AFRICOM - Petrol imperialism

Click here for the interactive version of this map.
Then, in the frame on the left you can view the list of these oil and military involvements in Africa.

Foreign Policy in Focus had an article by Antonia Juhasz titled AFRI(OIL)COM, speculating as to whether the next war for oil will be in Africa. Many of her points have been discussed here at Crossed Crocodiles at one time or another. She states:

Under the rubric of the Global War on Terror, the Bush administration has implemented the greatest realignment of U.S. forces since the end of the Cold War. With a map of Big Oil’s overseas operations, the world’s remaining oil reserves, and oil transport routes, one can now track the realignment and predict future deployments of the U.S. military.

And for a picture of this, click on the link below the map. In a frame on the left you will be able to scroll down a list of Major Oil Corporation and U.S. Military Activities in Africa. The list is by no means complete. But it provides a lengthy introduction.

Sniffing hard on the heels of the US military come the dogs of war, the mercenaries, the International Peace Operations Association, who are organizing to feed at the AFRICOM trough, feeding on the blood and the futures of African citizens.

Curse of the Black Gold - photos of 50 Years of Oil in the Niger Delta by Ed Kashi

A young girl walks across the NNPC (Nigerian National Petroleum) pipelines that run through her town, Okrika near Port Harcourt, 2006.

From Artdaily:

This summer George Eastman House International Museum of Photography and Film presents National Geographic photojournalist Ed Kashi’s images of oil exploitation in Africa’s Niger Delta, in the powerful exhibition Curse of the Black Gold: 50 Years of Oil in the Niger Delta. The display of 37 photographs, on view now through Sept. 1, takes a graphic look at the profound cost of oil exploitation in West Africa. The work traces, in an original and compelling way, the 50-year impact of Nigeria’s relationship to oil interests and the resulting environmental degradation and community conflicts that have plagued the region.

“This exhibition provides a visual inventory of the consequences of a half century of oil exploration and production in one of the world’s centers of biodiversity,” said Kashi, who photographed the region from 2004 to 2006. “These images expose the reality of oil’s impact and the absence of sustainable development left in its wake. My eyes and heart were opened and my anger and disgust were ignited. To tell this difficult but profoundly important geopolitical story in a visual way became the focus of my work.”

… While the Delta produces 95 percent of the country’s wealth, it is the poorest region in the nation. The first oil wellheads were tapped in 1958, and since then $500 billion worth of oil has been pumped out of the fertile ground and remote creeks of one of Africa’s largest deltas and the world's third largest wetland.

Oil production has caused devastating pollution to the Niger Delta due to the uninterrupted gas flaring and oil spillage. According to Kashi, these operations have destroyed the traditional livelihoods of the Niger Delta. Fishing and agriculture are no longer productive enough to feed the area and the residents are lacking schools, proper housing, and clean water.

“From a potential model nation, Nigeria has become a dangerous country, addicted to oil money, with people increasingly willing to turn to corruption, sabotage, and murder to get a fix of the wealth,” wrote Tom O’Neill, in the 2007 National Geographic article illustrated by Kashi’s images. “The cruelest twist is that half a century of oil extraction in the delta has failed to make the lives of the people better. Instead, they are poorer still, and hopeless.”

Even without Kashi’s powerful photographs, O’Neill’s words evoke images of despair: “Villages and towns cling to the banks, little more than heaps of mud-walled huts and rusty shacks. Groups of hungry, half-naked children and sullen, idle adults wander dirt paths. There is no electricity, no clean water, no medicine, no schools. Fishing nets hang dry; dugout canoes sit unused on muddy banks. Decades of oil spills, acid rain from gas flares, and the stripping away of mangroves for pipelines have killed off fish. Nigeria has been subverted by the very thing that gave it promise—oil.”

The exhibit at the George Eastman House starts today, June 14, and runs through September 1 2008. The museum is located in Rochester New York:
George Eastman House · 900 East Ave · Rochester, NY 14607 · 585-271-3361

Curse of the Black Gold is also available as a book you can purchase, or suggest your library purchase.

The text is written by Nobel Laureate Wole Soyinka, plus prominent Nigerian journalists, human rights activists, and University of California at Berkeley professor Michael Watts.

From the description at Amazon:

Now one of the major suppliers of U.S. oil, Nigeria is the sixth largest producer of oil in the world. Set against a backdrop of what has been called the scramble for African oil, Curse of the Black Gold is the first book to document the consequences of a half-century of oil exploration and production in one of the world’s foremost centers of biodiversity. This book exposes the reality of oil’s impact and the absence of sustainable development in its wake, providing a compelling pictorial history of one of the world’s great deltaic areas. Accompanied by powerful writing by some of the most prominent public intellectuals and critics in contemporary Nigeria, Kashi’s photographs capture local leaders, armed militants, oil workers, and nameless villagers, all of whose fates are inextricably linked. His exclusive coverage bears witness to the ongoing struggles of local communities, illustrating the paradox of poverty in the midst of plenty.

The Curse of the Black Gold book and exhibit add to the testimony that is finally coming forward about what the extraction of oil actually means, to people, and to the ecosystem.

Also look for the documentary film Sweet Crude.

Sweet Crude - oil in the Niger Delta

Sweet Crude is the story of Nigeria’s Niger Delta – a story that’s never been captured in a feature-length film.

Watch the preview over at the African Loft.

In April filmmaker Sandy Cioffi and crew were detained by the Nigerian military JTF while traveling in the Delta, and turned over to the Nigerian State Security Services. They were held without being charged, and without access to counsel. Thanks to international efforts, they were released a week later. It seems obvious there are those who do not want this story told.

From a user comment at the Internet Movie Database:

The film calls for nothing more radical than third-party-led negotiations between the locals and the oil companies so the presence of the latter benefits rather than harms the former. Watch for this documentary. It is going to be astounding, and terribly important. Also compelling is the incredible irresponsibility of big American media in reporting this story, essentially calling those who organize peacefully to defend the people of the Delta "terrorists."

Keep in mind:

80% of oil wealth is owned by 1% of the population;

70% of private wealth is abroad whilst

3/4 of the country live on about $1 a day -

at least 15 million of those live in the Niger Delta (link)

What's Next?
Sweet Crude is moving ahead on several fronts. We're back in the studio and will be finishing the film this summer. Meanwhile, we are seeking a distributor and entering festivals. We will also continue to advocate for political solutions with U.S. lawmakers. Many people have asked where they can see the film or how to get a copy. We will let you know as soon as we know – so sign up for our email list to stay informed.

The new energy world order

Graphic: yellow is demand, green supply.

Asia Times just published the article The rise of the new energy world order by Michael T Klare. Klare writes:

The combination of rising demand, the emergence of powerful new energy consumers, and the contraction of the global energy supply is demolishing the energy-abundant world we are familiar with and creating in its place a new world order. Think of it as rising powers/shrinking planet.


This new world order will be characterized by fierce international competition for dwindling stocks of oil, natural gas, coal and uranium, as well as by a tidal shift in power and wealth from energy-deficit states like China, Japan and the United States to energy-surplus states like Russia, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. In the process, the lives of everyone will be affected in one way or another - with poor and middle-class consumers in the energy-deficit states experiencing the harshest effects. That's most of us and our children, in case you hadn't quite taken it in.


Here, in a nutshell, are five key forces in this new world order which will change our planet:

• Intense competition between older and newer economic powers for available supplies of energy.

Until very recently, the mature industrial powers of Europe, Asia and North America consumed the lion's share of energy and left the dregs for the developing world. . . . But that ratio is changing . . .
. . .
In this new stage of energy competition, the advantages long enjoyed by Western energy majors has been eroded by vigorous, state-backed upstarts from the developing world.

• The insufficiency of primary energy supplies.

By all accounts, the global supply of oil will expand for perhaps another half decade before reaching a peak and beginning to decline, while supplies of natural gas, coal and uranium will probably grow for another decade or two before peaking and commencing their own inevitable declines. In the meantime, global supplies of these existing fuels will prove incapable of reaching the elevated levels demanded.
. . .
. . . So expect global energy shortages and high prices to be a constant source of hardship.

• The painfully slow development of energy alternatives.

. . . alternatives, which now contribute only a tiny percentage of the world's net fuel supply, are simply not being developed fast enough to avert the multifaceted global energy catastrophe that lies ahead.
. . .
In global warming terms, the implications are nothing short of catastrophic: Rising reliance on coal (especially in China, India and the United States) means that global emissions of carbon dioxide are projected to rise by 59% over the next quarter-century, from 26.9 billion metric tons to 42.9 billion tons. The meaning of this is simple. If these figures hold, there is no hope of averting the worst effects of climate change.


When it comes to global energy supplies, the implications are nearly as dire. To meet soaring energy demand, we would need a massive influx of alternative fuels, which would mean equally massive investment - in the trillions of dollars - to ensure that the newest possibilities move rapidly from laboratory to full-scale commercial production; but that, sad to say, is not in the cards.


Instead, the major energy firms (backed by lavish US government subsidies and tax breaks) are putting their mega-windfall profits from rising energy prices into vastly expensive (and environmentally questionable) schemes . . .

• A steady migration of power and wealth from energy-deficit to energy-surplus nations:

In the case of oil and natural gas, the major energy-surplus states can be counted on two hands. Ten oil-rich states possess 82.2% of the world's proven reserves. In order of importance, they are: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Russia, Libya, Kazakhstan and Nigeria. The possession of natural gas is even more concentrated. Three countries - Russia, Iran and Qatar - harbor an astonishing 55.8% of the world supply. All of these countries are in an enviable position to cash in on the dramatic rise in global energy prices and to extract from potential customers whatever political concessions they deem important.

The transfer of wealth alone is already mind-boggling.
. . .
Russia is now the world's leading supplier of natural gas, the second largest supplier of oil and a major producer of coal and uranium. Though many of these assets were briefly privatized during the reign of Boris Yeltsin, President Vladimir Putin has brought most of them back under state control - in some cases by exceedingly questionable legal means.

• A growing risk of conflict.

Will energy-deficit states launch campaigns to wrest the oil and gas reserves of surplus states from their control - the George W Bush administration's war in Iraq might already be thought of as one such attempt or to eliminate competitors among their deficit-state rivals?

The high costs and risks of modern warfare are well known and there is a widespread perception that energy problems can best be solved through economic means, not military ones. Nevertheless, the major powers are employing military means in their efforts to gain advantage in the global struggle for energy, and no one should be deluded on the subject.
. . .
One conspicuous use of military means in the pursuit of energy is obviously the regular transfer of arms and military-support services by the major energy-importing states to their principal suppliers. Both the United States and China, for example, have stepped up their deliveries of arms and equipment to oil-producing states like Angola, Nigeria and Sudan in Africa and, in the Caspian Sea basin, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. The United States has placed particular emphasis on suppressing the armed insurgency in the vital Niger Delta region of Nigeria, where most of the country's oil is produced; Beijing has emphasized arms aid to Sudan, where Chinese-led oil operations are threatened by insurgencies in both the South and Darfur.
. . .

In this new world order, energy will govern our lives in new ways and on a daily basis. It will determine when, and for what purposes, we use our cars; how high (or low) we turn our thermostats; when, where, or even if, we travel; increasingly, what foods we eat (given that the price of producing and distributing many meats and vegetables is profoundly affected by the cost of oil or the allure of growing corn for ethanol); for some of us, where to live; for others, what businesses we engage in; for all of us, when and under what circumstances we go to war or avoid foreign entanglements that could end in war.

This leads to a final observation: the most pressing decision facing the next president and Congress may be how best to accelerate the transition from a fossil-fuel-based energy system to a system based on climate-friendly energy alternatives.

I recommend you read the entire article. This is the world we are living in. Voting, and how we vote in each and every election where we can vote is critical. These facts do not bode well for democracy anywhere.

Yar'Adua in China, riots in Cameroon

President Umaru Yar'Adua met with China's Hu Jintao in Beijing to discuss oil and other economic agreements.

Details of the deals signed were not immediately available.
. . .

Trade between Nigeria and China reached 3.13 billion dollars in 2006, up from 1.1 billion dollars in 2001, according to the latest data from China's commerce ministry.

Aside from oil deals with Nigeria, China has helped the country build railways and hydroelectric dams, while last year it launched a telecommunications satellite for the nation.

Chinese media last month also reported that state-controlled China Development Bank was in talks to buy a five-billion-dollar stake in Nigeria-based United Bank for Africa.

In Cameroon there were riots over fuel prices in the port city of Douala and around the country. In addition to fuel prices, many people were angry that:

(President) Biya announced eight weeks ago he might change the constitution to stay in power when his term ends in 2011. Critics say Biya, 75, could use his party's majority in parliament to make the constitutional modifications.
. . .
"Biya has gone too far, he must go," shouted one demonstrator in Yaounde.

Others chanted: "We're fed up".

The USS Fort McHenry, AFRICOM's African Partnership Station, is in the neighborhood in Cameroon training and partnering with the Cameroonian military. This training could be just in time to help "stabilize" the situation in Cameroon. On whose behalf might potential "stability operations" be engaged?


Back in the United States, Immanuel Wallerstein writes a note of cautious optimism about the possibility of an Obama presidency.

Blood and Oil

The Strategist tagged me with the 123 blogger meme. The rules are pretty simple:

• look up page 123 in the nearest book around you;
• find the fifth sentence;
• post the three sentences that follow; and
• tag five people.

I had two books within equidistant easy reach when I read the post. I checked Poisoned Wells, but page 123 was about what happened to political opposition in Equatorial Guinea, and I did not wish to dwell on it. So here are 3 sentences from page 123 of Blood and Oil, not exactly good news, but worth noting:

But to stay productive, they will need investment, and lots of it. Massive amounts of capital are also the key to exploiting new and undeveloped reserves. According to a recent study by the International Energy Agency, the world community will need to invest $3 trillion over the next thirty years to raise global oil production to a level adequate to meet worldwide demand in 2030.

I'm not going to tag anyone, some of my friends might take it amiss. If you read this, and want to give it a go, please do, consider yourself tagged. It is an entertaining diversion.

Outbidding the west

By LEANDER SCHAERLAECKENS
UPI Correspondent
BRUSSELS, Feb. 1 (UPI) -- China's growth and close economic ties with Africa are affecting the ability of the United States and the European Union to influence politics on the continent, experts say.

Europe became aware of its new secondary role in Africa during the latest round of trade negotiations at the EU-Africa summit last month. The EU, which had grown accustomed to getting what it wants from Africa, was fiercely rebuffed by the majority of African nations that refused the terms proposed by the European Commission.

The reason African countries could now stand up to their former colonizers was an alternative and more attractive Chinese market, which has been offering African countries better prices and more investment.

"China's own economic growth has allowed it, and forced it, to accelerate engagement with Africa pretty much across the board in a way that the EU and the U.S. just don't," said Fredrik Erixon, director of the European Center for International Political Economy, an economic think tank in Brussels.
. . .
Africa supplies a third of China's oil, and trade between China and Africa has risen by 6,000 percent since 1990, according to Erixon.
. . .
"The EU most certainly overplayed its hand in trade negotiations," Erixon said. "They pushed Africa into China's hands. They just asked for too much. They demanded reforms from African nations that they would never be able to do."
. . .
China's dispensing of soft loans to Africa makes it easy to plummet the continent back into the debt crisis that it's just starting to crawl out of. "A buildup of new debt and a new debt crisis could occur one or two decades down the road," Erixon said.
. . .
"There's at the margin some erosion of U.S. economic leverage because China is a new alternative market," Setser said. "When it comes to bidding on the right to develop Africa's oil fields Africa will sell it to the highest bidders and it will have no qualms of going to Chinese companies instead of EU or U.S. ones."

The Chinese oil companies routinely overpay in order to secure oil fields, according to Setser. "Growing exports from Africa to China might interfere with exports from Africa to Europe," Erixon said.

Some are saying Angola may surpass Nigeria as Africa's biggest oil producer soon, especially since militant political activists and guerilla entrepreneurs in the Delta have cut Nigerian production by around 25%. This is not good news for the west. The US past involvement in Angola's civil war, and actions that helped prolong that war an extra 10 years give the US very little leverage when dealing with Angola.

I've wondered about the debt issue. The west has used debt as a weapon to keep developing countries weak and dependent. Will the Chinese loans do the same?

The Chinese do not care about good governance and human rights, so long as the projects get done and the goods delivered. Of course the west has mostly paid minimal lip service to good governance and human rights, tolerating and supporting ruthless dictators and extreme horrors if the deal is right and corporate interests advantaged.

The Chinese prefer to bring in Chinese workers, so they are not helping much with creating jobs in the countries where they operate. This causes resentment. And flooding those countries with cheap subsidized goods, particularly textiles, clothing and shoes, are putting local manufacturing out of business, or preventing it from getting established. It was distressing to me that the textiles bought for the Ghana@50 celebrations in 2007 were bought from China, and not from Ghanaian textile and clothing producers. Ghana has beautiful textiles.

Nigeria and the US have generally had fairly good relations. And now Yar'Adua is calling for one of the goals of AFRICOM, partnering with African militaries:

01/02/2008 12:40 ABUJA, Feb 1 (AFP)

Nigeria seeks joint security force in oil-rich Gulf of Guinea

Nigerian President Umaru Yar'Adua has called for a joint security force in the oil-rich Gulf of Guinea amid an upsurge in violence in the Niger Delta, a presidential statement said Friday.

"The establishment of the Gulf of Guinea Guard Force will address emerging security concerns at the region", the statement quoted Yar'Adua as saying during talks with Equatorial Guinean President Obiang Nguema Mbasogo in Addis Ababa.

Both leaders met on the sidelines of the ongoing African Union summit in the Ethiopian capital, the statement said.

Yar'Adua called for a meeting of members of the Gulf of Guinea Commission to approve the modalities for setting up the force.

The commission comprises Nigeria, Angola, Cameroon, Republic of Congo, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Democratic Republic of Congo and Sao Tome and Principe.

Yar'Adua said he discussed the proposed force with US President George W. Bush during his recent visit to the United States and hoped that Washington would assist with training and logistics.

The statement said Mbasogo raised security concerns in the volatile Niger Delta with Yar'Adua, who assured him of his government's resolve to stem the unrest and criminality in the region.

The Niger Delta has seen an upsurge in violence in the past two years as militant gangs renewed their attacks on oil facilities and personnel, slashing Nigeria's daily output by a quarter.

African oil in the Financial Times

There were two stories about African oil in the Financial Times today.

The new scramble for Africa's resources:

The rise of Africa as an energy region is not a short-term trend
. . .
Yet the effect of increased corporate interest has not always translated to economic well-being for African countries. (an almost comic understatement)

Soaring oil prices have threatened to wipe out recent economic gains on what is both the world's poorest continent and its fastest-growing oil and gas exploration zone of the past decade. According to the International Energy Agency, the increase in the cost of oil in 13 non-producing countries, including stable economies such as South Africa, Senegal and Ghana has since 2004 been equivalent to 3 per cent of their combined gross domestic product. This is more than the debt relief and foreign aid received during the same period.
. . .

The contrast between the multi-billion dollar international oil industry and the grinding realities of Africa is nowhere more apparent than in Nigeria's Niger Delta, the most prolific zone in the Atlantic basin, from where the US expects to source up to a quarter of its oil imports in the next decade. There, armed militants using an anti-poverty rhetoric have cut a quarter of Nigeria's production in pre-dawn raids on oil facilities and kidnapped scores of oil workers in the past two years, a potent symbol of the kind of disorder that can occur on the doorstep of huge investments.

Much of the capacity being added on the continent may be too far offshore to be affected by the kind of militancy seen in the delta. But US policymakers nevertheless remain deeply concerned about stability in oil-producing zones. In response to this concern, President Bush last year ordered the creation of Africom, a dedicated US military command centre for Africa which is expected to be situated in a yet-to-be chosen country on the continent.

The US military has recently started focusing on West Africa, with a $500m plan to help Saharan states eradicate Islamist cells linked to al-Qaeda that could otherwise threaten stability in oil-producing countries in the region, particularly Nigeria. The co-operation has drawn criticism from human rights groups which say the US is repeating its Middle East mistakes by cosying up to despotic and corrupt regimes on the continent.

Indeed, Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, typified US confusion on Africa policy when she described Teodoro Obiang Nguema, the president of oil-rich Equatorial Guinea where US supermajors Chevron and ExxonMobil have interests as a "good friend", despite widespread concern over human rights abuses and corruption.. . .

Where Africa's resources are becoming hot property, big energy producing countries are beginning to push for greater control of their own oil and gas industries, much to the chagrin of the traditional oil majors.

As you see above, the Financial Times flatly states that African oil is the reason Bush created AFRICOM, and the reason for the US military focus.

Energy producing countries should push for greater control of their resources and industries. Of course they also need to push for a more equitable distribution of the profits. How, and how much, will AFRICOM be used to push back and maintain US control?

The second article, Plenty of room for minnows discusses the proliferation and role of small oil companies in Africa.

With many of the oil majors in the past few years focused on the multibillion dollar deepwater investments in the Gulf of Guinea, and oil prices so high, the past few years have seen plenty of incentives for smaller companies to try to make it big in Africa.
. . .
If they develop their assets cleverly, or even discover significant oil finds, the rewards may be a lucrative takeover bid from a big company.
. . .
. . . "Essentially, the creation of a secondary market is just beginning to happen on the continent."

Companies that are interested in Africa range from small start-ups that have snapped up speculative oil licences, to the likes of Tullow Oil, which has booked a relatively large discovery in Ghana and which today has a market capitalisation of more than £3.7bn. Medium- sized companies from the Arab world have also started expressing an interest in holding African oil and gas assets.

Some of the more successful companies have built up their reputations by leveraging their insider contacts in government circles.

Indeed, Afren's founding board members include Rilwanu Lukman, the former president of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and Nigerian presidential adviser, which probably goes some way towards explaining why Afren was able to secure a $200m non-recourse facility from BNP Paribas, the largest loan the bank has ever made to a company with no cashflow.
. . .
But the share price volatility of such companies remain high because their assets are often concentrated in a small number of countries. Indeed half of small oil companies trading on Aim are now below their issue price.
. . .
But the share price volatility of such companies remain high because their assets are often concentrated in a small number of countries. Indeed half of small oil companies trading on Aim are now below their issue price.
. . .
In the meantime, some companies, detecting wider investor scepticism, are busy looking to tie themselves more closely with African investors who may also have clout in government circles.

This is not the kind of situation that makes fighting corruption easy.

Mercenaries - a growth industry

Mercenaries in New Orleans - "nation building" at home

In Private military industry continues to grow, Rafael Enrique Valero describes the growth industry of people who fight and spy for private gain, mercenaries.

The mercenary corporations have a trade association and lobbying arm, with the Orwellian name of International Peace Operations Association. They held their annual convention in October 2007, attended by among others, Army Lt. Col. James Boozell.

. . . Army Lt. Col. James Boozell, a branch chief of the Stability Operations/Irregular Warfare Division at the Pentagon, said that the U.S. military was in fact experiencing a "watershed" moment in its 200-plus-year history -- nation building was now a core military mission to be led by the Army.

. . . his presence at the association's trade meeting sent a clear message -- boom times for nation building are here to stay . . .

The Army understands this. Globalization has weakened borders and ratcheted up commerce even as it breaks down a country's physical and psychological security. Transnational actors such as Al Qaeda are seeking bases in failed and feeble states worldwide. Africa is particularly vulnerable.

Of course there are a variety of transnational actors, including the oil companies. In Africa these actors are trying to co-opt African resources. That is why Africa is particularly vulnerable.

"Peace operations" and "nation building" are what the military and the mercenaries call their activities. But just like Bush's "healthy forests" and "clear skies" initiatives, the names mean the opposite of what they do.

While African states are trying to put the culture of military rule behind them, the United States appears determined to demonstrate that most civilian activities in Africa should be undertaken by armed forces. - Samuel Makinda

Right now, the debate is about private security contractors -- in particular, Blackwater's shooting of civilians in Iraq -- and how to control these corporate warriors in a theater of conflict. Maybe that's the least of our worries.

. . . as stability operations become the norm worldwide, it is certainly possible that civilian and military interests could blur into a self-perpetuating, symbiotic relationship. Experts wonder if it could lead the United States into a period of "liberal imperialism" that oddly mirrors the British, French, and Dutch East India companies of the 1600s and 1700s -- private entities sanctioned by governments to do their bidding.
. . .
MPRI advertises that it works only on international projects endorsed by the U.S. government, and that claim is true as far as it goes. But the company's well-connected executives, most of them former military brass, know how to lobby Congress to get the contracts they want. Indeed, DynCorp, MPRI, and other private security contractors are heavily staffed and run by former officers who maintain close ties to the men they once led.

. . . after MPRI requested a license to evaluate Equatorial Guinea's defense department in 1998, the State Department denied the permit because of the West African country's poor human-rights record. MPRI ex-generals then lobbied Congress and the State Department, arguing that engaging the country "rather than punishing it" would, Avant writes, "foster better behavior in the future and enhance U.S. oil interests." The application was then approved but was quickly flagged by the State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. MPRI executives again pressed their case to the right people; in 2000, although Equatorial Guinea's human-rights record had not changed, State approved the contract.

"I think that the thing you're pointing out with MPRI's contract is the degree to which a company with a commercial interest can have influence on policy," Avant said in an interview. "Now, of course, that happens all the time. But I think it nonetheless opens the question of whether U.S. foreign policy is in the pursuit of 'U.S. interests' by some objective definition, or whether it's in pursuit of interests of a smaller number of people.
. . .
President Bush, . . . has directed the Pentagon to create the U.S. Africa Command by late 2008 to "help coordinate the work of other U.S. government agencies, particularly the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development" to assist African governments and their young rapid-reaction African Standby Force, meant "to provide security and respond in times of need" to troubled nations.

-- private relief and development groups and other organizations might not want to work with the U.S. military. Relief groups are steadfast about their neutrality when they are working in war zones in unstable countries; they don't want one side accusing them of helping the other. In an essay, Carolyn Bryan of USAID writes that contractors and NGOs may not want to compromise their neutrality, because "it increases their risk of being targeted by insurgents." This separation between the military and the NGOs is called "humanitarian space," Bryan says, "and is not always understood by the military, who would prefer to join forces with the NGOs and their activities."
. . .
The private contractors "contradict the military culture's foundation of sacrifice for the collective good,"
. . .
. . . in the blurry asymmetrical wars of the future, how long will it be before a president decides to "go off the books" and hire a small private army to fight a war. It wouldn't be hard to do.

"The big risk is not what the companies are going to do in and of themselves," Avant said. "The big risks are what the consumers are going to ask them to do."

Of course presidents have already gone "off the books" to fight their wars. That is what Reagan's Iran Contra was about. A lot of Bush's Iraq war is off the books, look for the missing billions. It looks like this pattern could become a lot worse.

That is one reason why:

AFRICOM is not about large forces, or large military bases. “It’s not about troops. Its really about headquarter staff, military and civilians; people who oversee programs, they do planning and coordinate security assistance programs.”

AFRICOM can be the pass through vehicle for covert actions and "off the books" operations, "security assistance programs". That is the reason Bush/Cheney want a huge and thriving mercenary industry. And when they are gone, the industry will still be thriving.


2/2008 - You can read my article on mercenaries in Africa over at the African Loft: The Rising Mercenary Industry and AFRICOM.

Gazprom in Nigeria?

There is an article at the African Loft, Should Nigeria Welcome Gazprom?, the Russian oil company. Recently the Financial Times reported that Gazprom was making overtures to Nigerian government officials about developing gas fields in Nigeria.

The article provides some good information and analysis, including:

What about Gazprom? What does it have to offer? The Financial Times report (referred to in the first paragraph of this write up) provides next to nothing on this, though it quotes a Nigerian government official as saying:

“What Gazprom is proposing is mind boggling. They are talking tough and saying the west has taken advantage of us in the last 50 years and they’re offering us a better deal.”
. . .
Gazprom, like any other energy conglomerate, is simply strategically positioning itself for global growth beyond the shores of Eurasia.
. . .
Gazprom doesn’t really need Nigerian gas. . . . But Gazprom needs access to strategically positioned gas. As a significant player in the global LNG business and with Africa’s largest gas reserves, Nigeria seems a good place to start. Gazprom would not go into Nigeria to save it from the perils of western oil multinationals. It would go there for business and strategic reasons. Forget the east-west jargon.

And I am sure Gazprom would be as exploitive as it could be, as exploitive as any other multinational corporation. There is no history that would indicate otherwise.

AFRICOM deploys the USS Fort McHenry, offering partnerships to lost sovereignty

USS Fort McHenry

click on the link for description and history of the ship

The USS Fort McHenry is on its way to the Gulf of Guinea to establish the continuing presence of Africom (Operation Recolonize?) It departed October 16. Or, as a headline in the African Oil Journal puts it:

USS Fort McHenry Navy Ship Left for Gulf of Guinea to protect Oil Interests:

The Gulf of Guinea has significant strategic importance because a large percentage of U.S. oil imports flow through it and U.S. officials are concerned about organized crime, and potentially terrorism, in the region.
. . .

"It provides a good example of what the newly established U.S. Africa Command is about as it relates to helping our partner nations on the continent of Africa build their capacity to better govern their spaces, to have more effect in providing for the security of their people, as well as doing the things that are important in assuring the development of the continent in ways that promote increased globalization of their economies as well as the development of their societies for the betterment of their people," said the general.

General Ward says Africa Command will do the same type of training and humanitarian assistance missions the U.S. military has pursued in Africa for years, but will do more and will have better coordination with other U.S. government agencies, humanitarian groups and African governments.

He says such missions should help dispel concerns expressed in many African countries about alleged plans establish U.S. bases on the continent and to 'militarize' U.S. Africa policy.

"Once the command begins to operate, they will see that this hype of establishing large bases is just not a reality," said General Ward.
. . .
The commander of U.S. Navy forces in Europe, who is responsible for the Africa Partnership Station mission, says even with Africa Command not yet fully operational, the navy is moving from what he called 'episodic' involvement on the continent to a nearly constant presence, in response to requests from African countries.

At Moon of Alabama b real has some particularly cogent reporting and analysis on the launch of AFRICOM and the USS Fort McHenry. I recommend you go there and take a look.

The goal of AFRICOM is to guard US oil interests, as the headline so clearly states. The proffered partnerships are to train African militaries to do the jobs the US wants done. This process is already well underway. As Vijay Prashad points out, African armies have increasingly become praetorian guards to protect the interests of large corporations. These "partnerships" AFRICOM touts are intended to be part of that "nearly constant presence". In the article quoted above, General Ward brushes off the idea of large bases. The US will maintain a number of floating bases. Although I suspect it is still looking for a land base. The US may not need a land base to accomplish its objectives if it can manipulate its "partners" to its satisfaction.

When we hear talk of military partnerships, we should remember the ongoing US & Latin America military partnership, the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC) formerly the School of the Americas (SOA) and still based in Ft. Benning Georgia. It has been a military coup factory for Latin America.

SOA has trained more than 60,000 Latin American soldiers and policemen. Among its graduates are many of the continent's most notorious torturers, mass murderers, dictators and state terrorists. As hundreds of pages of documentation compiled by the pressure group SOA Watch show, Latin America has been ripped apart by its alumni.

In fact, this year, August 2007, SOA Watch tells us:

A recent criminal investigation into the Colombian Army’s Third Brigade, has prompted the arrest of thirteen high ranking officers accused of providing security and mobilizing troops for Diego Montoya (alias “Don Diego”), the leader of the Norte del Valle Cartel and one of the FBI’s 10 most-wanted criminals.

Two former instructors of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (SOA/WHINSEC) are among the thirteen.
. . .
Over HALF of the thirteen military officials implicated in the drug cartel protection ring attended the U.S. Army School of the Americas and/or its successor institute, the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.

Africa has already experienced more than its share of military coups. Coups stop progress and development dead in their tracks. We don't need more. There are already unfortunate ties between Latin American drug cartels and West Africa. Do we want the US military facilitating these ties, with African officers making contacts for the drug trade as part of their training? The US has been a complete failure in its war on drugs. There is NO reason to think it will do better in Africa, a continent about which it knows almost nothing.

The reference to increased globalization is likewise chilling. I see globalization and I think evisceration. The phrasing sounds like they are planning to open up Africa and pry out what they think are the good bits. It tells Africans that yet again they will be subsidizing the developed world with both blood and treasure.

Oil, corporate money, and criminal money

Of the world's 100 largest economic entities, 51 are corporations, and only 49 are countries.

There are basically three forms of dirty money. One is criminal money: from drug dealing, say, or slave trading or terrorism. The next is corrupt money, like the fromer Nigerian dictator Sani Abacha's looted oil billions. The third form, commercial money - what our finest companies and richest individuals hide from our tax collectors - is bigger. The point - and this is crucial - is that these three forms of dirty money use exactly the same mechanisms and subterfuges: tax havens, shell banks, shielded trusts, anonymous foundations, dummy corporations, mispricing schemes, and the like, all administered by a "pinstripe infrastructure" of mainstream banks, lawyers, and accountants. (p. 225)
. . .
In this parallel secret universe the world's biggest and richest individuals and firms, News Corporation, Citigroup, and, yes, ExxonMobil - can quite legally cut themselves loose from pesky full taxation and grow explosively, leaving smaller competitors, who pay their full dues along with the rest of us, choking in their dust. This undermines the very notion of capitalism: the big companies' advantage has nothing to do with the quality or price of what they produce. If you are worried about the power of big global corporations, don't always attack them directly, but attack bank secrecy instead. This is the clever way to take on the big fish, using a net that would also snag the Sani Abachas, the Mobutus, the North Koreas, the terrorists, and the drug lords.
. . .
Africa's Gulf of Guinea will produce 20 or so billion barrels of oil in the next decade, worth perhaps a trillion dollars . . . If half of global trade finance flows through offshore structures, and soon a quarter of America's oil imports will be coming from Africa . . . we have a systemic and fast-growing problem on our hands.

The dirty world of tax havens is no grand conspiracy, but a decentralized global terrain tucked away in the interstices between states. It is a problem of fragmented global political and economic architecture. National politicians cannot solve this one: only a coordinated international response will do.
(Poisoned Wells: The Dirty Politics of African Oil, by Nicholas Shaxson, p.225&227, ISBN 978-1403971944)

So far there isn't much sign anyone wants to do anything about this. In fact for the last several decades we have been moving globally in the opposite direction. But all countries would be well advised to consider the problem of money flow, at least if they want to maintain any sovereignty at all, even the large countries. Of course the people running most countries benefit from the globalized money flow.

And now corporations can behave even more like states, with their own foreign and military policies, hiring the the growing ranks of corporate spies and militaries. "These companies rival and possibly surpass the capabilities of intelligence services of most nations. . . . Such capacity for covert operations has never before been in private hands--and for rent." This does not bode well for anyone anywhere in the world.

Capitalism without democracy is gangsterism. When capital is global, democracy needs to be global too, or it is threatened everywhere. Democracy can take many forms, and can adapt to cultures and history. But more people need to have their say in how their resources are monitored and distributed.

Privatization - turning the US into a third world state

New Orleans left to drown by the Bush administration after hurricane Katrina

In reading Poisoned Wells: The Dirty Politics of African Oil, I came across this description of the government of Congo Brazzaville.

. . . it is not just inefficient public companies that are being privatized - but the very functions of the state. State shipping taxes on oil and timber are paid to private interests, and not recorded in the budget. The national airline collapsed down to little more than a vehicle for collecting air transit fees from foreign airlines; private firms have armlocks on port and shipping facilities, telecommunications, and banks, breaking laws freely or having parliament rubber-stamp new ones in their favor.

As state institutions give way to private interests, Congo's government stands increasingly on just three remaining pillars: first, the internationally recognized sovereignty that legitimizes the oil and banking contracts; second, the state oil company and the oil and finance ministries that manage the financial engineering; and, finally the armed forces that protect the system. Even ongoing low-level conflict is tolerated, as long as it does not threaten the sovereign extractive core. "Not only do these state institutions survive, but the state begins to hang off these institutions as if nothing else existed . . . They deal with the intricacies of oil-backed loans and the oil industries. They become the state. It is not a collapsed state but a privatized state. With a collapsed state, the rulers lose control; with a privatized state, they can even increase the possibility of accumulation."

"The people are utterly disenfranchised . . In the city everything is expensive" . . . an attractive world of international airports, satellite dishes, oil rigs, French cafes, and air-conditioned hairdressers . . . "in the rural areas there is nothing. Rape and gang-rape are taken to violent extremes; there is a total lack of structure in society, and generalized impunity . . . Congo is two nations."
(Poisoned Wells by Nicholas Shaxson, p.116-117, ISBN 978-1403971944)

What struck me is that this is the final reduction when government is privatized. This looks like the ultimate outcome of the kind of government to which Bush/Cheney are leading the US.

The treatment of New Orleans following hurricane Katrina is one example, as illustrated above. But there are others. Sometime earlier this year I read about the Bush administration trying to privatize functions of the IRS, including tax collection, which sounds a great deal like Congo Brazzaville.

Bush vetoing the SCHIP childrens health insurance is another. The Republican argument reduces to: if your parents can't afford private health insurance, you can't have health insurance.

And the privatizing of spying, the outsourcing of intelligence is another example. The people who have been doing the spying on the American people are for the most part not government workers. The people spying on US citizens are private companies, the telecommunications giants, working at the behest of the Bush administration. In the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) contract employees occupy 51% of DIA office space. And The Spy Who Billed Me asks a number of questions about this, including:

• Can the DIA afford $1 billion of staff who are paid a "private business salary" when it's own government staff receive "taxpayer funded salaries"?
• Can the DIA really afford $1 billion of staff who do not have a fiduciary duty to the DIA, but to another entity?

John Holt, in a recent article in the London Review of Books speculates that the current situation in Iraq is exactly what Bush and Cheney had in mind when they invaded Iraq.

On the assumption that the Bush-Cheney strategy is oil-centred, the tactics – dissolving the army, de-Baathification, a final ‘surge’ that has hastened internal migration – could scarcely have been more effective. The costs – a few billion dollars a month plus a few dozen American fatalities (a figure which will probably diminish, and which is in any case comparable to the number of US motorcyclists killed because of repealed helmet laws) – are negligible compared to $30 trillion in oil wealth, assured American geopolitical supremacy and cheap gas for voters. In terms of realpolitik, the invasion of Iraq is not a fiasco; it is a resounding success.

And, of course, the costs do not include any consideration of the cost to the Iraqis, once again looking like the Congo Brazzaville model. And Bush and Cheney increase their possibilities for accumulation.

AFRICOM - arming every country that smiles this way

Today's automatic weapons are designed to be small enough, light enough, and easy enough to handle, that they can be routinely used by children.

Yesterday the President of Botswana visited the US, and asked what all those of us following current events in Africa are asking:

President Festus Mogae has re-iterated the need for Africa to know the full details of the proposed US Africa Command (AFRICOM) before it commits itself.

So far the US has defined AFRICOM by what it isn't, rather than what it is. Of course everyone knows what it is about, oil, and terrorism (defined as opposition to US oil interests) and China. However, these are clearly colonial intentions. The US cannot openly admit them, even though these are routinely the reasons given for the creation of AFRICOM in the US press.

The American Enterprise Institute held a forum titled: AFRICOM: Implications for African Security and U.S.-African Relations, on September 20th. Theresa Whelan of the U.S. Department of Defense was there repeating her usual remarks about what AFRICOM is not. According to Henry Ekwuruke:

The United States' new African military command structure – Africom – will neither base nor deploy U.S. forces on the African continent, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for African affairs, Teresa Whelan said Thursday . . . "we will have no bases… and we will not be deploying U.S. forces on the African continent." However, Africom as a command structure "will have a presence… in the form of staff officers" throughout Africa, she added. Nevertheless, "no more than 20 percent of the entire command will actually be physically present on the African continent."

And in another account:

Speaking at a panel discussion at the American Enterprise Institute, Whelan also worked to allay fears and dispel rumors that AFRICOM represents an American militarization of Africa and a possible usurpation of power from African leaders. She said critics are wrong in their assertion that AFRICOM is an attempt to further expand the war on terror in Africa, secure oil reserves, or hedge against Chinese influence there. "That is patently untrue," she said.

In fact, the US cannot find a single African country willing to host AFRICOM. As upyernose points out:

there are 46 countries in africa, more than in any other continent in the world. and that number bumps up to 53 if you include the disputed western sahara and island nations like cape verde, são tomé and príncipe, madagascar, the comoros, the seychelles, and mauritius. together that's about 25% of the total number of nations on earth. and yet, even among some of the poorest countries of the world who would surely reap economic benefits from a large first world military base, we could find not a single taker.

53 countries and no takers is truly remarkable. Of course there are a number of small bases in a number of countries, plus Djibouti, but no African country is willing to host AFRICOM headquarters so far. So for now the headquarters remains in Germany. But as Defense News points out, they haven't stopped looking for an African host. The same article cites oil and terrorism as reasons for the command. And it quotes a Heritage Foundation fellow saying the headquarters must be based in Africa. The article also says the command will be divided into 5 regional teams:

One team will have responsibility for a northern strip from Mauritania to Libya; another will operate in a block of east African nations -— Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Uganda, Kenya, Madagascar and Tanzania; and a third will carry out activities in a large southern block that includes South Africa, Zimbabwe and Angola, according to the briefing documents. A fourth team would concentrate on a group of central African countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, Chad and Congo; the fifth regional team would focus on a western block that would cover Nigeria, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Niger and Western Sahara, according to the briefing documents.

This does not stop the militarization of US foreign policy that AFRICOM represents, it continues it. And it does not stop the destructive arms policies of the US, which has been pouring arms into Africa throughout the Bush presidency, just as in the bad old days of the Cold War.

As Frida Berrigan points out in The New Military Frontier: Africa -

Even as these discussions continue, some African nations are receiving significant increases in military aid and weapons sales; most of these increases have gone to oil-rich nations and compliant states where the U.S. military seeks a strategic toehold. The Center for Defense Information recently completed "U.S. Arms Exports and Military Assistance in the "Global War on Terror;" an analysis of increases in military aid since September 11, 2001. The report compares the military aid and weapons sales in the five-year leading up to 2001 and the five years since.

For example (among the African countries receiving this military assistance): since September 11, Kenya, which the State Department describes as a "frontline state" in the war on terrorism, has received eight times more military aid than in the preceding five years.

Djibouti, which has opened its territory to U.S. forces, received forty times more military aid, and an eightfold increase in the value of weapons transfers.

Oil-rich Algeria, where the surveillance equipment is based, has received ten times more aid and a warm embrace from Washington.

Nigeria, the fifth largest supplier of oil to the United States, is slated to receive $1.35 million in Foreign Military Financing for 2008 despite persistent human rights abuses.

Mali is described as an "active partner in the war against terrorism" by the State Department and is a good example of a little military aid going a long way . . .

U.S. arms sales to Ethiopia, which has one of Africa's largest armies, have roughly doubled and military aid has increased two and a half times.

As the Center for Defense Information points out:

The data clearly shows that the United States is sending unprecedented levels of military assistance to countries that it simultaneously criticizes for lack of respect for human rights and, in some cases, for questionable democratic processes. As a foreign policy, this is confusing, short-sighted and potentially very dangerous. Once weapons are delivered to a country, it becomes increasingly difficult to control how they are used and difficult to prevent them from being illicitly diverted anywhere in the world. While these countries are currently considered important to U.S. efforts in the “war on terror” now, political and military instability makes their continued allegiance to the United States questionable. Arming such countries with U.S. weaponry has troubling pitfalls: U.S. origin weapons could be used against the United States, its allies, or its interests. Selling arms for short-term political gains undermines long-term U.S national security and strategic interests.

This is NOT development aid. Many of these arms will go into the contraband pipeline, and help fund more drugs, human traffiking, child soldiers, and terrorism. These arms will decrease security, increase human rights abuses, and in the long run will earn the US more enemies than friends.


2/2008 - You can read my article reviewing the documentary trail on the Origins of AFRICOM over at the African Loft.

AFRICOM - tools and training for the Gulf of Guinea

The Pentagon has reactivated its green and brown water Navy. Intense training is going on right now preparing for riverine warfare. New units are being created, and older units reorganized. The contractors have seen the trend and are devising products to get in on the action. They are in line to make a lot of money. One new product, pictured above, has been docked in Long Island.

The description of this boat refers to using it in Iraq, or using it for humanitarian and disaster relief. Riverine warfare is far too small a piece of the Iraq conflict to devote the riverine resources that are currently underway, or new weapons, such as this boat, and the training that is in progress. We saw how much the Bush administration cares about humanitarian relief with Katrina, and the aftermath in New Orleans and the Mississippi Delta. The idea that they would invest time or money in humanitarian relief is laughable.

As Mr. Greenspan said, the Iraq war is about oil, and so is the new Navy Expeditionary Combat Command. The riverine warfare units and craft are designed for action in the Gulf of Guinea, protecting US oil interests. At about the same time as the announcement of AFRICOM, the Navy was underway with recreating its riverine warfare capability, neglected since the Vietnam War. No one mentions the Niger Delta, the Gulf of Guinea, or anything about Africa in articles about the new riverine warfare capability. But anyone who thinks African oil is not the reason for the buildup of a green and brown water Navy, is not paying attention to what is going on. The US already gets more oil from Africa than from Saudi Arabia.

An advanced prototype craft for riverine warfare, Joint Multi-mission Expeditionary Craft, JMEC-01, showed up on Long Island in the Oyster Bay Marina recently.

JMEC-01 contains 1,080 Horsepower generated by twin Cummins QSC 8.3-liter 540 HP turbocharged diesel engines that have been dropped into its aluminum hulled body. Propulsion and direction come in the form of water jets that pivot beneath the boat. The jets are designed to allow maneuverability into waters as shallow as 28 inches. Controlled by an aircraft-style joystick rather than the traditional captain's wheel, the result is a 10-ton vehicle that behaves like a Jet Ski. Top cruise speed is officially listed as greater than 40kts (46mph), and it has been reported at speeds of up to 44kts (50 mph).
. . .
Further belying the simple workboat exterior, advanced electronics at four workstations enable the super-agile craft to act as a command and control center, not just as a basic responding vehicle. This means it is designed to coordinate activity both on land and on the water.
. . .

According to Northrop Grumman systems engineer Michael Moore, intelligence coordination on the JMEC boat docked here in Oyster Bay is accomplished through a variety of military and civilian systems that include UHF SatCom antennas for satellite relayed information; electro-optical/infrared and radar sensors with a 360-degree field of view; AIS, an Automatic Integration System that most big ships now have, to positively identify shipping traffic; and a specialized onboard Integrated Communication System by Gentex-Telephonics that allows crewmembers to receive information through their normal headsets up to a quarter of a mile away. Said Moore, "When we're out on the water, we are connected through a network with, for example, Blue Force Tracking Software (an emerging standard that identifies troop locations and helps reduce friendly fire incidents) to know where we are and where other, 'friendlies' are." Pointing to the mast at the stern of the craft, Moore continued, "Those two antennas are called Rover antennas. Rover is a data link that connects to data coming from unmanned air vehicles (UAVs) and their sensors, for example streaming video or still images, and these can be displayed on monitors. We are connected to the Internet and run the clients (onboard computers) in real time aboard the boat."

. . . advanced electronics at four workstations enable the super-agile craft to act as a command and control center, not just as a basic responding vehicle. This means it is designed to coordinate activity both on land and on the water. This has military, Homeland Security, and emergency/humanitarian implications.

. . .

JMEC-01 is a high technology demonstrator jointly funded in a partnership between Aluminum Chambered Boats of Bellingham, Washington, and Northrop Grumman. There is no government aid and there is no promise of any follow-on contract. Aluminum Chambered Boats provided the hull and structure, and Northrop Grumman provided the sophisticated electronic communications and warfare systems. It is a proposal intended to show that the two companies are serious about filling these emerging needs, and that they have the capabilities to do so.
Wilkers emphasized that the craft's layout is a test bed and that the configuration is a suggestion. . . . Company literature lists at least five different potential variants.

Assuming this craft can do what it promises, reliably in challenging conditions, it should be a formidable piece of equipment. The intended use is obvious to anyone paying attention. The question is, how will it actually be used? And who will use it? The Bush administration has outsourced so much of defense and intelligence, they don't know what is being sold to who. And so far as news reports indicate, they don't care. The Niger militants and guerilla entrepreneurs, and the dealers in illegal bunkering and contraband have plenty of money to spend on weapons. Weapons are a major piece of the contraband business. Militarizing one side just results in militarizing the other side in a conflict. It would be nice if the US government, the Nigerian government and the other Gulf of Guinea governments would put a bit of effort into attempting some political solutions. Unfortunately, it seems like the Bush administration does not know how to talk to people, or to make deals. Their foreign policy is to threaten war or to attack, the only trick they know.

While the defense contractors are designing weapons, the Navy is training for its new riverine responsibilities.

The SH-60 Seahawk swoops low over the York River, banks right toward the crane ship Flickertail State, hovers 20 feet above and, within seconds, a series of sailors in flight suits and skateboarding helmets rapidly slide down a rope and onto the ship.

This type of vessel boarding — used when a ship refuses to allow a visit by small boat — is a specialty of special operators, and it’s dangerous enough that it’s been left to them, until now. The only kind of boarding more dangerous is when the suspect ship actively resists.

But the sailors now searching the cargo ship for contraband or so-called ‘bad actors’ are not SEALs. They are fleet sailors assigned to “Unexpected Company” — the new helicopter-borne Visit, Board, Search and Seizure team of Mobile Security Squadron 2.

Its 24 handpicked sailors have been training since February to learn the techniques usually left to special operators but now taken on by the ever-evolving Navy Expeditionary Combat Command.

. . .

Known as COMET — for Command and Control, Operational Maritime Training — the two-week exercise is another step toward certifying NECC’s coastal warfare, riverine, expeditionary logistics and other units to operate with a strike group. Its scenarios were based on the fictional nations of Sapphire and Mica, the same countries used for a recent deployment certification of the Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group.

. . .

A major element has been establishing command and control of the disparate units and testing new unmanned aerial vehicles such as the hand-held, 10-ounce Wasp, which is launched with a slingshot.

Weapons and training activities are designed with the Gulf of Guinea in mind.

A number of years ago I read The Power Broker, about Robert Moses, the man who more than anyone else, is responsible for how and where roads are built in the US. It is also one of the best books you can read for to understand how politics works in the US. Robert Moses pushed to get projects underway and partially built, even before they were fully approved. Once a project is already under construction it becomes much more difficult for legislatures, or other governing bodies to stop the project, or withhold the funds. People are stuck with the project, whether it is a good idea or not. That was part of Moses technique for getting what he wanted done. Bush is doing something similar with the Iraq war, and with AFRICOM. I hope the US government will have the toughness and courage to change direction once he is gone. I'm not holding my breath until it happens.

Whose hegemony? Nigeria, South Africa, AFRICOM - dangers ahead

Nigeria, South Africa, and several North African countries have now spoken out strongly against hosting the Africa Command. The US is claiming that Africom is just an aid agency with guns. But given the US military policy of Full Spectrum Dominance, it seems unlikely that development aid is what the US has in mind. This is particularly true in light of the fact that:

Since the beginning of the war on terrorism in 2001, the United States' top 10 sources of oil imports have experienced a 350 percent increase in U.S. military aid and training.

Nigeria may be trying to reinforce the economic clout it has in West Africa, maintaining and expanding the hegemony it has enjoyed to date. Not all of the countries in West Africa will find this an appealing prospect.

Likewise, South Africa is probably trying to maintain and expand its hegemony in southern Africa. And not all countries in southern Africa will see this as benign.

And both countries would like to increase their clout throughout the continent. Nevertheless, both of these countries are IN Africa, which gives them some a bit more right to speak FOR Africa than countries on other continents.

The US will try to drive wedges between these countries and their neighbors, but the US, and its full spectrum dominance approach, is hardly benign either. The US interests are oil and terrorism. Regardless of what is said to African leaders or the African press, oil and terrorism is how Africom is reported in the US press. Like the "communists" of the cold war, who became anyone who stood between the US and what it wanted, "terrorists" are anyone who stands between the US and oil. The US version of the colony is the military base.

China has been ruthlessly exploiting resources throughout southeast Asia, and there is no reason to suppose it will suddenly become more selfless and benign as it operates in Africa.

There are a whole lot of rocks and hard places ahead.

Nigeria says no to AFRICOM

At last West Africa speaks up! Nigeria says NO to AFRICOM.

From This Day:

The Federal Government has begun moves to frustrate the plan by the United States to establish a military base in the Gulf of Guinea.
. . .

"Nigeria is not taking the issue lightly at all and the government is not going to allow the US establish any military base anywhere in the ECOWAS region. The interest of the US government in the Gulf of Guinea has reinforced the commitment of the government to intensify its efforts at providing the needed security in the sub-region," the source said.

It was learnt that the Federal Government was worried by the terror alert raised by the US authorities last week and saw it as a ploy to label Nigeria and countries in the sub region as unsafe in order to get the opportunity to create a military base in the region.

As a first step to checkmate that plan, the FG has vowed to frustrate the campaign by the US to establish a base in the gulf.

"The government of this country is not ready for any blackmail. What they cannot get through the back doors they want to get through blackmail. We are not going to succumb to that game," the source said.

I think this can only be good news. While Nigeria's governments have not demonstrated any great responsiveness to the needs of her people to date, or established any reputation for good governance; letting the US recolonize the Niger Delta and the Gulf of Guinea will cause a great deal more suffering. The present US government is not capable of running the US, and has destroyed Iraq. Until the US can demonstrate both competence and good intentions, all countries should be wary in their dealings with it.

Thoughts on race, and how Africom may exploit race

Iweala, born here to Nigerian parents, wrote "Beasts of No Nation" after meeting a Ugandan war survivor. "This huge story came out of it," he says. (photo By Susan Biddle -- The Washington Post)

Concluding b real's comment on the previous post is this quotation:

he who captures the symbols by which public feeling is for the moment contained, controls by that much the approaches of public policy. ... a leader or an interest that can make itself master of current symbols is the master of the current situation -- walter lippmann

Today Africa has many successes throughout the continent. Unfortunately, one rarely hears of these successes. Rather one hears of war, famine, and natural disaster. Africans are portrayed as helpless, people whose survival, and whose success, is entirely dependent on the generosity of the developed world. This narrative is constantly reinforced by celebrity condescension, Bono (see Kameelah's observations on Bono) for example, or the constant humanitarian ad campaigns that portray suffering children. Humanitarian ads pop up constantly on television, magazines, the internet, reinforcing the picture of helpless suffering in Africa.

Back in July, Uzodinma Iweala wrote in the Washington Post about "humanitarian" campaigns:

Such campaigns, however well intentioned, promote the stereotype of Africa as a black hole of disease and death. News reports constantly focus on the continent's corrupt leaders, warlords, "tribal" conflicts, child laborers, and women disfigured by abuse and genital mutilation. These descriptions run under headlines like "Can Bono Save Africa?" or "Will Brangelina Save Africa?" The relationship between the West and Africa is no longer based on openly racist beliefs, but such articles are reminiscent of reports from the heyday of European colonialism, when missionaries were sent to Africa to introduce us to education, Jesus Christ and "civilization."

There is no African, myself included, who does not appreciate the help of the wider world, but we do question whether aid is genuine or given in the spirit of affirming one's cultural superiority. My mood is dampened every time I attend a benefit whose host runs through a litany of African disasters before presenting a (usually) wealthy, white person, who often proceeds to list the things he or she has done for the poor, starving Africans. Every time a well-meaning college student speaks of villagers dancing because they were so grateful for her help, I cringe. Every time a Hollywood director shoots a film about Africa that features a Western protagonist, I shake my head -- because Africans, real people though we may be, are used as props in the West's fantasy of itself. And not only do such depictions tend to ignore the West's prominent role in creating many of the unfortunate situations on the continent, they also ignore the incredible work Africans have done and continue to do to fix those problems.

In advertising itself as a humanitarian agency, dispensing aid with guns, AFRICOM is riding on the back of these condescending perceptions.

But there is a much nastier side to the perceptions enabling Africom, its exploitation of terror and those it calls terrorists. And a large part of this exploitation is taking advantage of traditional racism in the US. Racism is an important piece of American political history and discourse, though these days the language of racism is carefully coded.

Pictures of the Niger Delta miltants touch the core of this racism, which has been described most eloquently by digby, including in posts on the aftermath of Katrina in New Orleans.

The government wanted to quell the violence first --- violence we continued to hear a lot about, but never actually saw. Rumors of gang rapes and shoot outs and even necrophilia in the convention center and the Superdome continued to be reported all day in the media as we watched the dehydrated elderly and crying babies waiting for rescue.

I remember watching what was happening in New Orleans and feeling there was a huge disconnect between what I was hearing and what I was seeing. Even so, I didn't completely discredit what I was hearing, I just couldn't make sense of it. If there was so much violence and danger, how come with camera crews all over, there were NO pictures of violence? TV loves pictures of violence, if there had been violence to film, we would have seen it.

Ever since 1791, there have been white Americans who get very nervous when they see a large number of angry black people in one place. That was the year that Haiti's slaves rebelled and killed almost every Frenchman on the island. The fear of slave revolt --- black revolt --- entered the consciousness of the American lizard brain and has never left. From Gabriel Prosser to Nat Turner to Malcolm X to Stokely Carmichael and the long hot summers of 66 and 67, notions of barbaric vengeance being wreaked upon unsuspecting white people has lurked in our racist subconscious.
. . .
During the 60's the anger became explicit and words like "by any means necessary" reached deep into the American psyche and fueled the backlash against the civil rights movement --- and set the conditions for the Republican dominance of politics today.

Race is America's deepest psychic wound that festers in different ways over and over again. It has lost much of its original blazing pain, but it is still there, buried and waiting to come to the surface.

I work with many white people who would be deeply shocked if someone were to call them racist. But I often hear comments revealing underlying assumptions about the helplessness of Africans, and the dangerousness of black people. And it isn't just white people. I remember working in a city neighborhood during the 80s, where the mostly African American youth referred to Tarzan movies as a reference point when they talked about Africa. And I worked with a black colleague who was trying to change jobs so she would work mostly with white people because she didn't like working with black people. Race truly is a psychic wound in America.

This is NOT to say that Africom is about racism. I don't think that is true at all. I think it is about oil, and that it is about terrorism only insofar as exploiting terrorism is useful to coopting the oil. But Africom is carried along by the tide of American racial fears and perceptions. And the people who bring us Africom, the Bush GOP, have shown repeatedly that they are happy to exploit racial fears for gain.

Returning to the celebrity/humanitarian narrative, aside from gratuitous insults, what worries me is the macro aspect of the celebrity condescension and “humanitarian” ad campaigns. By painting Africans as people unable to help themselves, the celebrity humanitarian narrative, and the media attention it gets, make it much easier for the US, using Africom, to engage in imperial acquisition in the name of humanitarian aid and development. "They" are helpless and dangerous, so "we" need guns to help them. Africom presents a new and lethal round of western exploitation.


b real wrote in his comment on the previous post about the cover of a book on terrorism:

i recently finished reading a book, the history of terrorism: from antiquity to al qaeda, which i cannot recommend btw, and one of the things about it that perplexes me is the cover. the front photo is a shot of a boatload of niger delta militants, donning camo, masks, and clutching their AK-47's, however, there is nothing in the book at all about the niger delta. there is a mention of nigeria, in that no international act of terrorism has ever occurred in nigeria, but, otherwise, the cover is entirely out of context. unless the message is that coal-black men w/ guns equates to terrorism. but again, that falls in the domain of the psychological characteristic of terrorism.

we already see how easy it is to evoke emotional reactions to stereotypical images of arabs in respect to western concepts of terrorists to "legitimize" u.s. foreign policies.

is that part of what is in store for africa, as the u.s. "takes" the GWOT to the continent? playing on white fears of stereotyped images of black men? hope i'm not reading too much into that one picture, but it's really got me thinking about stereotypes.

I do not think the cover of the book was accidental. I wouldn't necessarily blame the author, authors have varying degrees of control over the cover art, often none. Editors have a lot of say in the choice of artwork. As digby points out, the recent Republican majorities owe a great deal of their power and position to exploitation and manipulation of racial fears and attitudes, from Reagan and his talk of welfare queens, to Lee Atwater, to Karl Rove. The language is coded now. Open racism is generally not socially acceptable. And now, many of the people who are attacking immigrants have personal roots in the white supremacy movement. I have been worried for awhile about how the images of the militant young men in the Niger Delta might be used in ramping up terror fears. For many Americans these men will be the essence of danger and "other", and it will be very easy to see them as terrorists, and very easy to persuade people that it is important to "do something" about them.