African Resistance to AFRICOM

Since February 2007, when the US made public its desire to establish a central command for Africa, the project has been met in Africa with growing resistance and suspicion over what the US military really intends to do with such a command structure.
Would they build superbases chock full of military hardware and troops to protect access to oil supplies and other natural resources and, not incidentally, limit Chinese access to the same?
For many Africans, the project smacked of the first shot at re-colonizing the continent.
President Bush described AFRICOM as, "this new command [which] will strengthen our security cooperation with Africa and create new opportunities to bolster the capabilities of our partners in Africa. Africa Command will enhance our efforts to bring peace and security to the people of Africa and promote our common goals of development, health, education, democracy, and economic growth in Africa."
National Security Advisor, Stephen Hadley, explained AFRICOM as "a different command .... It would be a partnership, really, between military and civilians, and its principal focus would be to continue some of the activities that we're already doing to try and train peacekeeping forces so that countries in Africa and regional organizations in Africa can take more of a role in dealing with the conflicts and the problems on the continent .... I'm sure it will be an item of discussion on the trip, but I wouldn't be looking for any announcements at this point in time."
Few Africans have been persuaded by these seemingly benign descriptions. Since the US already has 1500 troops stationed in Djibouti, many wondered at the need for a second base.

In November, 2007, Robert G. Berschinski, a former intelligence officer in the US Air Force who served in Iraq, wrote a report titled AFRICOM’S DILEMMA: THE "GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM, "CAPACITY BUILDING," HUMANITARIANISM, AND THE FUTURE OF U.S. SECURITY POLICY IN AFRICA, for the Strategic Studies Institute of the US Army War College. In it, he says AFRICOM's "critics allege that the command demonstrates a self-serving American policy focused on fighting terrorism, securing the Africa’s burgeoning energy stocks, and countering Chinese influence.
To overcome such misgivings, AFRICOM must demonstrate a commitment to programs mutually beneficial to both African and American national interests. Yet a shrewd strategic communication campaign will not be enough to convince a skeptical African public that AFRICOM’s priorities mirror their own. Indeed, much African distrust is justified. Since September 11, 2001 (9/11), the Department of Defense’s (DoD) most significant endeavors in Africa have been undertaken in pursuit of narrowly conceived goals related to the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). Operations in North and East Africa, though couched in a larger framework of development, long-term counterinsurgency, and a campaign to win 'hearts and minds,' have nonetheless relied on offensive military operations focused on short-term objectives."


In the African blogosphere, suspicion and untrustworthiness dominate the discussion. As Sokari Ekine, who blogs at Black Looks sees it, "the question should not be whether Africa NEEDS Africom but why the US believes it NEEDS to have a military presence in Africa. We should be asking ourselves the following questions. Why does the US feels it needs a military presence in Africa? What will the US military presence consist of in terms of military hardware and numbers of personnel? How does the US intend to operate and in what circumstances will it’s forces be mobilized? In what way will the US military presence dictate or determine the price of Africa’s natural resources and who gets access to them? In what way will the US military presence infringe on the internal affairs of independent African countries and determine their foreign policy towards other AU members? How will the US military presence influence the foreign policy of independent African states towards non AU countries such as China? How will the US enhanced military presence infringe of the rights of African citizens? How will Africom impact on continental migration and the rights of the millions of Africans without citizenship and the rights of refugees?
Tristan at Contrary To Authority offered this assessment: "Africa is under a new wave of exploitation, this time, instead of people, rubber and gold, it is Chinese and American interests competing for oil."

Reasonable questions and assessments, made all the more so given global suspicions over the issue of permanent bases in Iraq.
When in Ghana, President Bush was told at a private meeting by Ghana's President John Kufuor, "you're not going to build any bases in Ghana," to which Bush responded, "I understand. Nor do we want to."
Bush added, "We do not contemplate adding new bases, in other words the purpose of this is not to add military bases. I know there are rumours in Ghana: 'All Bush is doing is coming to try to convince you to put a big military base here.' That's baloney."
But he then said: "That doesn't mean that we won't try to develop some kind of office in Africa. We haven't made our minds up. It's a new concept."
Definitely, suspicions will continue.