This statement comes after a heightened terror alert on September 6th from the US government in Nigeria. Critics argue that the alert had less to do with true terror risk and may simply be used as justification for the necessity of AFRICOM. Furthermore, reports from This Day in Africa indicate that the Nigerian federal government has begun discussing the issue with the African Union (AU) in hopes that the new US Africa Command might be stopped entirely. There is talk that African Union representatives may present a proposal to the US Defense Department, arguing that the AU is capable of defending and protecting its own land without American soldiers.

Admiral Henry Ulrich, Commander of US Naval Forces in Europe, argued that a US presence in the Gulf of Guinea is not meant to subvert African forces, but is an expression of concern for countries like Nigeria that may need to fend off maritime criminals. However, the projection that 25 percent of US oil will come from Africa by 2015 hardly portends a purely altruistic reason for establishing AFRICOM.

Throughout the debate over where AFRICOM headquarters will be established, it is important to remember that the US military already holds some jurisdiction over the continent. Africa is currently covered by US Central Command (CENTCOM), US European Command (EUCOM), and US Pacific Command (PACOM); AFRICOM only creates a more cohesive force. Thus, AFRICOM is not new in its militarization of Africa but in the fact that it is including humanitarian work in its mission. The US began militarizing the continent years ago; that damage is already done. What AFJN is working to combat is the use of military personnel in civil society and humanitarian works.

AFJN applauds Nigeria and SADC for publicly announcing their concerns and objections. Currently, the debate seems to be focused on precluding the establishment of a military base, not necessarily the mere presence of American forces. Thus, the line remains to be drawn between which countries or organizations will refuse a base but permit armed forces and which will permit neither.