could not be denied that Odinga had won a lot of votes, the US pressed for a coalition government. That is not what Kenyans voted for. And now Kenyans say government failing them 1 year later.

During the Kenya election the IRI, was conducting an exit poll, which Mr. Flottman was supervising. Since the votes were not counted, Kenyans really wanted to see the results of the exit poll. but the results were supressed. From the NYT:

Under its contract, the institute was expected to consult with the Agency for International Development and the embassy before releasing the exit poll results, taking into account the poll’s technical quality and “other key diplomatic interests.”

Quality was not expected to be a concern. …

When the voting ended and ballot-counting began, Mr. Gibson and others involved in the exit poll said they expected its results to be announced soon.

But senior institute officials decided to withhold it. Most opposed to releasing the numbers, Mr. Flottman said, was Constance Berry Newman, … Mr. Flottman said Ms. Newman opposed “any kind of release from the outset — essentially suggesting it would be inflammatory and irresponsible.”

Ms. Newman, who had worked with Mr. Ranneberger when she was the Bush administration’s assistant secretary of state for African affairs, declined to comment.

Mr. Gibson said he told the institute that its technical concerns were baseless, to no avail. His contract barred him from publicly disclosing the polling data for six months, and in March of last year the institute asked him to sign a new contract that would have restricted him from speaking publicly about the institute’s polling program without written permission.

I think they were trying to shut me up,” he said. “I refused to sign it.”

In July, after his contract expired, Mr. Gibson and one of his doctoral students presented their analysis of the data at a seminar in Washington. A month later — one day before Mr. Gibson was to testify before Kenyan investigators — the institute announced that, after the outside review, it “now had confidence” in the poll and released the results.

When Mr. Kibaki claimed victory on Dec. 30, 2007, the State Department quickly congratulated him and called on Kenyans to accept the outcome, even though international observers had reported instances of serious ballot-counting fraud. American officials backed away from their endorsement the next day and ultimately pushed the deal that made Mr. Odinga prime minister.

After insisting for months that the poll was flawed, the institute released it last August — long past the point of diplomatic impact — after outside experts whom it had hired determined that it was valid. It showed Mr. Kibaki losing by about six percentage points.

Michael Ranneberger led an active fight against democracy in Kenya. But it is not just in Kenya. As his State Department bio says:

Michael E. Ranneberger is currently serving as U.S. Ambassador to Kenya and is also responsible for U.S. relations with Somalia.

He has been ambassador to Kenya since mid 2006, when the Islamic Courts Union took control of Somalia. This brought the first functioning government Somalia had in 15 years. Under the ICU, piracy by Somalis stopped completely. Peace was restored, businesses sprang up, Somalis abroad returned home. But the US claimed that the Islamic government was allied with al Qaeda, even though many people knew, and a West Point study told them that:

“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.”

At the end of 2006, the US supported an invasion of Somalia by Ethiopia, contrary to international law. The US helped install a (non) government by the hated Ethiopians allied with the hated Somali warlords, restoring civil war, exploitation, and insecurity to the Somali people. The US arranged with Kenya to rendition refugees of that disaster, who crossed the Kenya border, to be tortured in Ethiopia as “terrorists”. When asked about the US participation in the invasion, and killing Somalis, Ranneberger just ignores the truth and repeats lies:

Question [Dom]: Ever since the last attack by US to Somalia near Kenyan Border, which killed more than 20 innocent civilians. No word of apology has been spelled out yet. Was that not a mistake?

Answer [Ambassador Ranneberger]: I appreciate your question, because there has been a lot of rumors and misinformation, and I am happy to clarify what happened. No innocent civilians have been killed in U.S. attacks. U.S. efforts are solely directly against known terrorists.

This despite the fact that the US was:

running U.S. death squads in Somalia to “clean up” after covert operations. (The latter is no deep dark secret, by the way; officials openly boasted of it to Esquire Magazine.)

But Ambassador Ranneberger blithely continues to support the violent and corrupt TFG he helped install, and innacurately condemn the ICU government he helped overthrow:

Q [Abdalla]: … Somali people were able to say enough is enough and they established a government free from the warlords. The international community instead of forcing the warlords to accept the government it sided with the warlords and allowed the government to be dismantled and Ethiopia succeeded in establishing a client government led by warlords. Somali people again as usual and eager to have law and order they accepted the TFG with it is short comings and the past/present records of its members. The Warlords instead of working for their people they become dysfunctional and started harming the Somali people. Fortunately, in June 2006 the Somali people plus Islamic courts succeeded in getting rid the south-central part from the warlords. The only city they remained was in baidabo with the protection of their Ethiopian master. The international community blatantly ignored the presence of Ethiopian soldiers in a sovereign country. During the reign of the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) the Somali people were able to forget the clan mentality and corrupt clan elders. For the first time the minority and un-armed Somali communities felt that they are part of the Somali society. They had a voice thanks to Sheikh Sharif Ahmed and Sheikh Dahir aways who was able to control former militias.

Also, we Somalis in the Diaspora were able to invest in the country in my case I built a house for my mum and planned to visit her in January 2007. Unfortunately, the American justice is with us and our old enemy plus the warlord government is back to Mogadishu. America rewarded the warlords and punished the ICU who brought peace and tranquility to their people. …

All of these good things are destroyed now and we are back to 1991.

A [Ambassador Ranneberger]: I recognize that the Islamic Courts did manage to establish a degree of order in Mogadishu. However, the Islamic Courts never had broad support among the Somali people and, importantly, the Islamic Courts were moving in a very radical direction, which would not have been to the benefit of the Somali people. The Transitional Federal Institutions were developed, with the assistance of Kenya, as the legitimate representatives of the Somali people. With the ousting of the Courts, the TFG now has an opportunity to establish its credibility in order to become an effective, inclusive government. Our objective is to support this process.

I want to emphasize our commitment to an inclusive process that truly bring together all Somalis who reject violence and extremism. This is the only way forward for Somalis to achieve lasting stability and security. I believe that the Somali people are tired of the chaos and conflict that has plagued their country and want to participate in an inclusive political process. This will, in turn, lead to a smooth transition to an elected government in 2009.

You can not appeal to people who reject violence and extremism if you have just overthrown their government by violence and extremism. There is no path to “security and stability” that way. Overthrowing the Somili government with Ethiopian proxies meets no definition of the word inclusive. It works against any possibility for democracy.

Ranneberger is telling the Somalis that he knows better what is good for them than they do. Whatever else this is, it is NOT democracy. The TFG brought violence, exploitation, and insecurity. It has been beaten and discredited since then. The 2009 elections were held by a small group of Somalis in Djibouti, arranged by the US, and then called “representational”. They elected Sheikh Sharif, the handpicked choice of Ambassador Ranneberger. Sheikh Sharif has been “persuaded” by Ranneberger to become an ally of the United States. Sheikh Sharif is supposed to give a new face to the TFG, but so far, there is not much evidence he will be accepted, or that things will change for the better. Any solution to the governance or the piracy problems in Somalia must involve Somali communities. Ranneberger’s actions continue to actively harm any possibility for democratic processes or participation. Inviation only “elections” in Djibouti will not help Somalia.

As b real points out, Ranneberger:

… has had official capacity wrt sudan during the early part of this decade, possessing a cv that intertwines w/ a history of cia hotspots & covert arms transfers

  • country officer in angola (1981-84) while the u.s. was overtly supporting the “proto-terrorist” Unita
  • then constructively engaged as deputy chief of mission in mozambique from ’86-9 while the u.s. was covertly supporting the outright terrorist mvmt Renamo
  • then paraguay for the ’89 coup and on through 1992
  • then ’92-94 around el salvador & guatemala for who knows what
  • a brief stint as deputy chief of mission in mogadishu around ’94
  • then some work in haiti
  • then coordinator for cuban affairs (’95-99)
  • on to ambassador to mali from ’99-2002
  • in sudan from 2002-4 for a civil war while the u.s. supporting the south
  • then on to the african bureau
  • sudan again, as senior representative for sudan
  • and, since 2006, ambassador to kenya & responsibility for u.s. relations w/ somalia

One of the things that has distressed me for decades is how negative and counter productive US policy has been towards the developing world, particularly during the Cold War. This is not just in Africa, but in Asia and Latin America as well. Look at the ravages that military coups wrought on Latin America under the training and aegis of Southcom and US Cold War policy. Cheney, with Rumsfeld and Bush, has done his best to lock Cold War patterns and thinking into place, and to lock Bush’s successors into misguided and counter productive policies going forward, policies that ultimately hurt the United States. So far Obama has slipped right into that trap.

In an interview Mahmood Mamdani speaks about the:

way in which the Cold War almost seamlessly morphed into the war on terror.

We see that in action in the work of Ambassador Ranneberger. He opposed democracy when it was actually working. By doing so he hurt the United States by harming people in countries that would like to be our friends, by denying democracy, and by damaging trust, and the reputation and integrity of the United States.

New Orleans left to drown by the Bush administration after hurricane Katrina

In reading Poisoned Wells: The Dirty Politics of African Oil, I came across this description of the government of Congo Brazzaville.

. . . it is not just inefficient public companies that are being privatized – but the very functions of the state. State shipping taxes on oil and timber are paid to private interests, and not recorded in the budget. The national airline collapsed down to little more than a vehicle for collecting air transit fees from foreign airlines; private firms have armlocks on port and shipping facilities, telecommunications, and banks, breaking laws freely or having parliament rubber-stamp new ones in their favor.

As state institutions give way to private interests, Congo’s government stands increasingly on just three remaining pillars: first, the internationally recognized sovereignty that legitimizes the oil and banking contracts; second, the state oil company and the oil and finance ministries that manage the financial engineering; and, finally the armed forces that protect the system. Even ongoing low-level conflict is tolerated, as long as it does not threaten the sovereign extractive core. “Not only do these state institutions survive, but the state begins to hang off these institutions as if nothing else existed . . . They deal with the intricacies of oil-backed loans and the oil industries. They become the state. It is not a collapsed state but a privatized state. With a collapsed state, the rulers lose control; with a privatized state, they can even increase the possibility of accumulation.”

“The people are utterly disenfranchised . . In the city everything is expensive” . . . an attractive world of international airports, satellite dishes, oil rigs, French cafes, and air-conditioned hairdressers . . . “in the rural areas there is nothing. Rape and gang-rape are taken to violent extremes; there is a total lack of structure in society, and generalized impunity . . . Congo is two nations.”
(Poisoned Wells by Nicholas Shaxson, p.116-117, ISBN 978-1403971944)

What struck me is that this is the final reduction when government is privatized. This looks like the ultimate outcome of the kind of government to which Bush/Cheney are leading the US.

The treatment of New Orleans following hurricane Katrina is one example, as illustrated above. But there are others. Sometime earlier this year I read about the Bush administration trying to privatize functions of the IRS, including tax collection, which sounds a great deal like Congo Brazzaville.

Bush vetoing the SCHIP childrens health insurance is another. The Republican argument reduces to: if your parents can’t afford private health insurance, you can’t have health insurance.

And the privatizing of spying, the outsourcing of intelligence is another example. The people who have been doing the spying on the American people are for the most part not government workers. The people spying on US citizens are private companies, the telecommunications giants, working at the behest of the Bush administration. In the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) contract employees occupy 51% of DIA office space. And The Spy Who Billed Me asks a number of questions about this, including:

  • Can the DIA afford $1 billion of staff who are paid a “private business salary” when it’s own government staff receive “taxpayer funded salaries”?
  • Can the DIA really afford $1 billion of staff who do not have a fiduciary duty to the DIA, but to another entity?

John Holt, in a recent article in the London Review of Books speculates that the current situation in Iraq is exactly what Bush and Cheney had in mind when they invaded Iraq.

On the assumption that the Bush-Cheney strategy is oil-centred, the tactics – dissolving the army, de-Baathification, a final ‘surge’ that has hastened internal migration – could scarcely have been more effective. The costs – a few billion dollars a month plus a few dozen American fatalities (a figure which will probably diminish, and which is in any case comparable to the number of US motorcyclists killed because of repealed helmet laws) – are negligible compared to $30 trillion in oil wealth, assured American geopolitical supremacy and cheap gas for voters. In terms of realpolitik, the invasion of Iraq is not a fiasco; it is a resounding success.

And, of course, the costs do not include any consideration of the cost to the Iraqis, once again looking like the Congo Brazzaville model. And Bush and Cheney increase their possibilities for accumulation.

b real, in the comments, points me to this article about the possibility of Liberia hosting Africom HQ. It includes the following sentence:

The new command’s main mission will be to stabilize weak or poor countries by training the local security forces and providing humanitarian aid.

When I read it I see some things have been left out. These omissions are part of Bush/Cheney’s standard operating approach to the world, but they’ve been around since before Bush/Cheney. “The new command’s main mission will be to stabilize weak or poor countries,” or destabilize countries who may oppose or disagree with United States oil interests and intentions. And “training the local security forces” brings the notorious School of the Americas to mind, which has helped bring so much peace and security to Central and South America in the form of coups, torture, and destabilization.

Oil in Sudan (click map to enlarge)

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.
and
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.

Appreciation to Dr. Doom for the image.

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.

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.

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; i
s 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.



Rice calls brutal oil-rich dictator a “good friend.”
Condoleezza Rice sharing a photo-op with Equatorial Guinean President Teodoro Obiang Nguema. Nguema is “one of the most brutal, most corrupt and unreconstructed dictators in the world”; he also controls the third-largest oil reserves in Africa.

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.

A steroidal fantasy mercenary, and an offshore oil rig,
from the video game Mercenaries 2

The Spy Who Billed Me is a particularly interesting blog about outsourcing the “war on terror.” I very much appreciate Dr. Hillhouse’s well informed and balanced viewpoint, as well as her dry sense of humor. One thing that has grown up under Bush, Cheney, and their pal Rumsfeld, are private mercenary companies, and private CIAs. She calls it: the “post 9/11 period of the Golden Trench Coat when the private intelligence industry really came into being. ” The information and discussion you will find on this blog you will find nowhere else. As one friend said when I sent the link: “ this is the sort of thing that used to be available through very obscure and expensive newsletters, where the children couldn’t see it; making this public changes everything.”

The Bush Cheney administration has driven many of the top people out of the CIA. And many have wound up in private security companies. Right now these private corporations are mostly based in the US. But there are some signs of them moving offshore:

There are a lot of reasons to go offshore, taxes, liability and oversight . . . there’s the dimension of avoiding their services falling under ITAR (the US laws governing the export of military services) which would complicate and delay sales and very likely preclude some business all together. . . offshore entities would be free to conduct the kind of activities that Special Forces and spies do: destabilize governments, sabotage facilities, identify and train insurgents, etc. (emphasis mine)


Total Intel represents some of the best and brightest the CIA has produced and Blackwater commands a formidable group of tier-one Special Forces operators. Simply put, together these companies rival and possibly surpass the capabilities of intelligence services of most nations–and I’m not talking Third World. Such capacity for covert operations has never before been in private hands–and for rent.


These companies are run by people who identify themselves as intensely patriotic Americans. That is relatively easy when you are employed by the Pentagon or the CIA. In theory, both organizations are established to support US interests, as government institutions. But when your services are for sale, you are working for your employer. And a corporate employer may have very different interests from the interests of the United States, or the interests of the government or citizens of whatever country where such a company may be working. And what happens when the corporate leadership evolves over time? Will the loyalties evolve?

The potential services are demonstrated in a theoretical scenario she provides for Exxon in Venezuela that has implications for the citizens and governments of African countries, particularly with the current focus on the oil in the Gulf of Guinea.

Well within the reach are services such as:

  • de-stabilization of governments hostile to a firm’s business;
  • identification, training and support of an armed insurgency, including separatist movements claiming sovereignty over a mineral-rich region; and
  • planning and execution of sabotage of a competitor’s foreign facilities.

In no way am I saying that Total Intel, Greystone and Blackwater are offering these services, but rather I am exploring the potential synergy of the CIA’s former top case officers and Special Activities Division operators combined with the best in Special Forces. They’ve done this type of work for their former US government employers, so why not for their corporate ones?

Let’s take a hypothetical scenario and examine the potential a little closer. When I think about good uses for such brains and brawn, oil and Venezuela come to mind. In late 2005 the Venezuelan government gave Exxon an ultimatum that it had to form a joint venture with the national oil company (it eventually did.) The state petroleum company has been very uncooperative, to put it mildly, and has caused the shut down of Exxon fields. Let’s just say it’s not a comfortable place for Exxon to do business.

If I were sitting in the Houston boardroom of a company that has seen governments come and go, I know what I’d be thinking: get rid of Chavez or at least make his life hell. And with over $100 million profits daily, I’d have the cash to buy the expertise that I needed. And that expertise that is now on the open market.

I’d hire spies to identify potential insurgency groups to support and to create the needed cutouts to conceal my involvement.
. . .

Once my spies have identified insurgent group(s) and potential leaders, I’d work with a private military organization that could:

assist in training indigenous resources in developing a capability to conduct defensive and offensive small group operations, including firearm training requirements. Off-the-shelf standard field operations packages consist of 30 days of training to support raid, reconnaissance, and small unit tactics.

I wouldn’t stop at an insurgency. I’d also use the spies for various psyops against the leadership and hire an espionage firm to identify potential targets within the military leadership and Chavez inner circles that could be compromised and used to seed suspicions and distrust among the inner circle. If my spies got lucky, they might even make Chavez believe a coup was imminent and his paranoia could spark a leadership purge. Then there’s always economic sabotage, inciting union unrest..the possibilities go on and on.

Would a Fortune 500 company do something like this?

We saw a few weeks ago that Chiquita was willing to give millions to terrorist organizations to further their business interests.

Oil companies have not been good or benign corporate citizens in African countries to date. With these kinds of services on the market are they likely to become more responsible and public spirited? These kinds of services allow a corporation to have its own active and intrusive foreign policy, one that is responsible to the citizens of no country.

2/2008 – You can read my article on mercenaries in Africa over at the African Loft: The Rising Mercenary Industry and AFRICOM.

(One of the) . . . continuously burning gas flares which had been lit and steadily burning for years, some for over 30 to 40 years, polluting the air with dangerous CO2 and methane gases, contributing fiercely to the global warming trend, while resulting in destructive acid rains and serious contamination of air, water and land. These flares were noisy, and one could feel there awful heat and smell their associated gases from hundreds of meters away. These bright fires at night lit up skies over the nearby villages. The flares danced wild like some distorted form of eternal flames casting somber shadows and eery orange light over the unfortunate Delta communities. Even the comfort of night’s natural darkness was robbed from these communities who existed on that terrible periphery of the oil industry’s wastefulness.

Harpers magazine interviewed journalist Nicholas Shaxson, the author of Poisoned Wells: The Dirty Politics of African Oil, asking him questions about African oil and American foreign policy. I am purchasing the book, will be reading it soon, and hope to report more. The whole article is fairly short and well worth reading:
Six Questions for Nicholas Shaxson on African Oil and American Foreign Policy

On the positive side he says:

Attitudes are changing. There’s growing awareness of environmental problems as well as rising interest in “corporate social responsibility,” so it’s a bit harder for oil companies these days to behave like colonial overlords. We are also beginning to understand the reasons for the “oil curse”—countries that strike oil tend to get poorer and more violent over time. . . Despite this new interest in the “oil curse”, old habits and temptations will always remain, because of the lure of oil.

And about the oil curse:

This is a pattern in oil zones. Villagers fight each other for compensation or jobs, and politicians fight each other for access to the oil money.

Shaxon discusses Gabon’s President Omar Bongo, the oil based sway he held over French politics, and whether similar scenarios exist or may evolve. With the private mercenary contractors and mini-CIAs that have grown up under Bush Cheney in Iraq, this may become a more pressing and complicated question. He points out that corruption is hardly a monopoly of African governments; western governments and financial institutions contribute more than their share to corrupt practices.

Shaxon also discusses the effect of oil on both Nigeria and Angola:

Q: A CIA official once told me that the consensus among Nigerians was that the country would have been better off if the oil was still in the ground. Has oil really been so detrimental to African countries that they’d be better off without it?

A: Angola’s oil-laden budget this year is about the same size as all foreign aid to all of sub-Saharan Africa—but according to the United Nations, Angola’s infant mortality is the second worst in the world, worse even than Afghanistan’s. At the start of the last oil boom in 1970, one-third of Nigerians lived in poverty; now, four hundred billion dollars in oil and gas earnings later, two-thirds are poor. People often put the problem like this: oil money would be a blessing but politicians steal it, so people don’t see the benefits. But it’s much worse: the oil wealth not only doesn’t reach ordinary people, but it actively makes them poorer. (emphasis mine) It took me years to really accept this counter-intuitive idea. But after all I’ve seen, I have no doubts.


The Iraqi hydrocarbon law, which was planned in Washington and is still pending, has many implications for West Africa. It shows the intentions of the western oil companies, and the Bush administration, toward any oil reserves they can exploit anywhere. African governments take heed. Some regard this law as the victory Bush and Cheney intended when they invaded Iraq.

You can read a discussion of the present status of the bill, and the various viewpoints here.

But I think The Spy Who Billed Me, which is a particularly noteworthy blog, states the situation most succinctly:

The proposed law will allow international oil companies to retain 70% of production over the next 30 years. An additional 20% of production will be tax-free. These are particularly lucrative terms. Countries that allow foreign ownership of a portion of production generally limit this to 20%. US allies Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have completely nationalized production and do not allow any portion to go directly to the firms.

The Niger delta from Google maps

This is another in a series of posts based on the work by b real at Moon of Alabama. Understanding AFRICOM: A Contextual Reading of Empire’s New Combatant Command part I. The article is in three parts, part II and part III and a PDF version of the complete series is available here. This post is based primarily on part II .

(The US) strategic objective focuses on securing Nigerian and Gulf energy supplies To achieve this strategic goal, American military planners have launched a two-pronged pincher movement whose main objective is “Ring-Fencing Nigeria” from the north and south.
. . .
(The US) is developing a coastal security system in the Gulf of Guinea called the Gulf of Guinea Guard.
. . .
Few Americans realize the scale and significance of Nigerian oil and gas production centered in the Delta and how this complex impacts American energy security.

With the offshore oil that is being discovered in Nigerian territorial waters, Nigeria is one of the few places in the world that oil reserves may yet increase for awhile. This means almost unimaginable wealth.

Shell started commercial production of Nigerian oil in 1956. Nigeria became independent in 1960. Since that time conditions have not improved for the vast majority of the people of the Niger delta. In fact, the delta is still occupied by foreigners and conditions have probably gotten worse. Air, land, and water are seriously polluted by the flaring of gases, and oil leaks and spills.

Looking at the Niger Delta on a satellite map, probably the first thing to catch the eye is the spidery plethora of rivers and creeks weaving across the terrain. It’s an area of great ecological significance, the kidneys, quite literally, of West Africa. The mangrove forests here are the third largest of its kind on the planet, and the extent of the ecological value is known only to the locals, as the majority of scientific surveys of the Niger Delta have been done strictly for economic reasons. If you zoom in on the Delta area you will soon start seeing gas flares, the most visible sign of the results of that research. The landscape is dotted with oil and natural gas wells and the production facilities required to contain and transport these fossil fuels to foreign lands, and gas flaring here has long been a problem.

In their efforts to get to the oil underneath, the extraction industries have typically burned off the gas reserves that have collected on the top of these deposits, allowing large gas flares to burn for years, adding toxins into the atmosphere which then return to poison the lands and those living there. It is said that “some children have never known a dark night even though they have no electricity.”

Shell has dealt with a succession of Nigerian governments, made payments as needed, and totally ignored the living conditions and needs of the people whose wealth they were extracting. Had Shell had any sense of corporate responsibility, or concern for human rights and safety, it could easily have pressured successive Nigerian governments into treating their citizens with more dignity and respect, returning some of the wealth, and facilitating genuine development, education, healthcare, and jobs for the people of the delta. Shell, and the other oil companies always had the economic clout. Development would be cheaper than war. They never had the good sense or good will.

Buhari, (a current candidate for President) in his earlier authoritarian rule, had centralized much of the power in Nigeria, especially sticking it to the states in the Delta, dropping their share of Nigeria’s oil rent revenues over a period of two years from 20 to 1.5 percent. (emphasis mine) But then Obasanjo himself, (the current President) during his rule in the 1970s, had laid the ground for Buhari by seizing lands and granting the oil majors rights to exploit the Niger Delta and, hence, its people, further undermining their abilities for representation and retaining control over their own lives.

In fact Shell, and the other oil companies operating in the delta, are trying to persuade the US that the local resistance movements, in search of self determination and a share of resources, are terrorists, and that the oil companies need backup from the US military in dealing with them.

And the US military is responding.

Much has been made of the attempts to link these resistance groups into the GWOT, especially on the part of the oil companies, in order to use the power of the U.S. military to stabilize these areas and secure the energy flows.

However times are changing.

The volatility surrounding oil installations in Nigeria, and elsewhere in the continent, is used by the U.S. security establishment to justify foreign (and domestic) military presence in African oil producing states while contributing to the oil industry’s windfall profits. Yet the depth of resentments, and the military capabilities of insurgent groups armed in large measure through oil theft suggests that the oil companies’ operations – what they call their social license to operate – may be in question.

The US risks further damaging itself by fighting against democracy in the form of local people who want self determination, and a share of the wealth generated in their own home. And Nigerians, and other citizens of Africa and the world, can look at the disaster the oil wars have created in Iraq as a warning of what could happen in the Niger delta. But the US does not appear to be learning the right lessons yet. In fact, as long as Bush and Cheney run things, there is no chance of the US learning, and turning in the right direction. The US military now appears to be planning to develop techniques of riverine warfare to fight the peoples of the delta. And the US is missing the bottom line. It would be cheaper to work with the peoples of the Niger delta than it is to fight against them. The problem is that it would be complicated, and require people who know something about the place and the people, not a characteristic of Bush and his cronies.



Moon of Alabama has a series of articles by b real providing some history and some of the thinking behind the formation of Africom. Part I, part II and part III. A PDF version of the complete series is available here. In this post I’ll look at some of what it says in part II of this series.

When the US announced the creation of Africom, it cited terrorism and oil as its two main areas of focus, as documented in these articles. As long as the US has this narrow focus, things will work badly for African countries. There is a lot of US talk about supporting development and democracy. I have cited the following, but it bears repeating, the one thing that all people around the globe, including in the US, should remember about Bush:

. . . the Bush Family and their allies and cronies represent the confluence of three long-established power factions in the American elite: oil, arms and investments. These groups equate their own interests, their own wealth and privilege, with the interests of the nation – indeed, the world – as a whole. And they pursue these interests with every weapon at their command, including war, torture, deceit and corruption. Democracy means nothing to them – not even in their own country.


There are rumors of US military activity in a number of places in Ghana. In some places it is fairly clear something is going on, but nobody is saying what. Today there are several articles at GhanaWeb about possible military bases in Ghana: US military base for Ghana, and No US Military Base for Ghana – Addo Kufuor, one worried speculation, one a denial. Ghanaians should make no mistake. There is already a US military presence in Ghana. It is probably what the US military calls “lily pads“. And this presence will grow. As it grows, neither the Ghana government, nor the US government are likely to be open or forthcoming as to exactly what is going on.

Bush continually praises Kufuor. It isn’t because of democracy in Ghana, it is because Kufuor has been compliant with Bush’s wishes. This is the ONLY test the Bush Cheney administration use in evaluating individuals or countries, are they compliant and loyal to Bush? Praise from Bush should set off alarms everywhere.

The US will continue hiding any military developments and activities. There have been demonstrations against US bases in a number of countries, and people from many countries are organizing to resist global and US militarism:

In a new surge of energy for the global struggle against militarism, some 400 activists from 40 countries came together in Ecuador from March 5-9 to form a network to fight against foreign military bases.


The following, from part II of the articles cited above, describes what has been going on pre-Africom, and provides us some clue about what is going on now, in Ghana and elsewhere:

In West Africa, the U.S. military’s European Command has now established forward-operating locations in Senegal, Mali, Ghana (my emphasis), and Gabon — as well as Namibia, bordering Angola on the south — involving the upgrading of airfields, the pre-positioning of critical supplies and fuel, and access agreements for swift deployment of U.S. troops. … [It] is developing a coastal security system in the Gulf of Guinea called the Gulf of Guinea Guard. It has also been planning the construction of a U.S. naval base in Sao Tome and Principe, which the European Command has intimated could rival the U.S. naval base as Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. The Pentagon is thus moving aggressively to establish a military presence in the Gulf of Guinea that will allow it to control the western part of the broad trans-Africa oil strip and the vital oil reserves now being discovered there.
. . .
U.S. naval protection of the sea-lanes that transport oil is of paramount importance.” The report also called for stepped up U.S. naval engagement in the Gulf of Guinea off the coast of Nigeria.

China has altered the strategic context in Africa. All across Africa today, China is acquiring control of natural resource assets, outbidding Western contractors on major infrastructure projects, and providing soft loans and other incentives to bolster its competitive advantage.
. . .
For the Council on Foreign Relations, all of this adds up to nothing less than a threat to Western imperialist control of Africa.
. . .
The goal of building large regional battalions may very well foreshadow larger proxy wars
. . .
Already, the U.S. supports unpopular governments in nations such as Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Central African Republican, Somalia, and Algeria.
. . .
Algeria, with its documented record of torture and ‘disappearances,’ is in many ways a model of how not to fight terrorism.
. . .
One Central African country in particular illustrates the need for State Department perspective and guidance to temper Defense Department enthusiasm. 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.

The US Secretary of State is weak, and does not appear to have diplomatic skills, her background is academic, and she is invested in the oil business. The State Department will not be able to counter the growing militarism as long as she is there, and she may support it. And even if she leaves, as long as Bush is US President, countries should be wary of any US offers and deals, including offers and deals made with their neighbors.

Any citizen of any country who has watched the debacle in Iraq will not welcome Bush Cheney attentions to their territories and resources.


Asmara . . . This is nothing! If only you could see Debre Zeyit.
. . .
(At) Debre Zeyit . . . the soldiers open the gate to a large enclosure at the top of a flat hill. The view from this place is unlike any in the world. Before us, as far as the eye can see, all the way to the distant, misty horizon, lies a flat and treeless plain – and it is completely covered with military equipment. To one side, stretching for kilometers, are fields of artillery pieces of various calibers: unending avenues of medium and large tanks; enclosures stacked with a veritable forest of antiaircraft guns and mortars; hundreds upon hundreds of armored trucks, small tanks, motorized radio stations, amphibious vehicles. And on the other side stand enormous hangars and warehouses, the hangars full of the body parts of still unassembled MIGs, the warehouses brimming with crates of ammunition and mines.

What’s most shocking and astonishing is the monstrous quantity of everything, the improbable accumulation, the piles of hundreds of thousands of machine guns, mountainous-terrain howitzers, military helicopters. All of this wended its way for years by sea from the Soviet Union to Ethiopia, Brezhnev’s gift to Mengistu. Not even a tenth of these armaments could actually be operated by people in Ethiopia. Why, with this many tanks, you could conquer all of Africa, and with fire from all these guns and rocket launchers reduce the continent to ashes! Roaming through the still streets of this city of motionless steel, where dark, rusty barrels stared at me from everywhere and around whose every corner caterpillar tanks bared their massive metal teeth, I thought about the man who, dreaming of conquering Africa, of staging on this continent a showpiece blitzkrieg, constructed this military necropolis. Who could this have been?
(Shadow of the Sun by Ryszard Kapuscinski, p.307-308, hardback, ISBN 0676973744)

I don’t know who it was, Brezhnev, or one of his ambassadors, marshals or ministers, but I know who his contemporary counterpart is: Dick Cheney is the current author of the most gargantuan and delusional military fantasy on the planet. Insofar as his hand touches Africom, it will harm Africa, as well as the US.

Valerie Plame

I watched the Plame hearings on tv yesterday. Some of it was quite riveting. CSPAN may be a bit slow moving and “boring” to some. On the other hand, it is what’s happening, as far as the US present and the US future goes. The most striking thing to me was when the director of the Office of Security for the White House, Dr. James Knodell, revealed that there had been no White House internal investigation of who had leaked the name of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame. Although Bush said they would investigate, and whoever leaked would be fired. I also understand that the White House has a legal requirement to investigate. The major players still have their security clearances, except Scooter Libby, who lied and obstructed justice, making it impossible to complete the investigation and formally identify the leaker.

Of course the White House didn’t need to make any investigation because they already knew who leaked. Every time the President, the Vice President, and Karl Rove look in the mirror, they can recognize the leaker.

Next Page »