As the African continent awaits the establishment of the Pentagon’s new Africa Command (AFRICOM), a mixture of views abound: anticipation, trepidation, suspicion, scepticism and condemnation. These are likely to be only a few of the views that will emerge as the United States prepares to launch operations as part of AFRICOM.

According to a senior Defence Department official, Ryan Henry, the new Defence Department command in Africa, AFRICOM will be unique in its mission and command structure. Henry, the principal Defence Department Under-Secretary for Policy briefed reporters on 21 and 22 June 2007 stating that the US was consulting extensively with African nations and other allies as planning for the new command continues. Meanwhile President George W. Bush has named Army Gen. William E. “Kip” Ward as AFRICOM’s first commander when it becomes operational in late-2008.

Henry also stated that the main goal of the new US command in Africa will be to develop a stable environment on the continent to promote civil society and improved quality of life for the people. He also noted that Africa, which represents 35% of the world’s land mass and 25% of the population, is growing in significance, and the US has realised that it is time to recognise its importance and consolidate efforts there. Up to now, US military involvement in Africa has been shared among the US European Command, the US Central Command and the US Pacific Command. During the Pentagon news conference, In addition, AFRICOM will have a strong emphasis on building the capacity of African nations through training and equipping African militaries, conducting training and medical missions on the continent, and supporting regional organisations like the African Union (AU).

The motivation behind creating AFRICOM was the increasing importance of Africa strategically, diplomatically and economically, Navy Rear Adm. Robert Moeller, Executive Director of the US Africa Command implementation planning team, said in an interview. Henry furthermore said AFRICOM will emphasise humanitarian assistance, civic action, military professionalism, border and maritime security assistance, and response to natural disasters.

While AFRICOM is being presented as a panacea for a wide array of woes plaguing the African continent a number of pitfalls are already emerging in the run-up to the establishment of this idealistic command initiative.

Predictably the proposed US initiative is not being welcomed with open arms by many African states, wary of being too closely aligned with Washington. Analysts suggest that the cool response reflects African Governments' fears of becoming targets for terrorism should they agree to host the new Africa command. The countries visited by Pentagon officials are also thought to have expressed misgivings about the political implications of the US initiative, which was seen as potentially undercutting the AU's efforts to develop its own security capabilities.

LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION…

The Washington Post reported on June 24 2007 that US diplomats holding talks with Algeria and Libya were disappointed that both countries had ruled out hosting AFRICOM. Both of the North African also made it clear they were opposed to the new command being based in any of their neighbouring countries.

Liberia increasingly appears set to be one of the prime candidate sites for the Pentagon’s new Africa command. Since the announcement of the creation of AFRICOM, the Liberian Government has been pressing for the establishment of the headquarters in the country. Now, President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf has reportedly made a decision, officially 'offering' Liberian territory to be used for the establishment of the Command. President Johnson-Sirleaf indicated that historical and strategic reasons make Liberia an ideal location for the initiative, something she described as undoubtedly having a beneficial effect on the West African sub-region, as well as the entire continent. The Liberian leader expressed the move as not only a project of US interest and power, but as a new approach to assisting African countries that are committed to democratic governance, sustainable development and improving the quality of life of their people, in a secured environment, and with the cooperation and support of the US.

AFRICOM - NEITHER FOR COMBAT NOR CONFRONTATION?

One of the neglected sentiments that are surely to be expressed upon glancing at AFRICOM is confusion. Perhaps the greatest disillusionment with AFRICOM is based on the rather non-descript mission statement outlining the stated objectives, aims and intentions of creating a command of such nature. Falling under the auspices of the US Defence Department, the natural assumption would be that AFRICOM will be all it can be, ready to engage in combat when a country is in distress or on the brink of impending civil war and doom. Appearances, it would seem, can be deceiving.

Ryan Henry told reporters that the purpose of AFRICOM was not to wage war, but to work in concert with its African partners for a more stable environment in which political and economic growth can take place. However, as critics may point out, Africa is beset by violent conflicts, from Chad to Sudan, from the Democratic Republic of Congo to Somalia, and from Nigeria to Algeria, and in many instances the creation of a stable political environment can only realistically be achieved by engaging in combat operations to thwart rebel groups, armed militias and gangs who act with impunity. To tackle these problems will require a capable military force, ready to deploy in the event of chaos and anarchy. Unlike other US geographic commands, AFRICOM would not have headquarters in one African country. Instead, its staff would be distributed in different nodes (working locations) throughout the continent.

Perhaps the most interesting and puzzling dimension of AFRICOM in this regard is, given the fact that it is not meant to fight wars, is that no new US troops will be deployed to the continent and no new military bases will be established on the continent when the command becomes fully operational in 2008. More puzzling is that the new command is reportedly not being toted as a tool to be utilised in counter-terrorism initiatives either. Therefore it appears that AFRICOM will have a structure, staff, a military commander, but no explicitly defined military-security mandate or mission, but rather a multiple array of stated objectives and tasks. This presents a highly problematic scenario, as rarely does a military command, mandated by the world’s most powerful military institution - the Pentagon - not possess a military objective.

A new term has also allegedly emerged within the Pentagon’s preferred language, namely that of “Phase Zero”. The Defence Department spends countless hours drafting plans for potential wars. Each plan outlines specific missions and military requirements for discrete phases of war, from the run-up to hostilities (Phase 1), to the onset of military action (Phase 2), to major combat (Phase 3), to "post-conflict" stabilisation (Phase 4), and then to the shift to civilian control (Phase 5).

More recently, the Pentagon placed great adherence to the notion that greater military attention to pre-conflict situations - preventive action - could pay huge dividends, by making it unnecessary to use US troops around the world. According to the Pentagon, the command's primary mission will be "shaping" activities designed to ameliorate troubling trends before they reach a crisis, rather than traditional operations involving the use of force.

While the importance of conflict prevention should not be counted out of the equation, it is highly unlikely that attempting to solely adopt this approach will be beneficial to US interests, especially on the African continent. Recent calls for greater deployments of peacekeeping forces by the EU, UN and AU in strife torn areas and conflict hotspots all point to the trend that while conflict prevention is the ideal, it is rarely the reality when conflict situations do spiral out of control. Even after conflict has been addressed and peace agreements signed, the presence of peacekeepers continue in order to avoid a relapse into conflict.

It will however prove pivotal to monitor developments as the aims and objectives of the US African Command evolve over the next 6 months. Ensuring security against attacks on US commercial and other interests will obviously form part of one of the core objectives of AFRICOM. If this is one of the only objectives of the command - securing greater access to economic dividends and Africa’s natural resources - it has already failed in the eyes of the African continent. Yet it also appears as if AFRICOM will simply be replicating functions that are already being executed by US Embassies, USAID and other US agencies already operating on the continent. Admittedly AFRICOM will ensure that Africa’s military and security issues are rightfully accorded centre stage and Defence Department officials are at pains to explain that AFRICOM represents a transformation in the way the military instrument is used to advance security and stability in conflict-prone societies.

Many observers may rightly question the timing of AFRICOM’s birth - a few decades too late to make a lasting and decisive impact on the continent’s burgeoning crises and development problems. While other more slightly optimistic observers and analysts will adopt a “better-late-than-never” approach to the advent of a more coherent US military presence on the continent. The burning question - that can ultimately only be answered once the command is operational, its true intentions are revealed and its presence is being felt - is whether AFRICOM is based on a conflict of interest (whereby only the US stands to gain in the long-term) or a genuine interest in ending conflict, insecurity and underdevelopment on the African continent, through the provision of sustained assistance to African countries baring the greatest brunt