The position taken by both the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the African Union (AU) to reject the creation by the United States of the African Command or Africom, a military command on African soil and the stationing of troops on the African continent is most welcome and commendable.
South African Defence Minister, Monsiua Lekota, recently spoke out openly against the project and urged SADC countries to block plans by the US to establish Africom on the continent next year.
In February this year, US President George W Bush said and we quote: “This new command will strengthen our security cooperation with Africa and help to create new opportunities to bolster the capabilities of our partners in Africa.
“Africa command will enhance our efforts to help bring peace and security to the people of Africa and promote our common goals of development, health, education, democracy and economic growth in Africa”.
Firstly, the assertion by President Bush that Africom would enhance peace efforts in Africa and her security flies in the face of conventional wisdom and reality.
Contrary to what Bush says, the reality on the ground is that whereever there are US troops, there is always instability and war. Cases in point are: the Philippines, Saudi Arabia and Iraq, just to mention a few.
The latest example is Germany where three would-be bombers were arrested last week for plotting against a US military base in that country as well as other targets.
The US is so unpopular in the world that it is often a target of those who feel offended by its policies. US military forces anywhere on the continent would therefore offer sufficient reason for attacks by extremists and other groups.
President Bush’s claim that Africom would help create new opportunities to bolster the capabilities of its partners also amounts to a hollow promise, as there is no evidence of enhanced capabilities of the armies of those countries that are hosting US forces.
If anything, these forces are kept in perpetual weakness and under check.
On the other hand, stationing US soldiers on the continent would cause rivalry and hostility among states. Countries that are not host to US forces would naturally feel threatened by these forces close to their borders. This in turn could spark an arms race and unnecessary skirmishes along common borders.
Stationing US forces on the African soil has further negative effect of expanding its spying capacity and capability against both domestic and foreign targets. Again, this does not augur well for peaceful co-existance between states.
These forces would also give the US a strategic advantage to launch military incursions or interventions in other areas much to the peril of the host countries. Imagine if the US were to intervene from host soil and the other country retaliates.
The host nation would suffer the consequences of such aggression and not the US, which is thousands of miles away.
Another negative aspect of Africom is that it would undermine the sovereignty of African nations and the rule of law. The presence of US troops and others on foreign soil has seen incidents of race, rape and cultural clashes and the fact that the US does not allow its soldiers to be tried in foreign courts undermines the sovereignty and rule of law in countries where such crime is committed.
The sum total of all these is that Africa does not need Africom and US troops on her soil. The continent has little to gain and more to lose by hosting foreign forces especially US.
Africa must therefore unite in saying “No” to Africom. No amount of money and other promises can mitigate against the danger and threat posed by US soldiers stationed permanently on the continent.