Pursuing terrorists or resources?
Wu Xiaoming

U.S. President George W. Bush announced plans to set up an Africa Command in February. Preparations have since been in full swing. A slew of officials from the U.S. State and Defense departments have visited African countries in the hope of determining a location for the Africa Command’s headquarters. In September, the U.S. Senate confirmed the appointment of General William E. Ward, Deputy Commander of the U.S. European Command, as its first commander. The Africa Command began operations in early October in temporary headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany, where the European Command is based. Officials expect to fully establish the Africa Command in an African country next October. Washington’s focus on Africa has drawn serious concern from the international community.
Beyond antiterrorism
While explaining the mission of the Africa Command, Bush and Pentagon officials said that it aims to combat Al Qaeda and other terrorists in Africa. As a matter of fact, Africa is a major focus of the United States’ global war on terror. It should be noted that some terrorist organizations penetrated Africa in the wake of U.S. antiterrorism operations in the Middle East and Central Asia. At present, nearly 2,000 U.S. service people are stationed in Djibouti, Ethiopia and Somalia on antiterrorism missions. To combat terrorist networks, the United States offers financial assistance, weapons and personnel training to African countries including Morocco, Algeria and Somalia. Before the Africa Command was created, the European Command, the Central Command and the Pacific Command were jointly responsible for U.S. military operations in Africa. The Africa Command can coordinate U.S. military operations in Africa in a unified manner and improve the United States’ cooperation with African countries on antiterrorism.
However, the international community does not think that the United States’ strategic intentions are so simple. Algeria, for example, refused to house the Africa Command’s headquarters. Algerian Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Mohamed Bedjaoui said no one had ever proposed any antiterrorism cooperation with Algeria in the 1990s when terrorist violence was rampant in that country. Unlike other military commands, the Africa Command has, on its staff, civilian government officials from the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, a testament to the complex strategic considerations underlying the creation of the Africa Command.
The United States has at least two considerations beyond antiterrorism in Africa. The first is to secure and stabilize its oil supply from Africa; and the second is to strengthen its political, military and economic control of Africa in order to consolidate the international system under U.S. hegemony. Africa is blessed with large, high-quality oil reserves. Moreover, these reserves do not cost much to process and transport. According to U.S. official statistics, the United States imported 2.23 million barrels of crude oil from Africa in 2006, making Africa the biggest source of U.S. crude oil for the first time, ahead of the Middle East. It is estimated that Gulf of Guinea countries -Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea, Angola, Gabon and the Democratic Republic of Congo-will provide oil for one quarter of the U.S. energy demand. The Africa Command is poised to play an important role in helping the United States tighten its control on Africa’s oil resources.
Haunted by historical issues created by Western colonialists and complicated religious and racial conflicts, Africa suffers from political turmoil, economic backwardness, social instability, and frequent armed conflicts and wars. Also, U.S. efforts to promote “democracy” in Africa have turned out to be futile. The continent has long been marginalized in the Americans’ global strategy. The rapid spread of international terrorism in Africa has awakened the United States to the severe consequences of ignoring the continent. Since George W. Bush became president in 2001, the United States has stressed Africa’s role as a fulcrum in its global strategy and increased its presence in Africa in terms of economic assistance and military training.
According to The Washington Post, the U.S. administration has doubled the United States’ humanitarian assistance to Africa since Bush assumed power. The assistance currently stands at more than $4 billion a year. Bush is planning to raise it to $9 billion annually by 2010. In a military base reorganization plan submitted to Congress in 2005, the Pentagon suggested establishing more than 10 “forward operating sites” in North Africa. The establishment of the Africa Command shows that the United States has recognized Africa as an important lever in its global strategic arrangements. By putting Africa under its control, it will be able to use the continent’s strategic location and resources to influence countries that have major interests in Africa. In this way, the United States will strengthen its global hegemony. Lingering resistance Despite strong support from the U.S. Congress and the Pentagon, the establishment of the Africa Command has sparked opposition from the international community, especially African countries. Most countries, including some nations that have close relations with the United States, have made it clear that they would not welcome U.S. soldiers. France, which considers Africa as part of its sphere of interests, has also showed deep concern.
Where to locate the Africa Command is the most difficult problem at present. U.S. officials held discussions with a number of African countries this year, but they have not yet decided on a location. Algeria, Libya, Tunisia and Nigeria have said they will not house the command within their borders. It was reported that Morocco agreed to host the Africa Command in its southern Tan-Tan region. However, the Moroccan Government soon denied the report. To date, only Sao Tome and Principe, an island country in the Gulf of Guinea, has offered to host the U.S. Africa Command. Currently, it is still difficult to forecast where the Africa Command will be based. However, according to the United States’ strategic objectives in Africa, it will establish “forward operating sites” in Africa’s strategic centers, such as East Africa, North Africa and the Gulf of Guinea, to form a military network covering the entire African Continent. Whether the United States will keep a low profile, as it does now, is questionable. The United States’ poor image in Africa is largely responsible for this strong resistance.
U.S.-Africa relations began with the trade of black slaves. The United States started to expand into Africa in 1821 when it established the first colonial outpost on the continent. During the Cold War, the United States offered support to its African allies, including regimes that practiced racial segregation and dictatorship, to contain the Soviet Union’s influence in Africa. Uncertain future The United States has met fierce resistance since it decided to establish the Africa Command. Whether the Africa Command can operate smoothly, to steer the development of the strategic situation in Africa in a direction the United States wants, mainly hinges on the U.S. forces’ respect for the freedom of African countries and people.
The United States has tried to dilute power politics and military intervention involved in setting up the Africa Command by incorporating personnel from civilian government departments, making it different from other U.S. commands. Despite this, Africa and the world at large are still suspicious of its motives. The U.S. military presence and operations in foreign countries have brought serious trouble for local residents. American servicemen in Japan and South Korea have committed sexually violent crimes time and again. In Iraq, they go as far as killing innocent civilians. If the U.S. troops do not become more disciplined, they will fuel Africa’s internal conflicts and political turmoil, and the United States will end up with another failure. It will not only spawn more terrorism, but also plunge the African people into disastrous chaos and wars. Its efforts may backfire, too, miring the United States in the morass of Africa, just as they have in Iraq.
And now take a look at the U.S. Africa Command’s implications on China’s interests in Africa. China and the United States can choose to cooperate, compete or be embroiled in confrontation with each other in Africa. The establishment of the Africa Command is the prelude to deeper American involvement in Africa’s affairs. China stands for concerted international efforts to support Africa’s economic development and national reconciliation. At the same time, it opposes power politics that interferes in Africa’s internal affairs. If they uphold the principles of equal consultation and mutually beneficial cooperation, both China and United States will make joint contributions to Africa’s peace and development.

(The Daily Mail-Beijing Review Articles Exchange Item)


ISI - An easy scapegoat organisation
Khalid Khokhar

SCAPEGOATING is a hostile social-psychological mechanism by which people move blame and responsibility away from themselves and towards a target person, group or Government. The target feels wrongly persecuted and receives misplaced vilification, blame and criticism. One such organization by the name Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) is easily scapegoated for creating disruption and politically-motivated mayhem from the perpetrators. All the unproven and unexplained anti-social activities either perpetrated by individual or group are ascribed to be the doing of ISI. Individuals, politicians and even foreign Governments do not hesitate to blame ISI for interfering in the internal politics, toppling governments and rigging elections. It is alleged to be a “State with in a State”, a maverick beyond the control of political leadership and an unguided missile that has been damaging the national interest while pursing its own narrow agenda. In his recent book called “no killed Daniel Pearl”, the famous philosopher and historian Bernard-Henri Levy has blamed the ISI for Pearl’s murder. All these allegations and accusations levelled against ISI are well-coordinated and planned policies of the perpetrators having vested interest to malign the image of ISI which is becoming an eye-sore of the enemies of Pakistan. The reality is far away from it. These crimes were committed by other agencies but were laid at the ISI door. This is only because the ISI has acquired a reputation of safe guarding Pakistan’s interest and national security inside and outside the country. How can an organization whose objective is to look after Pakistan’s interest, is involved in gruesome murders, bomb blasts and beating of politicians, Lawyers and journalists?
The report published in daily Arab News on Nov 12, 2007 under the caption “ISI tried to black mail Judges”, revealed that ISI security filmed judges and their children having sex with partners or prostitutes and later these were sent to at least three judges of Supreme Courts to get a favourable decision on the eligibility of dual post of President Musharraf. As the political events happened to unveil later, one could understand that the report was not based on facts and logic. It smacked of mischief by the perpetrators to create anarchy-like situation in the country. Was there any logic in the declaration of emergency in the presence of such videos to black mail the judges so as to get desired verdict? Had there been such type of video reports, the judges could have been refrained from decision against the President and avoided the imposition of emergency state in the country. On the other side, the former Chief Justice Iftikhar Ahmed Chaudhry’s corrupt practices including usage of influence to help his son get a Government job as well his sexual impropriety, are now talk of the Town. The people have come to know the element of integrity in judiciary circle. The threats to pass the videos to the families of the judges in question are the dirty tricks which cannot be the doings of ISI.
Intelligence agencies were scapegoated by Asif Ali Zardari when two suicide attacks that targeted Benazir Bhutto’s homecoming festivity on Oct 18, 2007, killed 143 and wounded more that 550 people. At a press conference at Bilawal House on Oct 19, 2007, Bhutto blamed the Government for the attacks. Now, it is beyond one’s imagination that how the government who has staged PPP’s comeback, could undertake assassination attempt? In the bid to opt for national reconciliation, the Government granted Benazir Bhutto amnesty and waived-off her pending corruption charges through a National Reconciliation Ordinance on 5 Oct 2007. In fact, Benazir bears responsibly for the deaths in the attack, since she was warned by the Government not to expose her followers for the sake of her own “personal grandeur”. The suicide attacks may have been the work of militant linked to Waziristan based Taliban who perceive Benazir as pro-US leader supporting military operations on the Lal Masjid, and allowing the IAEA to question A.Q. Khan. The suicide attacks were designed by the vested group to create a wedge between PPP and the Government, so that the country remains derailed.
Another allegation often surfaced by ISI is its continued role in supplying weapons and providing sanctuary to terrorists. ISI has for decades backed militant’s Islamic Group in Afghanistan. ISI operated closely with Mujahideen who were motivated to fight as a united force protecting fellow Muslims in Soviet-Occupied Afghanistan. This made America Administration to question Pakistan’s commitment in combating the Taliban remnants in bordering areas. The NATO’s top commanders have criticized ISI’s continued role in supplying weapons and providing sanctuary to the terrorists. In response, Pakistan has pointed to the deployment of nearly 80,000 troops in the border areas and the arrests of more than 700 Al Qaeda members carried out by mostly ISI members, the most high profile ones including 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, as proof that the ISI was serious in its commitment to fighting the War on Terrorism. Pakistan has made invaluable contributions to combating al Qaeda over the past six years. The “South Waziristan Accord” that deals with the militants to end the Waziristan War was seen by US as strengthening Taliban powerbase in Waziristan. However, according to the Centre for International and Strategic Studies in Washington, “the US strategy of rooting out terrorism through military measures alone was badly flawed”.
ISI often alleged to be an invisible force in politics and countless incidents around the world, is one of the most easily scapgoated organization. ISI was blamed for masterminding the Kargil war, supporting Khalistan separatist movement; giving support to the Kashmir] freedom fighters in IOK, 1993 Mumbai bombings, supplying weapons to militants for their fight in US-led GWOT in Afghanistan, so on and so forth. How can a small organization having only 5000 employees be a dangerous, out of control agency that is a menace to the west as well as the neighbouring countries? On the contrary, ISI has identified critical parts of al Qaeda’s network. ISI gathers intelligence in the hostile environment and make the world more secure while protecting the interests of Pakistan.



Taking Ugandan scenario into account
Joyce Njeri

HATS off to Uganda. The East African country hosted this year’s Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM), that was hailed successful. But amidst all the exchange of pleasantries and clicking of drink glasses, one thing stuck out like a bad sore — bloody demonstrations on the streets of Kampala, to condemn President Yoweri Museveni’s government track record of human rights. With Queen Elizabeth, Gordon Brown and about 50 other heads of government in the club of former British colonies in town, Museveni laboured to present a new Uganda, detached from the horrors of its past. According to news reports, police beat protesters as they tried to demonstrate against human rights abuses in Uganda.
Opposition leader and Museveni’s fiercest critic Kizza Besigye was quoted as saying that what the country was experiencing was nothing new. “This is what we have been living through all this time. This is a government that does not respect the rights of citizens at all,” he was quoted by journalists. It’s purely hypocritical that the summit decided to kick out Pakistan from the Commonwealth group while on the other hand showering praise on the host country. UK foreign affairs secretary David Miliband said the decision to suspend Pakistan was taken in “sorrow, not in anger”. The troubled Asian country will now be barred from attending meetings of the Commonwealth and receiving assistance from the group, which represents almost a third of the world’s population. But as the Commonwealth heads were strongly condemning General Musharraf, and in particular his crackdown on the opposition and his human rights abuses, they forgot that they were dining with a similar player.
They also failed to see that the grounds they were standing on were not ‘clean’ either. The summit was held barely 300 miles away from the so-called ‘killing fields of northern Uganda’. According to a 2005 survey conducted by Uganda’s own Ministry of Health in partnership with the World Health Organisation (WHO), there were 1,000 excess deaths per week in the 200 or so camps. These numbers translate into 52,000 deaths per year, 520,000 over the last decade, or more than one million over the course of the 20 years war. The delegates were also hosted in the same city where the government tortures political opponents critical to it.

—Khaleej Times