The neocolonial scramble for Africa
source: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29589.htm
-
-
- JanforGore
- added this
A background paper prepared in 2002 by the influential right-wing think tank Heritage Foundation had called for the creation of a military command for the continent so that “direct military intervention”, using air power and naval forces, could become possible to “protect vital U.S. interests” in Africa. Such interventions, its authors wrote, would not necessitate the deployment of U.S. forces on the ground. Such wars, the paper proposed, should be fought with the help of local allies. The U.S. Defence Department's African Contingency Operation Training and Assistance Programme is deeply involved in training the armies of many countries, including Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda and Ghana, America's close allies in the region.
The authors of the paper clearly spelt out what they meant by vital interests: “With its vast natural and mineral resources, Africa remains strategically important to the West, as it has been for hundreds of years, and its geostrategic significance is likely to rise in the 21st century.” According to the National Intelligence Council, “the United States is likely to draw 25 per cent of its oil from West Africa by 2015, surpassing the volume imported from the Persian Gulf”, the Heritage Foundation study reported. The Bush administration's Assistant Secretary of State for Africa Walter Kansteiner was quick to echo the views expressed by the foundation. He went on record stating that Africa's oil had “become a national strategic interest”.
Libya is among Africa's biggest oil producers. China was importing 11 per cent of Libyan oil for its domestic needs before the NATO-instigated civil war in the North African state started seven months ago. It could now find itself locked out of new oil contracts. Top functionaries of the NTC have said that China, Russia and Brazil would be frozen out of contracts.
These countries had criticised the misuse of the United Nations Security Council resolution on Libya to bring about a regime change. China gets around one-third of its oil from Africa. The French newspaper Liberacion recently published documents revealing the NTC leadership's offer of 35 per cent of Libya's oil production to France in return for its “total and permanent support” for the new government. Gene Cretz, the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, recently blurted out that “oil is the jewel of the crown of Libyan national resources”.
President Barack Obama, who famously claimed that he was leading the war in Libya “from behind”, used precisely the tactics prescribed in the Heritage Foundation report. AFRICOM played an important behind-the-scenes role in planning the U.S./NATO bombing of Libya. U.S. Special Forces teamed up with its counterparts from France and the United Kingdom to arm and organise the ragtag rebel forces into a fighting unit. It was the coordinated air strikes, coupled with an amphibious operation led by the U.S., that finally led to the fall of Tripoli. South African President Jacob Zuma complained bitterly that it was NATO bombing that prevented the African Union (A.U.) from hammering out a negotiated settlement to the civil war in Libya. More than 200 prominent Africans wrote an open letter in August criticising the recourse to “militarised diplomacy to effect regime change in Libya”.
In early October, a few days before the fall of Sirte and the killing of Muammar Qaddafi, Obama ordered the despatch of 100 U.S. Special Forces troops to Uganda. He said the decision to send the troops was taken to help the U.S.' ally in the region, Yoweri Museveni, defeat the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), which was engaged in a guerilla war with the central government in Kampala. Obama told Congress that the troops were deployed in order “to assist African forces in the removal of Joseph Koni [the LRA leader] and the LRA leadership from the battlefield”. Museveni, one of Africa's long-serving authoritarian rulers, was a one-time friend of Qaddafi. Qaddafi had extended support to the rebel army that brought Museveni to power in 1986. After coming to power, Museveni became one of the trusted allies of the West and was regularly feted at the White House.
At America's bidding, Uganda has sent peacekeepers to Somalia under the A.U. umbrella to keep the Islamist Al Shabab militia out of the capital, Mogadishu. Two years ago, Ethiopia despatched its troops to Somalia to drive away the Islamic Courts Union government from Mogadishu after it had managed to unite most of the country. In the face of immense resistance, the Ethiopian troops were withdrawn, but the country was left in chaos again. Al Shabab exploited this and now poses a potent threat to U.S. interests in the region.
In the middle of October, Kenya replicated what Ethiopia did. Encouraged by the U.S., it sent its troops deep into Somalia to fight Al Shabab. The U.S. is providing air support to the Kenyan military. The Kenyan invasion has already led to terror attacks in Kenyan cities. Only a handful of African states have bothered to send peacekeepers to the war-ravaged country, viewing the conflict there as one mainly instigated by the West.
Observers of the African scene are suspicious of the Obama administration's sudden decision to send Special Forces to Uganda. Obama has also indicated that the U.S. forces will be sent to the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo and South Sudan, ostensibly to help the governments there to crush rebel groups. AFRICOM provides billions of dollars worth of equipment to the armies of countries that are friendly to the U.S. The U.S. military is already helping counter-insurgency operations in Mali and Niger, where the marginalised Tuareg ethnic group has raised the banner of revolt. “With Libya secure, an American invasion of Africa is under way,” observed John Pilger in a recent article.
The LRA, which operates along Uganda's borders with Southern Sudan and the Central African Republic, was never considered a serious threat in the 24 years that it has been active. It is said to have around 500 fighters, many of them child soldiers. Many African commentators suspect that the real goal of the Obama administration is to start preparing the ground for a permanent military base for AFRICOM on the continent. AFRICOM is currently headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany, but it has a major military facility in Camp Lemonier in Djibouti, a small state located in the Horn of Africa. In all, 1,800 American troops are permanently based there.
~~~~
-
- groups:
- Tech, Earth Care, Endangered Earth, Citizen Journalism
-
-
JanforGore
-
And of course, vote me down for valid opinions and comments that weren't even personal attacks instead of commenting to make your ego feel good. That is all this site has become for some I suppose. So much for tolerance and believing in democracy when some of you can't wait to ZAP someone just for disagreeing. I would normally vote it back up, but this time I'll leave it so others can see the pettiness of some. I also guess denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
- 7 months ago
-
JanforGore
-
-
Nick19
-
The NTC was created on its own and not by NATO. Its rather laughable that this article considers that the rebel movement was created by NATO rather than being homegrown. Seems like everyone forgot that the rebel movement started BEFORE NATO came in and were only saved at the last minute by a resolution by the UN that allowed NATO to go ahead with operations. Its good that this article mentions the obvious that Gaddafi was guilty of supporting rebel movements and trying to put others into power. Again, I must bring the example of Chad whereas, he was trying to annex territory and support a rebel group in Chad. The article doesn't know if it wants to be anti-American or anti-Europe since it on one hand complains that Obama claimed that he's behind the rebel movement while on the other, the article says oh, the NTC is going to give 35% of it's oil to France. What the article fails to really do is take into consideration the domestic politics of the countries at hand and thats especially true with Kenya lately as it is responding to kidnapping by Al-Shabab members coming across it's border. Also, neocolonialism has ALREADY been happening for a long time now so its rather odd that the article is title "The Neocolonialism Scramble for Africa", as though its just happening. Its odd that any article criticizing exploitation in Africa always targets the Europeans and the United States and totally disregards the economic exploitation of the Chinese. I mean China is putting many local African vendors out of business because they flood many African markets with their cheap goods. China is doing what European colonial powers were doing just before colonization, flood the markets with cheap good in return for raw materials.
- 7 months ago
-
Nick19
-
-
JanforGore
-
Nick19:
The article is talking about the NTC "government" which was just installed yesterday with a new prime minister in place of Jalil, who was an engineer with the Petroleum Institute and who also lived here in North Carolina. And yes it has been happening, and it is WRONG regardless of who does it. You didn't seem to relay that message in your comment. Not OK-China, Not OK- France, Not OK- USA.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2055823/Libyas-new-president-Abdel-Rahim...
Also based on past history he looks like someone who will not make any waves for any of the
beneficiaries. Sounds like another Karzai. We shall see.Also from the article:
"China started investing heavily there ever since it began to emerge as a big economic power. Its investments in 2010 were estimated at $47 billion. Beijing's policy of giving liberal “no-strings-attached” loans to African nations has won it a lot of goodwill. But with Chinese labour and capital moving into the continent in a big way, the resentment that has been building up in some countries has come in handy for the West."
- 7 months ago
-
JanforGore
-
-
Nick19
-
JanforGore:
I honestly don't see the problem with western educated individuals who wish to lead their country. Also, yeah I mean we are in a globalized society so its unavoidable that Libya will have to join the free market whether you like it or not. That doesn't mean you can't regulate it to certain extents but its rather silly to suggest that you can cut yourself off from all of it and believe that everything will be fine. Free market is vital for a nation to obtain the needed capital in order to build up and modernize industrial capacity. Again, the problem comes when you're not able to regulate it enough and then it suddenly becomes less of an advantage to you. That I understand and Libya could be on that position but hopefully, the people will elect a government that follow their interests. The problem with China of course is that it might not even be a sustainable long term development plan. Sure you have worker..except all if not most are Chinese. Sure you have infrastructure development...except it comes in the form of new Football stadiums and roads to the extraction areas. And sure there is economic development....just don't ask how terrible the human rights are in your country. Really a mix bag for China.
- 7 months ago
-
Nick19
-
-
JanforGore
-
Nick19:
Really? Even those not elected by the people? And "Join" the free market?" You think Bush's AFRICOM/PNAC plan to force compliance by pre-emptive attack and military occupation is in the best interests of the "free market?" Is that all that is important? So I suppose you think Monsanto and other companies forcing their corporate colonialism on them while depleting and exploiting their resources, polluting them, and exacerbating poverty in these regions is in the best interests of all? You do a real good job of wrapping that BS up in a pretty package. It still is what it is.
- 7 months ago
-
JanforGore
-
-
Nick19
-
JanforGore:
Since when did I say it was justified to use the military to open up markets? I'm simply saying that free market is needed in order to accumulate capital and to modernize industrial capacity. That doesn't mean you need to open the entire country up without some protections in place. Besides, why does the United States need to go into pointless wars when they can simply use the Structural Adjustment Programs to influence country development?
- 7 months ago
-
Nick19
-
-
JanforGore
-
Nick19:
"Since when did I say it was justified to use the military to open up markets?"
That is what this article is about.
- 7 months ago
-
JanforGore
-
-
Vic_Romano
-
My neighbor said something very profound the other day--that we'd better start focusing our energy on losing our empire and saving our republic, or else we're going to lose both.
When I read stories like this, I can't help but think he was dead on right.
Great post.
- 7 months ago
-
Vic_Romano
-
-
JanforGore
-
Vic_Romano:
"we'd better start focusing our energy on losing our empire and saving our republic, or else we're going to lose both."
Wise words that need to be heeded, and there is something else even bigger at stake: Our planet. I'm still waiting for us to evolve to the point where we actually "do" learn from history.
. - 7 months ago
-
JanforGore
-
-
Vic_Romano
-
JanforGore:
I wholeheartedly agree.
- 7 months ago
-
Vic_Romano
-
-
Anonmaly
-
I knew we were in for a wild ride when they gave him a damn Nobel Peace Prize for nothing.....
I swear if I had ever done hard core psychedelics I would have thought I was having some weird kind of flashback involving current situations and old experiences....
Somebody was high, that whole charade was insane....
- 7 months ago
-
Anonmaly
-
-
JanforGore
-
If this is indeed true, Obama is playing right along with the plan. How then can he be on our side? No wonder climate change and renewable energy get nothing but lip service from this government. And no wonder China has suddenly moved so aggressively towards solar, because it looks like they are being frozen out of the oil in Africa. I also think this is tied to the push to get GMOs into Africa. Corporate Colonialism.
- 7 months ago
-
JanforGore
