Africa Still Uneasy About AFRICOM

As the world watches US lawmakers try to negotiate a financial bailout, yet another massive government program will be officially rolled out on Wednesday. Many miles form Washington, the new United States military command for Africa (Africom) becomes operational today. Outlined by President George Bush in February 2007, Africom formally begins its mission to engage in sustained security engagement on the continent. According to US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, American forces will help train local military outfits and work with international partners to ensure stability throughout Africa.

In creating Africom, the Pentagon effectively recognizes the continent's strategic importance. The development of a unified command structure follows the existing models in the Pacific Rim, Europe, the Middle East, Latin America, and North America. Previously, three regional US commands were responsible for security in Africa, and the continent was subsumed under larger strategic interests of the American military. Africom represents a dedicated commitment to security issues throughout the region's 53 countries.

Not surprisingly, the announcement has been met with skepticism. The Pentagon floated the idea of a unified regional command nearly 10 years ago, but global opinions of the US military have become increasingly cynical. Many observers claim the the US is hoping to establish a presence in Africa to counter the growing Sino-African trade relationship and secure American access to the continent's vast resources. Indeed, many African states felt that the regional command was set up without consultation from leaders on the continent.

The location of Africom's present headquarters illustrates this uneasy relationship. The regional command was unable to find a willing host in southern Africa (although Liberia has expressed some interest) and, as a result, is currently operating out of Stuttgart, Germany. Even on the domestic front, Africom has faced significant headwinds. Last month, the command's start-up budget wash slashed by nearly 80% ($389m to $80.6m) by the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. 

Most analysts suggest that Africom has three objectives: the war on terrorism, natural resource supply chains, and Chinese balancing.  Publicly, however, it seems the latter two are folded into the familiar military refrain of the Bush administration. On Tuesday, the head of Africom, General William Ward painted a broad picture of his mission, telling reporters that the US would work with African nations "to help them build their capacity."

With respect to terrorism in Africa, American analysts fear that weak governments will allow al-Qaeda or other militant groups to find safe haven on the continent. Violent instability in Somalia has created particular concern that terrorist training camps will flourish as US forces are preoccupied in Iraq and Afghanistan. This logic is not entirely new. Indeed, the US currently has a military base at Camp Lemonier in neighboring Djibouti with about 1,800 troops. Nevertheless, Africom is designed to formalize counter-terrorism activities on the continent and augment existing capabilities.

Africa is also the world's fastest growing energy market. The US gets about 1/5 of its oil from Africa (Nigeria, Angola, Algeria, and Chad), and several public officials have been calling for this figure to increase. Political tensions in the Middle East have created a large incentive for Americans to wean themselves off of imported hydrocarbons from states like Saudi Arabia and Iraq. However, there are no assurances of stability in Africa either. Abundant reserves lie under the soil of some rather tempestuous states like Sudan, Equatorial Guinea, Angola, and Nigeria. If Africom plans to provide stability across the continent, no doubt the mission will dovetail with efforts to bring these resources into safer hands.

The US has also watched the Chinese launch unadulterated economic projects throughout Africa. China's spectacular economic growth creates a voracious appetite for the continent's natural resources, but the Sino-African relationship goes beyond oil. Last year trade deals reached $73b, although the US is still Africa's largest trading partner. In addition, China has offered many major oil-producing states (which often have deep connections to Western businesses) comprehensive aid packages to build roads, schools, hospitals, and fiber-optic networks. And all this without any sort of political caveats.

Clearly the US is concerned about this burgeoning relationship, and hopes Africom will provide deeper ties with governments across the continent. In the short term, this strategy may well succeed in helping provide some measure of stability for at-risk countries. And, to be sure, there are several states within Africa the desperately need functioning central governments to allow for infrastructure development and foreign investment. In the long term, however, African businesses are likely to trade with those nations they can trust. The lingering doubts about Africom could prevent the ties from being formed.

A dedicated regional command is necessary. The arbitrary partitions that had existed for US military strategy in Africa are both irrelevant and unhelpful. But American military leaders should work quickly to assuage the concerns of those they intend to serve. The success of Africom will, in large part, be determined by its ability to gain traction among the African masses. For the moment, Washington is understandably distracted. At least officials in Stuttgart should redouble their efforts to win a hearts and minds campaign in Africa.