|
U.S. Boots on Africa's Ground |
|
|
At present, the United States has approximately 1500 military
personnel stationed in Djibouti. They are already performing the kind of work
that is envisioned for the Africom. The
recent bombings of ‘terrorist’ hideouts in Somalia were carried out by this
Djibouti-based force. The same soldiers
have also participated in humanitarian missions in the region.
Why a command such as
this? It’s not terribly difficult to guess, but then
we don’t even have to. The very clearly
stated reasons are three. First, there
is a concern that terrorist groups are making inroads in Africa,
that they benefit from unstable states with remote hiding places. Secondly, Africa’s mineral riches,
particularly her oil (by 2015, 25% of oil for the US
will come from Africa) make her strategically
important. Finally, the creeping
presence of the Chinese and the Indians present a challenge to what appears to
be imperial ambitions of the United
States.
Africom has been referred
to by “Stars and Stripes” newspaper as the ‘first of its kind,’ in that “it
will include diplomatic, developmental and economic staffers… from the
start.” The second in command of Africom
will be from the Department of State. No
other military command has this mix of the Departments of State and Defense.
Secretary of Defense Bob Gates said, in testifying to Congress, that Africo m’s
job will be to “focus on security cooperation, building partnerships,
supporting non-military missions and, if directed, military operations on the
African continent.” The new command will focus on preventing crises rather than
fighting wars. Troops specializing in missions such as construction and medical
care would be going to the continent on a rotational basis.
Chester Crocker, of the
US Institute for Peace (and infamous from his dealings with Liberia and Eritrea
in the 1980s), rejects the idea that the US
approach to Africa has become
militarized. And yet, that is in large
part what concerns some Africans who have begun to comment on this dubious gift
that is being handed to them. Newspapers
in South Africa and Kenya have
acknowledged the very real economic benefits that can come from having Africom
on the continent. However, they ask, at
what expense or at whose expense? From
experiences in Asia and South America, it is
clear what the social consequences can be of having a large number of military
forces, foreign or other, in one place.
Prostitution is only one of them.
Nor should the political
consequences be negated. One of the jobs of Africom will be to train African
soldiers and to help build up the military in many African countries. The danger in this could be the tendency to
resort to the use of force for resolving conflicts. Is that what Africa
needs as she continues to transition to democratic forms of government,
negotiating complicated ethnic and party-affiliated interests? While helping with training may seem like a
lofty enterprise, it is well-known that American-trained foreign soldiers
(School of the Americas)
can violate human rights with the best of them.
Kenya, which is seen as one of
the leading candidates for eventually hosting the command, knows what kind of
friend in need the United
States can be. Any country that accepts to host Africom will
undoubtedly become a target of terrorists or those who are opposed to the United States, as happened in Nairobi
and Dar es Salaam
in 1998. Even after suffering with the
Americans, Kenyans were barely compensated for their injuries and losses. Later, military aid was even withheld from Kenya when it refused to sign an agreement with
the US
preventing US citizens from being tried by the International Criminal Court.
One might ask why the United States
needs boots on the ground to take the pulse of the continent and to be ready to
act, if need be? What are the US embassies
for? Should ‘pulse taking’ not rather be
the work of diplomats? And wasn’t
development support and other humanitarian assistance the work of the Peace
Corps and US AID? In the past, activists
hoped that the US
military would come to the aid of innocent Liberians, Rwandans, Congolese and
others who were being preyed upon by armed groups. The US was rarely ready to stand
up militarily, except in the case of Somalia
and only very belatedly in Liberia. Using the logistical support and the force of
the US military could be beneficial in
certain desperate situations, but is it not dangerous to have soldiers on hand
on a permanent basis? The experience of Central America should make Church people shudder.
AFJN would like to hear
reactions from members in Africa and in the United States. There is a need for vigilance as this new
chapter in American military engagement marches forward on the continent of Africa.
Phil Reed
|
|
Children are Targets of Violence in Northern Uganda
Northern Uganda Policies for Peace
|
| 
