Don't waste this opportunity for AFRICOM to do things differently and better

TESTIMONY: AFRICOM: A WOLF IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING?, by Mark Malan, Refugees International, Washington, DC

Before, The Subcommittee on African Affairs, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, At the hearing entitled, "Exploring the U.S. Africa Command and a New Strategic Relationship with Africa.", August 01, 2007

A reasonable comment from the NGO community betraying a lot of natural suspicions. They hear too much diplomacy and development coordination ambition in AFRICOM's statements and would prefer to hear more on mil-mil ties to build local military capacity, especially in the realms of improved civil-mil relations inside countries and the building up of the African Union's peacekeeping capabilities.

Here's why you don't hear more of that in the AFRICOM's statements and officially-offered rationales: it's very sensitve stuff. When I was with Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa, the subject of their very quiet assistance to the AU, especially over Sudan, was considered largely off-limits for my story, making them even more nervous to discuss than their minimal role in assisting the Special Ops "kinetics" in Somalia.

Why is that?

The African governments and militaries themselves are highly sensitive to being viewed as peacekeeping pawns of the U.S. And the Americans themselves are highly resistant of raising expectations of a heightened U.S. obligation to make peacekeeping happen in the region. Hence the focus on humanitarian stuff, which CJTF-HOA and AFRICOM view as the natural subject matter for improving local militaries' reputations among their own people and thus improving civil-military ties. Easy to do, easy to explain, easy to model good behavior for local militaries to embrace and copy.

So while the comments in this statement are reasonable, they say more about the NGOs' fears than any nefarious intent of AFRICOM. Frankly, these comments simply highlight how far the discussion needs to go to clear up mutual suspicions.

To that end, the NGOs should keep pushing, especially on the basic point that the more AFRICOM becomes a traditional combatant command, the more we waste the opportunity to do things differently and better.

Comments

[Christopher Thompson]

I was a little surprised by your comments that you did not recognize this guy as being a little like an African you -- only like Bartholomew Cubbins, he is seeing the same view you do but from the Gap looking out.

He does not see any "nefarious intent of AFRICOM." In fact he seems pretty clear eyed on the subject. He just knows that the Dept of Everything Else does not exist, and that the military has a long track record of screwing things like this up due to their ever shifting mission.

And he is pretty clear that there is real work that needs to be done -- like building up peacekeeping forces. Given the US military's poor track record of building just such a force in Iraq due to an ever shifting mission, I'd say he may be pretty close to the mark in his testimony.

[TEJ]

"Humanitarian action . . . . should be motivated by humanitarianism; a powerful assertion of the universal sanctity and dignity of human life, and a practical manifestation of the need to provide protection to civilians in times of crisis and conflict. It is underpinned by the principles of Humanity, Impartiality, and Independence . . . . Strict observance of these ‘core principles’ is an essential guard against the use of humanitarian assistance to induce compliance with political demands, and upholding the principles demands constant vigilance against cooptation of the language of humanitarianism by political and military actors."

USG wil always act in its own self-interest, it is not simply a big NGO doing good for goodness sake. Same is true for corporations, with a simpler, singular motive: profit. Gov, NGO, corporate are 3 legs of a stool. Recognize the differences and use those strengths.