The imperial agenda of the US's 'Africa Command' marches on

The imperial agenda of the US's 'Africa Command' marches on Dan Glazebrook

With mission accomplished in Libya, Africom now has few obstacles to its military ambitions on the continent

June 14, 2012

"The less they see of us, the less they will dislike us." So remarked Frederick Roberts, British general during the Anglo-Afghan war of 1878-80, ushering in a policy of co-opting Afghan leaders to control their people on the empire's behalf.

"Indirect rule", as it was called, was long considered the linchpin of British imperial success, and huge swaths of that empire were conquered, not by British soldiers, but by soldiers recruited elsewhere in the empire. It was always hoped that the dirty work of imperial control could be conducted without spilling too much white man's blood.

It is a lesson that has been re-learned in recent years. The ever-rising western body counts in Iraq and Afghanistan have reminded politicians that colonial wars in which their own soldiers are killed do not win them popularity at home. The hope in both cases is that US and British soldiers can be safely extricated, leaving a proxy force of allies to kill opponents of the new regime on our behalf.

And so too in Africa.

To reassert its waning influence on the continent in the face of growing Chinese investment, the US established Africom – the "Africa Command" of the US military – in October 2008. Africom co-ordinates all US military activity in Africa and, according to its mission statement, "contributes to increasing security and stability in Africa – allowing African states and regional organizations to promote democracy, to expand development, to provide for their common defense, and to better serve their people".

However, in more unguarded moments, officials have been more straightforward: Vice Admiral Robert Moeller declared in a conference in 2008 that Africom was about preserving "the free flow of natural resources from Africa to the global market", and two years later, in a piece in Foreign policy magazine, wrote: "Let there be no mistake. Africom's job is to protect American lives and promote American interests." Through this body, western powers are resorting to the use of military power to win back the leverage once attained through financial monopoly.

The small number of US personnel actually working for Africom – approximately 2,000 – belies both the ambition of the project and the threat it poses to genuine African independence. The idea, once again, is that it will not be US or European forces fighting and dying for western interests in the coming colonial wars against Africa, but Africans. The US soldiers employed by Africom are not there to fight, but to direct; the great hope is that the African Union's forces can be subordinated to a chain of command headed by Africom.

Libya was a test case. The first war actually commanded by Africom, it proved remarkably successful – a significant regional power was destroyed without the loss of a single US or European soldier. But the significance of this war for Africom went much deeper than that for, in taking out Muammar Gaddafi, Africom had actually eliminated the project's fiercest adversary.

Gaddafi ended his political life as a dedicated pan-Africanist and, whatever one thought of the man, it is clear that his vision for African was very different from that of the subordinate supplier of cheap labour and raw materials that Africom was created to maintain. He was not only the driving force behind the creation of the African Union in 2002, but had also served as its elected head, and made Libya its biggest financial donor. To the dismay of some of his African colleagues, he used his time as leader to push for a "United States of Africa", with a single currency, single army and single passport. More concretely, Gaddafi's Libya had an estimated $150bn worth of investment in Africa – often in social infrastructure and development projects, and this largesse bought him many friends, particularly in the smaller nations. As long as Gaddafi retained this level of influence in Africa, Africom was going to founder.

Since his removal, however, the organisation has been rolling full steam ahead. It is no coincidence that within months of the fall of Tripoli – and in the same month as Gaddafi's execution – President Obama announced the deployment of 100 US special forces to four different African countries, including Uganda. Ostensibly to aid the "hunt for Joseph Kony", they are instead training Africans to fight the US's proxy war in Somalia – where 2,000 more Ugandan soldiers had been sent the previous month.

Fourteen major joint military exercises between Africom and African states are also due to take place this year; and a recent press release from the Africa Partnership Station – Africom's naval training programme – explained that 2013's operations will be moving "away from a training-intensive program" and into the field of "real-world operations".

This is a far cry from the Africa of 2007, which refused to allow Africom a base on African soil, forcing it to establish its headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany. Gaddafi's Libya had served not only as a bulwark against US military designs on the continent, but also as a crucial bridge between black Africa south of the Sahara and Arab Africa in the north. The racism of the new Nato-installed Libyan regime, currently supporting what amounts to a nationwide pogrom against the country's black population, serves to tear down this bridge and push back the prospects for African unity still further.

With Africom on the march and its strongest opponent gone, the African Union now faces the biggest choice in its history: is it to become a force for regional integration and independence, or merely a conduit for continued western military aggression against the continent?

Uganda Or Somalia? Get Your Story Straight, America

Uganda Or Somalia? Get Your Story Straight, America

by Mark P. Fancher

April 20, 2012 The U.S. and Uganda are playing a cynical game of musical chairs in Africa. The Americans send Green Berets to Uganda, ostensibly to help the beleaguered Ugandan military hunt down Joseph Kony’s LRA guerillas, while the Ugandans send thousands of soldiers to Somalia to prop up the U.S.-backed government in Mogadishu. "The U.S. has no real interest in the LRA, but is drawn instead to oil fields in Uganda and South Sudan." "U.S. Marines have been in Uganda training Ugandan soldiers – not to participate in the search for the LRA – but to instead prepare for deployment to Somalia." At times, even apologists for the U.S. military presence in Africa must find it difficult to offer a rationale for these missions with a straight face. Several months ago, President Obama authorized the deployment of U.S. troops to Uganda and the surrounding region, presumably to pursue the now-famous Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA). It was suggested that U.S. involvement was important because Uganda’s military had failed over the course of more than two decades, to capture the elusive leader of a group accused of mass killings, kidnappings, maiming and other crimes. If the danger posed by the LRA is so grave that it compels a war-weary U.S. to, yet again, send its soldiers into harm’s way on foreign soil, one would think that Uganda’s military must be dedicating its full attention and resources to the hunt for the Kony organization. Think again. Instead, a substantial number of Ugandan troops have been deployed to Somalia as part of the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM). AMISOM is a UN-approved peace-keeping mission intended to stabilize war-torn Somalia. Although it is not exclusively a military operation, armed troops are its primary feature. During the latter part of 2011, the operation involved almost 10,000 soldiers, with the majority of them coming from Uganda and Burundi. "One would think that Uganda’s military must be dedicating its full attention and resources to the hunt for the Kony organization." In recent months, U.S. Marines have been in Uganda training Ugandan soldiers – not to participate in the search for the LRA – but to instead prepare for deployment to Somalia. According to a U.S. embassy report, Ugandan troops were being trained to serve as "counter-terrorism engineer companies" to be used "to support infantry battalions." The report quoted Major Charles Baker as saying: "The genesis of this mission was operations in Mogadishu, Somalia, where African Union peacekeepers experienced [explosive devices] and other complex obstacles, which exposed them to ambushes by al-Shabaab." The trainees were also being supplied with combat engineer tool kits, mine detectors and armored bulldozers. Ugandan involvement has not been limited to grunt soldier patrols. In February, Okello Oryem, Uganda’s Minister of State for Foreign and International Affairs, paid a high level visit to the African Union’s Deputy Special Representative for Somalia. While there, Oryem proclaimed: "The Government of Uganda remains committed to maintaining its troops in Somalia as long as it takes." The unwavering commitment of the Ugandan government to address the "crisis" in Somalia appears to be matched only by the unwavering commitment of the U.S. government to address the "crisis" in Uganda. General Carter F. Ham, commander of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), said the U.S. military’s role in the war against the LRA is "best done through support, advising and assistance, rather than U.S. military personnel in the lead actually conducting the operations to try to find Kony and capture him." The presence of significant contingents of Ugandan troops in Somalia begs an obvious question. Who is left in Uganda for U.S. troops to assist? "The Government of Uganda remains committed to maintaining its troops in Somalia as long as it takes." The incongruity of the two countries’ missions only fuels suspicions that the U.S. has no real interest in the LRA, but is drawn instead to oil fields in Uganda and South Sudan. There is also a growing belief that the U.S. perceived an urgent need for a military presence in the region only after China began to assist the Ugandan government with oil production. These suspicions have only been reinforced by an insistence by many in northern Uganda that Joseph Kony left the country several years ago. Whatever true motivations the U.S. may have for deploying troops to Africa, the mission will remain the cause of considerable head-scratching bewilderment for those who try to connect the dots from Uganda to Somalia. Mark P. Fancher is a lawyer who writes frequently on the U.S. military presence in Africa. He can be reached at mfancher@comcast.net.

Deadly blast devastates Marrakesh cafe

Deadly blast devastates Marrakesh cafe

AlJazeera.net

Authorities suspect blast which killed at least 15 in Moroccan city's main square was the work of a suicide bomber. April 28, 2011 An explosion in a busy cafe in the Moroccan city of Marrakesh has killed at least 15 people and wounded several others, according to local officials. Moroccan officials said on Thursday that they suspect the attack at Argana cafe in the city's main Jamaa el-Fna square was the work of a suicide bomber. "According to the information I have, it could have been perpetrated by a suicide bomber," an official in the regional governor's office told the AFP news agency. "We found nails in one of the bodies," added the official, who was in a hospital where some of the bodies were taken. Moroccan television, quoting interior ministry officials, said 20 people were also injured and said foreigners were among the victims. The state-run 2M channel reported that the dead comprised six French nationals, five Moroccans and four foreigners whose nationality it did not give, . Rescuers were dispatched to the scene and an investigation was opened to provide details on the blast. An official from the ministry said the blast appeared to be a terror attack, though the ministry had said earlier in the day, in a statement carried by the official MAP news agency, that "early evidence collected at the site (of the explosion) indicates that it was a criminal act". France condemned the blast as being "cruel and cowardly" and confirmed there were French casualties. Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, learnt "with consternation of the terrorist attack," his office said in a statement. "He condemns with the greatest firmness this odious, cruel and cowardly act that has caused many casualties, including French citizens," it said. Alain Juppe, the French foreign minister, slammed "this barbaric terrorist attack that nothing can justify", calling in a statement for "all light to be shed on this revolting crime, for those responsible to be found, tried and punished". Asked whether there was any current threat against French citizens in its former North African protectorate, Henri Guaino, Sarkozy's advisor, said France "had nothing in particular to fear in Morocco at the moment". "Terrorism is something that we always fear... that reminds us to be extremely vigilant against this terrifying phenomenon," Guaino told RTL radio. The Argana cafe is a popular spot with tourists and ranks 21 on the Lonely Planet’s online list of 'things to do in Marrakesh'. "One of the few cafes where you'll compete with locals for elbow room and a spectacular view of the [Jamaa el-Fna] at sunset, when the restaurant stalls set up shop and the belly dancers begin to wriggle," the travel guide writes. If confirmed as a terror attack, Thursday's blast in Morocco would be the fourth such attack since 2003 when suicide bombers set off at least five explosions in Casablanca, killing 45 people, including 13 bombers. In 2007, a series of suicide attacks took place in Casablanca between March and April, including an attack on the US diplomatic offices on April 14.

Truth and Ivory Coast by Craig Murray

Truth and Ivory Coast
by Craig Murray on Apr 13th 2011
An article in the Guardian yesterday by Thalia Griffiths quite rightly pointed out the huge problems facing Alassane Ouattara in uniting and governing Ivory Coast. But the article is remarkably uncritical of Ouattara, and follows the common Western fallacy of promoting a “good guy” in a civil war when the leaders on all sides are “bad guys”.

This is the fundamental flaw in liberal interventionism. It inevitably leads to the imposition of governments like the ultra-corrupt coastal elite of Sierra Leone, like Bosnian and Albanian gangster mafias or like Alassane Ouattara. I wrote what I believe is the only genuine, full and eye-witness analysis of the truth of Blair’s Sierra Leone intervention in The Catholic Orangemen of Togo. The essential advice is simple. Follow the money.

That approach leads you quickly to note that Thalia Griffiths is the editor of African Energy. Ivory Coast is newly oil rich with extremely prospective deep fields under further exploration. That is why French army tanks finally crushed Gbagbo. That is why Sarkozy put such huge effort into establishing Ouattara.

Now we must not make the reverse error of glorifying the Gbagbo side. Gbagbo clung to office and postponed elections too long. He played the ethnic card. He indulged in nepotism. His forces killed the innocent. He was one of those noble and longstanding opposition figures who becomes something of a nightmare in power. His side cheated, beat and intimidated just as much as Ouattara’s side in elections which it is farcical to claim were free, fair and properly administered, or were any kind of realistic guide to the will of the people of a deeply riven state. I hope that Gbagbo is decently treated, but do not regret his loss of power.

That said, the attempt by Thalia Griffiths to puff Ouattara is simply a symptom of the saccharine treatment he will get in future by all those connected to western oil interests, including western governments. There were massacres on both sides, but the most startling were carried out by Ouattara’s forces, by ethnic militias which Ouattara deliberately mobilised with French money, including fighters brought in from neighbouring Liberia.

This by Thalia is an absolute disgrace:

Recent reports of atrocities in the west have blamed Ouattara supporters, but while conflicts over land pit northerners against southerners, it is cruel but convenient to blame Ouattara for the latest flare-up of conflicts that have existed for a generation. It is land conflict coupled with a breakdown in state security – not urban Abidjan politics – that are behind reports of killings in the west. Clashes like these are vile, but nothing new.

That is simply untrue. The massacre of 800 people at Duekoue a fortnight ago is thankfully extremely rare, and was without doubt committed by Ouattara mobilised militias. To try to lessen this is crass.

Consider this about Ouattara. He was Prime Minister to a truly dreadful African despot, Houphouet-Boigny, who was dictator of Ivory Coast for 33 years. Houphouet-Boigny moved the capital to his home village and spent US$300 million on building the world’s largest church there. He looted US$9 billion from the people of Ivory Coast. Ouattara was his ally, his finance minister then prime minister, and has never disavowed him. All that Thalia notes about H-B is that he had a policy of ethinic inclusion. That again is disgraceful journalism.

But also Houphouet-Boigny and Ouattara’s Ivory Coast was the base for both French military and CIA operations throughout the continent and for promoting the very worst kind of western interests – which is why Africans view with huge suspicion Ouattara’s instalment by Western forces.

Ivory Coast was allied to apartheid South Africa and was the sanctions busting capital of Africa. Vast amounts of goods, including but not limited to oil, were consigned to Ivory Coast on their papers and trans-shipped to the apartheid regime to bust sanctions. Ivory Coast also provided all the logistic back-up to Jonas Savimbi and UNITA and it was in Abidjan that the CIA and apartheid regime worked together to promote the terrible Angolan civil war.

It was also in Abidjan that the CIA organised the coup that overthrew Kwame Nkrumah and planned the death of Patrice Lumumba. (Again, we should not fall into the goodies and baddies trap. The CIA and Ivory Coast regime were definitely bad. But Nkrumah too had become a cruel dictator – again, read The Catholic Orangemen of Togo.)

Ouattara became head of the african department and deputy managing director of the IMF in the 1980s when that organisation was forcing disastrous structural adjustment programmes all over the continent. African nations were forced to liberalise, reduce tariffs and open up their economies when no such constraints were placed on the developing nations with which they were trading. To give just one example of how this worked, which I personally tried but failed to counter: Nigeria was forced by the IMF to reduce tariffs on imported sugar. The EU then flooded Nigeria with millions of tons of sugar, at one third of the cost of its production, with the remaining two thirds paid to European farmers as export subsidies under the Common Agricultural Policy. Nigeria’s sugar plantations – which were actually very efficient – collapsed under the unfair subsidised competition from which Nigeria was not allowed to protect them. That was Ouattara. France was very happy with him.

So not only does Ouattara need to heal the deep divisions in his own population, he has to prove to the rest of Africa he is not just a western tool. That will not be easy. I pointed out in an earlier posting that there is dislike between Ouattara and Zuma; I hope that this gives you some idea why.

Nigeria: Big Oil And Disaster Capitalism

Nigeria: Big Oil And Disaster Capitalism

Date Posted: Tuesday 22-Jun-2010

By Obi Nwaknama

Close to One Trillion Dollars worth of oil profits later, the Niger Delta is in the end an ecological Armageddon. It fits perfectly into what the Canadian journalist and author, Naomi Klein, would describe as evidence of the consequences of "disaster capitalism."

In her rather apocalyptic book and New York Times Bestseller, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, although it specifically and decidedly ignores Nigeria and the situation in the Niger Delta, she nonetheless paints a grim picture of what the Economist Joseph Stiglitz calls the "political machinations" and the "hubris" of international corporate madness and its deleterious global impact.

Naomi Klein traces in a skillful and courageous way a 50-year trajectory from the "free market" economics of Milton Friedman and the Chicago school of Economics, to the creation of economic shock therapy and disaster zones from which international multinationals profit, to its juncture in the war in Iraq that basically ceded Iraq's oil fields to Shell, British Petroleum and Halliburton. A reading of Naomi Klein's book puts into great panoramic perspective, the real situation in Nigeria.

The closest example or equivalent by a Nigerian of Naomi Klein's expose is the work by my friend, the journalist and scholar, Ike Okonta. His seminal book, Where Vultures Feast: Shell, Human Right and Oil, and its sequel, When Citizens Revolt: Nigerian Elites, Big Oil and the Ogoni Struggle a fine expose should occupy an honoured spot on the library or bedside reading collection of every educated Nigerian.

What we now know about the large scale exploration of oil in the Niger Delta and its gross impact should leave anyone with even a modicum of conscience filled with rage, starting with Nigeria's Petroleum Acts 1968 and 1969 which virtually ceded Nigeria's oilfields to Shell and to other oil companies without regard to their potentially dangerous activities.

In a 2008 Amnesty International report on the oil industry in Nigeria we have just a very brief but important witness to the situation. The Amnesty International Report indeed notes quite poignantly that the oil industry in Nigeria's Niger Delta has "brought impoverishment, conflict, and human rights abuses and despair" to this most vital region and one of the world's most important wetlands.

It details the impact of the terrible pollution and the environmental damage to its human population, who have been denied a right to adequate standard of living, a loss of clean water and food, and the safety of their ecosystem.

Thousands of years of human culture and some of the most beautiful landscapes have been destroyed. To make my point, I should quote a crucial aspect of the report fully: "Oil pollution kills fish, their food sources and fish larvae, and damages the ability of fish to reproduce, causing both immediate damage and long-term harm to fish stocks. Oil pollution also damages fishing equipment.

Oil spills and waste dumping have also seriously damaged agricultural land.

Long-term effects include damage to soil fertility and agricultural productivity, which in some cases can last for decades.

In numerous cases, these long-term effects have undermined a family's only source of livelihood. The destruction of livelihoods and the lack of accountability and redress have led people to steal oil and vandalize oil infrastructure in an attempt to gain compensation or clean-up contracts. Armed groups are increasingly demanding greater control of resources in the region, and engage in large-scale theft of oil and the ransoming of oil workers.

Government reprisals against militancy and violence frequently involve excessive force, and communities are subjected to violence and collective punishment, deepening anger and resentment."

This to me is a tip of the iceberg. Indeed, the public health implication of this with the massive pollution of ground water supply in the entire South-East and South-South areas of Nigeria, and the massive incidents of particularly rare forms of cancer currently at epidemic stages ought to have attracted the attention of epidemiologists and should really drive home the human carnage - the extinction of the human population in these regions either through infertility or disease.

Yet, a succession of Nigerian governments have largely played possum to these realities, and have in fact almost acted as if the Nigerian government was merely an arm of these multinational oil companies, particularly Shell. The Nigerian government through its regulatory arms, has basically permitted these oil operators to kill Nigerians and destroy a most important ecological habitat of this nation, and high government officials have profited from the great evil.

Here again is an important insight by the Amnesty report: "The scale of pollution and environmental damage has never been properly assessed. The figures that do exist vary considerably depending on sources, but hundreds of spills occur each year.

According to the UNDP, more than 6,800 spills were recorded between 1976 and 2001. According to the National Oil Spill Detection and Response Agency some 2,000 sites require treatment because of oil-related pollution. The real total may be higher.

The regulatory system in the Niger Delta is deeply flawed. Nigeria has laws and regulations that require companies to comply with internationally recognized standards of "good oil field practice", and laws and regulations to protect the environment but these laws and regulations are poorly enforced. The government agencies responsible for enforcement are ineffective and, in some cases, compromised by conflicts of interest."

Africa - A Comparison With Kosovo

Africa --- A Comparison With Kosovo

• by Anup Shah---  http://www.globalissues.org/article/126/the-kosovo-crisis

The number of people that had been killed in Kosovo to raise alarm bells with the international (read West) community was about 2000 -- how many will it have to be in Africa where there are already millions of refugees and unimaginable number of deaths?

While in Kosovo, the result of NATO pressure was a military action, the same energy seen by the mainstream media could help get populations of those nations to pressure their governments to try and help resolve the problems in Africa. (As this link also points out, it would have cost very little for the US to provide a peace keeping force in the Democratic Republic of Congo, yet the Clinton administration didn't. That would have helped prevent a huge massacre, which didn't appear on the radar screens of the western mainstream media.)

If the Kosovo intervention by influential NATO members was meant to be humanitarian, then we would have long ago seen humanitarian intervention in some form, in Africa. Or, if not long ago, (in case only around March 1999 was there a revelation that world powers should now start to act with humanitarian concerns), then we should see activity from the world powers now.

Instead we do not, which does not lend credibility to the claims that the Kosovo war was purely on humanitarian grounds (as by definition, a humanitarian action cannot be selective). There were other political and national interests behind it causing it to become selective. While I do not necessarily think military intervention by USA/UK is needed in the conflicts within Africa -- as humanitarian intervention in the form of diplomatic negotiations, pressure, full political and financial support of the UN, etc could help -- it would put other conflicts, such as Kosovo in perspective in terms of humanitarian costs and the resulting problems.

Oxfam, as a small example criticizes the international community for still ignoring the DRC and when comparing with the response in Kosovo. They point out that "[i]n 1999, donor governments gave just $8 per person in the DRC, while providing $207 per person in response to the UN appeal for the former Yugoslavia. While it is clear that both regions have significant needs, there is little commitment to universal entitlement to humanitarian assistance." (Emphasis added)

As this following commentary from the Guardian suggests, race could also be a factor. And, as this commentary from the Center for Defense Information suggests, media coverage of visits to Africa by leading figures of influential nations may be lacking because national interests are not affected directly.

Of interest is also the publishing of sixteen declassified US government documents, by the National Security Archive in the United States, detailing how US policymakers chose to be "bystanders" during the genocide that decimated Rwanda in 1994.

(For more about the conflict in Kosovo, visit this web site's section on Kosovo.)

Population Explosion-Africa is Sitting On a Time Bomb

Africa: Population Explosion - Africa is Sitting On a Time Bomb

Date Posted: Friday 02-Apr-2010

By Peter Mulira ,Kampala - 

With the population of Africa predicted to double within the next 30 years....

the economic future of its people is set to be very bleak unless something is done to combat the uncontrolled growth rate. Africa's fertility rate has been on the increase in recent years out of pace with the continent's ability to feed the new mouths or to put in place the physical and social services that will ensure a reasonable quality of life for the people. In order to tackle this problem the time has come to seek new avenues through which the message will reach the villages that unless the present generation reduces its reproductive propensity tomorrow's children will face a very bleak future.

According to the Population Reference Bureau (2001) the estimated population of Africa in 2001 was 810 million people. This suggests an increase of 733 million people in the 501 years between 1500 and 2001 an average of 1.46 million people per year or 0.45% annual growth rate. However, between 2000 and 2001 alone the African population increased by 20 million or 2.4% in spite of the scourge of HIV/AIDS! 

Earlier between 1975 and 2001 the population doubled from 402 to 820 million people. Thus while African population growth rates were low in the past the rates have gone up considerably during the last 20 years.

It is on the basis of these trends that experts predict that unless checked the population will double from the present level of around 850 million to 1.7 billion people within the next 30 years. 

The continent will simply not be able to cope with the multiplicity of problems a population in billions will bring about. As has been said by one population expert, "High rates of population growth create unemployment faster than jobs, increase the mouths to be fed faster than the production of rice paddies, squatters faster than people housed in modern facilities, excrement faster than sewers can be built.

A population growing faster than the output of modern goods and services not only frustrates development goals; it undermines the credibility of promises made in the name of development and the political will to pay the price of progress."

There is a direct correlation between high population growth and low level economic development in Africa. For example with 

its population growing at twice the rate for the world 

the continent still contains 32 of the 47 countries classified by the World Bank as least developed in the world. Secondly, while the continent's population grew at the rate of 2.9% between 1960 and 1980, GNP per capita grew at a rate of 1.9% per annum between 1965 and 1983. Thirdly, it is now well established that countries with the highest fertility rates also happen to be among the poorest.

With a total fertility rate of 6.6, the highest in Africa, Chad's GNP per capita of around $230 is the lowest in the world while Algeria with a total rate of 3.8 had a GNP per capita of $1550.

Africa's population growth has not always been that rapid. Although nobody knows precisely how large the population of the continent was 1,000 years ago expert conjecture puts it at 39 million people or 15.5% of the then world population of 253 million people. The continent's population was estimated to have increased to 87 million people or 19% of the world population by 1,500 AD. This means that Africa gained 48 million people in 500 years an average of 96,000 people per year or a growth rate of 0.16% per annum. By 1850 Africa's population declined to about 8.3% of that of the world. This decline between the 17th and 19th centuries has been attributed to European contact with Africa and the subsequent exportation of their diseases to the region as well as the transatlantic slave trade which depleted the population by millions.

Although Europe also experienced a population growth during the same period, its effects were mitigated by the new science and technology as well as immigration of its people to other continents. With the new science and technology most people could expect a longer and healthier life and there was a drop in child mortality rates while the population became more mobile.

Immigration to Australia, South America, the United States, Africa and elsewhere meant that Europe escaped the rough edge of its population growth. Across the waters Japan had a different experience from that of Europe. Between 1872 and 1925 Japan's population increased from 35 million people to 60 million which created a problem for the already densely populated islands and at the same time immigration was not an option as was the case in Europe. The Japanese responded by placing emphasis on manufacturing and foreign trade in the hope that new factories and markets would create employment. They did.

The fight to combat the plague of population growth has had a chequered history. When condoms were invented in the early 20th century they were associated with defence against unwanted children and syphilis. It was not until the 60s that condoms became a public defence against population explosion. Sweden was the first country to provide international support for population control when it assisted Sri Lanka and Pakistan in 1958.

The United States which is today the biggest donor in this field went through three phases before it accepted its leading role in the fight against the new epidemic. In 1959 President Dwight Eisenhower declared that "birth control is not our business" but 10 years later President Richard Nixon announced that America would provide clear leadership in combating population growth and birth control. Five years later the American representative to the UN declared that the problem was no longer a private matter signifying America's direct involvement.

The United Nations came on board in 1966 when it reached a consensus on "population assistance" and this was followed by the establishment of the United Nations Fund for Population Activities. By 1977 out of 114 developing countries surveyed 83 had a central population planning agency. Unfortunately these efforts have not produced the desired results. It may well be that in the case of Africa the programmes have overlooked the involvement of some vital players such as religious organisations and cultural groups.

Reproduction in Africa is a cultural issue in which large families are seen as a source of free labour and wealth. Only cultural institutions have the ability to change their peoples' perceptions in this regard and as such must be put at the forefront in the fight against the scourge of population explosion.

The writer is a lawyer

Original Source: 

Original date published: 31 March 2010

Source Url: http://allafrica.com/stories/201004010036.html?viewall=1

Obama Expands Military Involvement in Africa

Obama Expands Military Involvement in Africa

Analysis by Daniel Volman*

WASHINGTON, 2 Apr (IPS) - When Pres. Barack Obama took office in January 2009, it was widely expected that he would dramatically change, or even reverse, the militarised and unilateral security policy that had been pursued by the George W. Bush administration toward Africa, as well as toward other parts of the world. After one year in office, however, it is clear that the Obama administration is following essentially the same policy that has guided U.S. military policy toward Africa for more than a decade. Indeed, the Obama administration is seeking to expand U.S. military activities on the continent even further. In its FY 2011 budget request for security assistance programmes for Africa, the Obama administration is asking for 38 million dollars for the Foreign Military Financing programme to pay for U.S. arms sales to African countries. The administration is also asking for 21 million dollars for the International Military Education and Training Programme to bring African military officers to the United States, and 24.4 million dollars for Anti-Terrorism Assistance programmes in Africa. The Obama administration has also taken a number of other steps to expand U.S. military involvement in Africa. In June 2009, administration officials revealed that Pres. Obama had approved a programme to supply at least 40 tonnes of weaponry and provide training to the forces of the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) of Somalia through several intermediaries, including Uganda, Burundi, Djibouti, Kenya, and France. In September 2009, Obama authorised a U.S. Special Forces operation in Somalia that killed Saleh Ali Nabhan, an alleged al Qaeda operative who was accused of being involved in the bombing of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998, as well as other al Qaeda operations in east Africa. In October 2009, the Obama administration announced a major new security assistance package for Mali - valued at 4.5 to 5.0 million dollars - that included 37 Land Cruiser pickup trucks, communication equipment, replacement parts, clothing and other individual equipment and was intended to enhance Mali's ability to transport and communicate with internal security forces throughout the country and control its borders. Although ostensibly intended to help Mali deal with potential threats from AQIM (al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb), it is more likely to be used against Tuareg insurgent forces. In December 2009, U.S. military officials confirmed that the Pentagon was considering the creation of a 1,000-strong Marine rapid deployment force for the new U.S. Africa Command (Africom) based in Europe, which could be used to intervene in African hot spots. In February 2010, in his testimony before a hearing by the Africa Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Assistant Secretary of State for Africa Johnnie Carson declared, "We seek to enhance Nigeria's role as a U.S. partner on regional security, but we also seek to bolster its ability to combat violent extremism within its borders." Also in February 2010, U.S. Special Forces troops began a 30-million-dollar, eight-month-long training programme for a 1,000-man infantry battalion of the army of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) at the U.S.-refurbished base in Kisangani. Speaking before a Senate Armed Service Committee hearing in March 2010 about this training programme, General William Ward, the commander of Africom, stated "should it prove successful, there's potential that it could be expanded to other battalions as well." During the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Ward also discussed Africom's continuing participation in Ugandan military operations in the DRC against the Lord's Resistance Army. Despite the failure of "Operation Lightning Thunder", launched by Ugandan troops in December 2008 with help of Africom (included planning assistance, equipment, and financial backing), Ward declared, "I think our support to those ongoing efforts is important support." And in March 2010, U.S. officials revealed that the Obama administration was considering using surveillance drones to provide intelligence to TFG troops in Somalia for their planned offensive against al-Shabaab. According to these officials, the Pentagon may also launch air strikes into Somalia and send U.S. Special Forces troops into the country, as it has done in the past. This growing U.S. military involvement in Africa reflects the fact that counterinsurgency has once again become one of the main elements of U.S. security strategy. This is clearly evident in the new Quadrennial Defence Review (QDR) released by the Pentagon in February. According to the QDR, "U.S. forces will work with the military forces of partner nations to strengthen their capacity for internal security, and will coordinate those activities with those of other U.S. government agencies as they work to strengthen civilian capacities, thus denying terrorists and insurgents safe havens. For reasons of political legitimacy as well as sheer economic necessity, there is no substitute for professional, motivated local security forces protecting populations threatened by insurgents and terrorists in their midst." As the QDR makes clear, this is intended to avoid the need for direct U.S. military intervention: "Efforts that use smaller numbers of U.S. forces and emphasise host-nation leadership are generally preferable to large-scale counterinsurgency campaigns. By emphasising host-nation leadership and employing modest numbers of U.S. forces, the United States can sometimes obviate the need for larger-scale counterinsurgency campaigns." Or, as a senior U.S. military officer assigned to Africom was quoted as saying in a recent article in the U.S. Air University's Strategic Studies Quarterly, "We don't want to see our guys going in and getting wacked...We want Africans to go in." Thus, the QDR goes on to say, "U.S. forces are working in the Horn of Africa, the Sahel, Colombia, and elsewhere to provide training, equipment, and advice to their host-country counterparts on how to better seek out and dismantle terrorist and insurgent networks while providing security to populations that have been intimidated by violent elements in their midst." Furthermore, the United States will also continue to expand and improve the network of local military bases that are available to U.S. troops under base access agreements. The resurgence of Vietnam War-era counterinsurgency doctrine as a principal tenet of U.S. security policy, therefore, has led to a major escalation of U.S. military involvement in Africa by the Obama administration that seems likely to continue in the years ahead. *Daniel Volman is the Director of the African Security Research Project in Washington, DC. He is the author of numerous articles and reports and has been studying U.S. security policy toward Africa and African security issues for more than 30 years.