US Military Plan for Africa Panned
NEW YORK - While in Africa this week, George W. Bush drew fire for his plans to expand the United States’ military presence on the resource-rich but economically strapped continent.
“AFRICOM is driven by U.S. interests in preserving access to African resources,” said Gerald LeMelle, executive director of Africa Action, a non-profit organization in Washington, DC working to support peace and development in Africa.
AFRICOM is the acronym for the U.S. Africa Command, which was established in February 2007 after top Pentagon officials concluded that “peace and stability on the continent impacts not only Africans, but the interests of the U.S. as well.”
Before the end of his week-long trip to Africa Thursday, Bush said the new command would provide African nations with military training and assistance so that they could handle their problems in an effective way.
But critics think the U.S. military presence would make the situation much worse for ordinary people across the continent.
“This aggressive initiative threatens successful U.S.-African partnerships for development and democracy,” said LeMelle about AFRICOM, noting with concern that, “neither African governments nor the United Nations were consulted on the announcement of AFRICOM.”
Like LeMelle, Africa Action’s policy analyst Michael Swigert is concerned about Washington’s policy towards Africa, calling it a mix of “militarism and ideological inflexibility.”
“In order for the success stories he saw last week to be replicated across Africa, President Bush should do his best to ensure that future U.S. policies support widespread systemic changes in U.S.-Africa relations,” said Swigert.
“This means fully funding the fight against HIV/AIDS and removing the ideological limitations in PEPFAR that undermine the program’s effectiveness. The U.S. should cancel the foreign debt of African countries so that aid money is no longer trapped.”
PEPFAR refers to Bush’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. It restricts one third of U.S. global HIV prevention funds to abstinence-until-marriage programs that critics say have proven ineffective and have caused serious risks to women’s health.
Congress is currently considering bills that would reverse this policy. If passed, the proposed Protection Against Transmission of HIV for Women and Youth (PATHWAY) Act in the House and the Senate’s HIV Prevention Act would change the way the funding is delivered.
Most of the attention around the Bush visit was focused on U.S. public health programs in Africa, particularly PEPFAR. Although Bush has said publicly that he wants to double the amount spent on the program to $30 billion over the next five years, critics say his actual budget proposal for next year would provide no increase at all.
Groups campaigning for development aid to Africa have repeatedly demanded the cancellation of many African countries’ foreign debts, arguing that it makes little sense for the United States to fund education, health care, and other programs in a foreign country while simultaneously taking money from that government that otherwise could have been spent building those programs locally.
Many also argue that the loans were provided decades ago to rulers who spent it on weapons and their own personal estates — often with the full knowledge of those who were providing the loans. The current citizens of Africa and their less corrupt governments should not be saddled with these “odious” debts that were squandered by previous generations, analysts say.
“Bush witnessed firsthand the positive impacts of debt cancellation in Tanzania,” said Swigert. “As long as other African countries remain bound by the chains of debt, similar gains across the continent will be difficult.”
In Liberia, Bush pledged U.S. support to tackle poverty and disease, as well as literacy programs, which included providing 1 million books and furniture for about 10,000 students by the beginning of the next school year.
So far, Liberia is the only nation among the 53 African countries that has agreed to host the U.S. forces. Reports from the region indicate that many African countries are uncomfortable with the United States’ intention to increase its military presence there.
According to some analysts, including those at Africa Action, U.S. efforts to increase its military presence in Africa are related to the continent’s untapped natural resources — particularly oil.
“Widespread cheerleading for U.S. development initiatives should not dupe the public into ignoring the militarization of U.S. foreign policy toward Africa,” said LeMelle.
© 2008 One World
This development is good and bad. The good is that the US government is paying attention to Africa, the bad is which portion of the US government is paying attention to Africa. Considering prior US government attention helped the likes of Mobutu rise to power, it augers not well for an already blighted continent.
this article reads as though success were expected from a bush policy.
but i guess when you’ve been wrong about EVERYTHING, once in a while you guess correctly.
not bush, though.
NATEW
shame the us government/un/other countries weren’t paying attention to africa when the rwandan genocide was ongoing…………eh? cancel their debts……….that’s a start.
The question is what type of involvement.
Lead by force or lead through example?
Send weapons or musicians?
Bush’s repeated assurances while in Africa that we were not interested in building military bases there sent me to looking for information. I found the Africa Action group quoted in this article (AFRICOM: The Militarization of U.S.-Africa Policy Revealed, www.africaaction.org); an excellent Foreign Policy in Focus article (Militarizing Africa (Again), www.fpif.org); a German posting on a blog called Moon of Alabama (www.moonofalabama.org) and other blogs/organizations by Googling “opposition to AFRICOM” and “AFRICOM military bases.”
“We” (our military) may not be planning to build bases, but our continent-wide use of private military contractors may well involve mercenaries building them for us.
AFRICOM is touted as a humanitarian gesture by the magnanimous United States. What it really is is our effort to lock up Africa’s oil and other natural resources for ourselves by militarizing the entire continent. We say we want to help Africa “stabilize” itself. How many would agree that we are more interested in destabilization a la Iraq and Latin America? Our Congress MUST STOP AFRICOM.
These article reads like some piece of propaganda from The Whitehouse. But any thinking/rational person has took look underneath the surface.
When has the “United States Corporation” ever cared about Africa? except stiffening out its wealth? NEVER
The main purpose of Africom is not to help the African people but to counter the Chinese influence in Africa by militerizing the continent. This way to safeguard the United States & and European elites business interest; at the same time weakening the countries soverignty, through a continental-wide police force.
Ofcourse, they can’t do it alone, they need the help of the puppet leaders, Like President Helen Johnson of Liberial (a former employee of the World Bank)and a few other uncle Toms and carpetbaggers
Ofcourse for propaganda purposes the American general heading this expedition is a Blackman (a true house negro)whose is really there for public relations purposes
people wake up. Its the same thing going on in the U.S. with American Union. The main purpose is to weaken State Soverignty
President Bush’s visit to Africa is full of exoteric symbolism. Look at the bigger picture.
Divide et impera worked for Gabinis in de bello Judaico.
Perhaps Senator McCain will simplify these into a single global command called NUKE`EM.
reminds one of the partition map from 1984 Oceania, Eurasia, Eastasia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1984_fictious_world_map_v2_arr.png
South Africa announced Monday that it was reversing a 1995 ban on killing elephants
Will this help the Democrats?
It grieves me to note that the preponderance cash for HIV interdiction in Africa, will go into the pockets of Megapharms, BIG Bush donors. You can bet they get full market value for their goods.
This puts such a pretty face on Bush, eh? I wonder if he’ll be erroneously lionized for saving Africa in the same way Nixon gets credited for China, and Reagan takes credit for the collapse of the USSR?
In the process of protecting what has traditionally been interpreted as, “US Interests,” this marks an expanded militarization for enforcing our Neoliberal, extractive, exploitive and inhumane policies.
Bush the Humanitarian, my ass.
US Military Plan for Africa PLANNED… What a bad headline.
The last thing the world needs is for the origin of corporate giants to rule it through military force. That amounts to global fascism via the rule of law; Free Trade (WTO/IMF).
Africa needs to have the UN, not the USA, step in and cancel all mining concessions/treaties that date back to the unfair colonialist era. Then, the entire world must stand in solidarity with the African people as they renegotiate all contracts dealing with the exploitation of their natural resources.
If Bush wants to liberate Africa, he should start by agressively supporting education programs across Africa that have been failing since independence in the 1960’s.
Most African schools have no library. Across the continent, public libraries are a rarity. Until this changes, not much else will on the continent.
AFRICOM is just another part of the PNAC dream to rule the entire planet by force to make sure the whole world is free.
Greed makes people blind to their own absurdity.
Don’t knock it.
I hear the unusually adapted citizens that inhabit the regions under the aegis of USSTRATCOM are thriving, and rejoice at their good fortune of having such magnanimous guardians.
Bush won’t be remembered for saving Africa, he is so stuck in the right to life crowd it’s rather sickening. Sometimes I think he sends a few bucks for AIDs to Africa because he knows if they live and have lots of babies, more cheap labor. So no family planing of any kind. And support abstinance BECAUSE it doesn’t work.
Reagan was simply in the Oval Office at the right time, but you know how it goes. They blamed Carter for all of the inflation of the late 70’s, like nothing that happened before that had anything to do with it.
Nixon, however, did go to China and deserves the credit. He did plenty besides that screwed us. Look at it this way, if any Democrat had gone to China, they would have been viewed as the surrender monkey of all time. I wonder if someone had told Tricky Dicky that China would one day own the America his grand-kids lived if he would have done things differently. Credit…
If the indigenous people of Africa think they got screwed by the Afrikaans. Indigenous Africans, bend over. Here come the Amerikkkans.
It’s on! The race to dominate market saturation for the remaining third/second world States begins!
Forget Asia–we can’t have any part of that.
Africa? Let’s try and get ‘em before the Leopolds do.
Central/South America? With such a disconcerting trend toward “populism”, why, they might not want to be proxy states any more.
And if none of that works out, no worries, we’ll just have to knock down the American worker a peg or two. You know, the back door slavery of massive debt, stuck in school till 30 and still ending up with a bad and uncompetitive education, paying to use money, roads and nearly every other piece of infrastructure, etc.
Thank God people with real vision are at the helm. Our future’s so bright we gotta wear shades!
(But seriously: let the AU handle security.)
My advice to the people of the world: When a white man in a business suit or military uniform says he wants to help you, RUN! If he has an American accent, run even faster. Even without a government controlled by powerful corporate interests, it’s highly dubious that the United States could have much of a positive impact on nations and cultures on the other side of the world. Our democracy is ideally “of, for and by the people”; it responds to our needs and interests, not those of the people in Pakistan, Ghana or elsewhere. We may initially help you, but after a few months we’ll start complaining about the potholes in front our house, and our politicians will direct their attention back to where it rightfully belongs, the American people. The sooner the American people can give up the delusion that our country can benefit people who have no say in how it’s run, the better off we’ll all be.
Let’s see now, after WWII Japan was a good source of cheap labor, then Hong Kong, then Formosa (Tiawan), then Indonesia, then India, then Pakistan, then Malasia, then Sri Lanka (Ceylon), now China and now an entire continent to exploit.
Let’s see, we can start in Egypt (maybe), then Ethiopia, then - you name it.
Does anyone think that our esteemed puppet made a trip to Africa to see the view? Or to help vitalize poor, underfed,
undercared for undereducated people? He thinks that his own country doesn’t have any of those problems. He said the country’s economy is strong. Has he looked down an ally or under a bridge lately? Has he asked a middle-income worker how they were getting along in their mortaged (if they still have it) home?
I guess my next pair of shoes or pants or shirt or shorts or whatever will be coming from Timbuktoo!
Lord Trigo you said
“it responds to our needs and interests, not those of the people in Pakistan, Ghana or elsewhere.”
Only so long as it serves the corporate interest to do so.
“Neither African governments nor the United Nations were consulted on the announcement of AFRICOM.”
If that quote doesn’t reveal all that’s wrong with the Bush administration, nothing does.
[”This aggressive initiative threatens successful U.S.-African partnerships for development and democracy,” said LeMelle about AFRICOM, noting with concern that, “neither African governments nor the United Nations were consulted on the announcement of AFRICOM.”]
And there you have it. Nough said.
Bush still holds his mad dream of an American Colonial Empire. .He should be declared dangerously criminally insane. .In 7 short years he has discredited the United States of America. .He believes his delusions of World Leadership, despite having bankrupted our country……
Impeach both Bush and Cheney………NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why doesn’t Bush help the blacks in New Orleans first?
Bush wants to be like Meryl Streep, and have a farm in Africa…then go crazy from the syph
Africa is rich in natural resources, including OIL. While Bush has been preoccupied in Iraq, the Chinese have been courting African leaders, making loans to African countries and establishing themselves as partners for economic development in Africa. It’s the natural resources, of course, that interest the Chinese just as the oil and minerals are the main interest in Africa for the U.S., except for making sure that Africans do not have access to condoms. But China has been far more diplomatic than the U.S. The loans that the Chinese make are not attached to economically crippling conditions, Chinese companies are not trying to make a big profit off HIV in Africa, and the Chinese have not invaded Somalia.
Bush is just another ugly American wherever he goes. The U.S. is being upstaged in every competition on the planet, and the U.S. standard of living will suffer severe setbacks
There’s a high price to stupidity, and it’s fortunate for Americans that they are so willing to pay, because it looks like the Africans would rather drink beer with the Chinese than with the U.S. war president.
jamadison4 February 25th, 2008 10:26 pm
Bush still holds his mad dream of an American Colonial Empire. .He should be declared dangerously criminally insane. .In 7 short years he has discredited the United States of America. .He believes his delusions of World Leadership, despite having bankrupted our country……
Impeach both Bush and Cheney………NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!
I agree .The problem is that it’s not just Bush Co. it appears to be that the entire U.S. government has been infiltrated by a group of very violent,selfish power hungry monsters.
Until the sheeple realize that our current government is just the left and right wing of the same monster this kind of “Empire Light ” will continue until there is ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT and you will all bow to it.
Just read :The Bilderburg Group by Daniel Estulin or watch Endgame on Google
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070329053600562261
These are the people that have been running things since WWII.Our governments have been under there thumb.
I wish it wasn’t so but the deeper I go into it the uglier it gets.
Hitler created the Afrika Corps! So I imagine that George wants to imitate his hero! After all he has followed in the man’s footsteps for the last 7 years. Invaded harmless countries that were no threat to us. So why not create a military presence in Africa?
George Bush should stay out of Africa. I believe he is a shareholder in Barricks Gold Mining Company. This company stands accused by the Council of Churches in Tanzania for getting the Tanzanian Police bulldozing an entire town, killing some of the inhabitants. People were given 24 hours to vacate their houses. Is this why Bush wants the US army in Africa? To look after the ‘economic interests’ of the United States on our continent? Why should we allow ourselves to be recolonized? When will the citizens of the USA learn that as long as they have military forces occupying other countries/continents the USA will always be despised and hated?
Since when has providing arms and military training to “unstable” countries proved effective? It didn’t work in Africa in the 50s, it didn’t work in Latin America… in fact, it turned out to be a massive catastrophe.
Debt cancellation and fair trade (NOT free trade) are the only ways the West can realistically aid African nations. Unfortunately, it’s in corporate America’s best interests to keep resource-rich countries in poverty, so they can continue to force the purchase of over-priced, unnecessary goods to the detriment of local farmers and markets.
Many of our neighbors who work in the MIC (Military Industrial Complex) can confirm undeniably that Africom is a foregone conclusion. What you read or hear in the media is mostly false. So goes the adage…beware of the wolf in sheep’s clothing. You may see the wiki if you’d like a reference point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wolf_in_Sheep’s_Clothing.