Before President Bush left for Africa, AFJN and several other NGO’s organized a press call to address some of our primary concerns regarding the Bush Administration’s legacy in Africa. On the top of the list was the new US military command for Africa – AFRICOM.  Those who spoke on the call highlighted this flawed policy and reinforced the notion that the US must remain engaged in debt relief, HIV/AIDS policy, and education initiatives, not military aid. Thus, while Bush visited the continent to celebrate his successes, the NGO community and partners in Africa attempted to raise issues of concern among the press. Click here to read a transcript of the call.

AFJN staff members Bahati Ntama Jacques and Beth Tuckey also published Op-Eds referencing Bush’s trip and his heavy-handed policy of defense instead of diplomacy in Africa. In an article on Rwanda and the War on Terror, Jacques and Tuckey argue that Bush is using the Kagame regime in Rwanda to secure access to natural resources and to fight the global War on Terror, despite the negative implications for the people of the Democratic Republic of Congo. The article appeared in Foreign Policy in Focus, Pambazuka News, Monthly Review, and many other online publications. On AFRICOM, Tuckey writes that in the end, it is not the militarization of Africa that will guarantee security for America and the people of Africa but rather justice and equitable trade. Her article appeared in Pambazuka News, AllAfrica.com, and several other places online.

Through these venues, AFJN sought to influence the American perception of Bush’s policies in Africa and to recognize that while Bush has made some valuable contributions to development and democracy in Africa, he has also institutionalized many negative policies that may jeopardize the security of the people of Africa.

Attaining security in the post-9/11 world has shaped the Bush administration’s foreign policy paradigm and has prompted a reorganization of the United States’ entire national security apparatus. New rules have been assigned, new positions created, and the US government has situated itself to take the lead in countering what it sees as the nation’s biggest security threat – radical Islam. But in the end, generating long-term security has less to do with fighting rogue terrorist groups than with bolstering the power of women, teachers, youth, microfinance, and an overall fair and equitable foreign policy.

At first, the United States’ post-9/11 foreign policy allowed for a reasonable course of retaliation against the Afghani government for its long history of supporting radical Islam. Al Qaeda cells were also targeted for their ties to the attacks on US homeland.  Then, the rhetoric and procedures began to shift. It is now no longer about exerting retribution upon those particular individuals who did America harm, it is about a Global War on Terror, a war that instills fear in the American people, and according to the Bush Administration, a war that justifies a vast network of defense and security operations worldwide.

DOD officials have said that the AFRICOM force of about 600 will be mainly administrative personnel concentrated at its headquarters, currently in Stuttgart, Germany. They will be both civilian and military personnel re-assigned from the European Command (EUCOM), Pacific Command (PACOM), and Central Command (CENTCOM), the military commands that African operations were previously drawn from.

However, achieving AFRICOM’s goal of increasing the security capability of African countries will require more than just administrative personnel. Furthermore, with U.S. troops over-extended in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, one of the likely options for AFRICOM is to hire military contractors. Considering the recent Blackwater, Inc. controversy in Iraq, this option is increasingly unsettling.