|
Africom: Talking Points for Screwing Mother Africa
by b real
Stars and Stripes: AFRICOM halts HQ plan; will phase in staff
STUTTGART, Germany — The U.S. Africa Command has shelved plans to build a new headquarters on the African continent in favor of placing staff there as needs arise.
The new command already uses 13 Offices of Defense Cooperation at U.S. embassies in African capitals. It plans to open 11 more over the next four years.
The offices are typically staffed by two to four people who act as liaisons between U.S. and host-nation militaries. The offices’ names will be changed to Offices of Security Cooperation.
…
AFRICOM had planned to select a site on the continent for a headquarters by Oct. 1, when it is to assume control of ongoing U.S. military missions there. The command last summer also favored building about six regional offices throughout the vast, 53-nation continent.
But public and private push-back from Africans led the command to back off from its original plan and instead focus on organizing and building its 1,300-person command in Stuttgart.
Undeniably, this is a setback for the fledgling combatant command, since immediately from the start there was an overriding push for securing a physical HQ presence on the continent, which only compounded AFRICOM’s public relations disasters. While this may indeed be a temporary response, reality check maybe, to the widespread resistance that the command has generated, it may also reflect the continued problems finding funding for establishing a new HQ and a network of regional hubs.
The budget released earlier this year called for $398 million just for startup costs. A EUCOM estimate from last fall figured it would require around $5 billion to stand up the HQ on the continent. A December 2007 report from a CSIS task force noted that:
this would represent a significant increase from the current annual U.S. expenditures on security programs in Africa, which run slightly more than $250 million, and there is a major question as to where these resources will come from – or whether Congress will approve them.
One of the prominent reasons for finding a suitable host country becomes apparent when you consider distance and timezones. Aside from the fact that Africa itself is a huge continent with limited western-style infrastructure scattered across six timezones, I’ve read that the flight time itself from Stuttgart to the continent is 11 hours. So don’t be misled into thinking that they’re just going to drop the idea. No doubt any number of oil companies would step up to foot the bill eventually even if Congress, for whatever reason, fails to give the Pentagon all the money it needs.
For the moment, though, this setback presents an opportunity to score some propaganda points. Continuing with the Stars and Stripes article:
“The African nations have told us, ‘Go slow, take your time, go ahead and do your work, provide value (to us) the way that you said, and it will work itself out,’ ” said Brig. Gen. Michael A. Snodgrass, AFRICOM’s chief of staff. “And we’re taking their advice. It’s their nations that we’re talking about.
“When the time is right, we will establish a presence on the continent in a headquarters fashion more than what we are seeing today from our ODCs, [the base in Djibouti] and the embassies.”
This is a PR talking point, intended to give African leaders the impression of their input in the planning of a U.S. unified combatant command. Snodgrass stressed the same message at a business expo hosted by AFRICOM near the German base on May 1st.:
“We’re going to take this one step at a time, we’re going to listen to the Africans and take their advice,” Snodgrass said.
“At an appropriate time, we will be invited by countries to come to Africa to bring our presence, which then means (there) will be an increase in activity and an increase in effectiveness in our programs.”
As we have documented here off and on following the February 2007 public announcement of the creation of AFRICOM, one thing that its spokespersons, planners and transition team have typically not done is listen to Africans or anyone bringing up things they don’t want to hear. It’s hard to imagine that changing much at this point, other than trotting out those African representatives already on board and "advising" the U.S. on how to best to go about accomplishing their objectives.
Going from the lineups presented at the various thinktank conferences and seminars, a high percentage of these influential Africans are military officers, usually graduates of IMET or other U.S. training programs.
And actually, this decision has little to do with "advice" from Africans. The CSIS report cited above recommended last year that DoD:
either postpone any decision on basing AFRICOM’s in Africa to a much later point or suspended action altogether. Priority focus should instead be upon demonstrating AFRICOM’s ability to bring concrete gains in its critical emerging partnerships with African governments.
And right before the U.S. president’s visit to the continent a couple months back, AFRICOM made the timely announcement that, for the here and now, the HQ would remain in Stuttgart, so this latest is not necessarily anything new. It just helps to repeat the message occasionally to placate the restless natives.
Another talking point specifically designed to assuage resistance from African officials was reiterated at that aforementioned expo by Vice Adm. Robert T. Moeller, AFRICOM’s Deputy of Military Operations, while explaining the U.S. decision to centralize its "command" over the continent:
“Before, we would go do something and not return for a very long time,” he said. “We need to be engaged with them on a long-term basis.”
This point is part of one of the priorities stressed in a consultative publication from the thinktank CSIS in early March — Strengthening AFRICOM’s Case:
Historically, our security cooperation with African counterparts has tended to be episodic and brief; we should counter that by emphasizing that AFRICOM is committed to enlarge, strengthen, and sustain its engagement to build capacity in Africa.
These recommendations were directed toward the then-upcoming appearance of AFRICOM’s Gen. William "Kip" Ward before the House Armed Services Committee on 13 March, which saw the release of the first official posture statement [pdf – 54kb] by the new command. And Ward did drill in on the point in that document, employing the phrase "persistent engagement" five times throughout the 22-page text which emphasizes the long-term focus on building the capacity to help Africans help the U.S. take advantage of Africa’s wealth in "human capital and mineral resources."
As would be expected, 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.
Perhaps this was accomplished below the conscious threshold, but an apt signifier for how bad the U.S. wants to screw (over) Mother Africa is readily visible in the AFRICOM logo.
For yet another example of these contradictions, that very same Stars and Stripes article that has AFRICOM’s chief of staff Snodgrass saying “The African nations have told us, ‘Go slow, take your time" ends with one final announcement at the AFRICOM business expo in Stuttgart last week,
Gen. William E. Ward, the AFRICOM commander, told the business expo that the command would move full speed ahead while minding the yellow and red flags it is sure to encounter.
re propaganda
usa today: Pentagon launches foreign news websites
The Pentagon is setting up a global network of foreign-language news websites, including an Arabic site for Iraqis, and hiring local journalists to write current events stories and other content that promote U.S. interests and counter insurgent messages.
The news sites are part of a Pentagon initiative to expand “Information Operations” on the Internet. Neither the initiative nor the Iraqi site, http://www.Mawtani.com, has been disclosed publicly.
At first glance, Mawtani.com looks like a conventional news website. Only the “about” link at the bottom of the site takes readers to a page that discloses the Pentagon sponsorship. The site, which has operated since October, is modeled on two long-established Pentagon-sponsored sites that offer native-language news for people in the Balkans and North Africa.
Journalism groups say the sites are deceptive and easily could be mistaken for independent news.
“This is about trying to control the message, either by bypassing the media or putting your version of the message out before others (and) … there’s a heavy responsibility to let people know where you’re coming from,” says Amy Mitchell, deputy director at the Project for Excellence in Journalism. A disclosure on a separate page “isn’t something most people coming to the site are likely to see.”
Pentagon officials say the sites are a legitimate and necessary way to promote U.S. policy goals and counter the messages of political and religious extremists. They also note that the United States and its allies have been outgunned in the battle to get information to audiences in Iraq and elsewhere.
…
In a memo last summer, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England told all regional commanders that developing such sites was “an essential part of (their) responsibility … to shape the security environment in their respective areas.” The previously unreleased memo, provided by the Pentagon at USA TODAY’s request, directed that all site content be “accurate and true in fact and intent.”
Content for the news sites is written by local journalists hired to write stories that fit the Pentagon’s goals for the sites, such as promoting democracy, security, good government and the rule of law. Military personnel or contractors review the stories to ensure they are consistent with those goals. Reporters are paid only for work that is posted to the sites.
…
The new websites follow the Pentagon’s launch last year of a “Trans Regional Web Initiative” expected to lead to “a minimum of six” news sites run by military commands around the globe, according to a Special Operations Command notice for contractors interested in running the sites.
The initiative has its roots in the Balkans, where U.S. commanders set up a website in 1999 to rebut then-Yugoslavian president Slobodan Milosevic’s nationalist rhetoric in the Kosovo conflict. In 2002, it became a news site, employing local reporters, and hundreds of thousands of people turn to the Southeast European Times for news on politics, culture, sports or weather in 10 languages.
Neither that site nor those being set up are allowed to accept ads. They’re not about profit; they’re about shaping perceptions.
…
The websites suggest a pattern of Pentagon efforts to promote its agenda by disseminating information through what appear to be independent outlets, says Marvin Kalb, a fellow at Harvard University’s Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy.
“This is deliberate deception, and it’s bad … (because) it weakens the image of journalism as an objective bystander,” Kalb says, noting that many of the Pentagon’s intended audiences live in a world where they expect the government to control their news. “We’re the exception, and unfortunately, we begin to look more and more like the rest of the world when we do this sort of thing.”
the north african website is magharebia.com
related l.a. times article from 2005
Pentagon Calls Its Pro-US Websites Legal
US military websites that pay journalists to write articles and commentary supporting military activities in Europe and Africa do not violate US law or Pentagon policies, a review by the Pentagon’s chief investigator has concluded. But a senior Defense Department official said this week that the websites could still be shut down to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
…
The two websites are run by US European Command, based in Stuttgart, Germany, and maintained by Anteon Corp., a Fairfax, Va., contractor. The European Command is one of five regional US military headquarters around the world and is given authority for US operations in Europe and most of Africa.The Pentagon inspector general’s inquiry concludes that two websites targeting audiences in the Balkans and in the Maghreb region of northern Africa are consistent with US laws prohibiting covert propaganda, are properly identified as US-government products and are maintained in close coordination with US embassies abroad, according to a previously undisclosed summary of the report’s findings.
Yet a top Pentagon official, chief spokesman Lawrence DiRita, said he was concerned that a Pentagon practice of hiring news reporters to advance a US government agenda could draw criticism and that an ever larger military role in shaping public opinion overseas might have negative consequences.
The Pentagon’s efforts to win hearts and minds abroad have come under intense scrutiny since it was revealed last month that the military had hired a private contractor, Lincoln Group, as part of a separate operation to pay Iraqi newspapers to print positive stories written by US troops.
(AFRICOM has since taken over responsibility for the magharebia site)
The European Command created the Africa website in October 2004. It attempts to advance US interests in a region long sympathetic to Islamic fundamentalism. The Maghreb region encompasses Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Mauritania and Morocco, countries that are in the European Command’s area of responsibility.
Neither the Southeast European Times nor the African website, called Magharebia, prominently states its connection to the US military, although both link to a disclaimer saying that the sites are “sponsored by the US Department of Defense.”
…
As part of broad assessment of Pentagon policies, doctrine and weapons systems, a Defense Department working group has been trying to develop guidelines for the proper role of information dissemination during wartime. DiRita leads the working group.
the same disclaimers remain in place now, so any 2005 working group evidently found that to be good enough.
from what i’ve seen, alot of africans are well aware that magharebia is an AFRICOM project. it would be interesting to see how many of the original content there gets picked up elsewhere, but i have noticed at least one instance where a u.s. media outlet, bloomberg, cited content from that site in an article uncritically promoting AFRICOM GWOT talking points. while the author of the piece did ambiguously qualify the source as “the U.S.-funded Magharebia.com Web site”, he failed to disclose the direct relationship to the command. and it’s not like he wouldn’t be aware of this – he was writing it from stuttgart.
Posted by: b real | May 5 2008 15:36 utc | 4
would one of our fellow francophone patrons please tell if the following article in le point is doing anything more than stating that the four “pirates” whisked away & on trial in paris are also darod clansmen or is there something in there to lead us to believe that they’re actual immediate family members of the transitional somali warlord-president yusuf?
EXCLUSIF – Ponant : 4 pirates membres de la famille du président somalien
Aussi incroyable que cela puisse paraître, quatre des six pirates du Ponant , arrêtés par l’armée française et embarqués pour Paris dans un avion militaire le 16 avril dernier, appartiennent à la famille du président somalien, Abdullah Yusuf Ahmed. Ce dernier sera officiellement reçu à l’Élysée par Nicolas Sarkozy, ce lundi en fin d’après-midi.
Certes, cette “famille” présidentielle forme plutôt un clan de plusieurs centaines de personnes, celui des Darod-Majteen. Et le Président, ancien responsable du pseudo-État du Puntland, dont sont également issus les pirates, ne saurait être tenu pour personnellement responsable des agissements de tous ses membres. Il n’empêche…
the machine translation is just damn ugly & my french is worse than my bembe…
it’s already well-known that the TFG is behind much of the piracy in somalia, as a recent guardian article pointed out
The Transitional Federal Government (TFG) of President Abdullahi Yusuf, which is packed with former warlords, exercises little authority and claims to be unable to stop the piracy. But it is perhaps telling that during the six-month reign of the Somali Council of Islamic Courts over much of south and central Somalia in 2006, attacks on passing ships all but stopped.
Andrew Mwangura, head of the Mombasa-based Seafarers’ Assistance Programme, and one of the foremost experts on Somali piracy, says there are five main pirate groups operating, sometimes together.
‘Most of them are linked to warlords,’ he said. ‘And the warlords are linked to the TFG, all the way to the top.’
i’ve pointed out the figures before on the number of reported incidents during the ICU period, but they’re worth linking to again since the media ain’t likely to bring it up very often. see the graph in the UNOSAT map “Reported Incidents of Pirate Attacks & Hijackings off the Coast of Somalia (2007)” found here (3rd one down), which states that
The associated graph represents the number of reported pirate attacks since January 2005. Of special interest is the apparent reduction of pirate activity during the period of Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) control, as well as the rising levels of activity following the Ethiopian intervention in December 2006.
there were a total of 3 reported incidents from june-dec 2006. before & since then, the TFG & co have been going overboard. makes one wonder if the AMISOM fellas are getting a cut too, seeing how one of their only two bases is at the port in mogadishu.
and, fittingly, sunday’s edition of the east african ran the following story
US wants world action against E.Africa pirates
The United States is calling for concerted multinational action to halt the rampant piracy in East Africa’s waters.
The move comes in response to a recent series of hijackings and attacks on vessels, including a Japanese oil tanker. The price of oil spiked to a record level on international markets after the tanker was hit by rocket fire off the coast of Somalia on April 21.
Saying it is “very concerned about the increasing number of acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea,” the US is drafting a United Nations Security Council resolution intended to help Somalia’s Transitional Federal Government (TFG) counter the upsurge in attacks.
The resolution would reportedly allow UN member states to pursue pirates into Somalia’s territorial waters and to arrest them in that zone. At present, many nations will act to apprehend pirates only in international waters.
The US State Department noted last week that the TFG had asked the Security Council in February for assistance in combating piracy within Somalia’s territorial waters.
the TFG wants more cash, arms & equipment.
hey! here’s an idea – if you seriously want to curb these acts, then how about helping the somali people get rid of the warlords you’ve repeatedly help retain power? or is that just too sensible?
Posted by: b real | May 6 2008 3:58 utc | 19
remember that april 21 stmt from jomo, addressed @ bush?
MEND Blows Up Oil Pipelines, Invites President Carter To Mediate
Today’s attack was prompted by the continuous injustice in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria where the root issues have not been addressed by the illegal and insincere government of Umaru Yar’Adua and Goodluck Jonathan. It also dispels the false impression that peace and security have been restored in order to gain the confidence of potential investors in the oil and gas sector; to protest the continuous detention and secret trial of Henry Okah who was taken hostage during a supposed truce and who must be a key participant in any on-going peace process to make it acceptable to us. Then finally, to show our way of saying “welcome” to the US Naval warship, USS Swift which is transiting the Gulf of Guinea.
…
Mr president, your warships do not intimidate us. Instead they only embolden our resolve in fighting the Goliaths of the world that support injustice. Do you consider the over 4,000 precious lives of your compatriots wasted in that senseless war in Iraq? You have meddled negatively in other countries using false excuses and information in deceiving a gullible American public.
It was your country that once backed a blood thirsty despot called Mobuto and conspired in killing the visionary Lumumba. Now you are repeating the same evil in the Niger Delta and the gulf of Guinea.You dined with Olusegun Obasanjo, who not only committed genocide against the people of Odi, in Bayelsa state but is being discovered as the biggest thief in the history of Nigeria. In your God fearing heart, you know the truth concerning the fraudulent electoral process that has ascended Yar’Adua and his deputy to the presidency, yet your country looked the other way.
We have nothing to loose because he that is down need fear no fall. Our waters and farms have been polluted by oil companies with double standards. Our girls are raped by soldiers of the Nigerian army with impunity and protesting youths are assaulted and killed daily. Even journalists from your country can not visit the region to report the truth without being arrested and embarrassed.
MEND is prepared for talks and will prefer Ex President Jimmy Carter to mediate. Mr carter is not in denial as the rest of you who brand freedom fighters as terrorists, forgetting their integral role in any sustainable peace process just as he has demonstrated in his meeting with Hamas.
If the root issues such as the control of our resources continues to be swept under the carpet, and the governments deception of the Niger Delta people continues; including holding sons of the Niger Delta hostage in Northern Nigeria, then, like Otto von Bismarck once remarked, “the great questions of the time will be decided, not by speeches and resolutions, but by iron and blood”.
well, today MEND announces the following
President Jimmy Carter Offers To Mediate Niger Delta Conflict!
Former American President, Jimmy Carter, has offered to play a role in the intractable conflict in Nigeria’s Niger delta region if the federal government and other parties to the conflict want him to.
In a statement made available to the media today, the region’s leading rebel group, The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) said that Carter has offered to play a role and that it welcomes such a move and will cease all hostilities if the Nigerian government accepts President Carter as a mediator.
“The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) has received today, May 6, 2008 a confirmation from The Carter Center through its Vice President, Mr John Stremlau that the former President of the United States of America, Jimmy Carter has graciously accepted to mediate in the Niger Delta crisis on the condition that the Nigerian government and any other relevant stake holder invites him.” MEND said in a statement released by the group’s spokesman, Jomo Gbomo.
”President Carter represents transparency, impartiality, humility and integrity; four key ingredients critical in the mediator recipe towards ensuring a genuine and enduring peace process for the region. The Federal government’s acceptance of President Carter to mediate and also visit Henry Okah will demonstrate its seriousness to embrace genuine peace and reconciliation.” The statement said.
”For a government that talked so much about a peaceful resolution to the Niger Delta problem, President Carter’s new initiative should be seen as a golden opportunity for a peaceful resolution of the over 50 years of injustice perpetrated against the peace loving people of the Niger Delta.
”We urge the Nigerian government to accept this olive branch offered by President Carter in place of the jamboree called the Niger Delta Summit scheduled for Abuja. We do not believe the Abuja summit will achieve any meaningful goal and have no interest in attending it.
“We are ready to call off all hostilities and hold a temporary ceasefire in honor of President Carter should the Nigerian government accept President Carter’s initiative. However, if as expected, the government fails to seize on this new opportunity for peace, our actions will continue to speak volumes beyond the Nigerian shores.”
will yar’adua offer that invitation though? when he’s not off in the hospital somewhere he appears to be fulfilling a role on behalf of his godfather upgrade following last years’ visit to the muzunga house.
a recent ISN security watch article conveys the essence of that role
Nigeria, US ties may chart AFRICOM path
A different vision of military partnership with Washington being espoused by Nigerian President Umaru Yar’Adua appears set to get AFRICOM going and possibly chart its future. During a visit to the White House in December last year, Yar’Adua argued that what Africa needed was support for standby forces working under the various regional economic groupings in the continent to deal with perceived security threats without direct US military involvement.
“We shall partner AFRICOM to assist not only Nigeria but also the African continent to actualize its peace and security initiatives,” Yar’Adua told reporters during his White House visit. Amid media reports in Nigeria that his statement meant acceptance of AFRICOM, Yar’Adua insisted upon his return that he had not changed his government’s earlier position against the stationing of US troops in Africa.
“I did not accept AFRICOM in my discussions with Bush,” he said in a Nigerian radio interview. “I asked for assistance and told Bush that we have our plans to establish bases for African countries. We asked for [weapons training] and training to establish our bases to be managed by our people,” Yar’Adua added, mentioning specifically plans by Gulf of Guinea countries to set up a joint security force.
that analysis takes yar’adua at his word, though, as we covered here at MoA last year, those words were largely spun after the fact to make the initiative & offer for help appear to be indigenous. similar in a way to the indigenous guy on the great seal of the massachusetts bay colony way back when. only that indian probably didn’t have a fraudulent election & the courts to content with.
permit me to interject a relevant passage from frank kitson’s bunch of five
..three separate factors have to be brought into play in order to make a man shift his allegiance. First, he must be given an incentive that is strong enough to make him want to do so. This is the carrot. Then he must be made to realize that failure will result in something very unpleasant happening to him. This is the stick. Third, he must be given a reasonable opportunity of proving both to himself and to his friends that there is nothing fundamentally dishonorable about his action. Some people consider that the carrot and stick provide all that is necessary, but I am sure that many people will refust the one and face the other if by doing otherwise they lose their self-respect…
[flash mental picture of yar’adua’s goofy grin, seated next to bush’s]
continuing w/ the ISN article,
Signs are emerging that Yar’Adua’s model may be acceptable to the US, offering it a chance to maintain an effective but less obtrusive military presence in Africa.
puh-leez. his model? obviously the correspondent has overlooked the well-established u.s. focus on “capacity building,” “security assistance” & partnering, esp wrt it’s peacekeeping training over the years. the “primary AFRICOM mission” is, as gen. ward concretized in the AFRICOM posture stmt (cited in the orig post up top), “to promote African security by building the capacity of partner nations and organizations” in order to “reduce the risk that US forces will be required to deploy there in the future.”
the ISN article ends w/ the views of a security analyst who, while entirely missing the real crimes & victims in the niger delta & exaggerating yar’adua’s “approach”, eventually gets to the most realistic conclusion:
“Yar’Adua’s approach appears to be to use every force he could leverage upon, including US, domestic and regional might, to end the oil region uprising,” Alex Powell, a London-based security analyst who advises oil companies working in the Gulf of Guinea, told ISN Security Watch. “This appears to have pushed the delta militants into more desperate action, such as the blowing up of pipelines, which have dramatic effects on oil prices.”
If the Nigerian government is able to neutralize the militants without direct US involvement in protecting oil exports, it will make a good case for the idea of supporting African forces to maintain security in the continent, said Powell. But with largely demoralized troops under corrupt governments in the region, it is unlikely that the proposed Gulf of Guinea Guard will suffice.
“The more the regional governments are unable to maintain security, the more likely it is the US may be forced to intervene directly in its own interest,” Powell concluded.
Posted by: b real | May 7 2008 4:11 utc | 23
As we have documented here off and on following the February 2007 public announcement of the creation of AFRICOM, one thing that its spokespersons, planners and transition team have typically not done is listen to Africans or anyone bringing up things they don’t want to hear. It’s hard to imagine that changing much at this point, other than trotting out those African representatives already on board and “advising” the U.S. on how to best to go about accomplishing their objectives.
I respect your right to debate the merits of U.S. Africa Command. However, I don’t follow the reasoning of your initial premise above, that two postings on your own Website, respectively 11 and 10 months old, constitute evidence that U.S. Africa Command has not and does not consult with African and international leaders.
First, I’ll observe that your principle source of information has been the Stars and Stripes newspaper, which is owned and operated by the Department of Defense. If you consider this a reliable source of information about Africa Command, then that implies acknowledging there are elements within the U.S. Department of Defense capable of conveying trustworthy information. Some of the contributors to your blog do not have a high opinion of U.S. government officials who work with the news media. However, it is public affairs officials who have arranged all of the news conferences and interviews which you have cited since February 2007.
Second, the Africa Command Transition Team formally ceased to exist October 1 ,2007, when General William Ward became commander of U.S. Africa Command following his confirmation by the U.S. Senate. Prior to assuming command, Ward was deputy of U.S. European Command, a position which for the past two decades has involved extensive travel to meet with African leadership. In November 2007, Ward’s first trip as commander of Africa Command was to visit the European Union. See the Transcript of his November 8, 2007, newsconference posted on our Website. It reads, in part:
GENERAL WARD: When I mentioned that I met leaders, I was specifically referring to leaders within the African Union. I have met leaders over the continent of Africa in my previous capacity [as Deputy Commander of U.S. European Command] in over 25 African countries. And I would have to go through a list, but leaders in Uganda, in Rwanda, Ghana, Senegal, South Africa, North Africa, all over. But on this particular trip, leaders within the AU up to this point.
Just as the previous question that pertained to a headquarters, there has been discussion again about how the command might be organized to stay in tune with activities on the continent. One of those concepts does include the notion that portions of the headquarters might be distributed in various places on the continent. But again, there have been no decision taken on any of that. Again, a very deliberate process. I take into account the many factors and variables that would influence it. And until that very deliberate process has occurred, and the associated dialogue and consultations, there have been no decisions.
In September 2007, senior U.S. defense and State Department officials met with ambassadors and defense attaches from more than 40 African nations at the Airlie House conference center in Warrenton, Virginia, to discuss Africa Command. See this speech. A follow-up Airlie House event in March 2008 was better documented, with again more than 40 African nations represented during presentations by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England and Ambassador Mary Yates. Also see this article and Command Aims to Partner with African Nations.
On October 3, 2007, Ward met with international and African media at Foreign Press Center in Washington, D.C. See the transcript. After visiting the African Union, his travels also have included visits to Botswana and Gabon, Egypt, Cameroon, Mali and Uganda. While in Washington in late April, Ward attended a meeting of African ambassadors at the Embassy of Ghana.
One of Africa Command’s co-equal deputies is Ambassador Mary Carlin Yates , former U.S. ambassador to Ghana and Burundi, with extensive postings across Africa during her career, including service in then-Zaire during the 1994 Rwandan genocide. Since its formal creation October 1, 2007, the command has become a destination for the many people across the U.S. military and government who have extensive experience working in Africa with Africans.
Ambassador Yates and her co-deputy, Vice Admiral Bob Moeller, also travel extensively, and their visits have included Nigeria, Liberia, and Zambia .
I invite you to browse our article archive, transcript archive and photo gallery if you want to get an idea of type of ongoing consultation taking place.
For an overview of the command, take a look at General Ward’s presentation in February at the Royal United Services Institute, as well as his Posture Statement and transcript of tesimony March 13 before the House Armed Services Committee.
Vince Crawley
U.S. Africa Command
Posted by: Vince | May 10 2008 21:09 utc | 46
one more interesting analysis of china in africa, from africa this time
China in Africa: Is the continent being re-colonised?
In Africa we speak of China ‘colonising’ the continent. There are at present 800 sizeable Chinese firms on the continent, whereas in Singapore (which is a fraction of the size of Gauteng), there are approximately 2500 Chinese companies. The Singaporeans are begging for more Chinese investment, while in Africa we are terrified of a perceived invasion! 800 companies in 54 countries on the second largest continent on earth is hardly the colonial venture that some claim it to be!
In addition, China’s foreign direct investment (FDI) into Africa in 2007 represented less than 3% of its global FDI outflows and annual trade with the entire continent amounted to half the value of China’s total trade with South Korea. The hype which has surrounded China’s foray into Africa has created the impression that it has, in the space of a decade, become the dominant foreign player on the continent.
While Sino-African trade prospects are indeed very good, it will be decades before Western nations, and many of Africa’s former colonial powers, will be replaced as the continent’s largest trading partners. The Western media has latched onto the China-Africa story and promoted it to the front pages of its various publications – the effect of which is to create disproportionate attention around the Asian giant’s foray into Africa, which is happening at the same time as other emerging powerhouses India, Russia and Brazil expand rapidly into the continent.
same for the emphasis on china grabbing africa’s oil. john ghazvinian, in his excellent book, untapped: the scramble for africa’s oil, makes the case that
those who fear China’s rapidly strengthening position in Africa might do well to maintain a sense of perspective. After all, the reality is that China has a long way to go before it catches up to the Western presence on the African oil scene. When it comes to exploration licenses, Chinese companies still make do with what one analyst calls “the absolute dregs” and, overall, China’s overseas-drilling portfolio is very much in its infancy. Ninety-five percent of the proven reserves of CNPC and CNOOC are still inside China. Compare that with the British supermajor BP, for whom the UK accounts for only 7 percent of its reserves, or the three biggest American companies, where the corresponding figures average around 30 percent. For the moment, at least, China’s oil industry is heavily is most heavily focused on its domestic-drilling program.
…
..much of the hysteria in Washington over China’s expanding presence in African oil politics has failed to notice that it is part of a wider Asian search for energy security that simply happens to be playing out on the African continent. The Malaysian state company Petronas, for example, is active in fourteen African countries, including a project with the Chinese in Sudan. In Chad, as part of the ExxonMobil consortium, Petronas has been learning a lot about how to manage a big project, and in coming years will surely become a major player in Africa.
South Korea, meanwhile, has an economy every bit as bouyant and as oil-dependent as China’s, with the country now ranking as the world’s fourth-largest oil importer. In 2006 the state-owned KNOC picked up valuable new offshore acreage in Nigeria as well as an interest in a block of the Nigeria-Sao Tome JDZ. In March 2006 Korean President Roh Moo-hyun, recognizing the importance of Chinese-style petro-diplomacy, visited some of the continent’s major oil-producing states, and announced that Korea would be investing $6 billion in Nigerian infrastructure projects, including a pair of power plants that will supply 20 percent of Nigeria’s electricity by 2010.
ghazvinian also brings up competition b/w china and india for african oil which i’ll toss in here since it may be a factor in india’s alignment w/ the u.s. imperialists.
But China’s most important Asian rival for African oil is India, which is no less desperate to fuel its exploding economy. … Delhi has also made energy security a top priority, spending $1 billion a year in exploration efforts around the world, most of them channeled through the state-owned ONGC.
However, India’s approach to securing African oil concessions has been noticeably more timid than China’s.
…
Over the course of 2005, the Indians realized their approach to African oil exploration, which some analysts have described as “gentlemanly” and others as dithering or naive, would have to change. At the World Petroleum Congress in Johannesburg in September, India’s petroleum secretary, S.C. Tripathi, expressed his country’s bitterness at the way in which African countries were tying the award of exploration concessions to guarantees of cash and development projects. “Both Nigeria and Angola have conveyed that preference will be given to those offering economic packages,” he complained undiplomatically. “How much share you get in a block, they say, depends on the economic-development package you give.” A few weeks later, India announced it would be making up to $1 billion available for oil-for-infrastructure deals in African countries. The countries covered by the so-called Team 9 initiative included Chad, Equatorial Guinea, and Ivory Coast, but the ministry has since said it would also target Sao Tome and Congo Brazzaville. Much like China, India built up strong friendships in Africa during the heyday of the Non-Aligned Movement. But when it comes to oil, it’s all about money, and it is virtually always the case that China has deeper pockets.
getting back to the initial article, it brings up something that doesn’t get mentioned enough in the general coverage on sino-african relations. despite ghazvinian’s argument that chinese african oil operations are still tiny in comparison w/ those of the west, one very real issue that registers w/ the western majors is the impact on their well-established (post-/neo-)colonial dealings w/ the oil-producers etc…
China’s push into Africa also provides several of the continent’s states with a new and hugely influential trading partner to drive up price and increase the bargaining power of African government’s when courting foreign investment. The Nigerian government has been particularly savvy in exploiting this opportunity by pitting traditional investors in the oil sector from the U.K, France and North America against state-owned Chinese firm’s Sinopec and CNOOC. Add in ONGC from India and a host of new players in the market from Russia, Brazil and Malaysia and Nigeria is, for the first time since independence, presented with the opportunity to charge a premium for its valuable resources.
Traditional Western players have enjoyed preferential and often monopolistic control over Africa’s resources since 1960. China’s voracious appetite for these same resources, and its surplus of capital to pay for them, has increased Africa strategic importance – and therefore its value in the global context. The commodity’s boom which has led to five straight years of growth in excess of 5% in Africa has been led by demand from China and India. This boom is likely to continue for at least another 15 years – meaning that traditional players in the commodities sector in Africa will be forced to pay more, improve service delivery and engage in a healthy dose of competition. Aware of their value, African states are able to dictate the rules of the game to an extent that was previously impossible.
but not all of this is strictly due to the influx of players, which has led to the increasing demand for africa’s extractables. the rise in overall market prices has an effect too. last year, for example, the nigerian govt announced that it was going to start renegotiating its contracts & MoU’s w/ foreign oil companies, some of them dating back to at least the early 1990’s, in order to keep up w/ the changes in the price of a barrel of oil over the last five years compared to where it was more than a decade ago.
and finally, the analyst states the obvious, which apparently needs to be reiterated again & again until the reality of it sinks in.
..the allegation that China lacks an ethical code when doing business with Africa is hypocritical and selective. All of Africa’s corrupt leaders have enjoyed thriving trade with the West throughout their reigns. In the words of Zaire’s former dictator Mobuto Sese-Seko, “it takes two to be corrupt – the corruptor and the corrupted”. It was virtually impossible to do business in states such as Nigeria, Cameroon and Kenya during the 1970s and 1980s without engaging in improper practice – which in no way deterred the myriad of Western multinationals still plying their trade with great success in these and other equally contentious markets.
Another common but erroneous allegation is that China is becoming Africa’s new colonial power by controlling resources while not stimulating local African economies. This misguided and dangerous allegation implies a weakness on the African side which flies in the face of recent developments.
It is up to Africa, and not the outside world, to decide whether it will be subjected to another colonial-type relationship with foreign powers. What is more, China and Africa have been trading for centuries – long before colonial powers carved up the continent. There are remnants of Chinese trade with Africa stretching back to 1200. Apart from contentious pseudo colonies in Taiwan, China is not and has never been interested in colonising foreign countries. Had it been interested in such activities, it would have dominated and controlled the majority of the world before the United States of America was formed, and certainly before Portugal and Britain ‘discovered’ Africa. China’s push into Africa is a commercial one. Success for Africa will depend on the ability of its leaders to create strong legal and regulatory frameworks to guide foreign investment from China.
Posted by: b real | May 11 2008 5:39 utc | 47
..I don’t follow the reasoning of your initial premise above, that the two postings … constitute evidence that U.S. Africa Command has not and does not consult with African and international leaders.
well, maybe you weren’t listening then. what i said, as you even quoted, was this: “one thing that its spokespersons, planners and transition team have typically not done is to listen to Africans or anyone bringing up things they don’t want to hear.”
that should be self-evident. i never stated that africans were not being consulted. in fact, i pointed out the reliance on “african representatives already on board” who will tell u.s. personnel what they want to hear & how to best go about selling AFRICOM to their peers, the influential actors, and their fellow citizens. a glance at the roster for any of these conferences, committees, etc will substantiate that. even dr. wafula okumu’s otherwise biting testimony before the u.s. house last august concluded w/ suggestions on how to overcome the “hostility” from the african people.
that the u.s. has not genuinely listened to the overriding message is self-evident b/c there still exists the push for AFRICOM. yates can say it’s just that they’re “misunderstanding” AFRICOM, but she’s only fooling herself.
the briefings included in one of those links are from the period last june 21-22 after the second trip across the continent, months after AFRICOM was publicly announced to the world before consulting africans, in order to get feedback from a number of state govts on how they would receive the command. (algeria, morocco, libya, egypt, djibouti & the AU.)
that this reception was largely negative, as was the initial round of consultations, is not in dispute. aside from a few close allies, of which i’ll expound on at a later time, there was firm rejection of u.s. plans, w/ several african leaders coming out throughout 2007 announcing that they turned down u.s. requests to host DoD installations in their territories.
just one example of “not listening” to those who tell them things they do not want to hear – in the briefing on 22nd of june, one reporter from the south african broadcasting ctr asked ryan henry a (admittedly rambling) question that conveyed skepticism of the u.s.’ ability to listen:
..I just happened to come from home, and I attended a meeting of African intellectuals, and they spoken (sic) about this very same issue of the Africa Command. And out of that meeting I realized that there are three concerns. First of all, the general feeling that the U.S. image is so bad in Africa that the very same fact that to put a command there might even attract terrorism and endanger the lives of the people of Africa. That’s the general feeling that was there, that you need to make up our image first before you bring this command. What do you say about that? Have you looked at those kind of issues? Or you are just go in there and set the command anyway, as you did, went to Iraq anyway?
henry’s reply was notable for reinforcing that very skepticism:
I understand that people see the world differently and see the United States differently than we do. But we, again, have worked with countries. We’re working with governments and we’re working with multinational organizations. And we have not heard the comments expressed as you expressed them. We continue to do outreach and we feel confident with our partners on the continent that the way we’re proceeding is the correct way to proceed.
and sometimes where they really do hear comments expressed in a way they don’t like, again from the key nation of south africa, they assume that a bit of bullying or threats will help them proceed as they feel entitled:
US Ambassador to South Africa, Eric Bost, claimed that the South African Minister of Defence had refused to meet with the US delegation on Africom, and a US-sponsored African military exercise was postponed earlier this month. Answering questions about her government’s response to the outright rejection of Africom by the Southern African Development Community (SADC), Whelan said that would be fine, but that the US would simply cut off military relations with SADC as an organisation while continuing to engage with amenable countries in Southern Africa on an individual basis. [source]
and the other link to the stars and stripe article, from that same period, truly read like something conjured up by the onion
Improving the United States’ image in Africa was a prime topic as 80 people gathered Monday to discuss plans for the new U.S. Africa Command.
…
Since the command promises to be a tough sell in many parts of the continent, image reconstruction promised to be a main issue at the two-day conference and beyond.
“The world is watching,” warned one attendee.
The command believes it is about to do good things: train soldiers to be effective and law-respecting, organize medical missions to help people be healthier, and dovetail efforts with other do-gooders to create win-win situations.
…
“We’re doing something right, but we don’t know what it is,” said C.D. Smith, from the Defense Department’s African Center for Strategic Studies. “We have not been able to capture that, and we need to be able to do that.”
“How will Africans themselves look at this?” asked another.
It was noted that of the 80 attendees, only one was born and raised in Africa. So there was a tone to avoid force-feeding U.S. goals and viewpoints to Africa.
…
“We have to improve the quality of our messages,” Bob Leavitt of the U.S. Agency for International Development, with whom AFRICOM plans to work. “That substance has to get to the field level.”
running out of time tonite, so i’ll end w/ two appropriate quotes – first one from noam chomsky
When you conquer somebody and suppress them, you have to have a reason. You can’t just say, “I’m a son of a bitch and I want to rob them.” You have to say it’s for their good, they deserve it, or they actually benefit from it. We’re helping them.
and the second from nelson mandela back in march of 1958
The American brand of imperialism is imperialism all the same in spite of the modern clothing in which it is dressed and in spite of the sweet language spoken by its advocates and agents. The USA is mounting an unprecedented diplomatic offensive to win the support of the governments of the self-governing territories in the continent. It has established a network of military bases all over the continent for armed intervention in the domestic affairs of independent states should the people in those states elect to replace American satellite regimes with those who are against American imperialism. American capital has been sunk into Africa not for the purpose of raising the material standards of its people but in order to exploit them as well as the natural wealth of their continent. This is imperialism in the true sense of the word.
needn’t change much in that paragraph to keep it applicable half-a-century later
Posted by: b real | May 13 2008 4:46 utc | 53
sounds like the cia is still involved in renditioning people in somalia. in early 2007, after the u.s./ethiopian military invasion of somalia, suspects were renditioned w/ the help of the govts in kenya, somaliland and puntland.
recently there have been more reports of renditions of individuals alleged to be related to the ONLF separatist mvmt in ethiopia. wednesday’s news out of puntland included this story:
garowe online: More civilians arrested in Somalia for alleged links to Ethiopia rebels
BOSSASO, Somalia May 14 (Garowe Online) – Five Somalis who landed at an airport in the country’s northern sub-state of Puntland were arrested Wednesday minutes after they get off an airplane from neighboring Djibouti, a government official told Radio Garowe.
Yasin Said, the governor of Karkar region in Puntland, told Radio Garowe the group of five Somalis was arrested by Puntland Intelligence Service (PIS) officers at Bossaso airport.
The detainees were then loaded onto vehicles and transported towards Garowe, the capital of Puntland.
But an intervention by a senior government official in Puntland halted the detainees’ trip to Garowe, according to the governor.
“The Security Minister [Abdullahi Said Samatar] gave the order to return the detainees [back] to Bossaso,” Gov. Said, referring to the region’s commercial hub.
…
Gov. Said stated that he was “displeased” by the detentions, while indicating to Radio Garowe that such an act only harms the image and security of Puntland.
Many people in Bossaso, including traditional elders and community leaders, have condemned the arbitrary arrests of the five Somali civilians.
A Puntland government source said the five detained civilians are accused of receiving military training in Eritrea and of having alleged links with the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF), ), an Ethiopian rebel movement made up of ethnic Somali fighters.
A community source privately told Garowe Online that local activists contacted Puntland Vice President Hassan Dahir Afqura, pleading with him to stop PIS agents from transferring the detainees over to the Ethiopian government.
But the Vice President said that he can do nothing in the matter, since a “third hand” was directly involved in the arrests.
The Puntland leader, Gen. Adde Muse, was then contacted in Addis Ababa, where he has been staying for a number of weeks for reasons undisclosed to the public.
Last month, PIS agents in Garowe arrested and handed over to Ethiopian intelligence services two politicians with the ONLF.
Days later, a group of eight civilians were detained by the PIS and later transferred to Ethiopian authorities.
an earlier garowe online article, dated 11 march, reported that
Puntland Intelligence Service (PIS) director Osman “Diana” Abdullahi has steadfastly refused to come under the jurisdiction of not only the Puntland Ministry of Security, but even the Somali federal government as a whole, sources said.
Mr. Diana reportedly told Ministry of Security officials that PIS comes under the direct authority of the American government, with sources linking his comment to CIA funding for the PIS.
on nov 11, 2007, the indian ocean newsletter reported the following story
American spies in Bosaso?
According to local elders, American intelligence agents are present in Puntland.
It would appear that agents of American intelligence services, probably from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), are operating in Bosaso, a port with 300,000 inhabitants in Puntland, the autonomous region in the North East of Somalia presided by Mohamud Musse Hersi aka Adde. According to witness reports obtained locally by The Indian Ocean Newsletter, a number of American agents have been seen on several occasions moving around the town under the protection of policemen or armed Somalian militia via the slightly lowered tinted windows of brand new SUVs.
A large, well-guarded, yellow-stone building situated in the city centre is locally known for being their headquarters in Bosaso, even though it has no outwardly visible signs of such activity. One or two kilometres going east outside the city on the road to Marero (a departure point for migrants going to Yemen) an impressive villa opening directly onto the beach has been rented to house these American advisors. It is just opposite President Hersi’s Presidential Palace.
The Puntland authorities are staying completely silent on this subject and have refused to answer any questions connected with it. On the other hand, the local elders (who traditionally hold authority) speak much more freely about this American presence. Indeed, they know some Somalians who are paid generously to inform these ultra-discreet American advisors.
Puntland has been under close surveillance by the Americans since the overthrow of the Islamic regime in Mogadishu and especially since an Islamic commando landed on the coast at Baar-Galal in June 2007. The Puntland troops then engaged combat against them with the support of the American air force. A dozen of these ‘alleged terrorists’ were arrested and are to stand trial in Bosaso. Another radical Islamist group was arrested in mid-October by the Puntland armed forces. According to the official version they were preparing an operation to free the imprisoned members of the commando. The Puntland authorities consider that Islamist insurgents from Mogadishu are using the port of Bossasso as a supply route for arms.
recall that former warlord & now somalia’s interim president yusuf was also the original president of puntland prior to being designated in oct 2004 as head of the transitional govt of somalia, which had been created largely by foreign powers
recall, also, that many members of the TFG were part of the cia-created & funded Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-terrorism (ARPCT)
source watch entry
wikipedia entry
Posted by: b real | May 15 2008 5:19 utc | 59
secrecy news blog: DoD Releases Directive on Information Operations
A 2006 Department of Defense directive on Information Operations, which had previously been withheld as “For Official Use Only,” was released last week in response to a Freedom of Information Act request from the Federation of American Scientists.
The directive, issued by the Under Secretary of Defense (Intelligence), assigns baseline responsibilities for the conduct of information operations, an umbrella term that includes electronic warfare, computer network operations, psychological operations, military deception, and operations security.
Among related capabilities, the directive cites “public affairs,” the purpose of which is “to communicate military objectives, counter misinformation and disinformation, deter adversary actions, and maintain the trust and confidence of the U.S. population, as well as our friends and allies. Effective military operations shall be based on credibility and shall not focus on directing or manipulating U.S. public actions or opinion.”
The New York Times reported on April 20 that the Pentagon had mobilized numerous former military officials, some with unacknowledged financial interests in Department programs, to help generate favorable news coverage of the Bush Administration’s war policies. It is not clear (to me, at least) how this practice comports with the declared Pentagon policy on public affairs, i.e. whether it violates the policy, or implements it.
See “Information Operations,” (pdf) Department of Defense Directive O-3600.1, August 14, 2006.
It is DoD policy that:
4.1 IO shall be employed to support full spectrum dominance by taking advantage of information technology, maintaining U.S. strategic dominance in network technologies, and capitalizing upon near real-time global dissemination of information, to affect adversary decision cycles with the goal of achieving information superiority* for the United States.
…
4.1.2. IO contributes to information superiority by both defending military decision-making from adversary attacks and by influencing and degrading an adversary’s decision-making capability, thereby producing an information advantage. IO contributes directly to the national security strategy, which uses all elements of national power in a synchronized and coordinated manner to influence adversary perceptions and behavior.
under the section “Related capabilities”
4.2.3.1. Public Affairs (PA)*, as a function of command, shall support the continuing public information and communicating requirements of the Department. PA activities contribute to the broader U.S. Government (USG) communications effort by providing truthful, accurate and timely information to the public, the domestic and international media, military members, and their families. PA shall provide operational capabilities to communicate military objectives, counter misinformation and disinformation, deter adversary actions, and maintain the trust and confidence of the U.S. population, as well as our friends and allies. Effective military operations shall be based on credibility and shall not focus on directing or manipulating U.S. public actions or opinion.
*from the glossary
information superiority: The operational advantage derived from the ability to collect, process, and disseminate an uninterrupted flow of information while exploiting or denying an adversary’s ability to do the same.
public affairs (PA): Those public information, command information, and community activities directed toward both the external and internal audiences with interest in the Department of Defense. Effective PA is based on credibility and shall not focus on directing or manipulating public actions or opinion.
no definitions were included for the terms “truthful,” “credibility,” or “full spectrum dominance”
Posted by: b real | May 15 2008 16:27 utc | 61
from a CSM article – Pentagon scales back AFRICOM ambitions
Washington – When Pentagon strategists sought to create a new military command to oversee Africa, they believed they could build one that deemphasized military might and would serve as an exemplar of what so-called US soft power could do around the world.
But in recent months, the Pentagon has had to scale back its ambitious vision to adapt Africa’s political terrain, military officials acknowledge, adding they remain committed to the original idea of a military command to promote peace [sic] in the region.
For now, officials have ruled out basing the headquarters anywhere in Africa and may in fact locate it on the East Coast, a senior defense official says. They have also backed away from selling the new command as a full “interagency” organization that spans military and nonmilitary entities.
“We sort of admitted all along that we were building something that we’d never built before,” says one senior defense official, on how the command has changed. “So you gotta start somewhere, you gotta take a stab at it.”
contrast the senior defense official’s emphasis on AFRICOM being about “building something that we’d never built before” to the PA’s talking point (upstream) that the combatant command is basically “a bureaucratic restructuring of existing U.S. military programs.”
more from the CSM story,
The headquarters will now either stay at its current home in Stuttgart, Germany, or be moved to the East Coast of the US.
…
Officials have had to make other adjustments. Initially billed as a “whole of government” approach to solving the region’s problems, the new, hybrid command had sought to marry military and civilian expertise.
“To make it more effective, we want to incorporate other nonmilitary US players working in Africa so the security piece is optimized,” says Col. Pat Mackin, a spokesman for US Africa Command. But, he adds, “There is no government mechanism to create a true interagency headquarters.”
…
..the military will likely remain in the driver’s seat. “They are significantly walking back from interagency,” says Kathleen Hicks, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “What they’re now saying is that they will more efficiently and effectively deliver military programs.”
q&a excerpt from the may 14th transcript “Remarks by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates at the American Academy of Diplomacy”
Q: Several questions have looked at something that you mentioned in your Kansas speech and have also mentioned today, which is how the military was called upon in Iraq and Afghanistan to take on roles that perhaps they weren’t trained for and were not best suited for. You said, again, today — (inaudible) — that one way to solve that is to increase training and increase personnel and budget for the State Department. Yet with AFRICOM, some of the plans for SOUTHCOM, at least in their original conception, have called for increasing those capabilities inside the military to allow the military to become more involved in development, to allow it to be doing things, particularly in Africa, that it hasn’t done in the past and in fact is already doing in some respect in Africa. There’s been a lot of pushback on that from diplomats, from the NGO community and some of the Africans themselves. So does that lead you to any rethinking of how those initiatives should operate and what their mission should be?
SEC. GATES: I think, in some respects, we probably didn’t do as good a job as we should have when we rolled out AFRICOM. I wasn’t here when the decision was made to build an Africa Command, but I think my view at this point is that deeds are going to count for more than words. And I think we need to take it a step at a time. I don’t think we should push African governments to a place that they don’t really want to go in terms of these relationships. I think we start with those that are interested in developing relationships.
And I see it focused more on things like peacekeeping, on professionalizing the military, on improving their own indigenous capabilities, the relationships between the military and civilians in a democracy. There may be some areas of humanitarian assistance, whether it’s the equivalent of what we did after the tsunami or after the Pakistani earthquake or what we’re trying to do with Burma, there are going to be situations where the military is going to be the first in and have to deal with problems initially and where they then should be replaced by civilians with the expertise in dealing with the humanitarian disasters and so on where we are the ones that really only have the capability.
So I think we have to be cautious about the way we move in this direction. But I think that when I see — I was just in Mexico City. I discovered I was the first secretary of Defense to be in Mexico City in 12 years and only the second secretary of Defense ever, and Bill Perry was the first. But when I see the carefully developing relationship there, and it’s a government that’s been cautious about developing military-to-military relationships with the United States, but as we move step by step and do useful things together, I think we can develop those relationships. So that would be my approach to both AFRICOM and SOUTHCOM.
—
africa insight: Keen on business, China is yet to flex its formidable military muscle in Africa
…
India is also expanding its military wings and its naval dominance in the strategic maritime shipping lanes around Africa. This has made Chinese security analysts worry about the safety of their supplies.
India currently imports 11 per cent of its oil from Africa (mostly Nigeria), but is seeking more, especially from Angola, leading in some cases to direct competition with China.
It is also searching for secure, long-term uranium supplies to feed its nuclear reactors, as well as other strategic minerals, meaning that South Africa is emerging as a key partner.
India is involved in a tripartite alliance with Brazil and South Africa under the IBSA Dialogue Forum.
…
India is also using the forum to enhance its maritime cooperation in order to boost regional security. Notably, both Delhi and Pretoria have long coastlines and maritime interests.
…
Around 90 per cent of exports of both the countries are shipped. In addition, South Africa has six well-developed ports and a sound maritime infrastructure, with good facilities for ship repair and potential to get involved in shipbuilding.
Due to this strategic interest and maritime bond, in March 2006 India signed an agreement with South Africa to improve cooperation in merchant shipping and other related activities. The agreement provides for facilitating Indian companies to establish joint ventures in the field of maritime transportation, and ship building and repairs. Furthermore, the pact will also facilitate the exchange of information for accelerating the flow of commercial goods at sea and at port and encourage the strengthening of cooperation between merchant fleets.
Along the East African coast India has signed defense agreements with Kenya, Madagascar and Mozambique. It has also initiated joint training programmes with Kenya, Mozambique, Tanzania and South Africa. Delhi has convinced island states such as Madagascar, Mauritius and the Seychelles to cooperate on maritime surveillance and intelligence gathering.
Moreover, its fleet in the Indian Ocean is turning into one of the most powerful naval forces of the region, including new state-of the-art aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines.
This build up by the World’s largest democracy is multi-pronged: Economically for market and resources; politically for international influence and support for possible permanent membership in the UN Security Council, and competing with China for influence in Africa.
However, Delhi appears to be lagging behind Beijing in the trade stakes. Indo-African trade climbed to $30bn (Sh1.8 trillion) in 2007, but Sino-African trade was near $66bn (Sh4 trillion).
Despite the fact that all major powers have been deploying naval vessels to combat piracy or to keep the maritime supply lines in the waters surrounding Africa open, the Chinese Navy has kept its flag down.
It has no military bases in Africa like the United States, UK or France. Likewise, Beijing does not train African soldiers to deal with hostility perceived by Beijing as a threat to its national interests.
In Sudan, Zimbabwe, Cameroon and Gabon, Beijing has dispatched military teams to assist in the maintenance of equipment, rather than providing training for specific warfare activities. In Zambia and Algeria, the collaboration is limited to medical aid. Nevertheless, the People’s Republic is constantly facing the need to protect its citizens and companies abroad.
The long-term risk is that local tensions and conflicts will entice external powers to interfere and to exploit this volatility to gain clout at the expense of the Chinese. In response to such scenarios, China has opted to work with host governments.
…
Chinese bilateral military exchanges with other armed forces expanded significantly with 174 high-level visits in 2001 to over 210 in 2006. However, the increasing trend was not maintained in Africa, where such two-pronged exchanges have remained stable at an annual average of 26.
Beijing has established a permanent military dialogue only with South Africa. In addition, according to Jonathan Holslag a Researcher on China-Africa Affairs, “the number of Chinese military attachés and their support staff has barely or not expanded at all in the last few years. In fact, only in 15 countries are Chinese military attachés dispatched on a permanent basis.”
In terms of military aid, there is no evidence that China’s military aid aims at counterbalancing other powers, such as the United States. Apart from Sudan and Zimbabwe, most countries to have received Chinese aid in the last few years are also supplied by Washington. Moreover, in 2007 Beijing temporarily froze the supply of heavy arms to Khartoum after pressure from the Western countries.
more at link
Posted by: b real | May 16 2008 5:30 utc | 62
|
