Refugees International issued a report on July 17th describing:

… how the increased militarization of U.S. foreign aid is complicating the achievement of American foreign policy goals in Africa.

The report calls the problem a civil military imbalance. The US is spending far more on military activity in Africa than it is on civil development assistance. Over the past several years this imbalance has grown enormously. There have been a number of news articles and discussions following the report. Vince Crawley, Chief of Public Information at AFRICOM, played down the amount of military spending involved with AFRICOM. But his figures appear somewhat misleading. And money funded through AFRICOM is hardly the only money the US is spending on military projects in Africa.

The FY 2009 Budget of the US Government (US government PDF version here) officially created AFRICOM in FY2009 with a budget of $389 million to “establish a new command to strengthen ties with African governments, institutions, and organizations to foster an environment of security and peace.”

It also allocates $750 million to the Department of Defense to “build partner capacity: support allies as they develop and improve their capability to provide for their own defense and contribute to the global fight against terrorism. (page 46 of the PDF)”

Since building partnership capacity is a phrase we hear repeatedly from AFRICOM, you can figure at least some of that building partner capacity money will be targeting Africa.

In addition to DoD’s AFRICOM, the Department of State is hiring mercenaries, the PMCs, private military corporations to engage in peacekeeping and stability operations that include combat, the “hostile environments” mentioned below. So the State Department is writing big contracts for activities that would more traditionally be part of the Department of Defense responsibilities, thus militarizing the Department of State and causing it to act as an arm of the Pentagon.

The Department of State (DOS), Bureau of African Affair’s Africa Peacekeeping Program (AFRICAP) program covers much of the security assistance work being requested throughout the continent of Africa. The program enhances African countries ability to conduct peacekeeping operations and builds African capacities for crisis management and counter terrorism.
…
The intent is to have contractors on call to undertake a wide range of diverse projects, including setting up operational bases to support peacekeeping operations in hostile environments, military training and to providing a range of technical assistance and equipment for African militaries and peace support operations.
…
Each contract has a ceiling of approximately $500,000,000.00. It is anticipated that the total, combined ceiling amounts of all contracts awarded under this competition may exceed one billion dollars over a five year period.

The report from Refugees International is linked here, U.S. Civil-Military Imbalance for Global Engagement: Lessons from the Operational Level in Africa, or in full PDF version here.

The report argues:

… that AFRICOM is prioritizing the Global War on Terror at the expense of Africa’s most urgent security and stability needs -a troubling indicator of a trend towards the militarization of US foreign aid worldwide. The report maintains, however, that AFRICOM could have a long-term positive impact on the continent’s development if it adheres to its mandate of professionalizing African armies and security agencies and thus helps to create the kind of long-term stability that is essential for investment and growth.
…
The report argues that the Pentagon controls an increasing share of foreign aid that used to be directed by civilian agencies. The percentage of Official Development Assistance that the Pentagon controls has skyrocketed from 3.5% to nearly 22% in the past decade. Meanwhile, the percentage controlled by the US Agency for International Development (USAID) shrunk from 65% to 40%. AFRICOM is poised to perpetuate this high-stakes trend of increasingly militarized US foreign aid.

U.S. assistance for security sector capacity building is allocated … with misplaced emphasis. For example, more than half of the FY09 budget request for Foreign Military Financing was for just two countries-Djibouti and Ethiopia-that are considered key partners in the continental War on Terror. The administration has asked for $49.65 million to finish building a 2,000-strong Liberian army to defend the four million people of that country. In contrast, it only plans to spend $5.5 million in 2009 to restructure a 164,000-strong army that is out of control in the Democratic Republic of Congo, a country with 65 million people where Africa’s “first world war” has claimed the lives of over five million.

Among the report’s central recommendations, Refugees International urges the US government to address the 17 to 1 spending imbalance between the Defense Department and diplomatic/development agencies

Note particularly that the US is spending $49.65 million on the 2,000-strong Liberian army for the benefit of Liberia’s four million people.
Whereas the 65 million people in the DRC, and their 164,000-strong army, in a war that has already cost 5 million lives, receive only $5.5 million.

And in Liberia, what other institutions and development have received significant US funding, aside from their military? Without developing strong civil institutions and infrastructure, is the US paving the way for future military governments?

Vince Crawley, Chief of Public Information at AFRICOM, recently tried to play down the imbalances.

“Current U.S. federal spending for all programs in sub-Saharan Africa — health, development, support to democracy, etc. — is approximately $9 billion per year. Of that, the U.S. Defense Department’s share is approximately $250 milllion, or 3 percent. The other 97 percent is funding controlled by our Departments of USAID and State, and we frankly don’t expect a dramatic change in that funding ratio.

“The U.S. military does not intend to take charge of the funding stream in Africa, because military spending is not where our government has set its priorities in that important part of the world.

In fact, as the Refugees International report says, military spending through the Department of Defense has been on the increase. And civilian spending by the Department of State and USAID has been increasingly militarized, funding PMCs and military contracts.

I have linked to the original documents above, from Refugees International, the Federal Budget, and the State Department’s announcement of the AFRICAP recompete contracts for mercenaries, PMCs, so you can read them and judge for yourself. Notice also that the mercenary contracts are intended to last 5 years, thus locking the next administration into this militarized pattern.

Mr. Crawley’s figure of $250 million is far less than just the $389 million start up budget for AFRICOM. And that $389 million is just the tip of the military spending iceberg. When you include other Department of Defense programs such as the partnership capacity building mentioned above, the State Department contracts with mercenaries, and a number of other details of the budgets of the Department of Defense, as well as military contracts and military related spending by the Department of State, it is hard to quibble with the findings of Refugees International. US foreign policy is being militarized at the expense of civilian development aid. AFRICOM is a symbol, a vehicle, and a symptom of the militarization.

For a list of US military programs in Africa, see this article by Daniel Volman: Africom: The new US military command for Africa. Click the link for more details about the individual programs. Funding for most of these programs comes from DoD, and some from the DoS. All is military spending. Here is his list:

The United States provides military training to African military personnel through a wide variety of training and education programs. In addition, it conducts military exercises in Africa jointly with African troops and also with the troops of its European allies to provide training to others and also to train its own forces for possible deployment to Africa in the future. These include the following:

• Flintlock 2005 and 2007
• Africa Contingency Operations Training and Assistance Program (ACOTA)
• International Military Education and Training Program (IMET)
• Foreign Military Sales Program (FMS)
• African Coastal and Border Security Program (ACBS Program)
• Excess Defense Articles Program (EDA)
• Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA)
• Joint Task Force Aztec Silence (JTFAS)
• Naval Operations in the Gulf of Guinea
• Base Access Agreements for Cooperative Security Locations and Forward Operating Sites

Related posts:

1. AFRICOM Starts Operation. “It would Bolster Africa’s Security Situation” – Expert [podcast]
2. U.S. Africa Command Marks Startup of Initial Operations
3. AFRICOM, US Military Command for Africa to Stay in Germany
4. AFRICOM will be Fully Operational by September 2008
5. On AFRICOM: Nigeria will Partner with U.S. Military Command for Africa [Updated]
6. US Officials Insist New Military Command To Benefit Africa
7. Origins of AFRICOM