With the launch of the United States' new Africa Command, Ida Sawyer warns of the dangers of the growing militarisation of US-Africa relations The USS Fort McHenry is on its way to the Gulf of Guinea as part of the United States- Africa Command (Africom)'s first mission since it became operational on 1 October. The amphibious dock landing ship will be deployed on top of one of the world's largest untapped oil reserves in a region plagued by a recent rise in instability. US officials call it a mission to promote maritime security in West Africa -- and also an indicator of how this new command will draw on the resources of the State Department, Homeland Security, and even the Agency for International Development. Africom will eventually take responsibility for the Defence Department's military-to- military relations on the entire continent -- except Egypt, which remains under the US Central Command. During Africom's first month of operation, US military officials worked to counter widespread opposition and scepticism from African governments and populations by emphasising that the new command centre will not change US security policy towards Africa or bring more troops on the ground. They argue that it aims merely to consolidate the Defence Department's existing efforts on the continent, which had previously been divided between the European Command, Central Command and the Pacific Command. Yet whether or not the launch of the new command marks a strategic shift in US policy towards Africa, it clearly solidifies a trend of increasingly militaristic engagement on the continent. It is still unclear how Africom will function, or where it will be based. For now, it is operating under the European command in Stuttgart, Germany. The aim is to have a fully operational headquarters in Africa by October 2008. Yet many African leaders have flatly opposed cooperation with the new command. South Africa's defence minister refused to meet with the head of Africom, arguing that, "Africa has to avoid the presence of foreign forces on her soil." Liberia is the only nation that has publicly offered to host the headquarters. Africom is led by a top-ranking four-star military general, but unlike other military commands, its deputy commander will be a State Department official. The command has been referred to by some Department of Defence officials as a combatant command "plus" -- implying that the command would have all the roles and responsibilities of a traditional combatant command, including the ability to facilitate or lead military operations, as well as a broader "soft power" mandate that would incorporate a larger civilian component from other US government agencies. US officials say the goal is to prioritise military efforts while streamlining much US work in Africa, under the umbrella of a new unilateral military command structure that will contribute not only to peace and security in Africa but also to health, education, democracy and development. Critics see something else -- an attempt to lock in access to Africa's oil and other natural resources, and to counter China's growing influence on the continent. They allege that the launch of Africom is yet another example of the Bush administration's insistence on prioritising unilateralism and militaristic displays of power over non-military means of engagement, such as diplomacy, economic involvement and humanitarian aid. Given the history of US military interference in Africa, and the recent consequences of its so-called war on terror, there is also concern that a military-focussed approach will backfire. During the Cold War, US military and intelligence agencies overthrew governments, financed and trained insurgencies, and flooded the continent with covert weapon shipments as the war against communism was played out on African soil. Among the top recipients of US arms were Liberia, Somalia, Sudan, and Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo) -- four nations that are still struggling to recover from some of the world's deadliest and most politically and economically destabilising violent conflicts. While the US military had little interest in the continent after the end of the Cold War, this began to change after the 1998 terrorist attacks on two US embassies in East Africa, and especially since the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. Africa has since emerged as the "third front" in the war on terror, with US military spending pouring into the continent. The Horn of Africa (Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti, Kenya, Somalia and Yemen) was specifically identified as the area of Africa most at risk for becoming a safe haven for terrorists. Since 2002, the US has based roughly 1,800 troops at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti for a task force focussed on disrupting terrorist activities in the region. Kenya, considered a crucial ally in fighting terrorism in the region, received nearly eight times the amount of military assistance in the five years after 11 September than it received in the five years prior. In northern Africa, the US interagency Trans-Sahara Counter-terrorism Initiative provides counterterrorism training programmes and weapons to North African countries, and enables a US military presence in the region. The US military also has access to a number of foreign bases and ports and has established "bare-bones" facilities maintained by local troops across the continent, including in Gabon, Kenya, Mali, Morocco, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Tunisia, Uganda, and Zambia. According to a report by the International Relations Centre, more than 6,000 US soldiers are already on the continent, in addition to an unknown number of special services personnel supposedly hunting terrorists. This increased interest in Africa is also about oil. Ironically, US failure in Iraq has made it increasingly difficult for the US to access Middle Eastern oil reserves. The US has turned to Africa, which recently surpassed the Middle East as the largest supplier of crude oil to the US. It is estimated that 25 per cent of US oil will come from Africa by 2015, mostly from the oil-rich region surrounding the Gulf of Guinea. Yet by insisting on a militaristic approach for Africa, the US runs the risk of repeating the same mistakes it made in the Middle East. According to the Nigerian activist and scholar Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem, Africom "could become a Trojan Horse of US imperialism with destabilising consequences for regional and Pan African peace and security." Abdul-Raheem, until last year the director of the London-based Justice Africa and the Kampala-based Global Pan-African Movement, views US air strikes in Somalia earlier this year and its support for the Ethiopian incursion into Somalia to battle Islamists as a dangerous omen. He worries about possible US involvement in other African countries where a military intervention could worsen existing internal conflicts. Its real objective in backing Ethiopia's Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, he says, was to secure the Ethiopian leader as a "regional foreman for Bush in the war on terror". Africom may just become another means for the US to use "its military might to support regimes collaborating with it -- even if their people are opposed to them or are brutalising their citizens," Abdul-Raheem warns. African nations have been trying to take the lead in responding to conflicts in Africa through the African Union, especially the organisation's Peace and Security Council. However, Abdul- Raheem argues, "Anyone who means well towards us should support our initiatives instead of introducing parallel initiatives." Most states are unwilling to accommodate Africom, and some fear that if they allow Africom on their soil, they could become a target of terrorism, especially given the direct linkages elsewhere in the world between a US military presence and the growth of armed resistance in countries where there was none before. "The lies about the war and the tragic situation in Iraq today have diminished the US as a credible superpower," Abdul-Raheem explains. "Even when and where America may be right and has good intentions, their previous record does not inspire faith. There is always suspicion that they could be up to no good again."
