Open Debate: Does Africa Need AFRICOM (U.S. Africa Command Base on the Continent)?

111 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: