When Pres. Barack Obama took office in January 2009, it was widely expected that he would dramatically change, or even reverse, the militarised and unilateral security policy that had been pursued by the George W. Bush administration toward Africa, as well as toward other parts of the world.

After one year in office, however, it is clear that the Obama administration is following essentially the same policy that has guided U.S. military policy toward Africa for more than a decade. Indeed, the Obama administration is seeking to expand U.S. military activities on the continent even further.

In its FY 2011 budget request for security assistance programmes for Africa, the Obama administration is asking for 38 million dollars for the Foreign Military Financing programme to pay for U.S. arms sales to African countries.

The administration is also asking for 21 million dollars for the International Military Education and Training Programme to bring African military officers to the United States, and 24.4 million dollars for Anti-Terrorism Assistance programmes in Africa.

The Obama administration has also taken a number of other steps to expand U.S. military involvement in Africa.

In September 2009, Obama authorised a U.S. Special Forces operation in Somalia that killed Saleh Ali Nabhan, an alleged al Qaeda operative who was accused of being involved in the bombing of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998, as well as other al Qaeda operations in east Africa.

In October 2009, the Obama administration announced a major new security assistance package for Mali – valued at 4.5 to 5.0 million dollars – that included 37 Land Cruiser pickup trucks, communication equipment, replacement parts, clothing and other individual equipment and was intended to enhance Mali’s ability to transport and communicate with internal security forces throughout the country and control its borders.

Although ostensibly intended to help Mali deal with potential threats from AQIM (al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb), it is more likely to be used against Tuareg insurgent forces.

In December 2009, U.S. military officials confirmed that the Pentagon was considering the creation of a 1,000-strong Marine rapid deployment force for the new U.S. Africa Command (Africom) based in Europe, which could be used to intervene in African hot spots.

In February 2010, in his testimony before a hearing by the Africa Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Assistant Secretary of State for Africa Johnnie Carson declared, “We seek to enhance Nigeria’s role as a U.S. partner on regional security, but we also seek to bolster its ability to combat violent extremism within its borders.”

Also in February 2010, U.S. Special Forces troops began a 30-million-dollar, eight-month-long training programme for a 1,000-man infantry battalion of the army of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) at the U.S.-refurbished base in Kisangani.

Speaking before a Senate Armed Service Committee hearing in March 2010 about this training programme, General William Ward, the commander of Africom, stated “should it prove successful, there’s potential that it could be expanded to other battalions as well.”

During the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Ward also discussed Africom’s continuing participation in Ugandan military operations in the DRC against the Lord’s Resistance Army. Despite the failure of “Operation Lightning Thunder”, launched by Ugandan troops in December 2008 with help of Africom (included planning assistance, equipment, and financial backing), Ward declared, “I think our support to those ongoing efforts is important support.”

And in March 2010, U.S. officials revealed that the Obama administration was considering using surveillance drones to provide intelligence to TFG troops in Somalia for their planned offensive against al-Shabaab. According to these officials, the Pentagon may also launch air strikes into Somalia and send U.S. Special Forces troops into the country, as it has done in the past.

This growing U.S. military involvement in Africa reflects the fact that counterinsurgency has once again become one of the main elements of U.S. security strategy.

This is clearly evident in the new Quadrennial Defence Review (QDR) released by the Pentagon in February.

According to the QDR, “U.S. forces will work with the military forces of partner nations to strengthen their capacity for internal security, and will coordinate those activities with those of other U.S. government agencies as they work to strengthen civilian capacities, thus denying terrorists and insurgents safe havens. For reasons of political legitimacy as well as sheer economic necessity, there is no substitute for professional, motivated local security forces protecting populations threatened by insurgents and terrorists in their midst.”

As the QDR makes clear, this is intended to avoid the need for direct U.S. military intervention: “Efforts that use smaller numbers of U.S. forces and emphasise host-nation leadership are generally preferable to large-scale counterinsurgency campaigns. By emphasising host-nation leadership and employing modest numbers of U.S. forces, the United States can sometimes obviate the need for larger-scale counterinsurgency campaigns.”

Or, as a senior U.S. military officer assigned to Africom was quoted as saying in a recent article in the U.S. Air University’s Strategic Studies Quarterly, “We don’t want to see our guys going in and getting wacked…We want Africans to go in.”

Thus, the QDR goes on to say, “U.S. forces are working in the Horn of Africa, the Sahel, Colombia, and elsewhere to provide training, equipment, and advice to their host-country counterparts on how to better seek out and dismantle terrorist and insurgent networks while providing security to populations that have been intimidated by violent elements in their midst.”

Furthermore, the United States will also continue to expand and improve the network of local military bases that are available to U.S. troops under base access agreements.

The resurgence of Vietnam War-era counterinsurgency doctrine as a principal tenet of U.S. security policy, therefore, has led to a major escalation of U.S. military involvement in Africa by the Obama administration that seems likely to continue in the years ahead.

*Daniel Volman is the Director of the African Security Research Project in Washington, DC. He is the author of numerous articles and reports and has been studying U.S. security policy toward Africa and African security issues for more than 30 years.

There is mounting evidence that the government of Nigerian President Umaru Musa Yar’adua is set to launch a full-scale offensive in the Niger Delta when a ceasefire declared by rebels ends on Sep. 15.

And this time, Nigerian military forces will be using special warships, helicopter gunships and troop transports, and unmanned drone intelligence planes and ships sold to Nigeria by Israeli, Malaysian, Singaporean, Dutch and Russian companies.

Israeli and Russian instructors have been providing specialised training to Nigerian Navy and Air Force sailors and pilots in how to operate the ships and helicopters over the past few months, and some of these instructors may help operate them during the offensive.

On Jul. 15, President Yar’adua declared a 60-day amnesty for members of the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND), the armed group that has been conducting an insurgency campaign in the Delta for the past five years. The amnesty offer is set to expire at midnight on Oct. 4.

The insurgents say that they are fighting to protect the rights of the people who live in the Delta and to get them a fair share of Nigeria’s massive revenues from the sale of oil produced in the region.

Nigeria is Africa’s largest oil producer and currently exports some 1.7 million barrels of oil per day. The United States imports 44 percent of Nigeria’s oil production, making the country the U.S.’s fifth largest foreign source of oil.

The Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy estimates that if the insurgency ended, Nigeria’s effective oil production capacity could quickly be raised to around 2.7 million barrels per day.

When Pres. Yar’adua announced the amnesty, government officials said that they expected between 8,000 and 10,000 insurgents to accept its terms. But only a few hundred of the estimated 12,000-15,000 rebels have handed in their weapons.

Most members of MEND say that the government’s amnesty was not made in good faith and that they have no confidence that that the government will honour its promises to improve the lives of the Delta’s impoverished residents or to fix the massive environmental damage caused by decades of unregulated oil production.

One reason that MEND does not trust Pres. Yar’adua is that the Nigerian government has recently been buying hundreds of millions of dollars worth of sophisticated weaponry and military hardware in preparation for a new offensive in the Niger Delta.

These include deals worth 25 million dollars for two 24.8-metre Shaldag MK-2 patrol boats from the Israeli firm, Israel Shipyards – one has already been delivered and the other is on its way – and another deal involves air and sea drones from Aeronautica Ventures, another Israeli company.

Shaldag MK-20 patrol boats are generally armed with artillery guns and machine guns. Eighty Nigerian sailors are presently being trained in counterinsurgency operations at the northern Israeli port of Haifa.

Nigeria recently bought a surveillance system for the Delta that uses Aerostar unmanned drones and Seastar vessels produced by Israel’s Aeronautics Defense Systems/Aeronautics Ventures. Nigeria acquired 20 troop-carrying catamarans from the Dutch firm, TP Marine, to transport soldiers up the creeks and small rivers of the Delta region.

The Nigerian Navy also recently took delivery of two 38-metre Manta-class patrol boats built by the Nautica Nova Shipbuilding yard in Malaysia. These ships were officially commissioned on Apr. 12. Four additional 17-metre Manta-class patrol boats have also been delivered to Nigeria from Singapore Technologies Marine.

The Nigerian Navy also recently procured 35 new machine gun-equipped fast patrol boats in a deal that was paid for by the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, reportedly on the instructions of Pres. Yar’adua. . The Nigerian Air Force has also received at least 15 Mi-24, Mi-34, and Mi-35 helicopter gunship and troop transport helicopters from Russia. Some of these were reportedly delivered just before Pres. Dimitri Medvedev’s visit to the country in June. These helicopters are armed with Gatling guns, machine guns, bombs, rocket launchers, and rockets, and can also carry up to eight soldiers at the same time.

Russian instructors are currently in Nigeria training Nigerian pilots how to operate these helicopters. The training is reportedly not going very well, raising speculation that the Nigerian government may ask the Russian instructors to operate the helicopter gunships during the impending military offensive.

These helicopter gunships were used extensively by the Soviet Union during its invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and have been used more recently for counterinsurgency operations by the governments of Sierra Leone, Guinea, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia and Chad.

It is clear that the Nigerian government is getting ready to mount a massive military offensive in the Niger Delta, either when the MEND ceasefire ends on Sep. 15 or when its own amnesty programme ends on Oct. 4. However, despite all the firepower and sophisticated weaponry that it has acquired in recent months, there is no reason to believe that this offensive will be any more successful in bringing the insurgency to an end than any of its previous military operations.

Moreover, by demonstrating that the Yar’adua government is committed to a military solution to the political, economic and environmental crisis in the Niger Delta, the offensive is very likely to lead to an explosion of violence not just in the Delta, but also throughout the country.

Tensions in other parts of the country have been mounting in recent months, most notably in the predominantly Muslim states in the north.

The repression of violence by an Islamic extremist group in the north, which was marked by indiscriminate attacks that killed many innocent people and by the extrajudicial murder of the group’s leader in police custody, alienated many moderate Muslims who previously constituted the government’s base of support.

They are sure to be further alienated by the growing involvement of Israelis in supporting the government’s offensive against the people of the southern part of Nigeria, even if the victims of this offensive are predominantly Christian.

All this serves to confirm the assessment of U.S. military officers, who increasingly have come to believe that the principal obstacle to a resolution of Nigeria’s continuing crisis is the Nigerian government itself and that the Nigerian elite is bent on committing suicide by continuing its efforts to hold on to power by military force.

*Daniel Volman is the Director of the African Security Research Project in Washington, DC. He is the author of numerous articles and reports and has been studying U.S. security policy toward Africa and African security issues for more than 30 years.

On Aug. 6, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with Somali President Sheikh Sharif Ahmed in Kenya and pledged to provide more military aid and training to the Somali Transitional Federal Government (TFG).

At a joint press conference after the meeting, Clinton said that the U.S. will “continue to provide equipment and training to the TFG.”

“Very early in the Administration, I made the decision, which the President supported, to accelerate and provide aid to the TFG,” Clinton said.

Clinton said that al-Shabaab – which is trying to overthrow the TFG – are “a terrorist group with links to al-Qaeda and other foreign military networks” and said that they “see Somalia as a future haven for global terrorism.” Referring to the arrest of five Australian citizens of Somali and Lebanese descent in Australia on Aug. 4, she said “we have been reminded that there are those who would use Somalia as a training ground for attacks around the world.”

“There is no doubt,” she said, “that al-Shabaab wants to obtain control over Somalia to use it as a base from which to influence and even infiltrate surrounding countries and launch attacks against countries far and near.” Thus, “if al-Shabaab were to obtain a haven in Somalia, which could then attract al-Qaeda and other terrorist actors, it would be a threat to the United States.”

At his daily press briefing on Aug. 6, U.S. Deputy State Department Spokesman Robert Wood said, “we’re providing the Transitional Federal Government with ammunition and weapons,” and “we may decide we may try to increase that number – that amount – at some point.”

Responding to a reporter’s question about a news service story reporting the administration planned to double the quantity of military aid to the TFG from 40 tonnes to 80 tonnes, Wood said that currently “we’re in the process of trying to make sure that we get the 40 tonnes of equipment to the TFG. Obviously, should we feel the need, we may indeed do that – but, I don’t want to get ahead of where we are right now.”

And in his answer to another question from the reporter about a report that the U.S. was quietly training some Somali forces in Djibouti, Wood stated “I don’t want to get into the actual details beyond what I’ve said about the type of support we’re providing to Somalia. But we are obviously going to look for ways that we can help support that government.”

On Aug. 2, Associated Press reporters Mathew Lee and Lolita C. Baldor wrote that U.S. officials told them “a second batch of up to 40 tonnes of new weaponry, added to the 40 tonnes that arrived over the past several months, will come from stockpiles held by African militaries. The United States would pay for it, officials said.”

Lee and Baldor also reported that U.S. officials told them that “the U.S. also has begun a low-profile mission to help train Somali security forces in Djibouti.” According to their report, “one senior official said the Pentagon, which has a base at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti, is providing facilities such as tents for the training and is assisting with logistics.”

“Officials say the U.S. military is not conducting the training and will not put any forces in Somalia,” Lee and Baldor said. “The administration is making a concerted effort to avoid putting any American footprint in Somalia, which would risk alienating allies, and add to charges by Islamic extremists of a Western takeover.”

Secretary Clinton and her team are also likely to discuss increased U.S. military aid and training with government officials in all the other countries she is visiting on her visit to Africa.

Clinton has pledged to spend a total of 184.5 million dollars to provide security assistance to military, paramilitary, and police forces in the coming year to countries which are the responsibility of the new U.S. Africa Command, or Africom. This does not include the 1.3 billion dollars security assistance package for Egypt, which is part of Central Command’s areas of responsibility.

In addition, the Pentagon plans to spend 300 million to run the Africom headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany, another 200 million dollars to lease and operate the U.S. base at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti (along with unspecified amounts of money to improve the base), and 263 million dollars to provide manpower, airlift, and communications support to Africom operation throughout the continent

Taken together, the Pentagon will spend at least 763 million dollars on Africom operations in the coming fiscal year.

The State Department budget request for Fiscal Year 2010, which begins on Oct. 1, 2009, proposes raising the level of money provided to Kenya for the purchase of U.S. weaponry to 1 million dollars – up from 250,000 dollars in the current fiscal year – and includes more than 1 million dollars to train Kenyan military officers in the U.S. – up from 770,000 dollars.

Clinton also wants to spend: 800,000 dollars to pay for arms sales to South Africa (up from nothing in the current fiscal year); 2.45 million dollars for the Democratic Republic of Congo (up from 600,000 dollars); 1.35 million dollars for Nigeria (the same amount as in the current fiscal year); and 9 million dollars for Liberia (up from 1.5 million dollars).

To provide training for African military officers in the U.S. through the International Military Education and Training programme, the State Department plans to spend 900,000 dollars for South Africa, 500,000 dollars for Angola, 500,000 dollars for the Democratic Republic of Congo, 1.1 million dollars for Nigeria, 525,000 dollars for Liberia, and 125,000 dollars for Cape Verde.

The State Department plans to spend even more money on Africa in Fiscal Year 2010 through other regional and international security assistance programmes. These include: the Trans-Saharan Counter-Terrorism Partnership (20 million dollars); the East Africa Regional Strategic Initiative (10 million dollars); the Africa Conflict Stabilisation and Border Security programme (3.6 million dollars); the International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement programme (4.5 million dollars for sub-Saharan Africa); the Anti-Terrorism Programme (8 million dollars for Kenya, 1 million dollars for South Africa, and 15.2 million dollars for the Africa Regional programme that can be used anywhere in sub-Saharan Africa); and the Peacekeeping Operations programme (21 million dollars for the Democratic Republic of Congo, 10 million dollars for Liberia, 67 million dollars for Somalia – to equip and train troops participating in the African Union peacekeeping mission in that country as well as Somali security forces, and 42 million dollars for Sudan – to train and equip the Sudan People’s Liberation Army in southern Sudan).

Although the Pentagon manages most U.S. arms and training programmes throughout the world, the money is actually appropriated and authorised by the U.S. Congress as part of the State Department’s Budget for Foreign Operation.

*Daniel Volman is the Director of the African Security Research Project in Washington, DC. He is the author of numerous articles and reports and has been studying U.S. security policy toward Africa and African security issues for more than thirty years.

By Daniel Volman
WASHINGTON, Aug 4 2009 (IPS)

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton left yesterday on a seven-nation trip to Africa that has elicited an appeal from Human Rights Watch for her to put human rights at the top of her agenda. During her eleven-day trip, Clinton will visit Kenya, South Africa, Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria, Liberia, and Cape Verde.

Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson will accompany the Secretary on her travels.

In a press release issued Jul. 31, New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) called upon Clinton to press host governments, and Somali President Sheikh Sharif Ahmed whom she will meet with in Kenya, to hold human rights abusers accountable, to ensure that military forces respect international law, and to end corruption.

In South Africa, HRW said, “she should urge the new government of President Jacob Zuma to play a more proactive role on foreign policy matters on the continent, particularly in pressing for human rights reforms by its neighbour, Zimbabwe.”

“The U.S. rightly wants to promote Africa as a place of great opportunity, but Africans will be unable to realise their potential if their human rights are denied,” said Georgette Gagnon, Africa Director at HRW. “Secretary Clinton should make this connection clear.”

On the other hand, J. Stephen Morrison, an Africa expert at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, DC, said in an Aug. 4 commentary on the CSIS website that “it is very important that expectations be kept in check, and realism, patience and a long-term view prevail. Many of the places where the Secretary can extend a hand, offer a new dialogue, and lay down new tests are not necessarily ripe in the near term for change, nor capable today of grasping the nettle. They need to be worked quietly and seriously through time.”

Regarding Nigeria’s repressive regime – which came to power after elections that international observers concluded were neither free nor fair – Morrison said, “we need to engage, be candid and tough-minded, offer our advice and assistance, and try to get the Nigerian government to come to terms with reality. But our leverage remains limited and for the moment we have no ready reliable partners. We have to play a long game, build new linkages within Nigeria, and take action outside Nigeria to halt grand scale theft of oil and extensive arms trafficking.”

Clinton, beginning her trip in Kenya, will be joined by a delegation of U.S. businesspeople for the eighth U.S.-Sub-Saharan Africa Trade and Economic Cooperation Forum – also known as the African Growth and Opportunity Act Forum. She will also meet with senior Kenyan political leaders and representatives of civil society.

The Secretary will travel on to South Africa, Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria, Liberia, and Cape Verde for bilateral discussions with political leaders and public events with businesspeople, non-governmental organisations, and private citizens.

While in Kenya, Clinton will meet with Somali President Sheikh Sharif Ahmed to reaffirm U.S. support for his beleaguered government and to pledge additional weapons for its fight against Islamist extremists.

In both Nigeria and Liberia, according to the U.S. State Department Bureau of Pubic Affairs, “the Secretary will bring attention to the Obama Administration’s commitment to helping nations around the world implement self-sufficiency and sustainable food security.”

In the Democratic Republic of Congo, the State Department said, Clinton “will highlight efforts to combat gender-based violence.” In South Africa, she will focus on such issues as Zimbabwe and HIV/AIDS.

And in Nigeria and Angola, the fifth and sixth largest suppliers of oil to the U.S. respectively, she will discuss economic and political issues. At a Jul. 30 press briefing, Assistant Secretary Johnnie Carson explained, “We are concerned about having a good energy relationship with them.”

“We also believe it is important for them to deal with some of their domestic issues,” Carson said, “which will help to strengthen their democracy.”

In answer to a reporter’s question about America’s rivalry with China in Nigeria and Angola, Carson insisted, “our presence there has nothing to do with anyone else’s operations on the continent.”

One other issue that is sure to be discussed at every stop on Clinton’s trip is the new U.S. military command for Africa – Africa Command or Africom. The creation of the new command, which became fully operational on Oct. 1, 2008, has provoked nearly unanimous opposition from civil society throughout the continent.

According to General William Ward, the commander of Africom, his deputy, Vice Admiral Robert Moeller, and other military officers, the new command has three principal missions. The first is to handle security assistance to key African regimes and – if necessary – direct U.S. military intervention to protect U.S. access to oil and other resources in Africa. The second mission is to make Africa a central battlefield in the ‘Global War on Terrorism’. And the third is to demonstrate America’s determination to compete with China for economic power and political influence in Africa.

Ward cited America’s growing dependence on African oil – the U.S. now gets more oil from Africa than from the Middle East – as a priority issue for Africom when he appeared before the House Armed Services Committee on Mar. 13, 2008. He went on to state that combating terrorism would be “Africom’s number one theatre-wide goal.”

At an Africom conference at Fort McNair on Feb. 18, 2008, Moeller said that protecting “the free flow of natural resources from Africa to the global market” was one of Africom’s “guiding principles” and specifically cited “oil disruption,” “terrorism,” and the “growing influence” of China as major “challenges” to U.S. interests in Africa.

Kenya, South Africa, Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria, and Liberia all get large quantities of weaponry as well as military training and other security assistance from the U.S. – and all of them are eager to maintain those close military ties.

But, in the face of vehement public opposition to Africom, Liberia was the only country in Africa willing to allow Africom to establish its headquarters on their soil. The U.S., however, decided to decline Liberia’s offer to host the new command – due to concerns about security and the country’s lack of infrastructure. Africom is based in Stuttgart, Germany.

*Daniel Volman is the Director of the African Security Research Project in Washington, DC. He is the author of numerous articles and reports and has been studying U.S. security policy toward Africa and African security issues for more than thirty years.

Excerpt: