AFRICOM “Throwing a rock at a hive of bees”
AFRICOM: “Throwing a rock at a hive of bees”
February 16, 2009 | by Mark Weston | More on Africa, Conflict and security | 7 comments
The US’s new Africa Command (AFRICOM) has made a promising start: its strategic advice to the Ugandan army for its recent offensive against the Lord’s Resistance Army not only failed to defeat the rebels, but resulted in the deaths of over 900 civilians.
AFRICOM – “the culmination of a ten-year thought process within the Department of Defense” – was set up, according to its website, to “help African nations, the African Union and the regional economic communities succeed.” A laudable goal – no doubt drawing on the US army’s great success in helping communities in Iraq and Afghanistan to thrive. “The designers of U.S. Africa Command,” they say, “clearly understood the relationships between security, development, diplomacy and prosperity in Africa.” More…
AFRICOM To Continue Under Obama
With the Obama administration set to oversee significant increases in US security assistance programmes for African countries, Daniel Volman examines the US government’s plans for its military operations on the African continent over the coming financial year. Stressing that the US president is essentially continuing the policies outlined under his predecessor George W. Bush, the author considers the proposed funding increases for initiatives like the Foreign Military Financing programme and the International Military Education and Training (IMET) programme. Pointing out that the administration is yet to offer any public explanation of its policy, Volman concludes that it would be a mistake to assume that there will be no US military action if the situation in Somalia deteriorates.
At the beginning of May 2009, President Obama submitted his first budget request to Congress. The Obama administration’s budget for the 2010 financial year proposes significant increases in US security assistance programmes for African countries and for the operations of the new US Africa Command (AFRICOM). This shows that – at least initially – the administration is following the course laid down for AFRICOM by the Bush administration, rather than putting these programmes on hold until it can conduct a serious review of US security policy towards Africa. This article outlines the administration’s plans for Africa in the coming year and the money it intends to spend on military operations on the continent. More…
Ghanaians Discuss AFRICOM & Obama’s Visit
Posted by xcroc under AFRICOM, Africa command, Ghana, Ghana oil, Gulf of Guinea, Obama, foreign policy, recolonize
[2] Comments
This is something that no one among us has the power to do with our sovereignty. It amounts to the attempted robbery of the nation by the force of arms. In a fundamental matter such as this, that has serious implications on our status as an independent nation, that could even mean life or death to Ghanaians, as we have seen in the bombs that continue to fall on marriage ceremonies in Afghanistan, the minimum expectation ought to have been an open democratic national debate and not secretive and conspiratorial manoeuvres.
TAKORADI, Ghana – A traditional fishing boat sails in the Gulf of Guinea near the fishing village of Takoradi, west of Ghana’s capital, Accra, on March 2, 2009. U.S. Africa Command’s civilian deputy, Ambassador Mary C. Yates, met with local fishermen to discuss ways that maritime security programs can protect fishing stocks, which are a vital source of food in West Africa. Inset: Nana Ekow Akon, chief of the Takoradi fishing community, speaks with U.S. Africa Command’s civilian deputy, Ambassador Mary C. Yates, on March 2, 2009. Yates visited West Africa to discuss international cooperation in illegal fishing, counter-narcotics and illicit trafficking. (Photos by Vince Crawley, U.S. Africa Command)
Nana Akyea Mensah writes in US Military Base In Ghana in response to a feature article on GhanaWeb by Asare Otchere-Darko, Obama’s Visit – What’s In It For Us And U.S.? Otchere-Darko’s article describes and implies that Kufuor did a deal with Bush and General Ward, bringing the Africa Command into Ghana without informing the Ghanaian people.
… in August 2007 Major-General Ward, who was later confirmed as AFRICOM’s first commander, visited Accra. He held discussions with President Kufuor on “ways of strengthening military cooperation.” His high-powered secret meetings with the President, Minister of Defence and the Chief of Defence Staff triggered huge speculation. Much was made of Maj Gen J B Danquah’s public statement about the visit when he said Maj Gen Ward had ‘done enough to resolve’ Ghana’s concerns about AFRICOM, adding, “I have had the chance to hear [Ward] explain what is the reasoning behind the command, and it’s all about partnership.”
This passage is preceded by:
At the moment the Americans say they are happy to keep the U.S. Africa Command headquarters in Germany, to coordinate all U.S. military and security interests throughout the African continent. But any reasonable assessment must conclude that this can be nothing but a temporary address and arrangement. Ghana should welcome that it is thus the target of America’s desire – and we should make the most of this, using it for our own advantage. After all, the process has already started.
Tags: Africa command, foreign policy, Ghana, Ghana oil, Gulf of Guinea, Obama, recolonize imperialism
June 17, 2009 at 11:46 am |
I agree with Mr.Leonard Quarshie completely here:
“Our most pressing challenge remains under-development and poverty. The cause of this poverty is mostly structural. The devastating impact of the current global economic crisis on the economies of Africa—including on promising ones like Ghana and South Africa — is a reminder of the fragility of our economic systems and models. What we need to highlight therefore are the systemic issues that inhibit growth in the long-term; issues we have agonized over for decades: the imbalances in world trade; the issue of agricultural subsidies – an issue the West has repeatedly refused to budge on ; the Doha round of talks; the crippling conditionalities of the IMF and the World Bank; the West’s insistence on a rigid-take-it-or- leave- it- market economy model that leaves no space for innovation and creativity; and trade tariffs-an issue so critical to the survival of Africa’s industrial base — that if things don’t change — it would collapse completely.”
- Leonard Quarshie, Feature: Use Obama’s visit to reclaim leadership role in Africa, myjoyonline.com.
I am however not too sure of the basis of your assurances about Obama’s intentions and AFRICOM:
“Unlike other analysts, I don’t believe that Obama would push Africom on Ghana. Obama is a hard-nosed realist when it comes to foreign policy; and his foreign policy team is one of the most seasoned in recent times. They have read the tea-leaves; and they are aware of the intense debate around the issue in Ghana. They also know of Ghana’s history of resistance to anything remotely imperialist in appearance. They know it’s a dead end. Ghana’s answer to Africom is a big No!”
It is only important to look at where an American President puts his money, than where the mouth is. If you have any doubt about this please google Daniel Volman’s “Africom to Continue Under Obama.”
The article opens this way:
“With the Obama administration set to oversee significant increases in US security assistance programmes for African countries, Daniel Volman examines the US government’s plans for its military operations on the African continent over the coming financial year. Stressing that the US president is essentially continuing the policies outlined under his predecessor George W. Bush, the author considers the proposed funding increases for initiatives like the Foreign Military Financing programme and the International Military Education and Training (IMET) programme. Pointing out that the administration is yet to offer any public explanation of its policy, Volman concludes that it would be a mistake to assume that there will be no US military action if the situation in Somalia deteriorates.
At the beginning of May 2009, President Obama submitted his first budget request to Congress. The Obama administration’s budget for the 2010 financial year proposes significant increases in US security assistance programmes for African countries and for the operations of the new US Africa Command (AFRICOM). This shows that – at least initially – the administration is following the course laid down for AFRICOM by the Bush administration, rather than putting these programmes on hold until it can conduct a serious review of US security policy towards Africa. This article outlines the administration’s plans for Africa in the coming year and the money it intends to spend on military operations on the continent.”
Volman’s study of the Pentagon budget was instrumental in debunking the propaganda that clothed Africom as a humanitarian initiative keen on releasing US soldiers to come and literaly fight diaeses such as AIDS, malaria and eye cataracts. For instance Crosscrocodiles write, “on March 2, 2009. U.S. Africa Command’s civilian deputy, Ambassador Mary C. Yates, met with local fishermen to discuss ways that maritime security programs can protect fishing stocks, which are a vital source of food in West Africa. Inset: Nana Ekow Akon, chief of the Takoradi fishing community, speaks with U.S. Africa Command’s civilian deputy, Ambassador Mary C. Yates, on March 2, 2009. Yates visited West Africa to discuss international cooperation in illegal fishing, counter-narcotics and illicit trafficking….”
Crosscrocodiles continue,
“Mary Carlin Yates, AFRICOM’s top civilian employee, promising that AFRICOM can help protect Ghana’s fishing rights, and help protect against drugs. But money for these programs was cut from the Pentagon’s budget. As Daniel Volman informs us in AFRICOM from Bush to Obama:
AFRICAN COASTAL AND BORDER SECURITY PROGRAM (ACBS) – provides specialized equipment (such as patrol vessels and vehicles, communications equipment, night vision devices, and electronic monitors and sensors) to African countries to improve their ability to patrol and defend their own coastal waters and borders from terrorist operations, smuggling, and other illicit activities … No dedicated funding was requested for FY 2008 [or in 2007]
With this in mind, I cannot help thinking that Ms. Yates is, in the very best interpretation, being misleading.”
****Psst! Don’t tell anyone beyond the millions in the federal government.****
“W. House: DoD Officials Must Vow Secrecy on Budget
By JOHN T. BENNETT
Published: 19 Feb 20:52 EST (01:52 GMT)
The Obama administration has directed defense officials to sign a pledge stating they will not share 2010 budget data with individuals outside the federal government.
In an undated non-disclosure agreement obtained by Defense News, the administration tells defense officials that “strict confidentiality” must be practiced to ensure a “successful” and “proper” 2010 defense budget process. Source: defensenews.com (See also Penny for your thoughts 2.blogspot.com
Xcroc again:
“Ms. Yates said in Washington on May 12th:
She disclosed that of the four major target areas of its mission-statement, which explicitly are, reducing conflict, improving security, defeating violent extremism and supporting crisis response. The three words that highlight the Command’s activities are “sustained security engagement”.
…
“When I was U.S. Ambassador in Ghana, we had a robust military-to-military program. We started the State Partnership Program. What we want to do is to find the African partners who are looking to build peace and stability in their nations and in their regions – partnering with those African standby forces as they build their goal is to come online with battalions for each of the five geographic areas by 2010”.
“Five battalions do not mean more peace.” continues xcroc, “Just like lots of police in a neighborhood are an indication of crime and violence, lots of soldiers in a country or region are a sign of war and conflict. If it is not there already, they will bring it.” They have secretly made a deal with the NPP government very difficult to reverse if Ghanaians do not openly express their opposition to AFRICOM loud and clear. This is not going to be an easy task as they prepare to bring in five battalions by 2010 to coincide with the production of the newly discovered oil in Ghana.
It is all about oil and nothing about our welfare! It is another round of imperialist enslavement with a black face. In my village, I am sure if Obama went to discuss this with the elders, they would say no to his request not because they do not like Obama, but because they can not accept any assurances from Obama beyond his maximum eight year tennure as the President of the USA. I am sure our elders would naturally ask the question, even if Obama were to be the life President of the USA he would one day pass away and another one would come to replace him.
Having seen the trends, Reagan, Bush etc we can not trust a foreign imperialist army on our soil under any pretences for the simple reason that we hate to have a Commander-in-Chief who is not, at least elected by us! The AFRICOM principle of interoperability prevents our commanders giving orders to our own soldiers and places our troops directly under the orders of American commanders. What kind of partnership is this? We are dealing with a country that has itself never allowed any foreign commander to command its troops even under UN missions or missions with its own allies in the NATO.
Why is it so difficult for them to understand that we do not want our soldiers to come under the command of foreign commanders, and imperialists for that matter? If we do not say a big NO, they would certainly take us for big fools and we shall deserve whatever treatment we recieve under their bombs, detention centrers, and generally giving Africa a taste of US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan! Don’t kid yourself. Intensify the opposition against AFRICOM until we make Obama eat his own words like we made Bush eat his own worlds on the 20th of February 2008, with just one word: “Baloney!”