| Africa Policy Outlook 2006 |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 3 Africa’s "New" Strategic Value: The U.S. Quest for Energy Security At present, conventional wisdom holds that African oil will occupy a position of even greater strategic importance to the U.S., Europe and Asia (principally China) over the next decade. Africa has always been considered of strategic importance to U.S. global interests because of its enormous resources and its expansive geography. Now, it is estimated that the U.S. will invest over $10 billion per year in oil activities in the region in the coming decade. According to the latest trade statistics (2004), oil imports account for more than 70% of all U.S. imports from Africa. The principal motivation for the U.S. focus on African oil is uncertainty over Middle East oil supplies and the consideration of petroleum imports as a matter of national security. According to observers, West African oil is advantageous for western countries because it is high-quality and low sulphur (therefore easier to refine) and closer to markets in the U.S. It is also assumed, incorrectly, that because this oil is mostly extracted from offshore fields it is somehow removed from political instability and conflicts in the producing countries and can more easily be protected from turmoil. As is obvious from recent headlines, hostage-taking and takeovers of oil platforms in the Niger Delta are becoming almost routine and are increasingly the defining strategy for marginalized communities demanding justice and economic compensation from foreign oil companies and the Nigerian government. In fact, the projected increase in U.S. investments in Nigeria’s oil industry and the subsequent U.S. - Nigeria security deal on the Niger Delta, point toward a further militarization of a longstanding conflict over economic compensation for environmental damage and economic injustice. In early 2006, a court in Nigeria ordered Royal Dutch Shell Oil Company to pay US$1.5 billion in compensation to the ethnic Ijaw inhabitants of the Niger Delta, where clashes over the control of the region’s oil wealth have intensified. The Ijaw community took the case to court after Shell refused to pay compensation ordered by the country’s parliament. These demands for compensation for decades of environmental damage are increasingly part of the rallying cry of armed groups in the Niger Delta threatening Nigeria’s oil industry. Some in the U.S. foreign policy establishment argue for a "geopolitical shift in U.S. energy policy" by replacing the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Guinea as America’s main foreign spigot for oil. However, a failure to understand that Africa’s oil wealth is itself a source of violent conflict and instability is likely to aggravate the situation further and make U.S. operators a target in local battles. Rhetoric vs. Reality: The Case of Sudan While U.S. geo-strategic interests define the heart of Africa policy, the growing U.S. presence on the continent is being cast in terms of a humanitarian mission for public relations purposes. In East Africa, the U.S. anti-terrorism task force is rebuilding schools and clinics, installing water pumps and making medical house calls, as part of the campaign for hearts and minds - especially in heavily Muslim parts of the continent. The State Department estimates that 75% of public diplomacy resources are engaged in reaching out to Africa’s Muslim community, which constitutes about 43% of the continent’s population. As one Task Force soldier put it, "It’s about pushing the boundaries of where we are wanted."[3] But perhaps nowhere is the confusion between the warm façade of humanitarianism and the cold calculations of security concerns more revealing than in U.S. policy toward the Sudan. And 2006 is likely to be the pivotal year in determining the course of U.S. relations with Sudan and the ultimate response to the genocide in Darfur. On the one hand, the Bush administration accuses Khartoum of genocide - a crime against humanity - and has taken some steps to respond to this crisis. Yet on the other hand, the U.S. forges a strategic alliance with the Sudanese Mukhabarat (intelligence services) and is anxious to maintain an intelligence-sharing relationship with the Sudanese government in the context of the so-called War on Terrorism. Last spring, in an attempt to forge closer ties with the Islamist regime in Khartoum, the CIA sent a private jet to transport the Sudanese head of intelligence, General Abdullah Gosh, to Washington for high-level talks. Recently, Gosh’s name was revealed on the list given to the International Criminal Court by the United Nations (UN) Commission of Inquiry into the crimes against humanity in Darfur, suggesting that he is one of the most senior officials responsible for the genocide. Now, the CIA is building a listening post on the outskirts of Khartoum to monitor events in the Horn of Africa and wants Khartoum’s cooperation [4]. This continuing collaboration shows how the growing U.S. relationship with Khartoum constrains the U.S. response to the genocide in Darfur. As Africa policy increasingly mirrors Cold War dynamics, U.S. policy toward Sudan reveals a similar hierarchy of geo-strategic interests, equally distorting and bringing equally negative consequences. In this hierarchy of interests, intelligence sharing with Khartoum is more important than stopping the genocide that has already claimed over 400,000 lives. And Sudan’s North-South peace agreement is valued more for facilitating the normalization of ties with the Khartoum government (including the prospect of lifting sanctions and renewing U.S. operations in Sudan’s growing oil industry) than for the reconstruction of the South and the development of its people. In 2006, as during the past two years, vigilant advocates and observers will highlight this duplicity and will urge the Bush Administration to place higher priority on stopping the genocide in Darfur and providing support to the Southern Sudanese’ efforts to realize the full implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). Whose Security? Human Security through Human Rights and Human Development This year, U.S. policy toward Africa should provoke a focused debate over what really constitutes security in today’s world. While the Bush Administration promotes conventional concepts of U.S. security interests in Africa (restricting opportunities for terrorism, securing oil, combating drug trafficking, and monitoring uranium production), this perspective is at odds with a broader concept of human security interests in Africa. The latter conceptualization emphasizes the interdependence of all peoples and countries, the priority that must be given to defeating AIDS and other public health challenges, to reducing poverty and protecting the environment. Africa remains by far the region worst affected by HIV/AIDS, still the greatest global threat to human security and far more deadly than terrorism. Yet little progress can be expected again this year in turning the tide of this global pandemic. In addition, the ideological bent of Bush Administration policies on HIV/AIDS is directly at odds with African countries’ priorities. African civil society groups, like the Pan-African Treatment Access Movement (PATAM)[5] will continue to assert their opposition to the administration’s imposition of abstinence-only efforts and other such restrictions that hinder a comprehensive approach to this crisis. In the U.S. and in Europe, as well as in Africa, the HIV/AIDS crisis continues to grow each year. The consequences of this Administration’s failure to prioritize human security and to address HIV/AIDS with appropriate urgency will also increasingly be felt as the world prepares for a possible bird flu pandemic. The best way to protect Americans against a catastrophic outbreak of the H5N1 avian influenza virus is to work to prevent and control outbreaks elsewhere in the world - by helping to strengthen the emergency public health infrastructure in affected developing nations and by ensuring access to treatment in those countries, especially in Africa. In early 2006, the first cases of avian flu have appeared in West Africa, and international agencies warn that impoverished African countries could be devastated by such an outbreak and that Africa could be the "weakest link" in the global effort to arrest the bird flu before it begins to be transmitted by humans [6]. This year, the U.S. and other countries must work with African countries to address this grave and growing challenge before it is too late. Recent polls show a majority of the U.S. public is concerned about the spread of bird flu [7], and the Administration’s Africa policy should be seen to reflect this in 2006. As countries in East Africa declare a state of emergency in response to drought, and the UN estimates that millions of people in these countries are at risk of starvation, Africa’s vulnerability to humanitarian crises will continue to require international attention. The structural roots of such crises, in economic and environmental terms, require real scrutiny and investment by the international community this year, to sharpen the focus on human security for people in Africa and globally -- for the two are increasingly connected. |
The Issues
About us
 |
Share The World's Resources |
Phone |
A politically unaffiliated |