After some 7 days of intense ‘keyboarding’, and some 48 comments (and counting), the debate on AFRICOM has been a most interesting one on AfricanLoft…There is just an overwhelming angst against the U.S, “American boots are not welcome on African soil” is the general tone of the debate. Funny, the feds ‘pulled off the mask’ and bare its teeth at Washington from Abuja as well: “NO, Thanks”.
If you need some frank and insightful statements on AFRICOM, go to AfricanLoft, the debate is still on.
You may also visit: Nigerian Curiosity where the blogger states the “world is achatter with talk of AFRICOM and no matter where you turn, the prognosis is negative or at least unclear. The only people attributing anything positive to AFRICOM is the U.S. government and even they don’t seem completely convinced.”
The only people attributing anything positive to AFRICOM is the U.S. government is incorrect. I am not the only one that thinks about the benefits to Africa. Before I going into the 2004 disappearance of a Russian oil tanker in Nigerian custody, I wish to point out that over 30,000 barrels of oil are lost to fuel thieves each day in Nigeria.
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. But Dangerous Times for Africa By Akwe Amosu puting Nigeria and Equatorial Guinea side by side even though they both needs better governance, transparency and accountability is flawed.
We are already seeing signs of Nigeria as a failed state which will drag down a large part of the West African region while the former Spanish colony, Equatorial Guinea is waiting on its next coup.
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.
November 23, 2007 at 2:36 am
I agree that “we cannot simply apply the same rules to solving African issues.” But I don’t think we need to comprise and accept an intervention that can potentially make our situation worse. And this is what the debate on Africom is about. Only time can time what effects and impacts Africom will have on the continent.
However, I’ve been musing over the timing for the Africom initiative: At a time the world has come to see the stupidity of the Iraqi- war; at a time America has the least political capital- at home and abroad; and at a time it is getting more apparent that its foreign policies are mainly driven by oil and energy interest, then in its infinite wisdom, the top brass at Washington decided and say “let’s go set up Africom on African soil.†This just shows the magnitude of the Bush-led administration’s lack of capacity for critical thinking!
One of the benefits of prosperity is security and peace, and vise versa. Rather than seeing Africa’s prosperity tied to having U.S marines on African soil, may be Washington should explore augmenting and enhancing Africa’s prosperity through trade relations.
One issue that bugs me numb is the continued U.S cotton subsidy for American farmers. This is one issue that has continued to work against African farmers and economy. Rather than looking down at African through the barrel of assault rifles, America can do much more good by looking at us as “trade partners†and commence easing trade relations between the continents.
November 23, 2007 at 12:54 pm
@Imnakoya, an addition to your paragraph 2 above – “at a time when the US economy has taken such a tumble that the dollar has become a currency despised as it is so devalued”. Africom is not a US concept based on assisting Nigeria or African countries, oh no. AFRICOM is US idea of tapping into the possibility of gaining political and economical power by dominating Africa. Nigerian leaders are very right in saying a definite no to this.
@Beauty, I agree that Nigeria has fuel thieves and of course other thieves, but I dont see Africom stopping them. Only Nigerians can solve Nigerian problems. I will keep on repeating this. Its time for Nigerians – leaders and followers, to come to their senses. Corruption is the bane of our society.
November 23, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Sorry one more thing, I see Nigeria as a failed state but working towards success and redemption, slowly but surely. This is why we all get involved with highlighting societal problems, suggesting solutions and gradually filtering these to Nigerian Leaders. Even with the leaders, the wind of change is subtly blowing, and EFCC is still at work and curbing excesses. Slowly and gradually Nigeria will change.
November 23, 2007 at 2:23 pm
The USA and China are trying to outspend eachother for our natural resources with strings attached (selling military hardware and weapons to nearly anyone) but we must choose between the rock and the hard place. Does China have the same human rights concerns as the US? How easy is it to get information from Washington DC? Hint1. Beijing works behind closed door. Hint2. dotCom.
Both China and the US need to ensure security around their oil exploration hence the need for AFRICOM and CHINOM (my imagination). Warfare is now done via text msgs but having AFRICOM as a counter measure to CHINOM is the natural progression. This is reason for debating maximum benefits possible. Whatever the Chinese paid for getting a foothold, let us charge AFRICOM treble for getting in late.
November 25, 2007 at 11:07 am
Maybe it is best that Africa believes that it does not need either the imaginary “Chinom” or Africom. The debate is not really about Africa accepting either the supremacy of China or America. The debate is more about exploring the real motives behind the Military Base called Africom stationed in Africa and what the long term result(s) of this would be. If so based on the different arguments and cases put forward, I am not convinced that the intentions of America is either honourable, humanitarrean or sincere. Africa has a lot of problems its still trying to sort out and judging from America’s past history and involvements in other countries (Iraq is still a fresh ongoing concern; you cant blame the African skeptic who refuses to trust America. I happen to be one of these.
November 25, 2007 at 6:24 pm
I didn’t realize “Africom” is an entity that can be charged as Beauty puts it, talk less of it being “charged treble”. At least China has shown its hands – exchange of our raw materials for cash, in a no-strings attached deal. What is Africom after, besides really fighting terrorism and militarizing the continent?
November 26, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Hello Imnakoya,
I found a very interesting new blogger who has just written an editorial about AFRICOM. He is a former US Ambassador to Rwanda and the CAR, and was the Chargés d’Affairs for the US Embassy in Abuja, Nigeria in 2007.
I’ve already sent him a welcome message today and notified him about the Open Debate on AFRICOM published to the African Loft in November. I would insist that we treat the ambassador with great care and respect in order to gain some valuable insights from him into AFRICOM and US foreign policy in Africa. Contact me privately so that we may discuss how best to proceed with a follow-up on this important and emotionally charged subject, AFRICOM.
January 6, 2008 at 12:40 pm