http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/363/47047africom.jpgThis Africa Action resource provides examples of statements from African leaders from multiple regions who stand opposed to AFRICOM

"The stand that many African countries have taken against the military command is one that needs to be supported and needs to be explained to the U.S. public so there is a greater understanding as to the implications of U.S. policy and why it is being rejected." - Bill Fletcher Jr., Former President of TransAfrica Forum [1]

Due to the perceived importance of Africa in the U.S. "war on terror" and the increasing U.S. dependence on African oil, President Bush announced on February 6, 2007 the establishment of a Unified Command for U.S. military forces in Africa, known as AFRICOM. According to Bush, "The Africa command will enhance our efforts to bring peace and security to the people of Africa and promote our common goals of development, health, education, democracy, and economic growth in Africa."[2] Africa Action challenges the veracity of this assertion in a recent statement, available at:

African nations have repeatedly declared their opposition to the hosting of U.S. bases on the African continent and the militarization of their relations with the United States. As a result of this dissent, AFRICOM is currently based in Stuttgart, Germany. Civil society leaders and journalists in Africa have objected that AFRICOM will pursue narrowly defined U.S. interests at the expense of both the sovereignty and welfare of the African nations.

AFRICAN GOVERNMENTS REACT TO AFRICOM

Regional organizations have been most vocal in their critique of AFRICOM, and last August, the Southern African Development Community (SADC) was the first to issue a clear message of dissent against the Bush initiative. SADC is made up of 14 African nations including South Africa, Angola, Botswana and the Democratic Republic of Congo. On August 29, 2007, SADC announced its position "that it is better if the United States were involved with Africa from a distance rather than be present on the continent." The SADC Defense and Security Ministers further stated "that sister countries of the region should not agree to host AFRICOM and in particular, armed forces, since this would have a negative effect. That recommendation was presented to the Heads of State and this is a SADC position." [3]

The initial reactions of African leaders to President Bush’s declaration last February were characterized by confusion and distrust. While the U.S. Department of Defense made clear that AFRICOM was moving forward at full-speed, its objectives and specific details of what it would entail had not been enunciated clearly. In September 2007, half a year after the Bush announcement, President Festus Mogae of Botswana said, "We have not taken a position [on AFRICOM] because we don't know how the animal will look like. We are still discussing the issue." [4]

While individual countries within SADC are allowed to reach their own decisions regarding AFRICOM, none have since strayed from the official position of this important regional body. Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa reaffirmed his country’s stance on October 2, 2007, when he stated "none of us is interested" in hosting the command. [5]

Other key regional organizations made up of nations across Africa have declared their condemnation of AFRICOM and its implications for U.S-African relations. The 25-member Northern African Community of Sahel-Saharan States (CEN-SAD) has backed SADC’s position on the establishment of U.S. bases and stated that CEN-SAD "flatly refuses the installation of any military command or any foreign armed presence of whatever country on any part of Africa, whatever the reasons and justifications." [6] The Arab Magreb Union also voiced strong opposition to the placement of U.S. bases anywhere on the continent.

The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has stated resolutely its opposition to American bases in the region. At the forefront of this effort stands Nigeria, whose leadership unequivocally denounced the possibility of American troops being based in West Africa.

However, several months after first coming out with this stance, Nigerian President Yar’Adua issued a statement during his December 2007 visit to Washington that seemed at first to dramatically shift the Nigerian position on AFRICOM: "We shall partner with AFRICOM to assist not only Nigeria, but also the African continent to actualize its peace and security initiative, which is an initiative to help standby forces of brigade-size in each of the regional economic groupings within the African continent." [7]

In response to these controversial remarks, the Nigerian public and members of parliament expressed their outrage at this apparent shift in position. Consequently, the day after President Yar’Adua’s initial statement, he retracted his comments and announced that he had been misquoted.

On, December 14, 2007, Yar’Adua reiterated Nigeria’s original position on AFRICOM by stating, "I did not agree that AFRICOM should be based in Africa. What we discussed with Bush is that if they have something to do for Africa that has to do with peace and security, they should contribute. I told him that we African countries have our own plan to establish a joint military command in every sub-region (as we) have in economic groupings." [8]

Nigeria’s Foreign Minister Ojo Maduekwe clarified this confusion: "President Yar’Adua’s statement on the proposed AFRICOM is consistent with Nigeria’s well-known position on the necessity for Africa to avail itself of opportunities for enhanced capacity for the promotion of peace and security in Africa; Nigeria’s position on AFRICOM remains that African governments have the sovereign responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security in the continent, especially in the context of the proposed African Union Stand-by Force and in this regard, the need for support and assistance by Africa’s development partners, such as the United States, in the provision of training, funding and logistics for African militaries was duly acknowledged." [9]

The only member of ECOWAS to break from this position is Liberia. President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf has pledged her support to the new command, stating that "AFRICOM is undeniably about the projection of American interests – but this does not mean that it is to the exclusion of African ones." [10] It is important to note that the government of Liberia, a country with a unique historical relationship to the U.S and a fragile democracy still emerging from the challenges of civil war, stands alone in its support for AFRICOM.

CIVIL SOCIETY AND CITIZEN RESPONSES

Though the government of Liberia has been very supportive of AFRICOM, many in Liberian civil society have objected. Ezekiel Pajino of the Center for Democratic Empowerment in Liberia, calls AFRICOM "a deadly plan of U.S. military expansion on African soil." Pajino states, "AFRICOM will be the legacy of Bush’s failed foreign policy that threatens future generations throughout our continent." [11]

Other African civil society leaders, academics, bloggers12 and journalists across the continent share this unease. Ikechukwa Eze in Nigeria’s Business Day writes, "Apprehension exists about the extent to which AFRICOM may violate rules of sovereignty and its attempts to replace the AU." [13] This comment and others like it raise a number of issues, including the sovereignty of African countries, the role of private military contractors (PMCs), the function of the U.S. military in administering development assistance, and U.S. interests in controlling access to African resources at the expense of ordinary Africans.

Professor Hamza Mustafa Njozi of the University of Dar es Salaam warns that "if what has befallen other countries is any barometer, the Americans will need a military base in Tanzania." With reference to potential oil deposits currently being explored by multinational corporations in Tanzania, he said, "Military presence is necessary to ensure total control of this vital resource as well as the continued pillage of our gold mines." [14] Commenting on President Bush’s February 2008 trip to Africa, Sakin Datoo, chairperson of the Editors Forum of Tanzania, said, "Bush is being portrayed as a savior of Africa due to the dollars he is bringing along with him on his trip. But Tanzanians are able to see through this façade. Bush only cares for his own interests and nothing else . . . any illusion that we will provide a military base for the U.S. army should be erased." [15]

Africa Action stands in solidarity with the many African voices speaking out against AFRICOM and urges the U.S. to base its foreign policy towards Africa in a similar respect for the African people.

*Brooks Harris and Matt Levy contributed to this resource.

**Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

***For notes and links to more readings, please visit this link:

To foster peace, diplomacy must promote justice

Thursday, January 3, 2008 (Washington, DC) – In light of the serious human rights violations and challenges to stable governance Kenya has experienced in the past week, Africa Action calls for an immediate and comprehensive recount of presidential ballots supervised by international election monitors, and an end to the media broadcast ban. The clumsy series of contradictory remarks on the election made so far by U.S. officials have not been helpful in resolving the crisis and have revealed underlying U.S. interests. The U.S. must provide new coherent leadership to drive international pressure on rival candidates Mwai Kibaki and Raila Odinga to adhere to the democratic process peacefully and put a stop to the violence. The international community must base its response to the situation on the voices of the Kenyan people and concentrate on addressing not only the immediate political crisis but also deeper issues of social, political and economic justice. U.S.-Kenya policy should be people-centered and truly committed to robust democratic processes rather than defined by a narrow agenda of the “war on terror” and international business interests.

The ugly scenes of violence and chaos that have emerged following Kenya’s disputed presidential polls are symptoms of the greater issues of poverty and socioeconomic inequality. Western observers have held up Kenya as an economic dynamo for its high growth rates and macroeconomic stability without considering who benefits from this development. Despite vigorous growth rates of between five and seven percent over the past three years, Kenya is a country marked by disparity. With a per capita income of just $540 and a current ranking of 145 out of 177 in the United Nations’ Human Development Index, poverty is widespread. Some strides towards economic justice have been made in recent years. Notably, as president, Kibaki succeeded in eliminating primary school fees. However, the volatility around this election is testament to the fact that many Kenyans are still frustrated by poverty and a small elite holds the majority of their country’s vaunted wealth.

Kenya’s 2002 elections generated a powerful sense of optimism among the population that reflected a deep popular commitment to democratic ideals and a new future free of corruption. It is disappointing that these hopes have not materialized. This challenge should galvanize the U.S. and the international community to support this young democracy as it struggles to achieve its vision of a truly representative and responsive government. The African Union is playing a critical role as a rapid responder to help mediate the political crisis. However, U.S. leadership and sustained diplomatic pressure from the entire international community is essential to protecting human rights in Kenya and to a successful mediation between parties that results in a transparent legal solution to the dispute.

Much has been made of the ethnic dimensions of the conflict, but the bottom line is that power hungry politicians can manipulate ethnic differences to promote their own interests with dangerous consequences in the absence of social and economic justice. African nations, like countries worldwide, rely on robust democratic processes to mitigate such conflict. This involves transparent electoral machinery but also involves promoting governance and economic policies that serve all citizens and do not marginalize any groups. Both parties in the conflict have used the phrase genocide to characterize their rivals’ behavior. Africa Action urges leaders on all sides to avoide using inflammatory language that may incite further violence. At the same time, the international community must be vigilant for signs of widespread ethnic cleansing or even emerging genocide and be prepared to intervene if necessary to prevent such crimes against humanity from taking place.

The consequences of an international failure to support Kenya’s democracy during this crisis would be grim, particularly in terms of regional stability. For years, Kenya has been an anchor of stability in a region challenged by conflict. Kenya has hosted peace talks – such as those that led to Sudan’s 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) – and absorbed refugees from neighboring war-torn nations. While a step backwards for this fledgling democracy would hardly reflect on the political fortunes of the whole continent, it would add to the challenges faced by the already tenuous Horn and East Africa. Therefore, the U.S. must lead the international community in a vigorous diplomatic response to defuse current tensions. The first steps to push for are a fully transparent recount of all votes and the lifting of all restrictions on independent media.

As the crisis in Darfur continues to deepen, Africa Action stands with the people of Darfur and with African leaders from across the continent who are calling for an international peacekeeping force that can stop the violence and protect civilians in western Sudan.

Last year, leaders of the world's economic powers proclaimed that 2005 would be the "year for Africa" and gathered at the annual Group of 8 (G8) meetings to create a plan to address the continent's challenges. Debt cancellation figured prominently on the agenda, and the G8 leaders crafted a deal to cancel 100% of the debts owed by 18 countries – 14 in Africa – to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF). Africa Action examines the current reality in Africa's debt crisis and investigates the results of last year's promises. As the G8 leaders prepare to convene in St. Petersburg, Russia, it is clear that Africa's debt crisis is far from resolved, and there is an urgent need for new action from the G8 on this critical priority.