AFRICOM: African Military HQ Plans Dropped

Important news, as the BBC reports:

The US military has decided to keep the headquarters of its new Africa Command in Germany, after only one African nation, Liberia, offered to host it.

While Gen William 'Kip' Ward had tried to calm African leaders' fears by insisting that AFRICOM was just created to help Africa with "security" and "peacekeeping", well-founded concerns about a hidden agenda were expressed by African leaders:

There has been concern that Africom is really an attempt to protect US oil and mineral interests in Africa, amid growing competition for resources from Asian economies, says the BBC's Alex Last in the Nigerian capital Abuja.

Then there are fears about the continent being drawn into the US war on terror, our correspondent ads.

Now, in case you're of the opinion that this was just a Bush administration ploy to exercise American imperialist dominance on the continent, read the words of Barack Obama who, along with the other major Democratic presidential candidates, pledged support for AFRICOM. And you'll see that those "fears about the continent being drawn into the US war on terror" are grounded in reality as well:

AFRICOM, the new unified command, should serve to coordinate and synchronize our military activities with our other strategic objectives in Africa. Working under the foreign policy leadership of the State Department, this command should help to integrate military (especially non-lethal capabilities) with all the other elements of US power and diplomacy. AFRICOM should promote a more united and coordinated engagement plan for Africa.

Security cooperation at the AU and national level is extremely important, and the US military has made great strides in this area. This effort must be matched by a similar interagency commitment to enhance and fund a more robust “stability cooperation” program. Increased security depends on better governance and plans for long-term stability that foster a believable hope among Africans that tomorrow will be better. This means cleaner water, adequate food, better schools, available and affordable healthcare, improved infrastructure and communications, more employment opportunities, human rights, and total gender equality.

There will be situations that require the United States to work with its partners in Africa to fight terrorism with lethal force. Having a unified command operating in Africa will facilitate this action. That means AFRICOM must forge genuine military partnerships that are predicated on mutual respect and responsibility. There must be joint training exercises to ensure interoperability in operations and logistics. The effort against terrorists operating in Africa will require a joint and combined effort with African countries to achieve lasting mutual progress—that is one of AFRICOM’s missions.

An Obama Administration, therefore, will pursue an Africa policy that seeks to work with its partners in Africa to realize the goals of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development. These include the eradication of poverty, putting Africa on a sustainable path of growth and development and reversing the marginalization of the continent in the global economy. An Obama Administration will work to help ensure that Africa is seen as a desirable destination for American trade and investment and that the continent is a priority for the United States. It will also work to ensure that transparency, accountability, and rule of law are widely upheld. An Obama Administration will pursue effective partnerships to combat terrorism while making the continent a safer and healthier place to live.

Contrast what Obama said about the US military plans for AFRICOM and what General Ward has said publically: "Gen Ward said Africom was not about militarisation..." That obviously is not what Obama has in mind with his statement about "interoperability".

The fact that Liberia's was the only government willing to host the AFRICOM base on the continent and that others have refused is a huge slap in the face to the US government. It's a rejection based on preserving African interests. Meanwhile, the Americans will continue to attempt to run their AFRICOM operations from Germany. The age of colonialism in one form or another lives on.

As a recent column NYT discussing a president's power to influence the economy concluded:

And if you’re still worrying about how to vote, I have two pieces of advice. First, spend your time studying foreign policy, where the president has more direct power, and the choice of a candidate makes a much bigger difference.

In this election, however, all of the candidates are reading from the same playbook when it comes to Africa's fate, so there is no choice. Perhaps they should heed the words of Uzodinma Iweala: Stop Trying To 'Save' Africa.

Related:

The controversy over Africom
 

Quote du Jour: The US Militarization of Africa

Via Guerilla News Network:

The Congressional Research Service’s latest accounting [PDF] of the Global War on Terrorism, of which AFRICOM would be a part, puts the cost at $611 billion since 2001, not including additional recent requests of $147 billion and another $50 billion.

For less than that $808 billion spent in the last six years, we could provide universal primary education, reduce infant mortality by two thirds and provide universal access to potable water and not just for the United States, but also for the world. These Millennium Development Goals have languished with sporadic investment and big promises, while military solutions to problems are funded robustly.

Reexamining this imbalance seems like a crucial first step. And the battle for African hearts and minds will not be won if it’s clear that it is being waged more for the sake of U.S. strategic interests than African needs.

I urge you to read the entire article.
 

Sunday Food for Thought: Belligerent Benevolence

So, I was reading yet another article about the outrage sparked by the Iraqi government taking a summer break - this one in The Independent by Rupert Cornwell who takes a look at "work-obsessed Americans": Out of America: Holidays are for wimps (and the President) - and the phrase that popped into my mind about this whole affair was "belligerent benevolence".

Cornwell writes:

In a sense, the tide of criticism (complete with a stern "Do not go on vacation" instruction from George W Bush in person) is part of the new orthodoxy about Iraq here [in Washington]. This holds that the mess is all Iraq's fault. The US has done its part, selflessly kicking out Saddam Hussein and sacrificing blood and treasure to give Iraqis the chance to fashion a lasting democracy, but they haven't taken it. Instead the parliament squabbles and feuds, unwilling to pass vital legislation to reduce sectarian discrimination, share oil revenues and so on.

But indignation about those lazy do-nothings in Baghdad also reflected a different and ancient American reality. Something in the culture, the character or maybe the water makes the country deem a decent holiday an offence against God and all his works. As a recent study has it, the US is "the No-Vacation Nation".

He goes on to compare different nations' paid vacation policies and practices but the larger point is really about how too many Americans still buy into this myth that in every department they are "the greatest nation on earth". Emma Goldman summed up that attitude succinctly:

Patriotism ... is a superstition artificially created and maintained through a network of lies and falsehoods; a superstition that robs man of his self-respect and dignity, and increases his arrogance and conceit.

And while the current administration is the height of that type of arrogance, US history shows that both major parties have pushed the same type of patriotism that places their country above all others. And by doing so, America feels entitled when it gives something of itself to others - even when they do it without being asked ie. see: war, Iraq.

It's classic martyr syndrome behaviour and all of this feigned outrage over the Iraqi politicians taking a break is definitely symbolic of the bigger disease: belligerent benevolence.

Why would I call an illegal war benevolent? Because that's exactly how those who support see it every time they claim that it's about "spreading democracy" or "making the lives of Iraqis better". They really believe that military interventionism is an expression of "compassionate conservatism".

As Smedley Butler wrote in 1933:

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

No one in the world gets something from America for nothing. Every "gift" is fraught with conditions and expectations that whoever they show their generosity to will in turn become eternally grateful in that they will become quasi-American. What an incredibly boring world it would be if that came to pass.

As Uzodinma Iweala recently wrote in a Washington Post editorial titled, Stop Trying To 'Save' Africa: ... (Too late.)

Such campaigns, however well intentioned, promote the stereotype of Africa as a black hole of disease and death. News reports constantly focus on the continent's corrupt leaders, warlords, "tribal" conflicts, child laborers, and women disfigured by abuse and genital mutilation. These descriptions run under headlines like "Can Bono Save Africa?" or "Will Brangelina Save Africa?" The relationship between the West and Africa is no longer based on openly racist beliefs, but such articles are reminiscent of reports from the heyday of European colonialism, when missionaries were sent to Africa to introduce us to education, Jesus Christ and "civilization."

Sound familiar?

There is no African, myself included, who does not appreciate the help of the wider world, but we do question whether aid is genuine or given in the spirit of affirming one's cultural superiority. My mood is dampened every time I attend a benefit whose host runs through a litany of African disasters before presenting a (usually) wealthy, white person, who often proceeds to list the things he or she has done for the poor, starving Africans. Every time a well-meaning college student speaks of villagers dancing because they were so grateful for her help, I cringe. Every time a Hollywood director shoots a film about Africa that features a Western protagonist, I shake my head -- because Africans, real people though we may be, are used as props in the West's fantasy of itself. And not only do such depictions tend to ignore the West's prominent role in creating many of the unfortunate situations on the continent, they also ignore the incredible work Africans have done and continue to do to fix those problems.

Why do the media frequently refer to African countries as having been "granted independence from their colonial masters," as opposed to having fought and shed blood for their freedom?

Because the west's benevolent empire building cloaked in the pc-sounding name "nation building" in order to rape cultures of their identity and resources has become the only way it can sustain itself. The people affected are simply "collateral damage" who must remain marginalized in order to stop any sort of revolt on a mass scale because that might cause the empire to collapse.

The problem is, however, that every colonial empire eventually collapses under its own weight.

This belligerence, this impatience with the Iraqi government - which just isn't getting the oil privatization law passed quickly enough for the war profiteers to walk off with their spoils - is just the latest example of the type of belligerent benevolence that drives every empire.

The "ungratefuls" will be made to pay - somehow - just as they already are in Iraq with a lack of water, electricity, proper sewage and basic human needs. They are being punished and that punishment is a war crime - just as the invasion of their country was to begin with. How dare any American demand compliance by a government it created in the midst of a hell that it engineered?

The next time America wants to be benevolent, it might just try giving to the Red Cross/Red Crescent and leave it at that. The rest of the world would certainly be much better off if it did.