From: Berhane Habtemariam (Berhane.Habtemariam@gmx.de)
Date: Fri Jul 10 2009 - 08:41:23 EDT
http://www.globalresearch.ca/site_images/blank1x1.gifhttp://www.globalresear
ch.ca/site_images/blank1x1.gifhttp://www.globalresearch.ca/site_images/blank
1x1.gif
Straight Talk: Revealing the Real U.S.-Africa Policy
by Gerald LeMille
July 10, 2009
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va
<http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14295> &aid=14295
It's time for some straight talk on U.S. foreign policy as it relates to
Africa. While Obama administration officials and the U.S. African Command
(AFRICOM) representatives insist that U.S. foreign policy towards Africa
isn't being militarized, the evidence seems to suggest otherwise. While
Africans condemned U.S. military policy in Africa under the Bush
administration, the Obama administration has not only mirrored Bush's
approach, but has in fact enhanced it. President George W. Bush established
Africa as a foreign policy priority in 2003, when he announced that 25% of
oil imported to the United States should come from Africa. Like the Cold
War, the Global War on Terror establishes a rationale for bolstering U.S.
military presence and support in Africa. Yet official pronouncement of U.S.
policy is routinely presented as if neither of these two developments
occurred. Unfortunately, the more evasive we are about our intentions on the
continent, the more we invite not only skepticism, but even resistance.
A policy is militarized when military might is deemed the only effective way
to accomplish its agenda. In a June statement on U.S. policy in Africa, U.S.
Assistant Secretary for African Affairs Johnny Carson
<http://allafrica.com/stories/200907010812.html> said the agenda of the
Obama administration is as follows: promoting and strengthening democracy
and the rule of law, preventing and mitigating conflicts, encouraging
sustained economic development and long-term growth, and working with
African countries to face both old and new global challenges. The agenda
makes no reference to the recent FY2010 budget that doubles the size of
AFRICOM's funds. Nor does it mention the doubling of financial support for
counterterrorism projects throughout the continent - including increasing
funds for weapons, military training, and education at a time when U.S.
foreign aid money is stagnating.
AFRICOM has been controversial on the continent since President Bush first
announced it in February 2007. The Bush administration discussed several
sites for its headquarters, but their failure to include African civil
society in the discussion is widely regarded as a major mistake. Though the
Western press barely reported it, the reaction on the continent was
vociferous. Every country with the exception of Liberia rejected AFRICOM,
and African civil society, where allowed to speak, has overwhelmingly
characterized AFRICOM as a means to secure oil and nothing more.
Officials in both the Bush and Obama administrations
<http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=53516> argue that a
major objective of AFRICOM is to "professionalize" security forces in key
countries across the continent. However, they don't attempt to address the
impact of this on minority parties or whether the U.S. is effectively
propping up "friendly" dictators. These are key questions that need
answering if our agenda includes democracy and rule of law.
Training and weapons programs and arms transfers for Equatorial Guinea,
Chad, Ethiopia and even the beleaguered Transitional Federal Government in
Somalia, clearly indicate that using the military to maintain influence in
government in Africa remains the priority the foreign policy goal. Indeed,
one of the counterterrorism projects that the Obama administration boosted
considerably is the Counterterrorism Engagement Program,
<http://allafrica.com/stories/200906110882.html> designed to "build
political will at senior levels in partner nations for shared
counterterrorism challenges."
The U.S. fascination with oil, the war on terrorism, and the military is
further exemplified through the announcement that on July 12, Obama will
visit Africa for the first time. The president has chosen Ghana as his only
African destination this trip. The U.S. government itself
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Statement-by-the-Press-Secretary
-on-Upcoming-Travel-by-the-President/> states the purpose of the visit is
"strengthening the U.S. relationship with one of our most trusted partners
in sub-Saharan Africa, and to highlight the critical role that sound
governance and civil society play in promoting lasting development." Indeed,
Ghana's extraordinarily consistent economic growth pattern for the past
seven years (registering a GDP expansion of 7.3% in 2008) offers the best
evidence of the relationship between government accountability and economic
development.
On top of that, on January 3rd 2009, John Atta Mills defeated Nana
Akufo-Addo by less than 1% in the Ghanaian presidential election. Most
believe that the election was by and large free and fair, and the transition
was for the most part peaceful. There is much to be proud of in Ghana, and
the burgeoning success story there is most welcome. However, there are
rumblings that the real reason the administration chose Ghana is two-fold:
Ghana's discovery of oil in 2008, and perhaps more importantly, the
geographically, economically, and politically strategic advantage of
establishing AFRICOM's headquarters there.
Could this be a litmus test for future democracy in Ghana? Could we begin
providing substantial AFRICOM counterterrorism resources to build political
will and promote U.S. interests instead of Ghanaian interests? It has been
done before. In fact, it was done in Ghana in 1966, when the CIA helped
overthrow then-President Kwame Nkrumah.
These questions arise because it would be hard for Africans not to conclude
that security and energy concerns under the protection and guidance of
AFRICOM are driving our foreign policy, as opposed to those articulated by
Carson. If this isn't the case, then the United States is failing to make
clear how dramatic increases in U.S. investment in weapons financing and
military training for countries, regardless of their records on human rights
or democracy, are ultimately going to help us achieve the agenda.
Gerald LeMelle is a contributor to <http://www.fpif.org/> Foreign Policy In
Focus and executive director of Africa Action.
----[This List to be used for Eritrea Related News Only]----