AFRICOM: Counter Terrorism or 'New' Interventionism?

By Medhane Tadesse

The US administration has recently unveiled its new Africa Military Command-AFRICOM. According to US officials, the initiative is aimed at promoting security and building African capacity to deal with instability that has caused so much pain on the continent. Contrary to the official version of the event, analysts seem unable to assess the possible ramifications of the recent US decision. Many are busy organizing their thoughts on the issue.

One might ask why the need for a new command? The US can still support stability in Africa or protect its oil supplies without creating AFRICOM and relying on individual African countries. After all, it has always maintained a naval battle group on the coast of north Africa, west Africa, southern Africa and recently Horn of Africa within international waters since the end of the second World War; so why can’t it continue this policy or operate say from joint US/UK base at Diego Garcia? Some charge that oil is the key concern of the US in establishing its Africa command. This was partly exposed by recent interviews granted by top US military officials of whom one official stated that the US is seriously considering the establishment of a military base in Ghana for the sole purpose of protecting its access to West African oil. The US plans to buy at least 30% of its oil from West Africa, which has vast reserves of unexplored oil. The head of the US European Command who made the disclosure said the pentagon was seeking to acquire to two kinds of bases not only in the Horn but also in other areas including in Senegal, Ghana, Mali, and of course many other African countries.

After all, the entire Bush administration has long considered the control of resources like oil to be a strategic issue. Back in 2001, Vice president Cheney’s National Energy Policy development Group recommended that the administration ‘ make energy security a priority of our trade and foreign policy”. This was followed by white paper in which the White House rolled out its “West Point Doctrine,” which in essence stated that the US would not permit the emergence and development of a major economic, political, or military competitor. Equally disturbing is the propensity towards predatory kind of resource extraction. As one put, it this AFRICOM is nothing short of a sovereignty and resource grab, more so because of another reason: the so-called Indo-China effects, as China and India are now competing with the US for energy resources. Increasingly, the contours of US foreign policy are running up against the new energy-hungry kids on the block, particularly India and China. But oil is not the only bone of contention. This may be the likely obvious reason, but the obvious reason may not always be the real reason.

Another obvious, but also real reason is the issue of global power order. In most cases, humanitarian and counter-terrorism concerns only cover true intentions of power projection. Some argue that the US has become a wounded super power and the new global order could be explained by a “contested” unipolarity. One major drive of the US is then to secure US global influence in Africa. Thus AFRICOM may seem like another way of supporting US national interests by purely military steps, which has been common throughout history. Above all this helps sustain a world order based on the same military asymmetry and its global governance correlate. Less obvious, but a real reason could be that AFRICOM is a simple answer to the expanding Chinese influence in Africa. It is more than a coincidence that a statement on the issue was made by president bush at the time when the Chinese president Hu Jintao was touring African countries. What is the stake for Africa?

I am sure there are several candidates ready to host AFRICOM as a whole or some of its parts. Very few African countries (to mention one, Algeria) are not attracted by the new enterprise. A major risk associated with hosting US military installations include terrorist attacks, the destruction of national culture and sovereignty and more direct US control over the lives of their hosts. These will definitely lead to a situation where, in the face of US military might, some oil and gas rich African countries can loose considerable part of their national sovereignty. Deployment of US troops on the continent will also help untie the White House’s hands to pursue its regional interests bypassing the United Nations and international law, further limiting the political independence of sovereign states as well as the African Union as a whole. This will give way to a new model of interventionism.

Equally troubling is that, whether in the name of terrorism or oil, increased U.S military presence in Africa may simply serve to protect unpopular regimes that are friendly to its intentions and interests, as was the case during the cold war, while Africa slips further into poverty and anarchy. In the same way as the war on terror, the race for oil and the establishment of AFRICOM will have the de facto function of preserving a political status quo, which includes indefinite militarization of U.S domestic and global governance. The impact will go beyond further militarizing US foreign policy. It quite is possible that countries hosting the infrastructures of AFRICOM would tend to use forceful methods to resolve disputes counting on US support. This will only broaden tensions, aggravate conflicts and threaten regional and global security. By militarizing governance in Africa and entrenching armed consciousness, this trend aggravates political problems and in doing so actually perpetuates conflict. Not to mention the fact that the buildup of US military presence in certain African countries will provoke the growth of anti-American sentiments and the radicalization of Islam that will be actively used by extremist elements to consolidate their positions, recruit new fighters or wage jihad. As such the whole enterprise is a source of concern and the trend is really depressing. Whether this is the case or not, we need an African debate.

March 30, 2007

Medhane Tadesse of CPRD is a long time specialist on issues of peace and security in the Horn of Africa. He can be reached at mt3002et@yahoo.com