AFRICOM and the perception mess

[Entropy]

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

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.

[Tom Odom]

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

[Stan]

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

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

[Dayuhan]

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...

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/

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:

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?

[Misifus]

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

[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.

[Dayuhan]

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?

[KingJaja]

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:

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?

[Dayuhan]

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.

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!

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.

[JMA]

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.

[ganulv]

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?

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

All of the UCCs are huge.