112 comment(s)

1. omodudu | Nov 12, 2007 | Reply

   When two elephants fight, it is inevitable..Africa will suffer..funny thing is that its cool with me, as long as they curb those GM mini SUV’s running down the whole streets.

2. Frederic N'sienie | Nov 12, 2007 | Reply

   Maybe the US which is the leading nation of the free world @ the moment, should do something really democratic: Fund Africa wide referedums, explaining in French,English,Portuguese,Arabic ,Swahili and other local languages the Upsides and downsides of having US military bases on the continent.
   Let the citizens decide if they want good Americans to come protect them from the evils of this world.

3. Ginger | Nov 13, 2007 | Reply

   As already stated, almost everything the US does is based on self-interest. Nothing wrong with that, but that fact is worth keeping in mind by the so-called ‘beneficiaries’ of the current ‘magnanimity’ by the US.

   China is slowly but surely becoming an indirect economic (and by inference global) threat to American interests in Africa and the rest of the world, so they have to be check-mated.

   Oil is an issue and with the current restlessness (read agitation, read demand for their rights) in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria, America’s interests have never been this precarious. Notice the move to ban OPEC for example. It is in America’s interest to establish a firm base in Africa under whatever guise.

   Now I will not be surprised if they get their way, because in the final analysis, all they have to convince is just one man in each country. In Pakistan, they convinced Musharaf who become an ally in America’s War, even against the wishes of some of his own people. It is no surprise that Liberia is offering itself as a base: no better way to ensure the country does not return to its previous chaos. Now Nigeria… Nigeria is the big prize!

   And that is where the ordinary enlightened person comes in. To ensure that no one man at the top mortgages his country for ‘personal’ gains.

   What’s the conclusion of this rambling of mine? No to AFRICOM or US-AFRICOM or whatever name called!

4. Sokari | Nov 13, 2007 | Reply

   The question should be Why does the US need an enhanced military presence in Africa?

5. Chxta | Nov 13, 2007 | Reply

   Double standards. The whole Africom project in my opinion is just a tool to promote American hegemony over the continent.

6. BRE | Nov 13, 2007 | Reply

   AFRICOM! Now that’s a subject that has caught my interest since its inception a few years ago.

   I personally find all of the criticism and ‘Angst’ from the experts and the peanut gallery (the Sphere) over the re-structuring of the U.S. military’s global commands ironic. The U.S. along with a host of other countries has had some type of military presence and co-operation with African countries for decades, but now that Washington has decided to create a command that is specifically focused on the African continent and that will (allegedly) operate much differently from preceding command structures it has become an “Oh my God, the Americans are invading us!” subject.

   Let’s start with some solid information about AFRICOM as there has been plenty of testimony, expert analysis, and opinion made available online during the past several months abou this new U.S. military command. The AFRICOM webiste says the following about “boots on the ground” in Africa:
   ——————————-
   For now, AFRICOM will be co-located with U.S. European Command in Stuttgart, Germany. Plans are for AFRICOM to be fully established as a separate unified command by Sept. 30, 2008. Plans are to eventually base the command’s headquarters somewhere in Africa.

   The new command eventually will be responsible for U.S. military relations with 53 African countries, according to the news release. AFRICOM will consolidate efforts previously conducted by EUCOM, U.S. Pacific Command and U.S. Central Command.

   AFRICOM currently has a core staff of 120 members that will grow during the coming year to become the new unified command’s headquarters element, officials said.

   The new command’s headquarters structure will incorporate input from across the U.S. government. In addition to military members and Defense Department civilians, AFRICOM’s roster will contain representatives from the U.S. State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
   ————————————–

   Darn, looks like a full scale invasion of the African continent to me. There are more “U.S. boots on the ground” in Djibouti and Kenya than what General William “Kip” Ward is talking about setting-up. And by the way, I strongly favor setting up the AFRICOM headquarters in Liberia vs. any other West African nation because the way I understand it, President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf is one of the few African heads of state that understands fully the positive impact a well-structured and well-managed U.S. military command headquarters can have on her country. Ask the Germans, they understand and have been making out like fat rats for decades ($$$) by hosting the U.S. European Command headquarters.

   More on this subject at my place later this month, now that you have thrown down the guantlet at The African Loft.

7. John Liebhardt | Nov 13, 2007 | Reply

   The question isn’t whether Africa needs AFRICOM, but whether America needs it. Of course, it would be irresponsible to say that Americans only understand the world through the lens of military intervention. But is it that much of a stretch?

   Ask an American to point out Iraq on a map, or Afghanistan or Vietnam. My bet is they can. (Well, maybe the first two.) Ask any group of businessmen to make ties with African businesses. Once the military goes in, they’ll fall over themselves rushing there. Ask news organizations to explain the intricacies and subtleties of a foreign country, they’ll ask for a compelling reason: Boots on the ground will give them one.

   Think about it another way. American soldiers are young and curious. They have families at home, maybe even wives and children. They’ll want to buy these people gifts – mementos of their time in Africa. If I were more business inclined, I’d set myself up in the “artifact industry.” You guys hawking batiks, masks and figurines in front of Africa’s hotels: I am talking to you.

   The bottom line is Africa gets to join the never-ending Global War on Terror while America hangs a million Baule masks on its walls. Sounds like fair trade to me.

8. Don Thieme | Nov 13, 2007 | Reply

   African nations could prove to be another good place to fight Islamic radicals so that we do not have to fight them here at home.

9. ginger | Nov 13, 2007 | Reply

   It begs the question to defend an American action by quoting statements from the website of that same governmental-organization. The media is good but it remains a tool, to be used by the savvy mainly to their own end, mind…

   It will be interesting to take time out to watch a bit of the Al-Jazeera English channel. It shames CNN on some points because it is news that for once is not controlled by America.

   And nobody should dismiss contrary opinions by simply labeling them as “America-bashers”, no sir! There are facts that stare us in the face.

   AFRICOM or whatever does not make America bad, OK, so I am not making any judgment on their intentions. My take is simply as an African who thinks that my sovereignty should be respected by all. If you wanna visit my country, by all means you’re welcome, but first, apply for a visa, but I remain in command!

   Islamic radicals? Thank you sir! As far as labels go, America applies them as it suits their purpose. Here in Nigeria, the government calls the ‘militants’ “Restless Youths”, when they want to be magnanimous but otherwise, “Terrorists”. Little does the public know that these youths were armed by politicians who used them to fight their political battles, but failed to mop up the weapons after the operation: nor pay for ’services’ rendered. The targets have simply been changed.

   Same thing happened with America. The renegade and heartless Osama Bin Laden was an ally of America during the Russian incursion into Afghanistan. The Taliban and their likes used weapons that America provided through the CIA station agents in times past. When allies were changed, labels were changed. Terrorists yes, but it sure makes my hair stand to see people use labels for their convenience.

10. Oscar Blayton | Nov 13, 2007 | Reply

    The capacity for the United States to do harm has been clearly demonstrated in Iraq since 2003, and elsewhere on the globe for centuries.

    Anyone who believes that the U.S. policymakers are motivated by any benevolence towards Africa or Africans should in the words of Root’s Chicken George “Hide in the tall grass when the ‘Fool Catcher’ comes.”

    We should not be beguiled by the use of words like “Liberty,” “Security,” or “Democracy,” coming from the lips of those who haunt the halls of Congress or the White House; because that is what they say they have brought to Iraq. We must understand these concepts within the context of our own lives; and come to know how a Jena Louisiana can exist in “The Land Of The Free.”

    We are all in peril from the U.S. military industrial complex; as it seeks to perpetuate the American brand of injustice and export it to Africa as well.

11. Beauty | Nov 13, 2007 | Reply

    We should be seizing the time and using this as a weapon to ensure we get the best deal for our resources and citizens is my take home value from “Does Africa need Africom?”. Our beggar leaders still do not get it, they are happy to live on the crumbs from this mecca of corruption, muddling through domestic problems with incredible incompetence and failures. They celebarate mediocre and call it improvements.

    US troops are now based in the Gulf of Guinea because of the important role of West Africa to US energy needs. Extrinsic rewards for selfish interests in spades but obtaining outcomes in that area will be very strongly reinforcing relative to obtaining outcomes in areas of weak interest.

    This translates US/China et all can just walk all over Africa and take whatever, whenever and there is not a lot anyone can do about it. In UN-speak, it is called partnership. This is flawed logic where the partners are unequal. Where is the equality? Lets consider nature, the hand that fed you might one day eat you.

12. omodudu | Nov 13, 2007 | Reply

    Looking through the the comments and the main entry itself, including Sokari’s. Can anybody tell me in one sentence what the fuss is about? Sans partiotic sentiments. Like one singel cost benefit statement. I am still a bit lost here. Thanks all.

13. Omotaylor | Nov 13, 2007 | Reply

    Who had a romantic fling with IRAQ against IRAN in the 90s? What happened when romance ended and enmity set in? What has become of Baghdad/Iraq now? Strange that Western and in particular American interest is always where there is something to tap (palmwine tappers beware). One can get too good at playing a particular game and become complacent. America beware for the world does know how you play your game and Africa is part of the world. AfricaCom, Africabeware, America is no fatherXmas.

14. Omotaylor | Nov 13, 2007 | Reply

    oh I forgot to add that America should start taking more care of its own continent and look inwards more. America is harming the world and harming America more. So who needs their command base located in their continent? Not Africa please. We have enough on our plates as it is and dont need value added toxins.

15. Renegade Eye | Nov 14, 2007 | Reply

    The US is the old imperialist power, China is the new one. Recently the Communist Party in China, changed its constitution, making as public as possible the country is capitalist.

    The US and China are in competition for markets. They could intensify their competition to the point of being at war, in the future. On the issue of imperialist war, the masses of workers, peasants and students have no interest in either side.

    Look at Burma. Things are happening on two levels. This provides a model to examine upcoming events.

    1) On the level of China vs US, I’m neutral. China would keep the lousy status quo there. The US would impose IMF austerity there.

    2) That is different than the fight for democracy. Unfortunately there is a crisis of leadership there.

    Rivalry of imperialists is one thing, people’s struggles another. Look at Sudan.

16. Rethabile | Nov 14, 2007 | Reply

    “Maybe the US which is the leading nation of the free world @ the moment…”

    Please qualify “free world”. What exactly does that mean?

17. Don Thieme | Nov 14, 2007 | Reply

    @Rethabile - At the moment, the US is the leader of the “coalition of the willing” who are fighting all the muslim brothers over in Afghanistan and Iraq. The US is looking for another place to fight some of those brothers now, hopefully somewhere in Africa.

18. BRE | Nov 14, 2007 | Reply

    Hmmmm… no shortage of opinions on AFRICOM here. In case anyone is interested in learning more about other “heated debates” surrounding the standup of AFRICOM, the VOA News Taylor Report has been publishing a special series of articles and podcasts on the subject since October 2007. For the AFRICOM sceptics in this debate group (to date, the vast majority of commenters) you may find comfort in the following news article:

    ‘Doubts Deepen About Acceptability of New US Military Command’ for Africa by Darren Taylor - Oct 23, 2007
    http://www.voanews.com/english/Africa/Doubts-Deepen-About-Acceptability-of-New-US-Military-Command-For-Africa.cfm

    And don’t miss the smackdown from General “Kip” Ward on all the criticism and charges of US militarization of Africa:
    ‘AFRICOM Commander Rejects Militarization Charge’ by Peter Heinlen - Nov 8, 2007
    http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-11-08-voa75.cfm

    I think it was Omodudu who asked about “a single cost benefit statement” for the AFRICOM HQ host country. According to the second VOA News article referenced above here is a hint about the initial proposed budget allocation for AFRICOM HQ for 2008:

    …”AFRICOM officials say the headquarters command will eventually have a strength of as many as one-thousand staff, with a budget of about $250 million, or about three-percent of total U.S. government spending on Africa. Most of that will go for such things as peacekeeper training, logistics support to peacekeeping operations, and security capacity building.”
    ——————————–

    This amount is of course excluding what other US government agencies i.e. The Department of State, The Department of Commerce, The Department of the Treasury, and USAID will be throwing into the pot over time.

    When you think about, $250 million USD is peanuts compared to what the PR Chinese are throwing around in African capitals these days to secure lucrative (crooked) contracts, corrupt deals, and “special win-win favors” from some regimes (not all, just some) on the continent. Hell, maybe General Kip Ward needs to “up the ante” by asking Congress to divert funding from Iraq to AFRICOM for about two weeks. That kind of money will get the AU’s attention focused on the “benefits” of AFRICOM quick.

19. omodudu | Nov 14, 2007 | Reply

    I understand how been mad at the American foreign policy can cloud our judgements about AFRICOM. After reading all that has been said, I am still searching for one genuine reason why AFRICOM isn’t a good idea. I’d push for the base to be bigger. Look at how the budget from foreign agencies held up the economy in Nairobi for quite a while. Note that I am referring to the micro impact to the city of Nairobi and I understnad that the benefits of foreign organizations is still debatable.
    Should we put aside patriotic prose, sentiments and all Anti-Bushism, please give me one bullet point on why AFRICOM is a bad idea. Just one will do.
    Thanks all.

20. Orikinla Osinachi | Nov 14, 2007 | Reply

    American actor, Danny Glover and American scholar Rudolph Lewis have already alerted us on the dangers of this latest imperialist incursion into Africa under the guise of Africom.

    Unfortunately, the last President of Nigeria, retired Gen. Olusegun Obasanjo endorsed Africom before leaving office and the successor, Alhaji Omaru Yar’Adua is a willing horse for the US and allies to ride.

    Petitions cannot stop Africom.
    The only people who can stop Africom are the African leaders. But, they do not have the balls to damn America and allies.

    God save Africa.

21. Loomnie | Nov 14, 2007 | Reply

    I really don’t see what the worry is. America wants to spend some more money showing millitary might all over the world? Well, it is their money! Should China feel threatened? I don’t see any reason China should feel threatened. As long as African countries are run by the same greedy people who are waiting for China’s money, China’s financial interests are sucure. The whole AFRICOM thing smacks of a desire to assert America’s strength all over the world, and if China feels threatened, the strategy is working.

22. Kunle | Nov 14, 2007 | Reply

    I feel sad that Africa is still some “distant treasure island” to be fought over and protected for selfish interests by foreign powers. It was Britain and France some decades ago (colonial era 1) now its the USA and China (colonial era 2?).

    Issues like this will forever bring to the fore the need for a strong African Nation that can stand its own against both subtle and overt imperialist tendencies of distant powers.

    Sadly, with the current arrangement of things, China and the USA really have little on their way to re-colonizing the African continent under any guise and I see AFRICOM as such a guise!

23. D-Tee | Nov 14, 2007 | Reply

    Africom - An “attention not good for Africa”

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=Uo-qBeeAIXE

24. Misi | Nov 14, 2007 | Reply

    My first reaction was No to AFRICOM because as aforementioned US only acts based on its own self-interest and this is just colonization in disguise, thus African leaders should not fall for it.
    However looking at the reasoning behind the formation of AFRICOM it seems US might have a legitmate benign purpose after all. For instance it will provide extensive training to African military personnel, and equip Africa with sophisticated security equipment. May be this is what Africa needs to end all the war and strife in Africa . We all know how valuable Africa could be without the fighting.
    With all this said and done I can’t help wondering why the sudden interest in Africa? Why now? Does it have something to do with China expanding its energy supplies in Africa and its general involvement in Africa? If so then it takes me back to my initial response— NO to AFRICOM.

25. Oscar Blayton | Nov 14, 2007 | Reply

    Brother Omodudu,

    When the European Americans engaged in continental expansion, the American Indians occupied land containing resources the U.S. wanted. The Indians were eradicated through a program of deliberate genocide.

    Now, as the U.S. plans its global expansion, the African occupies land containing resources the U.S. wants. Do not doubt that AFRICOM will become an army of occupation to subdue African interests, just as the U.S. cavalry was an army of occupation in the American west to subdue the interests of the American Indians.

    It would be a fatal mistake to believe that the U.S. is acting in accordance with benign interests.

    If this is not enough, ask the people of Okinawa about having an American army of occupation on their soil - ask the people of the Philippines the same question - ask the Cubans - ask the people of Vietnam - ask the Iraqis. All of these lands (except Okinawa) were initially occupied by the U.S. (supposedly) for the freedom and security of their people.

26. Hash | Nov 14, 2007 | Reply

    AFRICOM won’t benefit Africa, it will benefit the US.

    Sure you can make some arguments that in the areas that they operate there will be more money flowing in, but that’s a pittance and something that doesn’t address the real issues at hand in Africa.

    No, Africa doesn’t need some foreign power to straighten itself out. It doesn’t need anymore guidance in getting things right outside of Africans themselves - not anymore than the US needed outside help to gain independence and build it’s own economic powerhouse. The problems in Africa need to be solved from within.

    There’s no excuse for any country to give up part of its sovereignty for short term gains, and this is what it feels like will happen. There’s nothing quite like having another country’s soldiers in your country telling you what, where and how to do something.

    There is nothing benign about this move - Confessions of an Economic Hitman.

27. omodudu | Nov 14, 2007 | Reply

    I am tending towards the negative now. Reading Hash’s stuff up there sort of juggled my memory a bit. Just because the U.S marines up in Khartoum treated me good and we were buddies does not mean they treated the Sudanese the same way. It’s funny how our own experiences can lead us to make general conclusion.
    On the other hand, approaching the issue from a gamers perspective, China is here to stay and they ain’t going anywhere, the presence of the U.S. should encourage the Chinese to bid a little higher. Really, I am not sure this is a valid argument, the Chinese have chosen to occupy via business while the Americans have gone the way of military might. Who says they are going to compete. It may result in a doubling of the ongoing rape. Wheew, tough luck.

28. Omotaylor | Nov 14, 2007 | Reply

    Maybe Africa should now quickly give good thought to the formation of the United States of Africa so as to combat the underlying evil and problems that Africom would bring on Africa, if allowed to go ahead. China’s penetration through the business angle does not sound as sinister as Africom especially judging from all the results of American invasion, infiltration, occupation and incursion worldwide. Africom is BAD NEWS.

29. Smith | Nov 14, 2007 | Reply

    America has little or no credibility outside its shores. With the nonsense the Bush administration has created in Iraq, I find it difficult to justify the need for Africom, well, at this time.

    BRE, in one of his comments, mentioned Germany as an example of a nation that has benefited hugely from the presence of US boots in the country. Good point. However, we need to know that the circumstances that prompted the creation of the US Command in Germany were not the same as Africom. The U.S was a liberator, a do-gooder” after the World War II, and respected worldwide. That perception has changed today.

30. Omotaylor | Nov 15, 2007 | Reply

    Leadership worldwide has changed especially in intent. Do gooders dont do good no more but would rather manipulate, encroach and conquer by hook or by crook. America is not different possibly worse. Dont give them a chance to tamper with Africa, for I repeat we have more than enough problems to sort out and dont need more.

31. Olukayode Awosika | Nov 15, 2007 | Reply

    It is not surprising that the US is looking for the next frontier to plunder. While other nations are having the US close down their bases overseas, African nations are now the next obvious target. What happens in Ogoni, Bonny, Escravos and the like in Nigeria for instance, directly affects the average person on the streets of USA as gas prices are quite labile. Since almost all the daily world output of oil is almost daily exhausted, oil features traders panic whenever there is any unrest in the oil producing nations particularly in Nigeria and the Middle East. Therefore, it is not suprising that AFRICOM is being mooted by this administration to protect US interests. May God help our motherland!

32. Beauty | Nov 16, 2007 | Reply

    US or China? How many Africans planning on Red cards? My money is on the USA, the land of Mickey Mouse and McDonalds and BillyG Microsoft and Homer Simpson. The problem is not external but our own perma*Corrupt people who may decide to keep the Status-quo and stay blind zero ecomonic growth and lower life expectancy.

33. Kaluba | Nov 16, 2007 | Reply

    US-Africa relations are still in their infancy. Its too early to start going to bed with the yanks. Truth be told, Americans do not know the first thing about Africa so AFRICOM is really a bad bad idea.

34. Don Thieme | Nov 16, 2007 | Reply

    @Misi - You are of course correct here that the military in countries such as Nigeria do welcome the extensive training and sophisticated security equipment which Africom will bring.

    Is that what will be best for the Nigerian people, though? Will Nigeria be more peaceful once the military becomes better equipped and emboldened to go after the rebels down in the Niger delta, for example?

    Furthermore, the United States now has a clear history of attracting “Al Qaeda” fighters wherever it decides to station its troops and “stand up” the military. I suspect that Africom will bring to Nigeria and other African countries the same sort of peace and prosperity which the United States has now brought to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

35. BRE | Nov 16, 2007 | Reply

    I see that a number of commenters fear that AFRICOM may be setup in the country of Nigeria which contradicts at least two articles I have read about the possible location of the command’s HQ on the continent. Have no fear Nigerians, your country is not on the “short list” because the present government in Abuja is opposed to AFRICOM. Perhaps this intelligence brief from Sratfor’s, a private intelligence firm that advises multinational corporations (oil and gas companies) and governments around the world, helps to explain why (er… why not):

    Source: Stratfor.com website (re-published at IntelliBriefs blog on September 15, 2007)
    ‘Nigeria: Maneuvering for Control in the Gulf of Guinea’
    http://intellibriefs.blogspot.com/2007/09/nigeria-maneuvering-for-control-in-gulf.html

    Summary

    Nigeria is moving to block AFRICOM, the U.S. combat command for Africa, from establishing itself in the Gulf of Guinea region. A few countries will go along with Nigeria, but oil and natural gas newcomers Equatorial Guinea and Sao Tome and Principe probably will resist the move.

    Analysis

    The Nigerian government began meetings with West African governments and the leadership of the African Union to oppose AFRICOM — the Pentagon’s Africa command — from establishing itself in the Gulf of Guinea region, Nigerian media reported Sept. 14. While Abuja aims to preserve its unrivaled influence in the region, Equatorial Guinea and Sao Tome and Principe probably will resist Abuja’s blocking move to safeguard their newfound independence from Nigerian influence.

    AFRICOM will work closely with local governments and militaries to build up indigenous security and counterterrorism capacities, rather than engaging in high-profile troop deployments. Aiming to become operational by October, AFRICOM will have three priority African regions to work in. These include improving maritime security cooperation in the oil- and natural gas-rich Gulf of Guinea region, a region that includes Nigeria, the United States’ fifth-largest supplier of oil. AFRICOM also will be tasked with promoting counterterrorism cooperation with governments and militaries in the Sahel and Horn of Africa regions.

    Nigeria in particular has struggled to secure its oil and natural gas sector — found largely in its Niger Delta region — from militant attacks by groups such as the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta. In a bid to boost Nigeria’s ability to contain militant violence against oil assets in the Niger Delta, Washington has fostered maritime security cooperation through offering training and the provision of maritime patrol craft with Abuja.

    In spite of Abuja’s vulnerabilities in the Niger Delta, no other West African country rivals Nigeria’s economic and military superiority. The potential presence of AFRICOM in the region could disrupt that hegemony by enhancing the capabilities and interests of new oil and natural gas powers previously overshadowed by Nigeria. Abuja does not want to see the emergence of a rival to its traditional dominant position in West Africa, a similar position taken by South Africa in its opposition to AFRICOM’s presence in southern Africa.

    Nigerian hegemony has traditionally been exercised over countries to its west, including Benin, Togo, Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire. Nigeria is a critical source of energy supplies, has provided peacekeepers for stability operations in conflict zones such as Liberia and Sierra Leone, and also maintains extensive business interests in the region. Until the 2005 election of Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf to the Liberian presidency, that country fell into Nigeria’s zone of influence. Johnson-Sirleaf, a U.S.-trained economist who formerly worked for the World Bank, has moved to remake Liberia as one of the United States’ — and AFRICOM’s — most vocal supporters in Africa.

    By contrast, Nigeria’s neighbors in the Gulf of Guinea — the Malabo archipelago of Equatorial Guinea and Sao Tome and Principe — were virtually ignored all around, including by Abuja. This changed in recent years after these two nations were found to possess extensive oil and natural gas reserves.

    Both nations remain largely undeveloped, and therefore have little need for Nigeria’s oil and natural gas or limited security guarantees. (Nigeria lacks an effective blue-water naval or long-range air force capability.) Exploiting their oil and natural gas reserves — a process in a relatively nascent stage — will provide Equatorial Guinea and Sao Tome and Principe the resources they have lacked to pursue their own objectives. As a result, Abuja will have to take into consideration two neighboring upstarts it previously could discount.

    As Equatorial Guinea and Sao Tome and Principe move to develop their oil and natural gas reserves, building up their indigenous ability to secure those interests will become a greater focus of attention. The desire to avoid becoming subservient to Nigeria’s fresh attentions in the Gulf of Guinea region will ensure these two countries in particular safeguard their freedom and independence by resisting Abuja’s opposition to AFRICOM.
    ———————————-

    Equatorial Guinea as a HQ for AFRICOM!!! No Way! Or at least not as long as that lowlife kleptomaniac ruler President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasongo and his cronies are still in power.

    Sao Tomé and Principe? I can get down with that and so could the troops er… command headquarters personnel.

36. Rockfan | Nov 16, 2007 | Reply

    interesting at bre’s comment

37. omodudu | Nov 16, 2007 | Reply

    Pointers:
    The U.S. Military worked with the Nigerian military for 2 years in the late 90’s. From what I heard the military really liked it.

38. Omotaylor | Nov 16, 2007 | Reply

    @Omodudu’s comment above. Reminds me of the concept of engagement and marriage. US/Nigeria military working together for 2 years is like the engagement period where it is rosy, anyone can walkout painfree and no serious/permanent ties. But Setting up base in Africa is like marriage and if divorce is to be later contemplated when all goes sour, wow! painful, hard, and disruptive. NO TO AFRICOM ANYWHERE IN AFRICA. America is not to be trusted. There is always a hidden agenda, sinister motive and hideous plan to every so called goodwill move that America makes.

39. victor maritim | Nov 17, 2007 | Reply

    Africom is something which we do not need. There is not any plausible reason for it other than an plot into fighting proxy wars with China. It is now the great battle for resources.

40. Frederic N'sienie | Nov 17, 2007 | Reply

    There was suggestion by the Economist that the United States economy survival(?)depended on stable and prosperous emerging markets.
    So maybe, more so that some geo-political[ still part of the mix] interests , it is the need to secure a soft landing for the US economy that guides the US military presence in Africa.
    Quite down hot spots like DRC,Sudan,Somalia,Cote d”Ivoire,Ethiopia while pumping money in the economic pipeline[ like the russian,indian,chinese,brazilian,portuguese etc.. are doing] and make sure that American goods,servives, know-how are heavily exported to these areas.

    One question I would like the forum to bring up is How do we as individual entrepreneurs, investors benefit from the present and future economic boom taking place in the different economic markets of Africa ?
    I am from the Ivory Coast but i do not discriminate against the source of ROIs, Angola,Ethiopia,Morocco,Mauritius,Congo,Nigeria,Ghana,Sierra Leone,Liberia,Uganda,Kenya and many more are all markets that I would like to know more about concerning,commercial and non-commercial real estate,bonds& stocks,business opportunities and commercial needs.
    Can anyone paint a picture of the present and future opportunities laying around in Africa ?

    From Caretaker
    Frederic: Thanks for the suggestion. You may find some leads via this link.

41. CareTaker | Nov 19, 2007 | Reply

    Folks, thanks for the comments! This is an interesting debate, and if the tone of the debate is anything to go by, Africom has no business coming to Africa!

42. D-Tee | Nov 19, 2007 | Reply

    From IHT:
    Nigeria formally announced Monday that it won’t host the U.S. military’s new Africa-wide military command, taking Africa’s most-populous nation and a top source of American oil imports out of contention.

    Nigerian leaders have been vocal critics of the new U.S. military command for Africa, which is seeking a home on the world’s poorest continent. The government made its position official on Monday as President Umaru Yar’Adua met with state governors and federal lawmakers.

    Nigeria is also against the U.S. command basing its headquarters elsewhere in West Africa, where the country of 140 million is a major military and diplomatic heavyweight, said Kwara State Governor Bukola Saraki, who announced the government’s position after the meeting.

    http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/19/africa/AF-GEN-Nigeria-US-Military.php

43. BRE | Nov 20, 2007 | Reply

    Re: the International Herald Tribune article about the government of Nigeria officially rejecting AFRICOM (D-Tee’s comment)

    Looks like the September 2007 intelligence analysis by Stratfor’s was right on target re: Nigeria’s position on AFRICOM. I wonder if they are as correct about the “why” as they were about the “who and what” as pointed out in the following statement from that report:

    “…In spite of Abuja’s vulnerabilities in the Niger Delta, no other West African country rivals Nigeria’s economic and military superiority. The potential presence of AFRICOM in the region could disrupt that hegemony by enhancing the capabilities and interests of new oil and natural gas powers previously overshadowed by Nigeria. Abuja does not want to see the emergence of a rival to its traditional dominant position in West Africa, a similar position taken by South Africa in its opposition to AFRICOM’s presence in southern Africa.

    Nigerian hegemony has traditionally been exercised over countries to its west, including Benin, Togo, Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire. Nigeria is a critical source of energy supplies, has provided peacekeepers for stability operations in conflict zones such as Liberia and Sierra Leone, and also maintains extensive business interests in the region.”

    End quote____

44. cjw | Nov 20, 2007 | Reply

    @ Bre

    Really, Sao Tome needs to assert its independence from Nigeria. (according to staffor). When a few years ago there
    was a coup attempt in Sao Tome. The U.S. was ??????, The U.S. did ?????,

    When there was a War in Liberia, The U.S. was ????, The U.S. did ?????

    Serria Leone(civil war), Guniea(civil war), Ivory Coast(civil war), Togo(coup) need i go on, all in the last decade were was the U.S., now Saffor come with thier “intelligence” and
    you quote them like they are some authority. This divide and conquer rouse that they use to play one African country against another is not helping. Like we do not have enough of our own problems.

    One possible solution:- If Africom is so intrestsed in Helping Africa (as they claim)perhaps they should make an Alliance with the AU because the last time I checked it has been endorsed by Africans as the body that is legitamately supposed to handle peace and security. It should also try the sub regional bodies once the relationship with AU has been established.

45. Omotaylor | Nov 20, 2007 | Reply

    @D-Tee, good to hear that there is at least something Nigerian Leaders are getting right. May this getting right wind blow more and more on other areas of Nigerian Socio-Political cum Economical life.

46. omodudu | Nov 20, 2007 | Reply

    Just when I was starting to think BRE was working for the Americans, he/she made the most ‘duh’ point of this discussion.
    If stability is the goal, why not strengthen the existing framework, AU. The americans are very good at providing support, training and money. They are bound to be way more useful by supporting the AU peace keepers.
    On the flipside, america is in search of so much good will, can they afford to take the back seat for all the possible good deeds that can come out of Africa. You just never know.

47. Omotaylor | Nov 20, 2007 | Reply

    Council of State rejects U.S. military base in Nigeria
    By Chesa Chesa By State House Correspondent, Abuja

    For the full report visit this link:

    http://odili.net/news/source/2007/nov/20/701.html

48. D-Tee | Nov 20, 2007 | Reply

    It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the end, with Nigeria coming out with a clear “NO”.

    All eyes are now be on Liberia and Sao Tome, particularly the latter, going by Stratfor’s statement below:

    “As Equatorial Guinea and Sao Tome and Principe move to develop their oil and natural gas reserves, building up their indigenous ability to secure those interests will become a greater focus of attention. The desire to avoid becoming subservient to Nigeria’s fresh attentions in the Gulf of Guinea region will ensure these two countries in particular safeguard their freedom and independence by resisting Abuja’s opposition to AFRICOM”

49. Oscar Blayton | Nov 20, 2007 | Reply

    If Liberia and Sao Tome are “in play,” perhaps it would be wise to do more than sit idly by and “watch to see the outcome.”

    As African people (whether from the Continent or the Diaspora) we should be pro-active in working to avoid the calamity that will come with the presence of Africom in Africa.

    We should do all that we can to help Liberia and Sao Tome steer clear of any enticements to swallow the poison pill of a U.S. military presence. It is the same moral imperative as we would have to steer a family member clear of a dangerous drug.

    How do we approach the decision makers of Liberia and Sao Tome and encourage them to say “NO!” to Africom?

    I would love to hear any thougts on this issue.

50. Renegade Eye | Nov 21, 2007 | Reply

    the sentiment here is against Africom.

51. BRE | Nov 21, 2007 | Reply

    BRE is “working for the Americans”?… I am an American! Black too (African-American) and a damn proud veteran of the US military in case that has any signifigance for you.

    What I am trying to do is provide various viewpoints from military and foreign affairs experts, news journalists and correspondents and editors, government ministries, and “think tanks” that have carefully reviewed and analysed this new US military command from the very beginning. For example, here is what a South African defense expert (a journalist) had to say about AFRICOM in an article for the BBC World Service Analysis programme on October 3rd, 2007:
    ————————-
    The Controversy Over Africom (BBC News Online)
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7026197.stm

    Helmut Heitman, the South Africa Correspondent of Jane’s Defence Weekly, is less sceptical. He thinks the earnest claims made by the US about its intentions in Africa can be taken at face value - for now at least.

    “What they’re saying at the moment - that it’s primarily a security, assistance and training focus, is probably true,” he says.

    “They’re still building up their knowledge base. I don’t see them rushing into Africa with large combat forces or anything. This is a contact building exercise that will be extended if necessary.”

    Mr Heitman adds, however, that he can see an emphasis on countering both the growing Chinese influence in Africa, and the potential Indian influence there too.

    But he points out that the objections raised by African countries are about more than protecting their national sovereignty.

    “There’s a general negativity among African countries that don’t function all that cleanly towards Europe and America - they much prefer the Chinese version of ‘here’s the money, do what you like’,” he says.

    “South Africa has reacted negatively, but not for that reason. South Africa has never liked Washington much, because it sees itself as a regional power, and doesn’t want anyone else to tell it what to do.”

    End excerpt—————

    Like I (and others) have suggested before, for some African nations it is not about a potential loss of sovereignty or fear of attracting Al Qaeda militants or some other dumb–s group, but about the loss of influence and hegemony that those countries have traditionally practiced in a region (or as the government of Nigeria stated recently, their sub-region) of the African continent. Libya, Egypt, Morocco, Sudan, Nigeria, and South Africa float right to the top of that group. For some other African countries who may be seriously contemplating hosting the AFRICOM HQ it is about the benefits for their respective government regime and their citizens (in other words, it’s about the money.)

    Don’t waste your time trying to influence the government of Equatorial Guinea as they also are not on the “short list” . President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf has already made up her mind about AFRICOM (and lots of other things) and so have loyal and trusted members of her government cabinet. You might want to talk with certain opposition figures serving in Liberia’s Parliament though (i.e. Charles Taylor’s old cronies)… that might work. The island nations of Sao Tomé and Principe are simply too far away from the continent making it very expensive to serve as a military command headquarters (logistics and supplies) and they are also too distant for regular travel to neighboring countries in the West Africa region.

    I think that where the AFRICOM headquarters will be based over the next 5 years may come as a total surprise to most people and I doubt seriously that the decision will be met by mass protests and the burning of American flags and flaming auto tires and torched commercial property on the streets of some African capital.

52. Oscar Blayton | Nov 21, 2007 | Reply

    I would like to post these comments in opposition to Brother BRE’s statement - and I call him “Brother BRE” because, like him, I am an African that was born in America. But I hope the geographical aspect of my birth does not make me seem any less of an African, and that I will be judged rather by my actions.

    I served in the U.S. Marine Corps during the Vietnam conflict as an officer and a carrier qualified combat naval aviator. And I have flown over 460 combat missions for the U.S. I have had some experience with the U.S. military during my life; and I believe that this gives me some credibility in speaking about U.S. military affairs.

    There is no basis to believe, contrary to what Brother BRE seems to imply, that the U.S. wants boots on the ground in Africa for the benefit of Africans. To suggest such a thing one has to ignore a very long history of U.S. involvement globally and the actions of this current administration. Any attempt to try to characterize U.S. attempts to gain influence in Africa militarily as “altruistic” can reasonably be seen as naive or disingenuous.

    Citing mainstream western pundits, journalists, think tank experts and their ilk is to assert a confidence in the same people who helped to sell the notion that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. They work for the same institutions that opposed the liberation of African peoples from colonial rule in the first three-quarters of this century; and still refuse to respect African nations and African people for what and who they are today. And as regards Helmut Heitman, who wrote the BBC article, I would like to ask Brother BRE if he is vouching for Mr. Heitman’s integrity from personal interaction with the man? If he does not know him personally, and has not interacted with him to the degree where he can confidently say that he “knows” him, it is of little value to hold him out as someone in whom we should put our trust when he assumes to speak for almost an entire continent of people.

    Perhaps AFRICOM will locate in an African nation, and perhaps there will be no great outcry IF and when that happens, but if it does happen, then it will be to the shame and detriment to you, and me and anyone else who considers himself an African.

    We must not be lulled into thinking that AFRICOM is for the good of Africa. And those of us Africans who were born in the United States must not let any misplaced national pride in the nation of our birth allow us to endorse or support any actions that will operate to the detriment of any African nation or its people.

53. Beauty | Nov 22, 2007 | Reply

    In his excellent speech at the OECD World Forum in Istanbul, Hans Roslings unveiled the Beauty of Statistics and pointed out that we cannot simply apply the same rules to solving African issues. Its problems are too big and diverse. This is why I will accept that United States needs to take the long view in its dealings with Africa.

    These are Dangerous Times For Africa and the US should seek to reinforce and strengthen indigenous efforts as well as impose externally-originated solutions including basing AFRICOM on African soil. Extrinsic rewards for selfish interests in spades but if obtaining outcomes in that area can generate a win-win for all. Why not? We have lost too much already.

54. BRE | Nov 22, 2007 | Reply

    @ Oscar Blayton:

    “I served in the U.S. Marine Corps during the Vietnam conflict as an officer and a carrier qualified combat naval aviator. And I have flown over 460 combat missions for the U.S. I have had some experience with the U.S. military during my life; and I believe that this gives me some credibility in speaking about U.S. military affairs.”

    That introduction, brother Oscar, gives you a LOT of credibility in this debate as far as I am concerned. I like yourself also served (US Air Force) during the Vietnam War era and was a member of a well-known Air Combat Support Group. Your points raised are well taken on this end and I will reflect carefully upon what you are saying before commenting further. Things are warming up rather nicely around this debate on African Loft, wouldn’t you say Caretaker?

    @ Beauty

    You seem to be one of the very few people commenting here who does not fear the establishment of this new US military command headquarters on the African continent. Your inputs along with those of others is very much appreciated.

    Why do you have trust and confidence in this US government initiative for Africa where so many others here do not? Is it that you have great disappointment and/or mistrust of certain governments and leaders of African nations (past & present) and feel that AFRICOM could help to improve security, governance, and economic development on the continent? Or is it that AFRICOM represents to you the lesser of many evils (foreign military intervention in African countries to secure access to natural resources) that will inevitably impact Africa’s future over the next several decades?

55. Chxta | Nov 22, 2007 | Reply

    http://www.vanguardngr.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1964&Itemid=0

56. BRE | Nov 22, 2007 | Reply

    Akwe Amosu, Senior Policy Analyst for Africa at the Open Society Policy Center (the Soros Foundation’s Open Society Institute in Washington D.C.) has just published a comprehensive (and sobering) piece on AFRICOM and US foreign policy toward African countries at the Online Africa Policy Forum site (CSIS in South Africa). Read “Dangerous Times for Africa” by Akwe Amosu at the following URL:
    http://forums.csis.org/africa/?p=71

    I thought I would throw another log on the fire since it’s Thanksgiving Day and all…:-) Darn good article.

57. Beauty | Nov 22, 2007 | Reply

    I do not have a perfect answer but here is a relevant story: Businessman Roland ‘Tiny’ Rowland, a supporter of newly-independent African countries and leaders, he enjoyed a high profile. As Rowland’s empire grew, his role became more controversial. He was ousted from power after the company incurred huge debts, and the company disposed of many of its assets. The company Lonrho is now back in Africa, that is our history, boom and burst. There are no checks and balances.

    Now that China is here to stay, we need US partnership in order to deliver a checkmate should we have a reason to. USSR lost and USA is still here but a few good within the US are waking up to “it takes 2 to tango” and Bush ideology will not last forever.

    How many Africans apply for the Red card? Records show that millions of Africans apply for the US green card daily. And that is my point.

58. Segun | Nov 22, 2007 | Reply

    To Beauty:

    I feel the best impact the U.S can have in Africa isn’t through its politico-military complex. Africa has gone far beyond this, besides when it really mattered most, Washington didn’t really do much for Liberia or Sierra Leone, countries that had a raw civil strife. So why do we need a marine base in Africa now?

    China has made a strong and successful incursion into Africa, and it appears, it here to stay. If America wants to remain relevant, this is fine, but not through a cold-war era mentality or flaunting it’s military prowess.

    How about dropping the cotton subsidy for American farmers? Please read Robert Reich’s piece here in the Loft: Message to the U.S. Senate: “Nix the Farm Bill”. One of the things we need most is trade.

59. CareTaker | Nov 22, 2007 | Reply

    Boy! Little did I know this debate would grow like this and attract such eminent personalities. Many many thanks to you all. I have to take a break for the turkey and drop this piece from Akwe’s article (below), which I think crystallizes the tone of this debate, even further; too bad she ain’t here to participate:

    The United States needs to take the long view in its dealings with Africa, rather than allowing short term energy and security anxieties to take precedence. U.S. economic and security interests in Africa can best be realized if African political economies can become more functional, more efficient, and more stable.

    Come to think of it, as long as the images from Iraqi keep bombarding our senses 24/7, how does Washington hope to successful sell the Africom? Who would buy it? The timing is so off!!!

    Washington needs to work more on restoring it’s lost political capital, from within first.

    How come the most economic aid comes from Europe, USA is #18 in per capita and #21 per $GDP in economic aid to developing nations?

    Happy thanksgiving day!

60. wole | Nov 22, 2007 | Reply

    Pray will AFRICOM stop genocide and civil war in Africa? will it end hunger, poverty, disease, corruption etc.? will it engender good governance? if it will not, then it will be another wasted effort and another in the long line of undue interference with Africa’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. unfortunately the African Union do not have the cohesion to resist such moves because for every elitist government in Africa that refuses to donate its territory there are many poor, hungry and ill motivated others that will see the coming of AFRICOM to her territory as divine blessings and an opportunity to “shine”. AFRICOM is the latest in the series of schemes by the west to perpetuate the “slave camp” syndrome in Africa.

61. Beauty | Nov 22, 2007 | Reply

    @BRE African political economies cannot be functional, efficient, nor stable until we find a little bit of ethics, morality and deep concern about order and relationships in a more productive and constructive way of life. That is our baseline. Oil rich Nigeria does not have a functional navy/air defence capability (source: Google video, Oil War - Nigeria). Chinua Achebe’s “Nigeria is a country that does not work, Schools, universities, roads, hospitals, water, the economy, security, life.” remains true and things have fallen apart.

    In reply to Akwe Amosu, we are already seeing signs of Nigeria as a failed state which will drag down a large part of the West African region. These are Dangerous Times For Africa and the US should seek to reinforce and strengthen indigenous efforts as well as impose externally-originated solutions including basing AFRICOM on African soil. Extrinsic rewards for selfish interests in spades but if obtaining outcomes in that area can generate a win-win for all. It is not either or, it is a combination of every effort.

62. Oscar Blayton | Nov 23, 2007 | Reply

    @ Beauty:

    I find your statement: “we are already seeing signs of Nigeria as a failed state” to be so wildly misleading and exaggerated as to be dumbfounding.

    I spent a week in Nigeria in mid-October divided between Kano in the North and the capital, Abuja. During that time I met with NGOs, academics, journalists, labor leaders and government officials. While there, I saw none of the signs of “a failed state” that you speak of, so I would be very interested in having you identify these “signs.”

    I find your eagerness to “impose externally-originated solutions” on African problems very disturbing and offensive to the notion of sovereignty of the several and various nations of Africa. The only reason why such “externally-originated solutions” are not suggested for the multitude of problems existing within the United States is because the United States has become a global bully ready to bring violence (militarily or economically) to any nation or group of individuals opposed to it way of doing things.

    I am at a loss to understand why you are so quick to point out the shortcomings of the various governments while at the same time you ignore the shortcomings of the U.S. government. To me, such behavior has the appearance of an irrational bias.

63. Omotaylor | Nov 23, 2007 | Reply

    @Oscar “I am at a loss to understand why you are so quick to point out the shortcomings of the various governments while at the same time you ignore the shortcomings of the U.S. government. To me, such behavior has the appearance of an irrational bias.” THIS IS A GOOD POINT.

    Wish more Americans will look inwards like we Nigerians are doing so that we can acknowledge we have a problem, and this would place us on the road to finding solutions. Until America accepts that it is now being seen as a “failed state” also, they are not being realistic trying to poke their unwanted noses into the African Continent.

64. Beauty | Nov 23, 2007 | Reply

    Like it or not, American AFRICOM initiative is required in Africa. Africa has been playing to play for the past few decades but playing to win include outsourcing certain services. Is it irrational to point out that millions of Africans apply for the green card, everyday. How many Africans are applying for the red card to live in China?

    The 2004 disappearance of a Russian oil tanker in Nigerian custody is the bias that makes Mickey Mouse USA the #1 gate keeper. How do 300,000ton ships just disappear? African countries do not have a functional navy nor air force and over 30,000 barrels of oil are lost to fuel thieves each day in Nigeria. Show me any other country on this planet that has successfully prosecuted alleged contractor frauds.

    How come Africa does not have a remarkable infrastructure? Why is most of its educated workforce abroad? Its governments have used its treasuries like personal piggy banks and its people are dying to get out. My concern is for Africa and the US has its own issues which is their problem.

    ‘We erect walls to foreign trade and even discourage job-displacing innovations. But time and again through our history, we have discovered merely to preserve the comfortable features of the present, rather than reaching for new levels of prosperity, is a sure path to stagnation.”
    Alan Greenspan in 2004, so you see there is only one dumb George W. Bush.

    The Iraqi conflict could be stupid but these are dangerous times for Africa, chaos is interested in us. Chinese and American reasons for spending xBillions is about their #1 benefit to themselves. We should be seizing the opportunity and working to get the best deal and benefits out of these relationships. NO is not an option.

65. Bobby | Nov 23, 2007 | Reply

    Africom is just a tool to enslave Africa. EPLF (Eritrean Government) ran on a platform of self-reliance and now the U.S. wants the “Aid” Receiving Ethiopian government to “Replace” Eritrea as they did Somalia (In the guise of TFG)

    - We give you “Aid” and you will be our front line on the “War on Terror” - … congratulations sellouts.. rather than being self-reliant and learning how to feed yourself, you’d fight like baboons for “Aid”.. YOU WILL BE INDENTURED WARMONGERS FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE!.. Long Live Eritrea

    http://www.myspace.com/badnuzbrownmusic - Listen to “The Horn”

66. victor maritim | Nov 24, 2007 | Reply

    @Beauty
    There is no indication that USA or AFRICOM are on a mission to save or be Africa’s gatekeepers. They are here to solely advance their interests. Past hisory shows us that and as far as I know there has been no policy shift in US’s foreign engagements with Africa. Officials of the US goverment can say all of sweet sounding words but in the end they haven’t come through when Africa needs them most.

    If I may ask what situation has changed so as to warrant the basing or formation of Africom? Has the US suddenly realised that Africa is importanty to them? I think not!!!!

67. Loomnie | Nov 24, 2007 | Reply

    I sincerely still dont know the reasons we are against AFRICOM. Could someone please outline the reasons it is bad for Africa, apart from the usual rhetorics of patriotism? That, I think is what this discussion needs: a clear, well thought through objection to the proposal. Otherwise, we’ll end up making a lot of noise that only helps to distract from the reality that the AFRICOM project is advancing anyway.

68. Oscar Blayton | Nov 24, 2007 | Reply

    Regarding Loomnie and the other supporters of Africom:

    The supporters of Africom, wish Africans to accept it without stating a logical reason as to why it will benefit. Alternatively, they continue to state that there have been no cogent objections.

    Loomnie speaks of a “reality” that “the AFRICOM project is advancing anyway.” It seems as if he wishes us to simply sit by and let the U.S. and its western cronies do their will in Africa regardless of the anticipated negative outcomes.

    I contend that every African of Good Will who is concerned about the welfare of African people must be Pro-Active on this issue and continue of oppose Africom and any other neo-colonial attempts to further suppress the will of African peoples.

    Either, Loomnie has not been reading the prior posts, or he wants to continue to agitate in favor of U.S. foreign policy objectives regarding Africa, regardless of the ill effects that foreign policy has had, and will continue to have on the people of Africa.

    Anyone who is not cognizant of the rape and plunder of Africa by the west (the U.S. included) and the lack of any evidence of a fundamental change in attitude about the rights of African people to enjoy the same benefits of sovereignty and the unimpeded utilization of their own resources is either disingenuous or lacks the normal capacity for reason.

    I would greatly hope that there is no one participating in this debate who is knowingly trying to convince Africans to act against our own best interest.

69. Frederic | Nov 24, 2007 | Reply

    Calm and rational assesment of a given situation is what a lot of our intellectuals seem to lack. I do not understand where this lack comes from, we have so many Africans schools of thoughts and esoteric groups in Africa that teach self-control,visualisation,meditation,patience and Focus of the mind.
    People are hollering,shaking in fear that the great big bully comes and eats us. What do you expect the US ,the Eu or China to do ?That is the position often assumes by great powers throughout history,nothing new here.
    The people at the head of these nations are often driven by their genitals,greed and power, just like us and the people with the bigger balls[ no pun intended],the bigger greed[monitored greed is good] and the most power[intellectual,technological,financial,military,sexualetc] run the show.
    When Africa as a nation or any African nation becomes a powerhouse, they will do the same thing.

    There might be some period of grace and enlightement where the position of power is used in a Godly manner , but they seldom last, great men of wisdom are a not a dime a dozen and the likelyhood that they appear at the same time and lead one nation is a blessing from God to be remembered forever.

    Nobody wishes for the US do do anything against our interests,but the memory of liberians crying for help in front of the US embassy gates told me that the African population does not live in the real world, they live a world made up of fleshy urges mixed with fears,stereotypes,ignorance of the principles of this capitalistic world and reverence for the mighty white man.

    I think like Beauty suggested, we should look at what and how we could benefit from such foreign policy move by the US and have our think tanks and intellectuals privatly come up with an Exit strategy.

    The examples of China or Japan should serve us a study.

    Last but not least ,please stop with these horror stories of Africa on the brink of this or ready to plunge in chaos, because right now from Morocco to Egypt and from Mauritius to Mozambique ,and Ghana yo Gabon, the only plunging to do is in the multiple investment and business opportunities available: Mobile technology,Internet Tv,Real estate[ not just high-end],marketing,BPO,Stock & Bond Market,Internet Application,tourism,Financial sector,Bio industries,Agriculture,Music & film industries,Clothing & retail industries and much more.

    The wealthy was once poor, so learn and apply the principles of wealth in your family,society and economic markets, that is what lifts a country out of poverty not crying or whinning or complaining about the Whiteman because he will give it to you as long as you are bending over crying.

    Stand Up ,be proud and earn your keep.

70. Bobby | Nov 24, 2007 | Reply

    Frederic..
    “What do you expect the US ,the Eu or China to do ?That is the position often assumes by great powers throughout history,nothing new here.”… is that an excuse?? does that justify what there doing??.. wow.. I can’t believe you posted that.

    I already outlined how “We” can benefit from Africom.. by having bread crumbs thrown at our feet for being good soldiers on the front line of the “War on Terror”. If the US can’t get oil from the Mid-East with the help of Israel, then their surely going to get it in Somalia with the help Ethiopia led Africom

    “just like us”?? speak for yourself Frederic. Im not the greatest person in the world but I know for damn sure that I AM NOT DRIVEN BY “GENITALS, GREED AND POWER”

    And another thing. You used Liberia as an example to represent the whole continent.. what about Eritrea??
    “Eritreans kneel on only two occasions, when they pray and when they shoot.” - and we don’t pray to the NEO-CON version of God that tells us to shoot for him.

    I wish everyone would examine closely whats going on in the Horn of Africa (Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia and Djibouti) and understand THE WHOLE TRUTH instead of reading just headlines because that is the forecast for “United States African command” (Its real and full name by the way)

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=zDlS4VYQUx8
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=HksimwLuWho
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=a9uxfNZkxEE
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=7VJka6q16Os
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=shn2-mGG3vc

71. Frederic | Nov 24, 2007 | Reply

    I repeat the question, what do you expect them to do ?
    I reaffirm that the individuals in power in the US are just like leaders in Africa.They are driven by their genitals,greed and lust for power.
    these are not excuse ,it is called looking at things for what they are.Being sentimental is not what we are looking to do when it comes to questions of strategy and geo-politics.

    If you are not driven by your testos,greed and lust for control ,good for you, you are part of a small elite.

    Now if you are one of the few enlightened leader Africa has left, i urge you to go in your country and assume your position of leadership. God gives you ,traits,talents and abilities so that you can shower them on humanity.
    Follow the examples of Sankara,lumumba,Cabral,Mandela,Luther King.

    As far as Somalia,Djibouti and Ethiopia are concerned, I have not yet read any detailed reports or analysis that might explain the internal and external powers at play in the region.
    The CIA,NSA,the IMF,the media ,other organisations and Somali,Ethiopian and Djibouti leadership are more than enough to render a region unstable.

    The US does not need Africom to get oil from Somalia,the US imports [from Africa] Oil from Nigeria,Morocco,Algeria,Ivory Coast,pretty soon Ghana,Angola,Equatorial Guinea and some other countries. That is outside importing oil from Mexico,Venezuela etc..
    The countries you should have on your radar as wanting oil from Somalia should be China or India.
    And please when responding to the comment do not just pick apart sections you feel you may have some good come back for.
    Take all my points that add up to a certain philosophy and confront them all.
    Also do not assume that people reads the headline of newspaper and offer us
    Video clips that captured some moment in the specific part of a region in one country and then announce DOOMSDAY in Africa based on that.

    DOOMSDAY maybe in Ethiopia or Somalia and Djibouti [ eventhough it is not the case] but yet what level preparation do we have on the continent and in the diapora to supply clothes,medecine,housing,education to the displaced from the wars you are so sure are coming ? Preemtive measures are what must discussed here , not the evil of this country or that coountry. If you are a lamb in the forest ,wondering why the lion must eat you is not going to stop that fate from happening, only your degree of fitness,alertness and luck will do so.

    I actually had more points to present but will stop here for now.

    Wish you well,

72. Dr. Todd D. Stong | Nov 24, 2007 | Reply

    It was of interest to read the many comments on this topic, and perhaps right that I come in at this point now that I have an Internet connection set up here in Mexico for the winter. My take is that perhaps 90% of those who have written so far on this blog are African. Let me then as an American offer a perspective.

    For the past 11 years I have been serving as a volunteer (no salary) engineer focused on better water supply in Africa, Asia and Latin America. I have 6 sons who are also engineers. It is in our blood! I love building sustainable things for the poor. My work in the villages about the world has been tremendously rewarding as long as I have stayed in those villages with the real people and stayed clear of political leaders. Prior to these 11 year I served for near 30 years as an engineer in the USA military, Colonel USA Corps of Engineers. 15 years of that was overseas.

    Let me suggest: (1) 99% of Americans have never spent a single day in Africa and could not name more than 10 nations or fine more than 8 on a map. I think I am about 1 in 1000 Americans that has live/worked in African and has some understanding. (2) Our schools devote less than a few hours over a few days during our 12 years of public education to know about Africa. Our media devotes less than 1% of its coverage to Africa.(3) The average American does not want our government or our sons sent into other lands, but they as individuals are quite compassionate about meeting needs when they know about them. (4) Americans have zero interest in owning or controlling even a square meter in Africa or any nation beyond our borders. (5)Americans have deep seated feeling over helping those that seem depressed, who have little hope and who are under the rule of corrupt leaders that they the common people are powerless to change. (6)The real people of much of Africa are sadly locked into slow to no progress environments due to that 1-3% that controls all wealth and power in their nations.(7) Understanding of the real Africa and its real needs by the rest of the world and education from within for all Africans are surely the two strongest keys for a better future for Africa.

    So what do we do to help Africa arrive at a better place in 10, 20 or 100 years?

    If we do not know much as Americans we are not going to do much. I personally have for 8 years been promoting micro loans for some Africans and now I am moving to try and link school classrooms in Africa to classrooms in America via email.

    Yes, I am sorry for so many words to get to the point. I think it is worth giving this placement of a military office in Africa a chance. I think it will soon bring 10 times or 100 times the understanding of Africa to everyday Americans as well as to our government. I think it will end up leaving some money in Africa, creating some jobs, and encouraging some business and tourists. Imagine with what we know today about Africa for any normal American to risk getting off a plane in Lagos. It’s unknown is even a bit of terror for me. That has to change. The closer we become the more we will know about the real persons on each side. Americans like 95% of the Africans who have come here and shown they are interested in making a better life. Note that Africans coming here are even favored often 10 to 1 over African Americans for jobs due to the obvious work ethic of an African. I prize my many African friends. Thus, I know how important it is for more of our 300 million persons in America to know more about the real Africa, to make friends there, to travel there, to invest there, etc. Yes, the immediate press for seeking a presence in Africa, separate from Europe and the Pacific is most likely concerned over the future of oil markets in Africa remaining open to the US, given that the Chinese are presently aiming to buy up any and all natural resources they can world wide with the billions and billions of US dollars they have collected from us for cheap goods sold under an artificial currency exchange rate this past decade.

    You that were born in Africa know the ways of the various foreigners (Armenians, Indians and now the Chinese)who have silently infiltrated your cities, who have come to “help” your people, but have in near invisible ways seized your opportunities, your jobs, your businesses. Their name may not be on the sign above the door, but they are the ones collecting the money from what little your poor have and with that money paying off politicians and banking that money back home. No Westerner is ready to set up a business on your street and live there like these people. The culture gap is too wide. Thus, I humbly suggest that is is worth a chance to increase American understanding of Africa and vice versa. Sure, try Liberia. It is a small nations that did not even have electric in its capitol a year or two back.

73. Smith | Nov 24, 2007 | Reply

    These are interesting comments since I dropped mine.

    I think the discussion here isn’t about shutting out America from Africa, but opposing the use of its military force (which will be based on African soil) in “helping” Africa. This is what I’m against, I have nothing against Washington doing legitimate business with the Africans, in fact this is the gesture most Africans desire, not soldiers or military advisers.

    I’m sure there are ways the US can achieve better trade and cultural relations (per Dr Stong’s comment) with Africa…without having to station its soldiers on the continent. This is what needs to be examined and pursued by African leaders and the top brass in Washington. My two cents.

74. Rio | Nov 24, 2007 | Reply

    Comment deleted by CareTaker

75. Sara | Nov 25, 2007 | Reply

    @Rio, I believe this is a mature debate which entitles every individual to the right to express themselves. Raining personal abuses on someone simply because she made her argument is just low, totally uncalled for and very unkind. There are many ways of getting your point across and possibly disagreeing with others without making it a personal issue. Let’s all be civil in presenting our arguments.

76. Omotaylor | Nov 25, 2007 | Reply

    I agree with Sara above and this topic has been interesting as a mature debate from the yeas and neahs (glad the neahs are winning in spite of Dr Todds comments. Dr Todd has a good heart and his ideologies are based on being a good hearted sympathetic philantropist. This is not to say that the US government as a whole see the issue of knowing and helping Africa in the same light.

    Centuries ago, the ~British came with guns and Bibles to Africa, it was to colonalise and subdue. The Chinese and Indians came with economic ventures, it was to tap and consume. The US now wants to come with Guns and what? And this would be for what reasons? Let us wise up on political antiques for they have nothing to do with a humanitarrean mindset. America sings but the tunes are offkey. Iraq is still a vivid lesson, if others are soon forgotten.

    By the way, Beauty could be a HE in spite of the name, for some men are BEAUTIFUL while MOST women are. Enjoy today.

77. Beauty | Nov 25, 2007 | Reply

    Debates become boring without the “hot heads” whose talents can contribute new energies and ideas. Better to be inviting, rather than invisible is borrowed here as a summary in order to help our country move forward. We are abroad where most things work well and have experienced excellence. Why not bring that into our country by inviting everyone including the opportunists as described by @Dr. Todd D. Stong.

    The controversial Conference Report of March 2005, Mapping Sub-Saharan Africa’s Future where the US National Intelligence Council convened a group of top US experts on Sub-Saharan Africa to discuss likely trends in the region over the next 15 years. “Downside scenarios included: Nigeria as a failed state, dragging down a large part of the West African region” is my reference.

    I am sorry if it caused any offence but my biased conclusion came from trips to Nigeria and experiences from OBJ’s 3rd term fiasco, to former Chief of Nigerian Police in jail for being a common thief, and the last election where the winner who is now President said “I also believe that out experiences represent an opportunity to learn from our mistakes. Accordingly, I will set up a panel to examine the entire electoral process with a view to effect reforms and ensuring that we raise the quality and standards of our general elections to meet international standards”.

    The US went into a bad war and its people want their children back home, pronto! Logical reason for AFRICOM? There is no logic in any war, war is ugly but the US and China battle field Africa is war that US military understands, it beat USSR in the last one. My money is on Captain America.

78. Loomnie | Nov 25, 2007 | Reply

    @ OScar Blyton

    I have not said I am a supporter of AFRICOM, either actively or passively. What I have asked for is a clear-headed, well-argued, statement about why AFRICOM is bad for Africa. I have not had enough time to do some research on AFRICOM, and because of that I refrain from using the same rhetorics of patriotism, as you and many other contributors to this debate have been doing. I joined this debate to find out from people I hoped would shed light on the AFRICOM issue, but sadly, I have read more pseudo-patriotic sentiments from Africans who are not even living on the continent. All I can say at this point is that we might be doing better looking at the potential benefits Africans - mind you, I did not say Africa - could gain from AFRICOM. And I bet there are gains.

79. Frederic | Nov 25, 2007 | Reply

    @loomie, that is all is asked from the participants to the discussion, but we refuse to come forward with any clear and precise pros and cons. The geopolitical context is clear, issues have been defined,plausible scenarios have been presented but yet we are not able to articulate:
    Situation A- Solution A
    Situation B- solution B
    Situation C-Solution C

    Some even starts verbally abusing other forumists and like you have pointed out, a lot of intervenants here are probably not living in a African country at the present time,so their sense of reality about the needs,wants and opportunities,is a bit blurred.

    That is why you have a lot of passion,but not much real gauging of the situation.

    @Beauty, have you spent some time in different part of Nigeria so that you will know for sure that Nigeria is on the brink chaos or not ? Do not exclusively rely on the reports of “experts” whose expertise is probably limited in staying in Nice hotels in Abuja or Lagos,sexing a few Nigerian girls and getting their hands on some cash.
    And if any chaos ought to come,believe they would have helped it. Do not naive,catch up to the ways of the system.

    @ Dr Tong,
    Thanks for everything you do as an individual, but do not let it lure you in thinking what you do is representative of the agenda and actions of the US government and military.

    You as an individual is not= at all the government.Keep doing what you do,it enriches people lives as well as yours and your sons.
    Could you elaborate on “Americans have zero interest in owning or controlling even a square meter in Africa or any nation beyond our borders. (5)Americans have deep seated feeling over helping those that seem depressed, who have little hope and who are under the rule of corrupt leaders that they the common people are powerless to change”
    The common American person may not be aware of the benefits he/she might indirectly gain from the actions of her government

    And also “You that were born in Africa know the ways of the various foreigners (Armenians, Indians and now the Chinese)who have silently infiltrated your cities, who have come to “help” your people, but have in near invisible ways seized your opportunities, your jobs, your businesses. Their name may not be on the sign above the door, but they are the ones collecting the money from what little your poor have and with that money paying off politicians and banking that money back home.” I would add to the various foreigners,Americans,British,French,Germans,see the way and shape the invisible infiltration takes place may vary but they all are present with the same goal. So making use of the IMf,World Bank,domestic agents,the media,military coup ,NGOs,etc.. just shows a different approach.

    It does seem to me that you have clearly experienced and understood Africa as much of a passion you may have for the different African countries you have been to, and could you name these countries please ?

80. CareTaker | Nov 25, 2007 | Reply

    Loomie: I think the answwer(s) to your question can be found in the comments.

    Smith mentions Trade, stating ” US can achieve better trade and cultural relations with Africa…without having to station its soldiers on the continent.”

    Oscar goes back in time and history to look at similar instances where US have made incursion to foreign lands using his military and doesn’t like the effect down the line.

    BRE mentions the economic benefits of the stationing Africom in Africa…etc.

81. CareTaker | Nov 25, 2007 | Reply

    Frederic: I know Dr Stong, and he has been featured extensively on the Loft, you may read more about him here

82. Beauty | Nov 25, 2007 | Reply

    Does Africa Need AFRICOM? US national interests lie in effectively counter­ing China’s developments in Africa and as such AFRICOM on African soil as a balance to the red dragon should be welcome. China’s tolerance for corruption and political risk in its investments has met with warm reception in Africa but it needs a counter measure. Beijing may not have the same human rights concerns as the US & EU countries but their new money may jump-start change in Africa with AFRICOM looking over their shoulder. Is this a good enough reason?

83. Bobby | Nov 25, 2007 | Reply

    No. Actually, Frederic, it is an excuse, if not an outright justification. What you’re saying is: since everyone else is doing it ‘what do you expect them to do.’ That is shamefully ignorant on your part. I do not, however, argue with the fact that some people are driven by not-so-good intentions. But your position solidifies corrupt people as “leaders” and thats plain old irresponsible. And, believe it or not, that is the only way Africom will be established; First by the validation of corrupt officials then by the bribing and blackmailing of those same immoral people.

    I am an American citizen and consider myself 100% American but with the majority of my family from the resilient country of Eritrea I am forever intertwined with it. I have already said it before but, would like to reiterate, that the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia is an accurate forecast of what is to come with Africom. War, God, more wars, and more God. I have so much to post here but decided to omit. Instead of reading about and listening to ill-informed and misguided opinions, read about and listen to the REAL PEOPLE who are affected by Proxy Wars (Africom).

    The U.S. (Africom) backed Ethiopian Invasion of Somalia
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=zDlS4VYQUx8

    The U.S. is APPARENTLY oblivious to Ethiopia’s war on it’s ‘own people’ (Ogaden) while giving military assistance to this rogue regime which shot live rounds at 4,000 opposition demonstrators
    http://www.ogaden.com/gowans.htm
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=_nPbBkJLgKI

    “US attempt to put into effect its strategy of monopoly and dominance through fomenting confrontation among peoples is leading the world to a dangerous path.”
    http://www.shabait.com/staging/publish/article_007045.html

    No matter what people think, the U.S. does not stand for Justice; The U.S. stands for the U.S., period. So Africa, no, excuse me, each individual African nation should stand for itself. We already know what imperialists have to offer: Guns and Bibles.

84. Frederic | Nov 25, 2007 | Reply

    @ Bobby, what I am actually saying is that since they are on top of the food chain, they want to remain there as long as they can and by whatever means necessary.Rome was there,china was there,France was there,England was there,Arabia was there,Vikings were there, Egypt was there.
    The day Africa becomes a superpower it would do the same.We are experiencing what the weak and the non-creative societies/groups throughtout history have.

    just look around you,what the US as an entity does is no different from what the dominant ethnic/interest group practises in Eritria or Ethiopia.

    Now the question is when you are dominated what do you do to get the upper hand ?
    The first thing to do is remain calm and passionless as to focus a clear mind on the issues and consider multiple scenarios and their effective outcomes.
    If one of the scenario suggest to let the American come in and smartly use them to our advantage, then let’s plan,organize and execute accordingly. I believe that is what some individuals inluding myself are advocating

    do not let yourself be driven by fear and paranoia just from looking at historic documents. They are just that historic documents that contain information on the enemy and that must be used to adjust our stance and strategy.
    understand that it is Hunting season, they will not stop, they will come.

    They are bringuing the military, they are bringuing the money, they are bringuing their companies, what are you going to do ?

    It seems to me that your extreme love for your land of Eritria obscures your reasonning. We all have love for our individual countries and Africa, but it is time to have a rational and pragmatic approach to this issue.Patriotic outcries are great for TV but cold calculated planning is what is taking places in Boardrooms and military camps in the US. Only the equivalent can bring about a counter strategy

    @beauty, could you elaborate on the idea of outsourcing our militatry needs to projects such Africom, how do you monitor, infiltrate and keep track of their movements and actions ?
    Do you think African governments are busy setting intelligence forces that would identify,track and report on Africom key personal and the CIA agents and mercenaries they would come in contact with ?

85. Omotaylor | Nov 25, 2007 | Reply

    @most of the protagonists for AFRICOM, maybe if it is not a military venture, I could believe that Africa could stand to gain from Africom either economically or even politically. Having a military base reeks of a gradual process of succumbing Africa and resorting to force if need be, just like Iraq suffered.

86. Oscar Blayton | Nov 25, 2007 | Reply

    @Loomnie;
    Dear Loomie, you say that you are not a supporter of Africom, but you tend to give that impression when you make statements such as:

    “All I can say at this point is that we might be doing better looking at the potential benefits Africans - mind you, I did not say Africa - could gain from AFRICOM. And I bet there are gains.”

    It seems to me that you are saying that you bet that Africans would “gain” from Africom.
    ———————–

    @ Beauty:

    First: I would question the expertise of the “experts” you say were convened by the “US National Intelligence Council.” I am certain that the U.S. convened “experts” before they determined to invade Iraq in order to eliminate their Weapons of Mass Destruction. Why should we accept the alleged expertise of these “experts” when the basis of their expertise, well as their identities, are unknown.

    Second: If you wish to hold out “Downside scenarios” projected by a group of unknown “experts” as a basis to place combat troops in African nations, you should also consider that the “Downside scenarios for the U.S. it that it could be a failed state in the next 15 years, given the failure of its federal legislature, courts, and media to defend the personal freedoms supposedly guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

    Third: I do not accept what seems to be your allegation that the U.S. and China are in a war over Africa. There may be economic aggressiveness on the part of both the U.S. and China, but that certainly does not rise to the level of putting armed combatants into the area, as Africom proposes to do.

    You seem to wish to “Cry havoc, and loose the dogs of war,” as one poet put it. But there is no reasonably peaceful justification for such drastic actions at this time.
    ——————-

    @ Dr. Strong:

    If the goal is to strengthen African nations, why come with guns to do it?

    You stated:
    “(4) Americans have zero interest in owning or controlling even a square meter in Africa or any nation beyond our borders.”

    I hope you will excuse me, if I, as a U.S. citizen am completely incredulous about that claim. I will not recite the history again that makes be feel this way, unless I am called upon to do so.

    Then you stated:
    “(5)Americans have deep seated feeling over helping those that seem depressed, who have little hope and who are under the rule of corrupt leaders that they the common people are powerless to change.”

    Given the corruption in the U.S. and the oppression of the poor in the U.S., perhaps our government officials should seek to place military commands in Mississippi, Louisana and the other of the fifty states where these conditions occur.

    After that you stated:
    “(6)The real people of much of Africa are sadly locked into slow to no progress environments due to that 1-3% that controls all wealth and power in their nations.”

    Again, you could very well be speaking of the U.S. Why do you spotlight the shortcomings of other nations in a way that appears to me to be ignoring those same shortcomings in the U.S.?

    Finally, you say:
    “You that were born in Africa know the ways of the various foreigners (Armenians, Indians and now the Chinese)who have silently infiltrated your cities, who have come to “help” your people, but have in near invisible ways siezed your opportunities, your jobs, your businesses.”

    Why do you ascribe exploitative behavior to other “foreigners” in African nations, but not to the U.S.?

    I understand that you have done some admirable work to help others. And I hope you do not take this as a personal attack, but I find your approach to this issue to be disturbing.

87. Bobby | Nov 26, 2007 | Reply

    First of all..

    Thank you Oscar for your eloquently formulated logic.

    Fred, I don’t question most entities wanting to be dominant. I do, however, question wanting to be dominated. That is Africa’s, excuse me again, each African nation’s choice to make. And please don’t underestimate the will of the underrepresented and/or oppressed.

    “By any means necessary”? I hope that you have acknowledged that the use of force is not excluded in that statement. And thats exactly my point. We can “help” Africa without having GI Joe going on a crusade to battle Osama and them.

    The “extreme” love I have for Eritrea does not, by any measure, trump the love I have for “my land”, the U.S.

    And I am even less confused of what is right and wrong than if I am an American or Eritrean, as a true American should be. The U.S.’s policies, however, are detrimental to my beloved family and their beloved country and as an American I will do anything I can to help, at least help Eritrea, avoid the eventual enslavement that Africom would bring.

    1. How easy would it be to buy representatives of a nation out to fight a war on behalf of the U.S.? Say, the “war on terror”?
    (Ethiopias Internationally recognized illegal “intervention” of Somalia to fight “terrorists”)

    2. If Africa, as a whole, has conflicting interests with the U.S., to whom would Africom heed to?
    (Being involved in an internationally recognised illegal war is not in any African nation’s interest but somehow the U.S. “convinced” Igad to pledge to send “peacekeepers”)

    I can assure you that my reasoning is not obscured by anything and that these questions that I have raised are not driven by paranoia but, yeah, fear. Fear of history, yes history, repeating itself.

    “Now the question is when you are dominated what do you do to get the upper hand ?”
    Actually, you’re wrong. The question is how not to be dominated? And I can confidently tell you that the answer is not Africom. You can easily give up and eat food rations for the rest of your life and teach your kids whom teach their kids to do the same. But I will help deny the subjication of Eritrea, if not the whole of Africa, to that fate of being a perpetual beggars. When I finish my studies I will actively help with whatever I can to assist the on-going efforts (WHICH BELIEVE YOU ME IS UNDERWAY WITH MUCH MORE FIERCENESS THAN YOU THINK) to help Eritrea avoid occupation, invasion and domination of foreign “interests.”

    The U.S. turned Iraq into Palestine, Somalia into Iraq, but IT IS EACH AFRICAN NATION’S CHOICE TO LET THIS ADMINISTRATION TURN IT INTO IRAQ.

    Eritreans clearly made their choice. I hope that no African nation be underrepresented by corrupt officials that will steer them in that direction.

    To GI Joe:

    If you really want to “help” Africa, put your machine gun down and assist in building a damn, hop out of your tank and teach them how to be self sufficient, stop flying F-16’s over their heads and help them manage a sustainable water infrastructure, stop demonizing their brothers just to give them weapons to fight the “terrorists”.
    Know that this is the only real way to secure your own interests and knowing is half the battle.

88. Beauty | Nov 26, 2007 | Reply

    @Frederic: Why do you need to identify, track or report on outsourced work? That is their job and they get paid to report while Africa makes all the important decisions. Key performance/success factors/indicators will be improvements on all/any issues such as this one. Where do we put the base/s? The beauty of this is that, it is in their own interest to keep good PR/headlines.

    It is disappointing to see pain in @Bobby’s comment about the horror of conflict in Eritrea, Ethiopia and Somalia but ill-informed and misguided opinions can be changed. AFRICON cannot be an occupying force if invited. It is about political will and not soldiers matching in. Most African leaders spend a huge chunk of their time begging from conference to summits disguised as investments opportunities. May I leave you with this - “Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle.” Philo of Alexandria.

    Dear @Omotaylor: The paradox is in your “maybe if it is not a military venture”; my concern mirrors yours which may protect us from the civilian sharks. They are worse than the military and they have been at it for decades. Opportunists on the band wagon for Africa only want to see the ROI and the business of making more money, the cause gets lost in the risk management system. Please remember China is still on its shopping spree and buying for benefit. Chinese. Military hardware and weapons feature in these deals and Africa is considered a growth market.

    @Oscar Blayton, the US should encourage human rights, democratic principles, and good governance, increase trade and economic relations with Africa. This is because Beijing holds out China’s unique development model with significant economic growth overseen by a disciplined, one-party totalitarian state with full authority and control over all aspects of economic activity as an example for others to emulate.

    The cold war did not seem like one but the US is not just going to roll over and watch the accelerated scramble for African resources by China. Lets think benefits to Africa.

89. Bobby | Nov 26, 2007 | Reply

    “Give a man a fish, he’ll eat for a day, teach him how to fish and he’ll eat forever.” - Chinese Proverb

    My friends and I are helping to teach rather than allowing our family to learn how to be beggars. Real donor countries desire nothing in return. However, regrettably, Washington wants blood, oil and, more importantly, dominance.

    “this isn’t about a scramble for the continent.” - Theresa Whelan, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for African Affairs
    http://fpc.state.gov/fpc/80454.htm

    “AFRICON cannot be an occupying force if invited.”
    Invited by whom? Obviously you have not been paying attention to the questions I posed.. How easy would it be to be to buy out “representatives” of a nation? Those same “representatives”, in turn, will be rewarded in “cooperating” with the U.S.
    (please google hr 2003 and we’ll see if it passes the Senate. I guarantee that it will not)

    All puns aside but sorry for losing faith in my evangelical-nutjob-run country

    The TFG (Transitional Federal Government) of Somalia was “installed” by US-led Ethiopian army. They are widely unpopular in Somalia (I will not explain how misrepresented Somalians are, just do your research)

    To simplify this situation in lamer terms:
    If my older brother came into your house beat you up and invited me in then, surely I, since I have just been “invited”, have a right to come in? Right? Or does this reeks of a dirty sock puppet?

90. Omotaylor | Nov 27, 2007 | Reply

    @Dear Beauty, I can see your point in stating that “guns and weapons feature in the Chinese deals with Africa, and I reckon Africa needs to start paying attention to this sooner than later, for in the future who knows what will happen with Chinese domination. Nevertheless, this Military base thing in the name of “Africom” and especially spearheaded by a country like America, sounds hmmm, UNCANNY. Lastly if China and America want to battle for supremacy worldwide, in whatever chosen field, they should not use Africa as their toy. Gone are the days of slavery, monkey and trees and tarzan type stereotyping.

91. Beauty | Nov 29, 2007 | Reply

    The ChinoAmerican battle for supremacy in Africa began ages ago and we had better learn it for what it is. The decision makers have probably been briefed on politic-speaking about the issues so that they do not ruffle any feathers. Here on the web, we can help them by acknowledging reality without the blame, of course responsibilty and measured tones should be adhered to but it is good to be part of the future people media.

    The Nigerian government formally declared that it would not welcome a U.S. military base in Nigeria or elsewhere in West Africa echoing similar sentiment from South Africa, May I be cynical in asking the following?

    Do we wish to stop the rot in order to keep the status quo? Oil tankers going missing, blood diamonds ending up in auction houses at $1M/stone? Where is the source of the new arms in Africa? Who is afraid AFRICON will meddle in internal security or control oil resources?

92. Omotaylor | Nov 29, 2007 | Reply

    Possibly so, Beauty, but who will suffer the most when Africa ends up as Iraq did? Do we need AFRICON to voice out,and correct the issues of corruption and embezzlement in Nigeria/Africa, more so that we have made a start with pen power and the net. Arent these problems being highlighted and gradually looked into? e.g. why did Madame Etteh get the boot? AFRICOM had no hand in this. We must also now face the fact that the wind of change is gradually blowing in Nigeria/Africa.

93. Beauty | Nov 29, 2007 | Reply

    The wind of change is blowing in Nigeria/Africa and everywhere and I accept that the military does scare us all but there is more to this debate in the future.

94. cjw | Nov 30, 2007 | Reply

    This has been a good debate. There are many views I don’t agree with but it is a good debate.

    AEI, one of the policy think tanks had a very informative session on this. I think it is worth listening to or watching

    http://www.aei.org/events/filter.all,eventID.1571/event_detail.asp

    If Africa needs to strengthen its institutions
    Does need it the US Millitary ?

    If Africa need to settle its internal problems
    Does it need the Us Millitary ?

    Disease, Corruption
    US Millitary ?

    Infrastucture investment
    US Millitary ?

    Foreign Investment
    Us Millitary ?

    All the things that Modern Africa really needs.

    Africom is a good idea if and only if. It works within existing African structures. (Advice, Training, Support)
    there is a lot of scope for building bridges. That would be of benefit for both sides.

    The problem is nobody, trusts the American Government (they behave in a duplicitous manner) especially when their interests are concerned(mention Oil and that is it)
    Beacuse of the overwhelming influence of the big corprate interests on thier foriegn (and to a large extent domestic) policy.

    Almost every African or non-African view that supports the introduction of Africom (as it is currently perceived) makes statements that ignore to Africa’s recent efforts to keep its house in order and/or simply focus on it problems to undermine it and thus justify foreign intervention.

    They are now putting pressure on Nigeria because she said “No” because country is of Strategic Importance. I suspect that their efforts will come to nought in this regard (everyone can see them coming). However I also believe that in the end there will be an Africom (sort of) but not the way the Americans envisioned it. Beacuse the planners in Washington in their Hubris, thought it was a done deal by the time the plans left the drawing board. The intense negative reaction was unexpected and caught them flat footed.

    The danger with this though is that their involvment will Morph into something else under future administrations. So it is very important that they(Americans) are made to be explicit in their aims and that the Africans(the AU) set clear guidelines as to the rules of engagement. To be ratified by all its members should they individually choose to co-operate with the US Millitary in this way.

    i.e. What Liberia decides to do with US millitary must no in anyway threaten the sovreignty of it neighbours. It will allow each individual country latitude of choice mindful of the regional context (if this is not allowed there is a danger that some of the smaller African countries will be tempted to break away and try and do deal with the Americans behind everyone else’s back, and their ‘excuse’ will be that they are being ‘bullied’ by the big countries into accepting a situation were it not in the best national interest not to welcome in the American ’saviours’)

    Well America welcome to the real world learn to listen and respect others you might not always have to fight these senseless wars and make uneccessary enemies and Africa, impoverished as it is, is wise enough to understand this.(as if they heard me).

95. Yinka of Lagos | Nov 30, 2007 | Reply

    I think it has become clear that America can not continue to deal with African issues using techniques of old. There is a mutual need for the continent and U.S to explore workable relations that does not in any way affects the hegemony of both.

    I really like how cjw has crystallized the conversations that ensued since the debate went public…the only addition I will make to the list of what African nations need help with is TRADE. Several policies from Washington and western economies do not work to our advantage.

    While there is need for security and strengthening of democratic institutions in Africa, Trade is still the language that all of African Union nations understand with any ambiguity…and this is the ace China pulled from its sleeve and has been playing since. America can not counter this with Africom soldiers stationed in Africa…No!

96. Don Thieme | Nov 30, 2007 | Reply

    You African bloggers are over-reacting, as usual. America’s leaders, their advisors, and our media are far more aware of African countries and their problems than was the case back in the colonial period. See the recent astute and perceptive commentary by the panelists on In the Know, for example.

97. Beauty | Dec 1, 2007 | Reply

    @Don Thieme. African bloggers have reasons to over-react where the US is concerned. America’s leaders, their advisors, and media are mainly concerned with their self satisfying benefits and outcomes which translates; selfish needs. Just like everywhere else, mainstream media’s failure is one of the reasons for the exponetial growth in social news/blogs and there is a huge difference between the concerns of everyday Americans and their leaders.

    “History, despite its wrenching pain, cannot be unlived, but if faced with courage, need not be lived again”. Americans must find to courage to change the perception of their elected leadership that has created the type of chaos that has made mickey mouse the object of hate. A lot of Africans are concerned about the outcome in Iraq and that is all.

98. Omotaylor | Dec 1, 2007 | Reply

    To America, Charity begins from home. What has AMERICOM done for America, and if there has not been one, why not? Put your house in order and show the world you really care and maybe, just maybe, you will become a country to trust(as if they heard me!!!).

    @cjw - well reasoned. Liberia was an American Colony so their reasonings could be affected by this. I like your comment.

    @Don, you seem to always translate your personal awareness and interest in Africa (which i note is positive), into America’s view and interests. You could be wrong, in fact you are wrong. Look well into American Policies, interventions and interests, and you will find that America does not do charity without a hidden agenda. Even if this agenda is only to compete with China, Africa will suffer for it if allowed. America should have looked more into their internal policies and China would not have overtaken America in the first instance.

    America likes to DOMINATE and is ready to stoop to conquer. But America’s mistake is that h/she has underrated Africa and their intellectual growth. Hope Nigeria and others dont buckle under pressure on this issue. Africa does not need AFRICOM in whatever disguise.

99. Yinka of Lagos | Dec 1, 2007 | Reply

    @ Don: “astute and perceptive commentary by the panelists on In the Know” …ha ha I like your sense of humor! I guess everyone knows what goes on in Onion, right?

100. Beauty | Dec 2, 2007 | Reply

     Just when I thought it was time to stop typing about AFRICOM, I stumbled on “Why AFRICOM Has Not Won Over Africans” By Samuel Makinda here. http://forums.csis.org/africa/?p=72 it is the same half cup that seemed full.

     ps: Thank you @Omotaylor for “By the way, Beauty could be a HE in spite of the name, for some men are BEAUTIFUL while MOST women are.”

101. wardogn | Dec 2, 2007 | Reply

     the day africom lands on African soil, not only will it be used to undermine the leadership and sovereignty of the countries involved (see Saddam’s relationship with the u.s), but it will be a clear invitation to the so called terrorist in the bin laden circle and for the first time, African home grown anti u.s militants to attack u.s intrest on African soil (see bombing of u.s embassies in Kenya and Tanzania -who died? mainly Africans).

     the so called freedom that america is capable of giving to nations is the type that Iraq now has. I for one do not want my friends and family having that type of life.

     America is only capable of “fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here”. but who dies in all this fighting? African civillians will. just like Iraqi and Afghan civilians are.

102. Omotaylor | Dec 2, 2007 | Reply

     @Wardogn, well said.
     @Beauty, you are welcome but now I know you are a woman for coming back to me to say thanks. Women are just too nice and appreciative. God bless

103. Orikinla Osinachi | Dec 3, 2007 | Reply

     I have decided to make my second and final comment on this debate after reading the previous comments.

     The ex-American combatants can speak for themselves and for their country, United States of America. But they cannot speak for Africans on AFRICOM.

     After 9/11 and the catastrophe of the war in Iraq, I now know that America has no military experts. I would have been a better expert on the prosecution of the war in Iraq and the tragedies would have been less.

     For those dropping names and professional backgrounds in the U.S. Army, the results in Iraq show that the U.S. Military Intelligence should be dismantled and I recommend re-engineering and revisions of the training programs of the U.S. Army.

     From working closely with employees of the USAID from age 21 and meeting with some agents of the U.S. Intelligence, I have known that the C.I.A and Pentagon lack the expertise for counter-terrorism.

     The multinational oil companies in the Niger Delta have been disappointed by the so called American Intelligence and Security experts who failed to even provide a correct intelligence report on the state of militancy in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria. The American and British trained officers of the Nigerian Armed Forces have been disgraced as incompetent in their operations in the Niger Delta region. I gave the multinational oil companies more accurate Intelligence reports since 2005 to date.

     The failures of America in Iraq are enough to show the incompetence of the U.S. Intelligence and U.S. Army.
     The U.S. Intelligence and U.S. Army would have fared better under my command.

     Recommended reading: Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War”.

     WE DO NOT NEED AFRICOM.

     I do not need to write a thesis to prove that we do not need AFRICOM.
     The operations of America in Vietnam and the Middle East are enough lessons for Africans.

     I hereby recommend USCOM to the U.S.A, to re-engineer their erroneous and ambiguous foreign policy of a failed American government.
     Finis.

104. Don Thieme | Dec 3, 2007 | Reply

     @Beauty - I agree with you entirely. As everyday Americans we are all looking for those wild African women who have come to the diaspora to chase the tall-figured white men who can buy flowers and lace. America’s leaders, on the other hand, are trying to lock down all that uranium in the big country that begins with an “N.”

105. Don Thieme | Dec 3, 2007 | Reply

     @Omo - China will not have overtaken us as long as we still have wild African women flocking over here to the diaspora looking for us to buy them flowers and lace, cook and clean for them, drive them around, and pay for their social outings.

106. Don Thieme | Dec 3, 2007 | Reply

     @Yinka - Thank you for that appreciation of my humor. Laughter is my only remedy in times like these.

107. Bobby | Dec 3, 2007 | Reply

     Thank you @Orikinla

     “Afri” com is American, PERIOD
     “Afri” com serves American “interest”, PERIOD
     “Afri” com will adhere to the hand that feeds it, PERIOD

     Just how “the CIA manipulated and sabotaged the work of UN departments to achieve a hidden foreign policy agenda in the Middle East”, according to Scott Ritter (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051114/ritter), they are trying to set up the pillars to do the same in Africa.

     Somalia will be the first and last foreign war in Africa.

108. Omotaylor | Dec 4, 2007 | Reply

     @Don, you have completely lost me, you and your uncanny humour.

     I believe that based on so many useful contibutions above, Africom is a NO NO. America needs now to look elsewhere.

109. African | Dec 5, 2007 | Reply

     It’s all here- http://www.AfricaAgainstAFRICOM.org

     We don’t deserve this crap. WE must firmly resist it. Make a move today before it’s too late. Let your children know you stood up for them.

110. wole | Dec 8, 2007 | Reply

     Na wa for una o, una no dey tire? i think @african has brought a new dimension to the whole thing, militancy; i wonder if we can discourage America this way.

111. muakan | Feb 28, 2008 | Reply

     this is one of the tactics the us wants to use rule all the scurity function in world. they wantedto build this THING in africa because they know that africa is easy to invade.well most know thatit will not be the typical struture form of building a kind of using certain facilities that a country have………………

112. james green | Dec 12, 2008 | Reply

     i think africa needs help we are all human people should not ignore the fact that people die every day because they have no water,or food,disease hey cant just go see the doctor, AFRICA needs help please open your eyes and help

6 trackback(s)

1. From Black Looks | Nov 13, 2007

2. From Why Africa Remain Poor - AfricanLoft | Nov 26, 2007

3. From Is Africa the Next Cold War Theater? - AfricanLoft | Dec 4, 2007

4. From AfricanLoft: Clocking 6 Months With Grace - AfricanLoft | Dec 7, 2007

5. From On AFRICOM: Nigeria will Partner with U.S. Military Command for Africa - AfricanLoft | Dec 14, 2007

6. From AFRICOM, US Military Command for Africa to Stay in Germany - AfricanLoft | Feb 18, 2008

Post a comment