AFRICOM and the perception mess

The Iraqization of Africa?
Looking at AFRICOM from a South African Perspective

Quote:

---

The South African government has openly expressed its opposition towards the creation of the US Africa Command (AFRICOM).1 What’s more, South Africa presents its position on AFRICOM as representative of the country as a whole, but particularly on behalf of a group of African countries—the Southern African Development Community (SADC)— which holds an aversive stance towards US plans in this regard.2 This does not represent a radical change in South Africa’s ruling African National Congress’s (ANC) general policy stance towards the United States over the last 10 or more years. While this is not the place to dissect South Africa’s policy towards the United States in general, it is important to ask critical questions
about the legitimacy of the South African government’s position—and that of some other African countries—towards AFRICOM. The discussion is an effort to examine some of the considerations that underpin this scepticism about US motives towards Africa.

---

It is an interesting read and as a broad brush it is both strong and weak.

Pretty good analysis of US perspectives and tendencies toward Africa.

Weak in that he makes the very same generalizations about Africa that he accuses the US of making. The article is supposed to be about South African perspectives; he spends most of his time speaking to "African" perspectives as if that is viable description.

Weak in that he asserts the US does not have interests in Africa as if it is a fact rather than his opinion.

Weak in that his history is off; we did not suddenly get interested in Africa in 1952. We were interested earlier--much earlier though we covered those interests through colonial powers. Note the US role in disclosing Leopold abuses in the Congo; the US creation of Liberia; US air bridge and naval oips using Africa in WWII; US interest in preservation of strategic mineral access in the Congo in WWII.

Tom

I'll echo Tom's comments... Weak, but interesting.

Abel spends an inordinate amount of text criticizing the USA and China as warmongers merely in search of African minerals without once touching on the lack of African involvement in local catastrophes in the last 4 decades.

Abel opines on Africa's unconventional traditions and our inability to comprehend and flow with Africa. Hmmm, all that intellect but yet managed to not once provide more than a way out of fixing the sierra his ancestors created. Better to slam the US Military than provide sound advice other than "more food for the starving".

Jeez, get a life dude :mad:

EUCOM in her days did a fair job of managing a myriad of programs with a stretched team. Although AFRICOM's current hierarchy has me puzzled, to be fair, AFRICOM is but in its infancy and the programs are both need-based and financially real.

African solidarity translates into simple words that more often than not, require tons of donor cash with no responsibility for Africa's inactions.

Same Old Song and Dance :wry:

This issue has popped up on a number of threads, and I think it deserves its own discussion.

Moderator's Note

Thread closed on 3rd November 2012 as the main AFRICOM thread also has posts on perceptions.The main AFRICOM thread is:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=6167

A post by KingJaja on a Nigeria thread is a good place to start...

Quote:

---

That's not the point, perception is reality. All the "Als" - Al Qaeda, Al Jazeera and Al Sharpton realise that. That this simple fact is lost on the USG is tragic and difficult to understand.

A textbook case of "how not to do it" was the clumsy announcement of Africom's formation in 2008 and the equally more clumsy search for basing rights in Africa. These two events created a buzz in the local media and generated a lot of negative publicity. Today, the Africom brand is toxic.

---

An example of this brand toxicity....

http://concernedafricascholars.org/b.../78/abegunrin/

Quote:

---

AFRICOM is an example of U.S. military expansion in the name of the war on terrorism, when it is in fact designed to secure Africa’s resources and ensure American interests on the continent. AFRICOM represents a policy of U.S. military-driven expansionism that will only enhance political instability, conflict, and the deterioration of state security in Africa.

---

Again KingJaja raises a legitimate point:

Quote:

---

This is why the USG's misreading of the complex factors that shape public opinion here and its failure to sell its Africa policy to the African public is baffling. There are so many crazy stories flying up and down about America's intentions in SS Africa. If they are not countered, they could do real damage.

It is the job of the US State Department and Africom to contribute to informed opinion on Africom. If you cannot "encourage" prominent columnists / bloggers to write favourable stories, then you shouldn't be in the business of public diplomacy.

---

The problem here, again, is not reality, it's perception. Most people here realize that AFRICOM is little more than an administrative repackaging of programs that were already existing. Anyone who looks at the resources actually committed to AFRICOM can see that it can't even dream of trying to "secure Africa’s resources and ensure American interests". If anything the actual structure, location and resources of AFRICOM are a compelling testimony to American disinterest. That reality, though, is not the issue: the issue is the perception.

The question is how we managed to turn a minor administrative reshuffle into a public relations debacle, and how we can avoid doing it again.

Thoughts?

IMO the announcement sounded Wilsonian. Those who are in the business of being Wilsonian will of course welcome these types of things.

Funny how most on the Board and Executive Committee of the "Concerned Africa Scholars" are based out places like Syracuse, Rutgers, Stanford and Pomona. I guess they're not that concerned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JarodParker

Funny how most on the Board and Executive Committee of the "Concerned Africa Scholars" are based out places like Syracuse, Rutgers, Stanford and Pomona. I guess they're not that concerned.

---

Probably not, but the question is not the merit of their ideas, but the extent to which they are believed. As KingJaja pointed out on another thread, AFRICOM really has become a "toxic brand" across a wide audience base. The question here is how those seeking to make the brand toxic managed to convey their perspective more effectively than those that sought to promote the brand, regardless of the relative accuracy of those perspectives.

Of course it's true that an waful lot of people are extremely willing to believe anything negative about the US, but that gets back to the same question. How do we promote the brand more effectively and make it harder to portray as toxic?

Quote:

---

Funny how most on the Board and Executive Committee of the "Concerned Africa Scholars" are based out places like Syracuse, Rutgers, Stanford and Pomona. I guess they're not that concerned.

---

That statement betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between Africans and Africans in the diaspora. For example, each year, Nigeria receives about $10 billion from Nigerians abroad. I.e. they are an important source of funding and with funding comes influence ($10 billion is a lot more money than either USAID or the USG spends on Africa).

Put simply, it is important to listen to what they have say about America's policies in Africa because (a) it is unwise to underestimate the impact the diaspora has on shaping public opinion in Africa and (b) their influence on American politics is set to rise in the near future.

Consider this example, a former US ambassador to Nigeria, John Campbell estimates the number of Nigerians in the US at 2 million. They are overwhelming from Southern Nigeria and tend to be evangelical Christians. In his words:

Quote:

---

It has been a successful immigrant community characterized by entrepreneurship, strong family ties, and an emphasis on education. Socially, it is generally conservative and evangelical or even Pentecostal in outlook.28 It is just starting to flex its muscles in local American politics.

---

Have you got them on board with AFRICOM? If not, why? The second largest group are the Ethiopians and the same applies to the them. May suspicion is that the USG didn't bother (a) to identify the most important stakeholders and (b) tailor messages to cater to them.

But this points to a much wider problem, the US government is no longer in the business of selling itself or its policies to an increasingly sceptical world. Many of you guys don't fully appreciate the impact of Iraq on US credibility. The man on the street in Africa is of the opinion that the US cooked up evidence to invade Iraq in the past, and is thus, very likely to do something similar in future.

For as little as $20 a month, I can get a cable subscription with the following news channels: CNN, Al Jazeera English, EuroNews, CCTV (China) and CNBC. CNN is good, but it tends to focus a bit too much on American news and pop culture, EuroNews isn't really a player, CCTV isn't really good, but the Chinese are at least trying to make an impact, CNBC is focused on business, so that leaves Al Jazeera English in a strong position (they have much better coverage of "forgotten" parts of the globe - e.g. India, Africa, South East Asia and Latin America than their competitors).

The biggest satellite TV company in Africa is owned by the South Africans (and given South Africa's opposition to Africom, you can work that out).

Then there is the slightly unusual spectacle of senior US military officers explaining US Africa policy. Is it so important to raise the media profile of senior US military officers? What do you think the reaction would be if senior PLA officers were given the task of explaining China's Africa policy? The Chinese have smartly refrained from doing so.

Africa is neither Afghanistan nor Iraq (the ambassador Ryan Crocker / General Petraeus model will not work here), stop giving the impression it is the model you are adopting here.

Work your way back, the best outcome is for Africom to do its job well, while giving the impression that Africom does not exist. Anyone who has studied the history of Africa knows that soldiers (both foreign and African) have a very bad reputation. Idi Amin was a soldier and so was Jean-Bedel Bokassa, Mobutu also pretended to be one. We have foreign missionaries as heroes, but not a single foreign soldier is treated as a hero in Africa.

Cast your minds back to the world that existed before 9/11. Would the militarisation of US Africa policy be possible in such a world?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KingJaja

Have you got them on board with AFRICOM? If not, why? The second largest group are the Ethiopians and the same applies to the them. May suspicion is that the USG didn't bother (a) to identify the most important stakeholders and (b) tailor messages to cater to them.

---

I don't think much effort was made to get anyone "on board with AFRICOM" per se simply because AFRICOM does not represent any significant policy shift or effort: it's little more than an administrative shuffling of existing programs involving a quite minimal commitment of resources. Much of the reaction has been not to what AFRICOM actually is, which is not much, but to what AFRICOM has been portrayed as being.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KingJaja

Many of you guys don't fully appreciate the impact of Iraq on US credibility. The man on the street in Africa is of the opinion that the US cooked up evidence to invade Iraq in the past, and is thus, very likely to do something similar in future.

---

The man on the street in America has much the same opinion, and it's not entirely inaccurate. As far as "US credibility" goes, I'm surprised that there is any left!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KingJaja

Cast your minds back to the world that existed before 9/11. Would the militarisation of US Africa policy be possible in such a world?

---

I am not convinced that the US has an "Africa policy" in any coherent sense. The overwhelming preference seems to be to not go there, beyond some minimal efforts to show concern.

Your point about the generally unfavorable attitudes toward the military and the undesirability of presenting military officers as communicators is well taken, and I hope somebody listens.

A few links albeit a tad dated.

CSIS
DOS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

I am not convinced that the US has an "Africa policy" in any coherent sense. The overwhelming preference seems to be to not go there, beyond some minimal efforts to show concern.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan

A few links albeit a tad dated.

CSIS
DOS

---

I'm aware of the rhetoric, but unconvinced that the rhetoric is being translated into meaningful policy. This may be an excess of cynicism; bit of a habit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KingJaja

Quote:

---

Funny how most on the Board and Executive Committee of the "Concerned Africa Scholars" are based out places like Syracuse, Rutgers, Stanford and Pomona. I guess they're not that concerned.

---

That statement betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between Africans and Africans in the diaspora.

---

That wasn't a statement about the relationship between Africans and the African Diaspora. It was a commentary on how easily the diaspora can post a blog or write an open letter and absolve themselves of responsibility. It's easy to sit at Syracuse and point out how the US is doing it wrong.
Sure they send some money... but they could accomplish a lot more if they went back and did the nation building. It shows how even they have given up on the politics, governance, development, etc back home and how it's now each man for himself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KingJaja

For example, each year, Nigeria receives about $10 billion from Nigerians abroad. I.e. they are an important source of funding and with funding comes influence ($10 billion is a lot more money than either USAID or the USG spends on Africa).

---

You're welcome... I take it a good deal of said diaspora live and work in the states, so a portion of that $10billion is another form of US aid. I find it amazing that one would even expect US aid to match the money coming in from the diaspora. It should just be more reason to love the good ol US of A.

Quote:

---

Put simply, it is important to listen to what they have say about America's policies in Africa because (a) it is unwise to underestimate the impact the diaspora has on shaping public opinion in Africa and (b) their influence on American politics is set to rise in the near future.

---

Somebody said earlier that relationships in Africa are complex. That applies to diaspora relationships as well. They do not have 100% credibility... especially the ones engaged in politics from the safety of the west.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Consider this example, a former US ambassador to Nigeria, John Campbell estimates the number of Nigerians in the US at 2 million. They are overwhelming from Southern Nigeria and tend to be evangelical Christians. In his words:

---

Have you got them on board with AFRICOM? If not, why? The second largest group are the Ethiopians and the same applies to the them. May suspicion is that the USG didn't bother (a) to identify the most important stakeholders and (b) tailor messages to cater to them.

---

First of all, I don't see the need to get them on board. A great majority do not care about Africom and those who do, already have their minds made up one way or the other.
Secondly, if Africom were to engage the African diaspora, how do you propose they go about doing it? Invite them to a town hall with some 4-star general? You seem to state that would be counterproductive in your statement below.

Quote:

---

But this points to a much wider problem, the US government is no longer in the business of selling itself or its policies to an increasingly sceptical world. Many of you guys don't fully appreciate the impact of Iraq on US credibility.

---

I would argue that most reasonable Americans (including the president) appreciate OIF's impact on how others perceive the US.

Quote:

---

The man on the street in Africa is of the opinion that the US cooked up evidence to invade Iraq in the past, and is thus, very likely to do something similar in future.

---

That's not just Africans... a lot of Americans believe that as well.

Quote:

---

Then there is the slightly unusual spectacle of senior US military officers explaining US Africa policy. Is it so important to raise the media profile of senior US military officers? What do you think the reaction would be if senior PLA officers were given the task of explaining China's Africa policy? The Chinese have smartly refrained from doing so.

---

I can't argue with you here.

Quote:

---

Africa is neither Afghanistan nor Iraq (the ambassador Ryan Crocker / General Petraeus model will not work here), stop giving the impression it is the model you are adopting here.

---

Can you elaborate on this?

Quote:

---

Work your way back, the best outcome is for Africom to do its job well, while giving the impression that Africom does not exist.

---

The problem with that is, there is no way to keep such things completely under wraps. So once it leaks to the media, then you have a "secret military program" on your hands. That would probably be a bigger PR nightmare than the current one. It's a no-win situation.

Quote:

---

Anyone who has studied the history of Africa knows that soldiers (both foreign and African) have a very bad reputation. Idi Amin was a soldier and so was Jean-Bedel Bokassa, Mobutu also pretended to be one.

---

That's one of the problems Africom is trying to fix. They're trying to help host nations develop a professional military which doesn't committee genocide, rape or plan coups. The problem with that is sometimes (ok almost always) those "professional" military forces are turned against their own people. So once again it's a no-win for the US.

Quote:

---

We have foreign missionaries as heroes, but not a single foreign soldier is treated as a hero in Africa.

---

My experience is that Africans are as distrustful of missionaries as they are of mercenaries.

Quote:

---

Cast your minds back to the world that existed before 9/11.

---

Why? I enjoy the complimentary happy endings from the TSA.

Africans generally like America. But they're also susceptible to rumors, conspiracy theories and the like. Starving people in East Africa appreciated those sacks of wheat with the red, white and blue stamp... but they were also convinced that the US boiled the wheat before shipping it so they wouldn't be able to sow the seeds. It is believed (even by the educated) that the US dumps millions tons of grain into the ocean each year to prevent prices from falling.
So this is not something that's gonna go away with a new agency name, logo, PR campaign or town hall meetings. That's just how people are. Nothing short of the US giving up any and all economic and political advantage (free trade, free travel zones, debt relief...) will satisfy the "Concerned Africa Scholars".
Americans did not colonize Africa; most of resentment for slavery is confined to the African-American community (not sure about west Africa). Africans in general dislike the Indians and they fear and dislike the Chinese even more. America on the other hand is usually well intentioned, transparent and accountable. Besides, the opposition to US military basing seems to be global... Japan, Korea, Guam (i think), Pakistan, Tajikistan (not sure if the deal fell through). The Africom issue is not unique.

Sorry it's 2am and i have to go to bed.

Quote:

---

I don't think much effort was made to get anyone "on board with AFRICOM" per se simply because AFRICOM does not represent any significant policy shift or effort: it's little more than an administrative shuffling of existing programs involving a quite minimal commitment of resources. Much of the reaction has been not to what AFRICOM actually is, which is not much, but to what AFRICOM has been portrayed as being.

---

Once again, someone doesn't get strategic communication - at the highest levels in the US Government. It's not limited only to the bungling of the Africom announcement.

You guys feel that once you've processed a concept within your system and you are okay with it, then all will be well. Because the innate goodness of America is apparent to all and that the whole World sees the Shining City on a Hill and America is an exceptional nation and Americans are exceptional people.

That mindset is great if you want to communicate with the American public, but the American public is not the only audience worth considering.

My major worry is not what Africom is or is not, but that the creators of Africom either don't get Africa or don't take Africa seriously enough. Neither is good. After Iraq and Afghanistan, you cannot afford to make that kind of blunder.

Africa is huge. The map below shows how massive it is.

http://blogs.cfr.org/campbell/files/...a-11082011.jpg

Quote:

---

That's one of the problems Africom is trying to fix. They're trying to help host nations develop a professional military which doesn't committee genocide, rape or plan coups. The problem with that is sometimes (ok almost always) those "professional" military forces are turned against their own people. So once again it's a no-win for the US.

---

You don't create a professional military in a vacuum!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KingJaja

For as little as $20 a month, I can get a cable subscription with the following news channels: CNN, Al Jazeera English, EuroNews, CCTV (China) and CNBC. CNN is good, but it tends to focus a bit too much on American news and pop culture, EuroNews isn't really a player, CCTV isn't really good, but the Chinese are at least trying to make an impact, CNBC is focused on business, so that leaves Al Jazeera English in a strong position (they have much better coverage of "forgotten" parts of the globe - e.g. India, Africa, South East Asia and Latin America than their competitors).

The biggest satellite TV company in Africa is owned by the South Africans (and given South Africa's opposition to Africom, you can work that out).

---

Ae you speaking about DSTV here? It is part of the stock exchange listed company Multichoice. They are intelligent to avoid getting into the news broadcast business here in Africa directly as that always draws attention from governments.

The premium subscription here in South Africa offers the following news channels:

BBC world
CNN
Sky News - UK
eNews - Independently owned South African news channel
Euro News
RT - Russian
Aljazeera
ndtv - India
CCTV - China
CNBC-A
Bloomberg

You make your own choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JarodParker

That's one of the problems Africom is trying to fix. They're trying to help host nations develop a professional military which doesn't committee genocide, rape or plan coups. The problem with that is sometimes (ok almost always) those "professional" military forces are turned against their own people. So once again it's a no-win for the US.

---

The experience so far is not good. See DRC training here

It is the religious/ethnic/tribal dynamics of most African countries that are not understood.

Heard on my grapevine recently that serving US officers have been traveling Africa (and Europe) and researching war in Africa and the use of indigenous troops (and possibly more). Accepting one has something to learn is certainly a step in the right direction (and makes for a nice change).

Hey JMA,
Some very good points and a rather sore one when trying to gather momentum.

Seven months ago our team also decided to make their African counterparts feel as much a part of the team as possible, and made sure that salaries and meals were part of the deal. It worked for the 6 months they were there, but leaving had some obvious ill effects. SIGH

At this point we decided to keep them all on the payroll and working independently. We're do for a quality control visit and let's see how well the equipment is maintained and how many hectares have been returned for agricultural use.

So, AFRICOM comes in theoretically speaking, discovers what everybody and his brother already know - that basic needs are not being met - and rape, pillage and plunder are the norm, and while being trained, the indigenous
personnel are fed and paid like normal people expect.

Exfil... See you later. What a strange concept with very good intentions !

I remain optimistic :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMA

The experience so far is not good. See DRC training here

It is the religious/ethnic/tribal dynamics of most African countries that are not understood.

Heard on my grapevine recently that serving US officers have been traveling Africa (and Europe) and researching war in Africa and the use of indigenous troops (and possibly more). Accepting one has something to learn is certainly a step in the right direction (and makes for a nice change).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KingJaja

Once again, someone doesn't get strategic communication - at the highest levels in the US Government. It's not limited only to the bungling of the Africom announcement.

---

They don't get it at all. It's not limited to the AFRICOM announcement and it's not limited to Africa... here in Asia it's been a running theme for decades in my experience and much longer from the accounts of others. I've given up hoping for improvement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KingJaja

You guys feel that once you've processed a concept within your system and you are okay with it, then all will be well. Because the innate goodness of America is apparent to all and that the whole World sees the Shining City on a Hill and America is an exceptional nation and Americans are exceptional people.

---

Part of the problem is that those themes are almost mandatory in domestic political communication, but in today's world what's said for domestic consumption often goes out to a much wider audience... and often spills into non-domestic communication as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KingJaja

My major worry is not what Africom is or is not, but that the creators of Africom either don't get Africa or don't take Africa seriously enough. Neither is good. After Iraq and Afghanistan, you cannot afford to make that kind of blunder.

---

They don't get it, and probably never will. The blunders go back way farther than Iraq and Afghanistan, and they probably will continue. Fortunately that's not the end of the world. They never got Asia or Latin America and proceeded with epic blunders in both, but despite that there's been real progress in both domestic conditions and relations with the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan

Hey JMA,
Some very good points and a rather sore one when trying to gather momentum.

Seven months ago our team also decided to make their African counterparts feel as much a part of the team as possible, and made sure that salaries and meals were part of the deal. It worked for the 6 months they were there, but leaving had some obvious ill effects. SIGH

At this point we decided to keep them all on the payroll and working independently. We're do for a quality control visit and let's see how well the equipment is maintained and how many hectares have been returned for agricultural use.

So, AFRICOM comes in theoretically speaking, discovers what everybody and his brother already know - that basic needs are not being met - and rape, pillage and plunder are the norm, and while being trained, the indigenous
personnel are fed and paid like normal people expect.

Exfil... See you later. What a strange concept with very good intentions !

I remain optimistic :eek:

---

Stan, it's the 'C' word. Continuity.

It all fell apart in the old Brit colonies with the indigenous regiments when the (expat) officers packed up and went home (to mother Britain). It worked for the RAR (Rhodesian African Rifles) as for their officers Rhodesia was their home.

How long would it take to take 700 odd people and knock a battalion into shape (with some degree of sustainability)? Minimum ten years.

Oh yes, and you want to send out maximum number of African Americans - to take the racial edge off it all. Might not be PC, but that's the way to do it.

The last thing you want to be doing is training up future well trained genocidal militias which will happen if you are not careful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KingJaja

That statement betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between Africans and Africans in the diaspora. For example, each year, Nigeria receives about $10 billion from Nigerians abroad. I.e. they are an important source of funding and with funding comes influence ($10 billion is a lot more money than either USAID or the USG spends on Africa).

Put simply, it is important to listen to what they have say about America's policies in Africa because (a) it is unwise to underestimate the impact the diaspora has on shaping public opinion in Africa and (b) their influence on American politics is set to rise in the near future.

---

I have a friend who works with Nigerian entrepreneurs in NYC; it’s not as if all Americans are unaware of the goings-on of the world. And since we’re talking perceptions I’m going to bring this up: Nigerians don’t exactly enjoy a sparkling reputation amongst other Africans. Are you so sure Nigerians carry a lot of weight in shaping public opinion outside of their home country?

Quote:

---

Africa is huge. The map below shows how massive it is.

---

All of the UCCs are huge. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...mmands_map.png