|
Get AfricaFocus Bulletin by e-mail!
More on politics & human rights |
economy & development |
peace & security |
health
Print this page
USA/Africa: Africom vs. Peacekeeping
AfricaFocus Bulletin
Mar 14, 2008 (080314)
(Reposted from sources cited below)
Editor's Note
The Bush administration budget for fiscal year 2009 (Oct 2008 to
Sep 2009), yet to be approved by Congress, allocated $1,300 million
for bilateral military programs related to Africa, including $400
million for the new AFRICOM military command, covering all of
Africa except Egypt. In comparison, $1,497 million is proposed for
the U.S. share of UN peacekeeping operations, leaving the U.S.
$1,772 million in arrears on its UN peacekeeping obligations, in
addition to some $700 million in arrears on the regular UN budget.
A coalition of U.S. NGOs is strongly opposing this acceleration of
U.S. military involvement in Africa, with a campaign to Resist
Africom (http://www.resistafricom.org). But so far few Washington
policymakers have challenged the administration's presentation of
the command as necessary for anti-terrorism and useful in
supporting peace and development.
Even though the U.S. bilateral budget does include some support for
peacekeeping operations, critics say that the military bias will,
as in the past, contribute to human rights abuses and ongoing
conflict rather than promoting security based on African needs.
The record of U.S. bilateral military engagement, whether in Africa
or elsewhere in the world, provides little evidence to support the
view that the effects will be positive. Those who support AFRICOM
should have the burden of proof to the contrary. If anyone can cite
an example of successful U.S. bilateral military engagement in
terms of promoting peace and reconstruction, in the period since
the post-World War II reconstruction of Germany and Japan,
AfricaFocus would welcome referrals to evidence of such cases.
This AfricaFocus Bulletin contains a recent article on AFRICOM from
Foreign Policy in Focus (http://www.fpif.org), an update on the
U.S. budget and UN peacekeeping from the Better World Campaign
(http://www.betterworldcampaign.org), and an article by Daniel
Volman on military aspects of the Bush administration budget
proposals.
For previous AfricaFocus Bulletins on related issues, see
http://www.africafocus.org/peaceexp.php and
http://www.africafocus.org/country/usa-africa.php
++++++++++++++++++++++end editor's note+++++++++++++++++++++++
Militarizing Africa (Again)
Daniel Volman and Beth Tuckey | February 21, 2008
http://fpif.org/fpiftxt/4997
Editor: John Feffer,
Foreign Policy In Focus
http://www.fpif.org
FPIF analyst Daniel Volman is the director of the African Security
Research Project in Washington, DC, and a member of the board of
directors of the Association of Concerned Africa Scholars. He is
the author of numerous articles and research reports on U.S.
military activities in Africa. FPIF Analyst Beth Tuckey is the
associate director of Program Development and Policy at Africa
Faith and Justice Network (AFJN) in Washington, DC.
In February 2007, President Bush announced that the United States
would create a new military command for Africa, to be known as the
Africa Command or AFRICOM, to protect U.S. national security
interests on the African continent. Previously, control over U.S.
military operations in Africa was divided between three different
commands: European Command, which oversaw North Africa and most of
sub-Saharan Africa; Central Command, which had responsibility for
Egypt and the Horn of Africa; and Pacific Command, which
administered the Indian Ocean and Madagascar.
The new command set up shop in Stuttgart, Germany in October 2007,
as a sub-command of the European Command, and is scheduled to
become a separate, fully independent command in October 2008. The
Pentagon intends to establish a headquarters or set of regional
headquarters on the African continent. But Liberia is the only
country that has publicly offered to host AFRICOM, and the issue
remains unresolved.
The Pentagon claims that AFRICOM is all about integrating
coordination and "building partner capacity." But the new structure
is really about securing oil resources, countering terrorism, and
rolling back Chinese influence. Given AFRICOM's emphasis on defense
over diplomacy, resistance to the initiative is possible not only
from civic movements but even the U.S. State Department.
Real Reasons for AFRICOM
Professional military officers have made it clear that the new
Africa Command has three main purposes. First and foremost, the new
command's main mission is to protect American access to Africa's
oil and other resources, preferably by enhancing the ability of
African allies to guard these resources themselves on behalf of the
United States. But, to prepare for the day that Washington decides
to try to use American troops in a desperate bid to keep them
flowing, the United States is also acquiring access to local
African military bases and dramatically expanding its naval
presence off Africa's coastline, especially in the oil-rich Gulf of
Guinea region. Imports from Africa are expected to reach 25% by
2015, making Africa one of the largest future suppliers of U.S. oil -
larger even than the Persian Gulf.
The new command will also expand and intensify counter-terrorism
operations in Africa and will make the continent a central
battlefield in the Global War on Terror. Through AFRICOM, the
Pentagon will intensify and extend U.S. counter-terrorism
operations in Africa as well as its involvement in
counter-insurgency warfare and other internal security operations
in African countries. American troops are already engaged in combat
operations in Somalia where air and naval strikes aimed at
alleged al-Qaeda members instead killed dozens of Somali civilians
in January and June 2007 and U.S. troops were engaged in
combat-support operations in Mali in September 2007.
Finally, the new command is designed to counter China's efforts to
increase its influence and its access to African oil and other raw
materials. The creation of AFRICOM is one element of a broad effort
to develop a "grand strategy" on the part of the United States to
compete with, and eventually restrain China's activities. It is
also intended to demonstrate to Beijing that Washington will match
China's actions, thus serving as a warning to Chinese leaders that
they should restrain themselves or face possible consequences to
their relationship with America as well as to their interests in
Africa.
Operations
AFRICOM will take over the implementation of a growing and truly
frightening array of military, security cooperation, and security
assistance programs conducted either by the State Department or by
the Defense Department (DoD). Through these programs, the United
States provided more than $240 million worth of military equipment
and training to African countries in FY 2006 and more than $500
million worth in FY 2007. AFRICOM will also take over operational
control of two task forces. The Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of
Africa based at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti is conducting raids
into Somalia; the Joint Task Force Aztec Silence based in
Sigonella, Italy is conducting intelligence, surveillance, and
combat-support missions in North and West Africa. To support
AFRICOM, the United States is also dramatically expanding its naval
presence off Africa's coastlines, particularly in the oil-rich Gulf
of Guinea region, and has negotiated agreements with at least 10
African countries to ensure access to local military bases by U.S.
troops in times of crisis.
This expansion of U.S. military operations in Africa is cause for
serious alarm. The Bush administration has clearly given priority
to defense above diplomacy - a power imbalance that is likely to
result in further destabilization of the African continent. AFRICOM
is a command designed to fulfill a short-sighted and ultimately
self-destructive vision of U.S. global interests to expand the War
on Terror and to satisfy America's hunger for oil and other
resources. Such self-interested goals will be to the detriment of
African civilians whose needs and concerns will be overshadowed by
special interest groups like oil companies and private military
contractors.
Africans are not asking for AFRICOM. In fact, most African
civilians, governments, and many regional bodies have voiced a
vehement "no" to the presence of an American military force in
their backyard. Though there will always be exceptions to the rule,
the Department of Defense has said it will not go where it is not
welcome. Thus, a stance of opposition from the African Union (AU)
would send a clear message to the Bush administration that its
flawed command is not acceptable to the people or the nations of
Africa.
Opposition Mounts
President Bush recently unveiled his Defense Budget for FY2009 a
budget that is unsustainable and unnecessary for achieving true
global security. Within it lies a line-item of $389 million for
AFRICOM's current operations in Stuttgart, Germany. Embedded
further is the budget for current U.S. defense engagements in
Africa all of which will come under the AFRICOM heading. With
pressure from the American people, the U.S. Congress can eliminate
this ill-conceived Rumsfeld plan from the bloated budget.
It is also imperative that Congress be provided with
recommendations for AFRICOM in order to shape the command in the
most progressive way possible. Though total elimination of
AFRICOM's budget is preferable, Congress can also utilize its power
of oversight to ensure that the interests of Africans are upheld.
Congress can set specific restrictions on AFRICOM finances to make
certain that private defense contractors will never be used to
carry out the mission of the command. It can also enact legislation
that requires the Pentagon to submit regular reports to Congress on
AFRICOM's activities, budget, and how military and civilian
partnerships are evolving in the field.
Like Congress, the State Department can play a key role in the
movement to oppose AFRICOM. Its duties and oversight are slowly
being chipped away by a defense policy that encompasses civilian
activities. Although AFRICOM staff argues that the State Department
will remain central to African affairs, the inter-agency
coordination of AFRICOM is structured to give unprecedented power
to the Pentagon. Ambassadors and U.S. Agency for International
Development personnel must remain at the head of U.S. foreign
operations in Africa. They should feel empowered to demand an
increased budget and a clear delineation of the command structure
such that diplomatic efforts are not contingent upon the opinions
of a military general.
Not only are the activities and structure of the command
contentious, but the issue of erecting a headquarters on the
continent is particularly alarming, especially to Africans. Liberia
offered to host the command in the hopes that AFRICOM will generate
jobs and infrastructural development for Liberia's struggling
economy. Unfortunately, global examples show that U.S. military
bases tend to offer relatively little to the communities where they
are built and in fact are liable to increase instability or human
rights abuses in the long term. In 2001, the United States
constructed a base in Manta, Ecuador as a means of expanding U.S.
involvement in the drug war and Plan Columbia. Many local
Ecuadorians expressed deep, negative sentiments toward Plan
Colombia because of the spillover violence and refugees onto their
land. In Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, the U.S. government has defended
repressive dictators in order to maintain its military presence and
access to oil, despite the negative impact on the people of the
region. If history is any indication, the United States will
prioritize its headquarters construction on what is in the
strategic best interest of the United States, regardless of the
consequences for democracy and human rights in Africa.
Many African governments and regional bodies have noted the
potential for further militarization and have voiced objection to
a headquarters on the continent. According to Southern African
Development Community's (SADC) Defense Minister Mosiuoa Lekota,
"Africa has to avoid the presence of foreign forces on its soil,
particularly if any influx of soldiers might affect relations
between sister African countries." SADC is comprised of 14 southern
African nations and has adopted a regional stance against AFRICOM
and foreign military presence. As such, the Pentagon has made a
concerted effort to shift the rhetoric away from "base" or
"headquarters" and toward "lilypad" or "office." Regardless of the
language or the final outcome, AFRICOM will have access to several
military bases on the continent and will use the surrounding waters
to push Bush's defense agenda forward.
Ultimately, peace and democracy in Africa are elements that can be
attained if the United States is willing to work in concert with
Africans to determine their needs and desires. Washington can
assist in boosting education, jobs, and health care on the
continent. It can offer debt relief and an elimination of unjust
trade policies. A new administration may provide a reprieve from
the heavy-handed defense policy of President Bush, but resisting
AFRICOM now is the best way to ensure a fair and just U.S. foreign
policy. Once AFRICOM is set in place, it will be increasingly
difficult to draw it back. Pushing a diplomatic strategy that
relies on true partnership with African governments, the African
Union (AU), and African Civil Society is the only approach that is
truly in the mutual, long-term interests of the American people and
the citizens of Africa's many nations.
On Eve of Rice Testimony and Presidential Trip to Africa, Better
World Campaign Warns of Sharp Budget Shortfalls and Massive Unpaid
Bills for UN Peacekeeping
Better World Campaign
http://www.betterworldcampaign.org
February 13, 2008
Press contact: Katherine Miller UN Foundation/Better World Campaign
(o) 202.887.9040 (e) kmiller@unfoundation.org
Washington, D.C. (February 13, 2008) In advance of U.S. President
George W. Bush's upcoming trip to Africa and Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice's testimony on the Administration's fiscal 2009
international affairs budget request, the Better World Campaign
today urged Congress to scrutinize the Administration's anemic
funding request and growing mountain of unpaid bills for UN
peacekeeping missions in Africa and around the world. What follows
is a statement by Deborah Derrick, Executive Director of the Better
World Campaign.
"The United States is already more than $1 billion behind in
honoring its commitments to UN peacekeeping, and the
Administration's budget request would add at least another $600
million to our growing and worrisome unpaid peacekeeping
assessments. UN peacekeeping is a tremendous value for the United
States, ensuring that we don't have to pay all the bills or take
all the risks for securing peace and stability in the world. By
working with other nations, we can promote peace at a fraction of
the cost. Simply put, in today's complex and dangerous world the
United States can't afford to go it alone and therefore we can't
afford not to pay our fair share of international peacekeeping.
"Shortchanging UN peacekeeping missions severely undermines the
budget's stated goal of helping to 'end conflicts, restore peace,
and strengthen regional stability.' It also complicates President
Bush's planned trip to Africa next week. There are a variety of
difficult conflicts underway in Africa stretching across the
continent from Sudan and Chad in North Africa to Democratic
Republic of Congo in Africa's heartland to Cote D'Ivoire and
Liberia in the West. UN peacekeeping is essential to maintaining
basic stability in these areas, but the Administration's budget has
significant shortfalls in funding for each of these missions.
"Full payment of dues to the UN is a necessary step in advancing
our national interests and moral obligations in Africa and also can
help improve the U.S. image in the international community.
America's reputation and standing are not helped when we call and
vote for but don't pay our fair share of new and bigger U.N.
peacekeeping operations in places like Darfur and Chad. Congress
and the Administration need to work together in the coming months
to ensure that the United States honors fully its commitments to UN
peacekeeping. Great nations pay their bills."
Growing U.S. Debt to the UN
Better World Campaign
http://www.betterworldcampaign.org
The U.S. government is by far the largest debtor to the United
Nations and is falling further behind in dues payments to the UN
and its affiliated agencies. As detailed in the chart below, the
U.S. begins 2008 with $1.5 billion in arrears at the United
Nations. The President's proposed budget for FY 2009 will likely
push U.S. arrears to more than $2 billion.
##Anticipated FY 2009 Budget Request for UN Peacekeeping##
Total FY 2009 Needs $2,064 million*
Anticipated FY 2009
Administration Budget Request $1,497 million
Anticipated FY 2009 Shortfall $567 million
*The State Department is anticipating FY 2009 assessments to be
$1,929 million due to assumptions about particular missions.
##Debt in UN Peacekeeping##
FY 2008 Shortfall for Darfur (UNAMID) $334 million
Peacekeeping cap arrears, FY 05-FY 07 $334 million
All other arrears 2005-2008 $266 million
Pre-Helms-Biden Arrears $451 million
Anticipated FY 2009 Shortfall $1,195 million
The first and largest source of permanent U.S. arrearages to the
United Nations is U.S. government under-funding of UN peacekeeping
missions. This is debt that is being absorbed by allies that are
providing troops for U.S.-endorsed peacekeeping missions -
countries like India, Kenya, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. It is
growing even as the U.S. actively presses for more, renewed, and
expanded UN peacekeeping missions, most notably of which is the
joint UN-AU peacekeeping mission to Darfur.
Congress and the Administration have taken some actions to address
shortfalls to UN peacekeeping over this past year. In the final FY
2008 appropriations deal, Congress increased the UN peacekeeping
account by $583 million, $390 million to address an additional $724
million requested by the President in the FY 2008 supplemental for
the UN-AU peacekeeping mission and $193 million to pay for
peacekeeping shortfalls overall.
Yet the final FY 2008 funding did not include $334 million still
needed for Darfur. And $861 million in other arrears have not even
begun to be addressed. On top of this, the Better World Campaign
understands that the White House (its Office of Management and
Budget) is in the process of under funding the FY 2009 UN
peacekeeping account by another $567 million. If left unaddressed,
the U.S. will be headed well beyond $2 billion in permanent arrears
at the UN.
U.S. dues for UN peacekeeping are obligations undertaken by signing
the UN Charter and by voting for peacekeeping missions in the
Security Council. The current situation, where the U.S. calls and
votes for the UN to undertake more and bigger peacekeeping missions
while not paying its bills is not sustainable and not consistent
with U.S. treaty obligations. Given that the UN's total regular
and peacekeeping budget is only about $10 billion per year, these
arrears have the potential to destabilize the UN's operations,
including already-overstretched peacekeeping operations, and
threaten the only lifelines available to citizens in some of the
most dangerous and unstable regions of the world.
##Debt in UN Regular Budget##
Total FY 2009 Needs $291 million
Possible increase due
to exchange rate losses $60 million
Estimated U.S. Arrears
to UN Regular Budget $348 million
U.S. debt in the regular UN budget has also increased recently; the
U.S. now has $291 million in permanent arrears - an amount that is
likely to grow by $60 million this year due to exchange rate
losses. The permanent arrears in the regular budget stem mainly
from past under-funding to the State Department's Contributions to
International Organizations (CIO) account. This account covers
U.S. treaty obligations at the UN and 43 other international treaty
organizations, including the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA), NATO, and the World Health Organization (WHO). The U.S. is
behind in its payments to virtually all major CIO organizations.
To begin addressing this, Congress added $50 million to the CIO
account in the FY 2007 Supplemental and $20 million in the FY 2008
foreign operations appropriations bill, calling on the
Administration to request funding to pay back accumulated arrears
to international organizations.
U.S. Security Assistance Programs - The FY 2009 DoS and DoD Budget
Request
African Security Research Project (Washington, DC)
13 March 2008
By Daniel Volman
http://allafrica.com/stories/200803131262.html
For Fiscal Year 2009 (which begins on 1 October 2008), the Bush
administration is asking Congress to approve the delivery of some
$500 million worth of military equipment and training to Africa
(including both sub-Saharan Africa and north Africa) in the budget
request for the State Department for Fiscal Year (FY) 2009. The
administration is also asking for up to $400 million for deliveries
of equipment and training for Africa funded through the Defense
Department budget and another $400 million to establish the
headquarters for the Pentagon's new Africa Command (Africom).
The State Department budget request includes funding for major new
arms deliveries and increased military training to the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, Botswana, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Guinea Bissau,
Kenya, Liberia, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, and Uganda.
It will be channeled through a variety of programs, including a
number of new programs initiated by the Bush administration as part
of the "Global War on Terrorism." These include the Trans-Saharan
Counter-Terrorism Partnership, the East African Regional Security
Initiative, and the Anti-Terrorism Assistance program. The U.S.
government is also expected to license up to $100 million worth of
private commercial sales of military and police equipment through
the State Department's Direct Commercial Sales program in FY 2009.
The following description is based on information contained in the
State Department Budget Justification for Foreign Operations for FY
2009 (released by the State Department in March 2008) and the
Defense Department Summary Justification for the Budget Request for
FY 2009 (released in February 2008).
State Department Programs
International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement
The budget includes funding for the continued expansion of the U.S.
civilian police contribution to UNMIL in Liberia, which rose from
$1 million in FY 2007 to an estimated $4.096 million in FY 2008,
and the administration is requesting $4.130 for FY 2009. The
budget also includes funding for the continued expansion of law
enforcement programs conducted by the U.S. as part of the
implementation of the Sudan peace accords; these rose from $9.8
million in FY 2007 to an estimated $13.578 million in FY 2008, and
the administration is requesting $24 million requested for FY 2009.
And the budget contains funds to continue new program for law
enforcement assistance to the Democratic Republic of Congo; these
were initiated with an initial appropriation of an estimated $1.488
million in FY 2008 and the administration is requesting $1.7
million for FY 2009.
Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs
The budget includes funding for the continued expansion of U.S.
Anti-terrorism Assistance (ATA) programs in Africa, particularly by
expanding the Trans Sahara Counter-Terrorism Partnership (TSCTP)
program in sub-Saharan Africa to North Africa and increasing
funding for the East Africa Regional Strategy Initiative (EARSI) in
East Africa and the Horn of Africa. For all programs throughout
the world, ATA received $185.1 million in FY 2007 and an estimated
$153.8 million in FY 2008; the administration is requesting $160
million FY 2009. It is difficult to know what proportion of this
funding will be used in Africa, but it is reasonable to assume that
approximately $40-50 million will be spent on African programs.
Foreign Military Financing
One of the most significant FMF programs in Africa is providing
funding for increased arms sales to the Democratic Republic of the
Congo; funding rose from nothing in FY 2007 to $397,000 in FY 2008,
and the administration is requesting $600,000 in FY 2009. The
budget contains money for major increases in FMF funding for
Ethiopia; after receiving $1.9 million in FY 2007, funding for
Ethiopia was reduced to $843,000 in FY 2008, but the administration
is requesting $4 million in FY 2009. It continues funding for
Djibouti which fell from $3.8 million in FY 2007 to $2 million in
FY 2008, but which the administration wants to increase back to
$2.8 million in FY 2009. It also includes funding to continue
programs in Liberia which received $1.5 million in FY 2007, then
just $298,000 in FY 2008, but which will receive $1.5 million in FY
2009 under the new budget. And it contains funding for the
continued expansion of arms sales to Nigeria, with FMF funding
rising from $1 million in FY 2007, to $1.3 million in FY 2008, to
a requested $1.35 million in FY 2009.
International Military Education and Training
One noteworthy new program is the one for Libya; initiated in FY
2008 with $333,000, Libya will receive $350,000 worth of training
in FY 2009 under the new budget. The budget also contains funding
for significant increases in training programs for military
officers from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (which received
$263,000 in FY 2007, another $477,000 in FY 2008, and is expected
to receive $500,000 in FY 2009); Ethiopia (472,000 in FY 2007,
$620,000 in FY 2008 and $700,000 in the request for FY 2009);
Guinea Bissau ($454,000 in FY 2007, $524,000 in FY 2008, and
$750,000 in the request for FY 2009); South Africa (just $48,000 in
FY 2007, but $857,000 in FY 2008, and $850,000 in the request for
FY 2009); and Uganda ($283,000 in FY 2007, $477,000 in FY 2008, and
$500,000 in the request for FY 2009). And it includes money to
continue major programs for Botswana ($600,000 in the request for
FY 2009), Ghana ($600,000 in the request for FY 2009), Nigeria
($800,000 in the request for FY 2009), and Senegal ($1 million in
the request for FY 2009).
The budget includes money to continue increases in funding in FY
2009 for the Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI), which
includes the African Contingency Operations Training and Assistance
program (ACOTA). In addition to ACOTA, most of the rest of the
GPOI funding will also go to Africa-related programs, amounting to
an estimated total of $80 million worth of security assistance.
GPOI rose from $81 million in FY 2007 to $96.4 million in FY 2008,
and the administration is requesting $106.2 million in FY 2009.
The budget also maintains recent levels of funding for the
Trans-Sahara Counter-Terrorism Partnership (TSCTP), which got
$13.75 million in FY 2007 and $9.9 million in FY 2008; for FY 2009,
the administration is requesting $15 million. The administration
is also requesting $7.5 million for the first time in FY 2009 to
launch the East Africa Regional Security Initiative modeled on the
TSCTP to provide counter-terrorism training and equipment to
military forces in the East Africa region (Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda,
Tanzania, Rwanda, and Burundi).
The budget contains funding to continue the administration's new
program to provide training, equipment, and infrastructure
improvements to the Democratic Republic of the Congo; presumably
much of this will be supplied to the forces deployed in the eastern
part of the country. Funding for this program began with $5.5
million in FY 2008 and the administration is requesting another
$5.5 million for the Democratic Republic of the Congo in FY 2009.
It also includes money to continue providing training, equipment,
and infrastructure improvements to the Liberian military, which
received $53.25 million in FY 2007 and $51.7 million in FY 2008;
the administration is requesting $49.6 million in FY 2009. And it
contains funding to continue providing training, equipment, and
infrastructure facilities to the Sudanese military to help
integrate former combatants from the Sudan People's Liberation
Army. Programs in Sudan received $54 million in FY 2006 including
$20 transferred from the Department of Defense and $70.8 million in
FY 2008; the administration is requesting $30 million for these
programs in FY 2009.
Defense Department Programs
Building Partnership Capacity
The budget contains $800 million to substantially expand funding
for the Global Equip and Train program ($500 million for this
program which was established by FY 2006 National Defense
Authorization Act Section 1206), the Security and Stabilization
Assistance program ($200 million for this program which was
established by FY 2006 National Defense Authorization Act Section
1207), and the Combatant Commanders' Initiative Fund ($100 million
for this program established by FY 2007 National Defense
Authorization Act Section 902). Of this, an estimated $300-$400
million will go to provide training and equipment to military,
paramilitary, and police forces in Africa.
Establishment of new Africa Command (Africom)
The budget contains $398 million to set up the headquarters for the
new Africa Command (Africom) in Stuttgart, Germany. This money
will be used to pay for the operating costs of Africom over the
coming year. This will include the cost of creating an Africom
intelligence capability, including a Joint Intelligence Operations
Center; launching a stand-alone Theater Special Operations Command
for Africom; deploying support aircraft to Africa; building a
limited presence on the African continent that is expected to
include the establishment of two of five regional offices projected
by Africom; and conducting training, exercises, and theater
security cooperation activities.
AfricaFocus Bulletin is an independent electronic publication
providing reposted commentary and analysis on African issues, with
a particular focus on U.S. and international policies. AfricaFocus
Bulletin is edited by William Minter.
AfricaFocus Bulletin can be reached at africafocus@igc.org. Please
write to this address to subscribe or unsubscribe to the bulletin,
or to suggest material for inclusion. For more information about
reposted material, please contact directly the original source
mentioned. For a full archive and other resources, see
http://www.africafocus.org
|
