[NYTr] AFRICOM: US Military Control of Africa's Resources

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

sent by Rich Winkel (activ-l)

MoonofAlabama.org - Feb 21, 2007
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2007/02/understanding_a_1.html

Project Censored 2007 #3:

Understanding AFRICOM: 

US Military Control of Africa's Resources

by Bryan Hunt
Student Researcher: Ioana Lupu
Faculty Evaluator: Marco Calavita, Ph.D

In February 2007 the White House announced the formation of the US
African Command (AFRICOM), a new unified Pentagon command center in
Africa, to be established by September 2008. This military penetration
of Africa is being presented as a humanitarian guard in the Global War
on Terror. The real objective is, however, the procurement and control
of Africa s oil and its global delivery systems.

 The most significant and growing challenge to US dominance in
Africa is China. An increase in Chinese trade and investment in Africa
threatens to substantially reduce US political and economic leverage in
that resource-rich continent. The political implication of an
economically emerging Africa in close alliance with China is resulting
in a new cold war in which AFRICOM will be tasked with achieving
full-spectrum military dominance over Africa.

 AFRICOM will replace US military command posts in Africa, which
were formerly under control of US European Command (EUCOM) and US
Central Command (CENTCOM), with a more centralized and intensified US
military presence.

 A context for the pending strategic role of AFRICOM can be
gained from observing CENTCOM in the Middle East. CENTCOM grew out of
the Carter Doctrine of 1980 which described the oil flow from the
Persian Gulf as a vital interest of the US, and affirmed that the US
would employ any means necessary, including military force to overcome
an attempt by hostile interests to block that flow.

 It is in Western and Sub-Saharan Africa that the US military
force is most rapidly increasing, as this area is projected to become as
important a source of energy as the Middle East within the next decade.
In this region, challenge to US domination and exploitation is coming
from the people of Africa "most specifically in Nigeria, where seventy
percent of Africa s oil is contained.

 People native to the Niger Delta region have not benefited, but
instead suffered, as a result of sitting on top of vast natural oil and
natural gas deposits. Nigerian people s movements are demanding
self-determination and equitable sharing of oil-receipts. Environmental
and human rights activists have, for years, documented atrocities on the
part of oil companies and the military in this region. As the tactics of
resistance groups have shifted from petition and protest to more
proactive measures, attacks on pipelines and oil facilities have
curtailed the flow of oil leaving the region. As a Convergent Interests
report puts it, Within the first six months of 2006, there were
nineteen attacks on foreign oil operations and over $2.187 billion lost
in oil revenues; the Department of Petroleum Resources claims this
figure represents 32 percent of the revenue the country [Nigeria]
generated this year. 

 Oil companies and the Pentagon are attempting to link these
resistance groups to international terror networks in order to
legitimize the use of the US military to stabilize these areas and
secure the energy flow. No evidence has been found however to link the
Niger Delta resistance groups to international terror networks or
jihadists. Instead the situation in the Niger Delta is that of
ethnic-nationalist movements fighting, by any means necessary, toward
the political objective of self-determination. The volatility
surrounding oil installations in Nigeria and elsewhere in the continent
is, however, used by the US security establishment to justify military
 support in African oil producing states, under the guise of helping
Africans defend themselves against those who would hinder their
engagement in Free Trade. 

 The December 2006 invasion of Somalia was coordinated using US
bases throughout the region. The arrival of AFRICOM will effectively
reinforce efforts to replace the popular Islamic Courts Union of Somalia
with the oil industry "friendly Transitional Federal Government.
Meanwhile, the persistent Western calls for humanitarian intervention 
into the Darfur region of Sudan sets up another possibility for military
engagement to deliver regime change in another Islamic state rich in oil
reserves.

 Hunt warns that this sort of support is only bound to
increase as rhetoric of stabilizing Africa makes the dailies, copied
directly out of official AFRICOM press releases. Readers of the
mainstream media can expect to encounter more frequent usage of terms
like genocide and misguided. He notes that already corporate media
decry China s human rights record and support for Sudan and Zimbabwe
while ignoring the ongoing violations of Western corporations engaged in
the plunder of natural resources, the pollution other peoples 
homelands, and the shoring up of repressive regimes.

 In FY 2005 the Trans-Sahara Counter Terrorism Initiative
received $16 million; in FY 2006, nearly $31 million. A big increase is
expected in 2008, with the administration pushing for $100 million each
year for five years. With the passage of AFRICOM and continued promotion
of the Global War on Terror, Congressional funding is likely to increase
significantly.

 In the end, regardless of whether it s US or Chinese domination
over Africa, the blood spilled will be African. Hunt concludes, It does
not require a crystal ball or great imagination to realize what the
increased militarization of the continent through AFRICOM will bring to
the peoples of Africa. 

Update by Bryan Hunt

By spring 2007, US Department of Energy data showed that the United
States now imports more oil from the continent of Africa than from the
country of Saudi Arabia. While this statistic may be of surprise to the
majority, provided such information even crosses their radar, it s
certainly not the case for those figures who have been pushing for
increased US military engagement on that continent for some time now, as
my report documented. These import levels will rise.

 In the first few months following the official announcement of
AFRICOM, details are still few. It s expected that the combatant command
will be operational as a subunit of EUCOM by October 2007, transitioning
to a full-fledged stand-alone command some twelve months later. This
will most likely entail the re-locating of AFRICOM headquarters from
Stuttgart, Germany, where EUCOM is headquartered, to an African host
country.

 In April, US officials were traversing the continent to present
their sales pitch for AFRICOM and to gauge official and public reaction.
Initial perceptions are, not surprisingly, negative and highly suspect,
given the history of US military involvement throughout the world, and
Africa s long and bitter experience with colonizers.

 Outside of a select audience, reaction in the United States has
barely even registered. First of all, Africa is one of the least-covered
continents in US media. And when African nations do draw media
attention, coverage typically centers on catastrophe, conflict, or
corruption, and generally features some form of benevolent foreign
intervention, be it financial and humanitarian aid, or stern official
posturing couched as paternal concerns over human rights. But US
military activity on the continent largely goes unnoticed. This was
recently evidenced by the sparse reporting on military support for the
invasion of Somalia to rout the Islamic Courts Union and reinstall the
unpopular warlords who had earlier divided up the country. The Pentagon
went so far as to declare the operation a blueprint for future
engagements. The DOD states that a primary component of AFRICOM s
mission will be to professionalize indigenous militaries to ensure
stability, security, and accountable governance throughout Africa s
various states and regions. Stability refers to establishing and
maintaining order, and accountability, of course, refers to US
interests. This year alone, 1,400 African military officers are
anticipated to complete International Military Education and Training
programs at US military schools.

 Combine this tasking of militarization with an increased
civilian component in AFRICOM emphasizing imported conceptions of
 democracy promotion and capacity-building and African autonomy and
sovereignty are quick to suffer. Kenyans, for example, are currently
finding themselves in this position.

It is hoped that, by drawing attention to the growing US footprint on
Africa now, a contextual awareness of these issues can be useful to, at
the very least, help mitigate some of the damages that will surely
follow. At the moment, there is little public consciousness of AFRICOM
and very few sources of information outside of official narratives.
Widening the public dialogue on this topic is the first step toward
addressing meaningful responses.

Project Censored - Sonoma State University
1801 East Cotati Ave., Rohnert Park, CA 94928
censored at sonoma.edu
(707) 664-2500