Even though the rationale behind the trip was presented as related to the humanitarian issues, the hidden aim of the Bush’s visit to Africa on his last months as the President has been to build up the ‘legitimate’ grounds for the recently initiated project of AFRICOM. In fact, the AFRICOM has been the product of the gradually evolving policy of the US and indicated the increased militarization of the US policies in Africa.

In the Wake of Rising Strategic Interests in Africa

The United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) is a US project to establish permanent military bases in sub-Saharan Africa which is to be ultimately launched by September 2008. In fact, the establishment of the unified military command structures has not been a novelty in the post-war US foreign policy. Beginning from the immediate aftermath of the WWII, when the US had emerged as a leading economic, political and military force in world politics, such a policy has been one of the most important manifestation of hegemonic status of the US in world politics.

Therefore, since then the US has established several geographic combatant command structures under the titles of the European Command, the Pacific Command, the Southern Command, the Northern Command and the Central Command. However, until recently, as Prof. Campbell points out, Africa was left out of the system as the major European powers were expected to “...retain the military forces to guarantee western ‘interests’ in Africa.”[1] Therefore, the responsibility for military operations on the African continent has been divided among the three distinct Commands. The first one is the US European Command having the responsibility over the 43 African countries. The second is the US Central Command exercising surveillance over Egypt, Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Somalia and Kenya. And the last one is the US Pacific Command controlling Madagascar, Seychelles and the countries off the coast of Indian Ocean. This means that the US has currently no government agency responsible for the affairs in Africa. These commands are not dealing with only Africa but with a larger area, thus by setting up AFRICOM as a new command specialized on the continent, Bush administration is planning to put it under a single commander dealing only with Africa.

However, especially in the 2000s, the US policy towards the continent has radically changed. While in 1990s the government officials were stating: “Ultimately, we see very little traditional strategic interest in Africa”,[2] the official rhetoric as well as the real policy ambitions of the Washington towards Africa have seemed to be altered on a considerable scale. In fact, exactly in the wake of such a policy shift towards Africa, the project of AFRICOM has been designed and tried to be initiated in the near future.

Then, the inevitable question of ‘why’ arises to reveal the reasons behind such a considerably important policy shift towards Africa. That is, why has Africa suddenly become an important strategic concern for the US to launch such a grand project of AFRICOM?

Regarding such a crucial question, the Bush administration justifies the project of AFRICOM by arguing that it will “… bring peace and security to the people of Africa and promote our common goals of development, health, education, democracy and economic growth in Africa.”[3] In fact, the rhetoric is the same: to solve the problems with the military force ready to intervene into the internal affairs of any country. However, quite interestingly, Bush on his trip to five African countries never referred to AFRICOM, but instead tried to divert attentions to the US humanitarian assistance to the Black Africa.

Therefore, one needs to approach to the current policy shift of the US embodied within the ambitions of establishing permanent military bases in Africa from a more critical perspective that goes beyond the official US rhetoric. Many experts have rightly argued that there are mainly three reasons behind the US project of AFRICOM:[4]

The first and foremost reason behind the establishment of the AFRICOM is related with the security of the ‘US access to African natural resources, especially oil.’ It has been widely argued that the US has increasingly become more and more dependent on the African oil. This point, in fact, was acknowledged by the US officials as early as 2002 when Walter Kansteiner, the former US assistant secretary of state for Africa, stated: “African oil is of strategic national interest to us and it will increase and become more important to us as we go forward.”[5] Furthermore, it is estimated by the African Oil Policy Initiative Group (AOPIG) that %25 American oil imports will be provided from Africa by 2015.[6]

Therefore, it is quite obvious that the recent US policy shift towards Africa has mainly concerned with the strategic importance of the continent with respect to the oil resources. Hence, in recent years, the US military engagement in Africa has increased substantially even before the initiation of AFRICOM. For example, between the years 2000 – 2003, the commercial sales increased from $ 0.9 to $ 3.8 while the military sales of US to Africa rose from $ 9.8 to $ 40.3 in millions.[7] Therefore, even though the discourse of Washington continues to insist on the ‘humanitarian’ aspect of the issue, it is quite clear that the AFRICOM means nothing but the militarization of US policy towards Africa for the aim of securing the hegemonic status over oil resources.

As a second factor behind the US project of AFRICOM, the current rivalry with China over Africa is on the top agenda of the Bush administration to tackle with. In one way or another, the recently increasing engagement of China in Africa has alarmed Washington with the concerns for the security of the US access to the African oil. Therefore, as Christopher Moraff quite rightly points out, the AFRICOM will help the USA “… compete for influence with China in the otherwise forgotten continent.”[8] This simply means that Africa has been increasingly becoming a new battlefield for the two hegemonic powers.

The third reason commonly referred to explain the real US ambitions behind the initiation of AFRICOM is simply to make Africa another front for the so called war on terrorism. As commonly known, many parts of the world in post- September 11 era have become the battlefields for the ‘US war on global terrorism’. In that sense, the Washington has repeatedly referred to the ‘dangers’ of African nations to become ‘new heavens for root causes of terrorism’. Then, the AFRICOM has been presented as the sole way to tackle with the threats of the global terrorism in the continent.

Reactions from Africa

The six-day trip of President Bush has been widely discussed among the African nations. Unsurprisingly, the debates have been mostly, if not totally, concentrated on the new project of opening up the continent to the US military expansion. Majority of the African states have demonstrated crucial doubts about the ‘humanitarian’ aspects of the recent US project, and firmly stood against any deployment of US military basis in African soil. Especially such countries as Nigeria and South Africa have explicitly declared that they would not permit such a policy in their countries. The only country that has a positive attitude to host the AFRICOM bases is Liberia, which has long historical links with the US.

The commonly held argument among the nations of Africa is that AFRICOM would mean further consolidation of the US dominance in the continent. Arguing that such a policy has an inevitable consequence of violating the sovereignty rights, the African states are quite rightly afraid of loosing the control of natural resources to Washington. What is more, the existence of AFRICOM will provide the ‘necessary’ and ‘legitimate’ justification for the US to intervene into the internal affairs of the African states in case of conflicts. Here, the concerns have arisen about the possible intensification of the internal conflicts, whether it be on ethnic, religious or socio-economic bases, due to a unilateral foreign involvement. Then, the so called US ambitions for the consolidation of the democratic systems in those countries would be under great threat in a continent like Africa characterized by instability and underdevelopment.

For your comments:

Elem Eyrice (JTW-USAK), This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Caglar Dolek (JTW-USAK), This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

[2] C. Moraff, ‘AFRICOM: Round One in a New Cold War?”, In These Times, September 19, 2007. (Available at http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3334/ )

[3] ‘President Bush Creates a Department of Defense Unified Combatant Command for Africa’, The White House, (Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/02/20070206-3.html )

[4] Regarding the arguments about the real ambitions of the US with the AFRICOM, among the others, see: H. Campbell, ‘George Bush Visits Africa to Promote the US Africa Command’, Global Research, February 18, 2008. Futhermore, for a critical view from within the continent, see: M. P. Fancher, et al. ‘Africom Threatens the Sovereignty, Independence and Stability of the Continent’, Global Policy Forum, January 24, 2008. Lastly, for an earlier analysis on AFRICOM, see: W. D. Hartung and F. Berrigan, ‘Militarization of US Africa Policy: 2000 to 2005’, A Fact Sheet Prepared for Arms Trade Research Center, World Policy Institute. (Available at http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0315-22.htm )

[5] In M. Crawley, ‘With Middle East Uncertainity, US Turns to Africa for Oil’, The Christian Science Monitor, May 23, 2002.

[6] Report of the African Oil Policy Initiative Group on African Oil: A Priority for US National Security and African Development, June 12, 2002. (Available at http://www.iasps.org/strategic/africawhitepaper.pdf)

[7] Hartung and Berrigan, op cit.

[8] C. Moraff, op cit.

---