US Justifies New Africa Military Command
08.03.2007
The United States (US) government is having a hardtime convincing critics that the new US/Africa Command (AFRICOM), will be an opportunity for enhanced engagement rather than the militarisation of relations between the super power and the continent competition with China, fight against terrorism and securing oil.
At a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on African Affairs, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of African Affairs, Department of State, Jendayi Frazer, sought to douse fears, reiterating that the civil-military activities of AFRICOM will help strengthen regional security, policies and their implementation.
“We are not at war in Africa, we expect the largely civil-military activities of AFRICOM to help state (USdepartment of state) strengthen regional security, policies and implementation. AFRICOM will draw upon our embassies in the field for most of the information it will use to guide its security co-operation programmes and its overall interaction with Africa,” she said.
But testimony after testimony revealed that AFRICOM, launched in February 2007, and structured in such a way that African affairs previously handled through the US European Central and Pacific Commands, will now be overseen by a single unified Command.
except Egypt, has been met with stiff resistance and that the US will have to do more to address the fears felt by the continent.
The sub-committee heard from Mark Malan of Refugees International who testified at the hearing that AFRICOM is perceived as a threat and that US foreign policy in some parts of the world is clearly seen as a military one. “In Africa, the DoD (department of defense) appears tobe putting a civilian mask on the face of a combatantcommand, with its marketing pitch for AFRICOM. Thisdisingenuous strategy is not working. The veneer ofthe mask is simply too thin and attempts to patch theholes that have emerged by telling us “what AFRICOM isnot about” and reemphasizing a humanitarian anddevelopmental role for the US military in Africasimply make the face of US foreign policy muchshadier,” he stated.
He observed that the main concern of non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs) is that the command will increasethe trend towards militarisation of humanitarianaction, adding that this cannot be supported as longas it subsumes humanitarianism within the ambit ofmilitary strategy. Militarisation of humanitarianassistance and development can also undermine respectfor impartiality and no-partisanship of thehumanitarian mission, he emphasized.
Testifying, Director, Africa Program of the Centre forStrategic and International Studies (CSIS), StephenMorrison observed that the new command is viewed asthe triumph of militarism fuelled by energy concernsand the global war on terror.
There also seems to be a misunderstanding on whatshould be the role of the US Department of State andthe Department of Defense (DoD) and what should be aforeign policy or military judgement. Frazer claimsthere will be a collaboration between bothdepartments. In June, Principal Deputy Under Secretaryof Defense for Policy, Ryan Henry noted that AFRICOM’smission would include humanitarian assistance, civilaction and response to natural disasters.
This has raised concerns that the Pentagon isoverstepping its boundaries by taking charge of USdevelopment policy and humanitarian assistance usuallyunder the purview of the Department of State and theUnited States Agency for International Development(USAID).To clear this seeming misunderstanding, Senator DickLugar asked Frazer what will be the place of thesecretary of state in the chain of command. According to Frazer, “I think that in any of theseareas of conflict and policy considerations, thesecretary of State has the primary lead as thepresident's foreign policy adviser…..I haven't feltthat there has been any weakening of StateDepartment's position as the primary foreign policyactor.”
