Africa pushes back against AFRICOM
Posted by xcroc under Africa command, African Union, AFRICOM, SADC
SADC, the 14-country Southern African Development Community, has said NO to hosting the US Africa Command, as Defence Minister Mosiuoa Lekota said on Wednesday.
There is broad consensus among African countries that foreign forces – specifically in the form of the United States' new African Command – would not be welcomed to establish themselves on the continent.
Defence Minister Mosiuoa Lekota expressed this sentiment Wednesday . . .
. . . Africa has to avoid the presence of foreign forces on her soil," Mr Lekota told reporters on Wednesday.
"If there was to be an influx of armed forces into one or other of the African countries, that might effect the relations between the sister countries and [would] not encourage an atmosphere and a sense of security," he added.
In reply to a question as to whether this decision had been communicated to the United States, he indicated that a decision made by the continental body, the African Union (AU), would likely be communicated by the Addis Ababa administration through the relevant channels.
Should a particular country choose to break ranks with this decision, he said: "I would imagine that any country that wants to go against the decision of the Africa Union would consider what the implications might be – where other sister countries may refuse to cooperate with it in other areas other than that particular area."
This is very good news. This is a NO to occupation, recolonization, and imperialism. It is still not a big enough no, but it is a step in the right direction. And it makes things a little more difficult for any other country to host Africom, or any who might be enticed in that direction.
The following comment provides more detail, so I have copied it into this post.
transcript of lekota's stmts here
zambia's president mwanawasa, also the chair of the SADC, announced that his nation was turning down a request to provide a u.s. military base
Zambia refuses US military base
The Zambian government has turned down a request by the United States to establish a military base in the South African country.
"As Zambia, we will not be giving sanctuary and I think I can speak on behalf of the SADC region that none of us is interested,' said President Mwanawasa, while rejecting United States' plan to establish a military base in his country.
no word on zambia's previous agreements to allow u.s. military planes to refuel at zambian airfields ("lily pads") or its partner status in the u.s. ACOTA and IMET programs.
By b real, at 1:29 PM, September 01, 2007
7 Responses to "Africa pushes back against AFRICOM"
b real Says:
Crossed Crocodiles Says:
Appreciate the information! I hope you don't mind my moving it up into the article.
I got a bit written about the biofuel issue this evening. There is, of course, a lot more to it than just that. One of the things I've been considering is how to tell beneficial investment from destructively exploitive investment, and how to deal with both. Not that I have any answers, but the question is important.
during a visit by an AFRICOM team to SA in the 2nd week of july, the u.s. acted like it already had a response planned out for the inevitable SADC announcement.
Answering questions about her government's response to the outright rejection of Africom by the Southern African Development Community (SADC), Whelan said that would be fine, but that the US would simply cut off military relations with SADC as an organisation while continuing to engage with amenable countries in Southern Africa on an individual basis. [link]
"amenable countries." i'm not sure how influential the SADC position will be on all the southern nations (so far, only zambia has spoken up), but i looked up that word — amenable — in the dictionary and one of the definitions is "liable to answer to a higher authority". another is "open to being acted upon in a certain way." wondering if these are the meanings whelan had in mind…
I was listening to Howard's public radio station on the way in this morning. Some guy (whose name I didn't get) was talking about how valuable AFRICOM is especially because it can go into places that are not safe for Peace Corps staff… Yeow!
b real,
Interesting about the "amenable" countries. I wonder if the divide and conquer approach will work. I suspect that Kuffuor (for one) would succumb easily to US flattery and "incentives", he has certainly been the target of both. But I am under the impression that the almost universal unpopularity of the Africa Command across Africa has made it difficult for any leader to offer to host it. I think it would lead immediately to demonstrations and related political problems that would be better avoided.
the u.s. is now officially playing the "terror" card in nigeria
bloomberg: U.S. Warns of Terror Threat to Interests in Nigeria
Sept. 6 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. mission in Nigeria said it received information that U.S. and other "Western" interests in the country are at risk of a terrorist attack.
Potential targets include diplomatic buildings and businesses in Abuja, the capital, and Lagos, the commercial center, according to a statement released today by the U.S. consulate in Lagos.
"This is the first time I have seen the words `terrorist' and `Nigeria' from the U.S." in a public warning, Sebastian Spio- Garbrah, an analyst at New York-based Eurasia Group, said by telephone. The notification "should really distinguish it from the normal militia threat in the Niger delta."
"While Nigerian Muslims, like Kenyan and Tanzanian Muslims, are generally peaceful, the conditions exist in parts of Nigeria for foreign jihadists to use the legendary hospitality of their hosts to plan terrorist attacks," Garbrah said.
The U.S. military has created a new African command, known as Africom, that's due to begin operations next month to safeguard the region's oil interests against rebel or terrorist attacks. Africom won't have any permanent units or bases.
scared? heh. and if you want to read something really funny, look at the neocon intelligence (i'm tempted to say that's an oxymoron) outfit stratfor's intel brief on the SADC position.
South Africa, U.S.: Dueling for Hegemony in Africa
South Africa recently expressed opposition to the proposed U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), in a move to prevent Washington diplomatically from challenging Pretoria's dominant position in southern Africa.
South Africa sees itself as the natural power in southern Africa. It is thus seeking to re-establish its hegemonic position, which during the apartheid era reached as far north as southern Angola and the Katanga province area in southern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).
South Africa's limited influence outside southern Africa means Pretoria cannot be expected to block the bilateral agreements under which the United States will secure AFRICOM basing privileges.
they're thinking is that this is only a power play by pretoria. can they be serious? good thing — for their marks — that stratfor is not charging for this particular piece of analysis.
crossed crocodiles – it'd be nice if divide et imperia was not effective in this instance, but history instructs us to expect otherwise. africa is still so fragmented. so far i have yet to see anyone other than mwanawasa speak out since last week.
I'm afraid you are right about fragmented. The only thing that gives me some hope is that I would have expected Kufuor to have caved before now. I am pleased and surprised that he has not so far. And I think this must be indicative of something, but I'm not sure how to read it. And I'm not sure how much it means. There are at least 2 places in Ghana where there is a lot of US military activity going on, and visitors are not welcome. I think these are still lily pads. But I know Ghana has to be high on the list of places where Africom would like to set up shop.
Africa command, African Union, AFRICOM, SADC