In These Times's The ITT List was recently named one of the top 5 campaign blogs for its coverage of the Democratic National Convention.
ZoomZoom InZoom OutPrintDiscuss
Views > April 19, 2007

Globalism with Combat Boots

By Salim Muwakkil

America's new Africa initiatives might be characterized as globalism with combat boots, though it's the same old story with the well-worn plot of Western hegemony.

The United States launched a deadly air attack against Somalia last February, using the war on terror as a pretext. The bombings, which killed scores of civilians, were in support of an Ethiopian invasion to oust a Somalieregime composed of “Islamic militants” considered hostile to Ethiopia and reportedly sought by the United States.

A convergence of Ethiopian and American interests provoked the air attack that helped rout this leadership, the so-called Islamic Courts movement, and endangered thousands of Somali lives. But it failed to turn-up the targeted Islamic militants. Continuing attempts to flush them out has produced what some critics have called an “African Guantánamo.”

According to an April 5 Associated Press story, “human rights groups say hundreds of prisoners, including women and children, have been transferred secretly and illegally to the prisons in Ethiopia” and interrogated by CIA and FBI agents. The bombings were part of “an on-going operation of air strikes in southern Somalia” to support Ethiopia’s struggle against fighters tied to al-Qaeda, a Pentagon spokesman said in explaining the deadly attacks. For five years, the U.S. military has operated a regional task force based in Djibouti designed ostensibly to prevent al-Qaeda sympathizers from gaining a foothold on the Horn of Africa. Last year, the Bush administration announced an enormous expansion of Camp Lemonier, the U.S. military base in Djibouti.

Perhaps the most amazing aspect of the Bush Administration’s bombing of Africa is the lack of any real public discussion in this country. The silence of African-American leadership is especially troubling. Aside from Rep. Donald Payne (D-N.J.), very few black politicians have even raised the issue. “I think the policy is wrong,” Payne told me when I asked him about the bombing of Somalia. It just “shows a misguided policy in Africa in particular, and the world in general,” he said.

John Prendergast and Colin Thomas-Jensen, two members of the International Crisis Group, argue in the March/April edition of Foreign Affairs that the Bush administration’s singular focus on stemming terrorism, “is overshadowing U.S. initiatives to resolve conflicts and promote good governance—with disastrous implications for regional stability and U.S. counterterrorism objectives themselves.”

And while the Greater Horn of Africa (which includes the Sudan, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya and Uganda) has attracted the most public attention, the U.S. also has operations in Algeria, Angola, Chad, Gabon, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Nigeria, Senegal and other locations.

The U.S. military presence in Africa has been increasing for many years but wasn’t officially acknowledged until Feb. 7, when President George W. Bush announced a new Pentagon command for the entire continent called AFRICOM. The new command, scheduled to start operation by October 2008, “will strengthen our security cooperation with Africa and create new opportunities to bolster the capabilities of our partners in Africa,” Bush said.

AFRICOM eventually will encompass the entire continent—except Egypt—and include the islands of Cape Verde, Equatorial Guinea and São Tomé and Príncipe (in the Gulf of Guinea, where the United States is building another large base). This region will become increasingly important to the United States for reasons made clear in press reports on the AFRICOM proposal: “The U.S., the world’s biggest energy consumer, also hopes the Gulf of Guinea region in West Africa will provide up to a quarter of its oil imports within a decade.”

West Africa has about 60 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, and its oil is the low sulfur, sweet crude that petroleum refiners prize. Experts predict that one in every five new barrels of oil entering the global economy in the latter half of this decade will come from the Gulf of Guinea. Nigeria already supplies the U.S. with 10 percent of its imported oil and Angola 4 percent. The continent is also rich in bauxite, diamonds, gold, uranium and a stunning variety of other useful minerals.

The buildup of U.S. forces is often justified as necessary, both to fight the threat of terrorism and to counter growing instability in the continent’s resource-rich regions—to guard against so-called “failed states.”

China’s growing influence in Africa is another reason the United States is anxious to assert a military presence. The burgeoning economic growth of the world’s largest nation has produced a desperate need for Africa’s natural resources and a vigorous rivalry with the West for influence.

America’s new Africa initiatives are driven by the same concerns as the imperialism of the past: unrestricted access to the continent’s resources and geopolitical advantage over perceived enemies. Today it might be characterized as globalism with combat boots, though it’s the same old story with the well-worn plot of Western hegemony.

Once, the enemy was Communism; now it’s Terrorism. But the real enemy is an independent Africa.

Salim Muwakkil is a senior editor of In These Times, where he has worked since 1983. He is currently a Crime and Communities Media Fellow of the Open Society Institute, examining the impact of ex-inmates and gang leaders in leadership positions in the black community.

More information about Salim Muwakkil

  • subscribe to print magazine

  • Reader Comments

    The “WAR ON TERROR” is cold war for the 21st Century. This new cold war will be (and HAS been) used to justify an erosion of our civil rights at home and justify a lot of other bad things (bombings, imprisonments, propping up authoritarian regimes etc.) abroad. It certainly seems history does repeat itself. Thank you Mr. Muwakkil for the insightfulness.

    Posted by lams712 on Apr 19, 2007 at 9:24 AM

    I agree that the US should get out of propping up various criminal sides in Africa and elsewhere. But that includes so-called humanitarian aid too and idiot ideas of sending troops to Darfur as suggested by both brainless leftlibs and brainless neocons. Africa is a total mess and the Africans themselves are 99% to blame. The Marxist cannibal Mugabe is
    symptomatic of the whole continent.

    Posted by blondemike on Apr 19, 2007 at 12:34 PM

    Having read other articles by Mr. Muwakkil, there was nothing here which I found particularly new or surprising. I fully expect most ITT writers and reader responses to be highly critical of the U.S. on any issue. Why should Africa be treated differently?

    He wrote, “America’s new Africa initiatives are driven by the same concerns as the imperialism of the past: unrestricted access to the continent’s resources and geopolitical advantage over perceived enemies.”

    This one passage pretty well sums up his position. Rather than list the points in the article with which I either disagree or detect no attempt at objectivity, I’ll move on to something else.

    There are some aspects of this issue which are not quite as straight forward or obvious as the author’s assertions and opinions. The writer has no hesitation in presenting his views of what happened or who is at fault. But, he is puzzled by the non-event status of all this.

    He says, “Perhaps the most amazing aspect of the Bush Administration’s bombing of Africa is the lack of any real public discussion in this country. The silence of African-American leadership is especially troubling.”

    I read Mr. Muwakkil’s article shortly after watching more on the Virginia mass murders. An hour before that on NPR I heard part of a discussion about Africa’s widespread violence and the lack of anything being done in the Congo (where more than a million people have died since 1998) except U.N. “peace-keeping” attempts and humanitarian aid.

    In recent years there have been 3000 suicide bombings which have killed thousands of people in Iraq, Afghanistan and other targets. There’ve been the senseless killings at Columbine, the WTC and now Virginia — massive natural calamities such as Katrina, tsunamis, tornadoes and earthquakes and, as if the 24/7 coverage of all these were not enough, a whole string of individual murders, rapes and accusations are dumped on us daily.

    I think we are becoming so accustomed to tragedy and mayhem that nothing more can get through to us. There is an unreal quality to it all after a while. We feel sad, helpless and move on to other do-able things.Perhaps that is why Mr. Muwakkil is left to wonder why so little notice has been taken.

    Posted by whattheheck on Apr 19, 2007 at 3:23 PM

    WTH, actually over five million people in the Congo just since 2000.
    And I have to say the attention given to it has been rather sparse. But
    bottom line it IS Africans killing each other and we can’t be the all-purpose scapegoat there. Mostly I agree with you, where we diverge is that I support the Founders’ ideas of no permanent friends, only US
    interests and nonentanglement in other folks affairs. The Iraqis haven’t
    had “democracy” for 5,000 years and the Founders wouldn’t have given a rat’s ass and I don’t either. We are overexposed to instant news breaking tragedies and becoming inured to it. That’s only normal. Too much of anything produces a negative reaction. It’s Salim’s job to keep the race kettle boiling at all times. It’s my job to try to minimize it or tune it out if I can’t.

    Posted by blondemike on Apr 19, 2007 at 5:08 PM

    blondemike:

    “it’s my job to try to minimize it or tune it out if I can’t”

    What the fuck, you actually have a JOB???? Could have fooled me.
    I guess if you coubt being a lying, racist, neofascist scumbug a job then you are a first-rate CEO. You and your KKK buddy whattheheck should at least ACTUALLY read the freaking article before you cast judgement on it.

    The main point was why in the hell the US IS STICKING IT’S nose in this African conflict (hint---it has something to do with American imperialism, this time justified by a “war on terror” rather than “anti-communism” as in years past), and why is there no reaction to this either in the media or in the black community. I honestly think you guys just like getting your jollies from posting outrageous comments to see what kind of reaction you’ll get.

    Posted by lams712 on Apr 19, 2007 at 9:30 PM

  • extended discussion >>>Continued...

    Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 29 posts.

Join Here
Member Login

Forgot password?

Article Appeared in this Issue

Full contents
Past issues

Popular Discussions