AFRICOM's Role in an African Future: Bridge or Dam?

Abstract

In the recent past America’s leaders created a major new military entity – the US Africa Command (AFRICOM). In a well researched article, authors James Forest and Rebecca Crispin describe AFRICOM and the motivations for its creation, offering an interesting glimpse into the ways America’s political leaders see the world and their role in it, and calling attention to the way the United States reacts to the complex security dilemmas of the early 21st century. Yet it remains to be seen what the new command really means for Americans and Africans, and whether it can effectively address the security equities of either or both. This article briefly examines these issues, offering implications for African and American policymakers. Forest and Crispin infer the existence of at least four fundamental (and not always entirely compatible) assumptions underlying contemporary American foreign policy: first that the nation’s military establishment necessarily plays a central role in securing the country from foreign threats, whatever those may be; then, that the United States has a fundamental missionary imperative to do good in the world; this is followed by a conviction that virtually all human problems are solvable if the right approach can be found; and concludes with an implicit confidence that American civil servants are sufficiently endowed with the wisdom and moral insight to discern an appropriate future for the rest of humanity. Each of these assumptions is reflected in the advent of AFRICOM. To the extent that they are largely unconscious to Americans, each has the potential to undermine the productive relations with Africans necessary for AFRICOM’s ultimate success. American military leaders often talk about ‘legacy’ weapons systems – expensive armaments still in the American inventory but better suited to the requirements of earlier conflicts. However, much worse than legacy weapons are legacy ideas – prevalent models of human organization and human behaviour no longer appropriate to the needs of the human family. These are particularly problematic when it comes to security. Given the priority and resources that societies devote to this requirement, legacy ideas are not merely unfortunate; they can have tragic consequences. Legacy ‘security’ ideas compete in Africa with newer thinking. This is a domain in which AFRICOM can make a difference, for good or ill. Since the end of the Cold War, scholars, intellectuals, and practitioners have engaged in a fascinating series of debates about the concept of security. The full scope is far too complex to describe in detail here, but several noteworthy trends have emerged. One is a general acceptance of much broader definitions, so that the concept no longer applies exclusively to the inviolability of national sovereignty and national borders, preservation of elite privilege, or even protection of