|
|
|
Last Updated: Sep 30, 2008 - 10:01:09 AM |
However, despite an intensive awareness and public relations campaign
in the two years since it was initially established, a deep-seated
wariness from Algeria to Zimbabwe remains about the command's true
intentions and ultimate objectives.
First conceived in late 2006 as a command to facilitate security
co-operation programmes in Africa, AFRICOM has been accused of being an
effort to militarise US foreign policy in Africa; as a command post for
systematic US exploitation of the continent's natural resources; as a
vehicle for the US defence industry to sell its products; and as a
vehicle to build up African surrogates to act on behalf of US interests
in all of the above.
"From the beginning, AFRICOM itself confused people because, rather
than providing coherence [of vision in response to criticism], it
muddied the picture by providing so many different rationales for its
existence," said Victoria Holt of the Henry L Stimson Center.
That the command was presented to the continent without full
transparency also evoked concerns about the governance ethos for future
relationships. In response, African leaders almost universally went
public with their dismissal of the command's overtures.
Rejection of the command in North Africa has been tied to perceptions
that the US 'Global War on Terror' was an excuse to persecute Muslim
nations. A recent visit to North Africa by US Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice has failed to shift those perceptions; Algiers, Tunis,
Rabat and new US ally Tripoli all firmly renewed their refusal to
consider hosting either headquarters or military bases for the US.
There has equally been little discernable thaw in the chilly reception
to AFRICOM from the southern nations. Senior military officials
gathered at the 2008 African Aerospace and Defence show in Cape Town,
South Africa, balked at what they considered to be US hypocrisy in
attempting to demonstrate that most civilian activities in Africa
should be undertaken by armed forces, even as they themselves were
trying to put the culture of military rule behind them. "We are told to
leave our military legacies behind us to become true democracies, yet
the world's biggest democracy is able to come into our sovereign
territory with all of its military might; it is hypocritical and
dangerous and not at all in Africa's best interests," one southern
African officer told Jane's.
AFRICOM's stated economic interests are also of concern to some African
analysts, particularly with respect to the emerging presence of China
in the continent's economic development. Whether China is a neocolonial
power using Africa as a source of raw materials - as some within the US
establishment contend - is irrelevant, as a similar criticism could be
levelled against the United States itself for its interests in African
oil, gas and mineral wealth.
At the heart of the African Union (AU), the pan-African body attempting
to take leadership roles in security, humanitarian assistance and
governance issues for its 53 member-states, was a sense that the
continent's own efforts to provide African solutions to African
problems were completely overlooked, a feeling underscored by the
failure of AFRICOM's architects to consult with the AU before
announcing the command.
The feeling of being shunted aside has been most acute within the peace
and security sector of the AU, which is working to orchestrate a
continent-wide standup peacekeeping force by 2010. Although US
military-to-military training and peacekeeping training has been
continuing since the 1990s, including the African Contingency
Operations Training Assistance (ACOTA) programme, there is risible
opposition to AFRICOM taking the lead in any of the training
programmes.
"If one wants to suggest whatever the US is doing [bilaterally] in
Africa in peacekeeping training is considered as AFRICOM, then Africans
have a case to say 'we first signed on to that particular project when
it was not AFRICOM, so you had better engage with us and tell us what
you are doing and what your objectives are'," said Bereng Mtimkulu, the
outgoing director of the standby forces programme.
"This will change the whole picture politically because African leaders
have not accepted AFRICOM," added Mtimkulu.
The command has acknowledged deficiencies in the way it first
communicated and has engaged in a public battle to address
'misconceptions' about the command at the highest level, emphasising
commonalities between African goals and US goals for security and
stability and economic advancement.
Belatedly, the command has opened dialogues with continental leaders,
earning grudging support for some of its proposals from pivotal
countries South Africa and Nigeria with its new emphasis on projects
and engagement.
Also, mindful of the opposition to the location of AFRICOM headquarters
on African soil by all of the continent's nations except Liberia,
command headquarters will remain in Stuttgart, Germany, for the
foreseeable future.
"What needs to come out is a recognition that the US needs a long view
here," said Holt. "If the US is serious about Africa, there needs to be
a sustained political interest, adequate and not episodic funding of
training and other programmes and support for the civilian part of the
equation."
Source:Ocnus.net 2008
Top of Page
|
|
|
|