Home

AFRICOM Watch


“The U.S. Africa Command’s foremost mission is to help Africans achieve their own security, not to extend the scope of the war on terrorism or secure African resources. The United States spends approximately $9 billion a year in Africa, funding programs in such areas as health, development, trade promotion, and good governance AFRICOM will play a supportive role as Africans continue to build democratic institutions and establish good governance across the continent. The Defense Department currently divides responsibility for Africa among three combatant commands: European Command, Pacific Command and Central Command. AFRICOM, slated to stand up in October 2008, is a three-pronged defense, diplomatic and economic effort designed to enable U.S. government elements to work in concert with African partners without the “bureaucratic divisions” created by a shared command structure. U.S. Africa Command also will support other U.S. agencies in implementing other programs that promote regional stability.”

-Theresa Whelan, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for African Affairs, August 2007

In the context of growing interests in Africa, strategically, economically and diplomatically the purpose of AFRICOM WATCH is to stimulate debate, thought- provoking analysis and insights as the US gears up towards establishing what is being described as an innovative command in order to assist African states in building greater capacity to assure their own security. The purpose of this debate is therefore to provide an assessment of the various important issues that are likely to be raised as this crucial process unfolds. The objective of AFRICOM WATCH is therefore threefold in nature:

  1. To provide timely, accurate and concise analysis on developments
    within AFRICOM
  2. To encourage key decision makers, lobbyists and security scholars to
    engage in the debate surrounding AFRICOM and
  3. To identify key challenges that faces AFRICOM’s architects based on an
    African perspective

Cometh the Mission Statement?

In a key briefing to Congress on 13 March 2008, General William “Kip” Ward, head of the US Command for Africa, AFRICOM, devoted only 15 seconds of his four-and-a-half minute opening remarks to a possible humanitarian role. Focusing instead on military training, security and counter-terrorism, his remarks came in sharp contrast to a year ago when officials announced that the command would concentrate on humanitarian assistance, alarming many aid agencies, which were concerned that US military involvement in humanitarian aid would undermine their neutrality.

This has yet again raised concern as to which role will ultimately take precedence as the US Africa Command readies itself for deployment on the African continent in October 2008. Despite the obvious attempt to shift emphasis towards more humanitarian-related matters, AFRICOM is, and remains, a military command and will ultimately have to perform the critical functions that a military command invariably finds itself entangled in.

Prior to General Ward’s testimony to the US House of Representatives Armed Services Committee, the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Africa and International Security Programme identified four suggested priority areas that the command would have to focus on. (2) Rightly so, the CSIS report debunked the myth that AFRICOM will be able to continue presenting itself as a purely preventative command. In many regions on the African continent there will be ample opportunity and need to become involved as a truly “combatant” command - though not pre-emptively, nor unilaterally. Strong coordination on a military-to-military basis, working side-by-side with African states’ military and political leadership should be the approach adopted from the very outset.



A non-kinetic approach to Africa - The role of AFRICOM: Observer, Enforcer or Facilitator of Peace?

The world-renowned international relations scholar Hans J. Morgenthau in his seminal work Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace written nearly 41 years ago provided valuable insights into the current debate facing security analysts across the spectrum. In his core argument Morgenthau stresses the importance of diplomacy as an element of national power and as well as for the preservation of international peace as a particular aspect of that general function. Morgenthau continues by stressing that a diplomacy that ends in war has failed in its primary objective - namely the promotion of the national interest by peaceful means. The task of diplomacy is therefore said to be fourfold. Firstly diplomacy must determine its objectives in the light of the power actually and potentially available for the pursuit of these objectives. Secondly diplomacy must assess the objectives of other nations and the power actually and potentially available for the pursuit of these objectives. Thirdly, diplomacy must determine to what extent these different objectives are compatible with each other and finally diplomacy must employ the means suited to the pursuit of its objectives.



Pariah or Partner? An Expanded US War on Terrorism in Africa

The US War on Terrorism has become an intricate part of the national strategic doctrine of the US and indeed since the September 11th terrorist attacks terrorism has become arguably the most important focus of the national security strategy of the US. The central focus on terrorism by the George W. Bush Administration dominated the National Security Strategy of 2002: “The United States of America is fighting a war against terrorists of global reach. The enemy is not a single political regime or person or religion or ideology. The enemy is terrorism - premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against innocents.”2 The security strategy was dominated by terrorism and its all-encompassing and highly destructive effect. Virtually every aspect, focus, discussion and objectives as outlined in the document - from the first page until the very last - concentrated on terrorism and its effects and ways and means of combating the scourge. In the context of the devastating attacks and the loss of nearly 3,000 innocent people in the worst terrorist attacks in history, this was again arguably the correct response and line to take. One of the noble ideals set forth in the document was to work with allies to defeat global terrorism and work to protect against attacks on the US and its allies. Terrorism was rightly condemned alongside crimes against humanity, genocide, slavery and piracy. This condemnation is indeed right, given the severe trauma, anxiety, casualties, chaos and destruction that terrorist attacks leave in their wake.


AttachmentSize
Consultancy Africa Intelligence - AFRICOM Watch - 24 August 2007.pdf160.05 KB
Consultancy Africa Intelligence - AFRICOM Watch - 25 September 2007.pdf135.99 KB
Consultancy Africa Intelligence - AFRICOM Watch - April 2008.pdf98.42 KB