Southern Africa: More U.S. Soldiers Not Welcome in Africa, Says Lekota [Archive]

DanteXavier

August 31st, 2007, 04:42 AM

I don't understand this, but whatever. A US military base in some African nations wouldn't be such a bad thing-could help with unemployment, etc, etc.

By Wyndham Hartley
Cape Town

More armed US soldiers are not welcome in Africa, said Defence Minister Mosiuoa Lekota yesterday.

Any country that allowed itself to be a base for the US strategic command in Africa (Africom) would have to live with the consequences, Lekota said.

Africom's recent creation has been interpreted as the US suddenly recognising the strategic importance of Africa to the US.

Last month it was reported that Lekota was not responding to US requests for him to meet the first Africom commander, Gen Kip Ward.

Briefing the media yesterday, Lekota said the Southern African Development Community (SADC) defence ministers had, at the summit in Lusaka this month, decided that no member states would host Africom and more armed US soldiers.

He said this was also the "continental position" of the African Union.

However, Liberian President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf has evidently already offered her country as a base for Africom.

Lekota said as far as he knew most African countries supported the view that the Americans should keep their distance.

He said there might be a minority that felt Africom was welcome but, as was the case in democracy, the will of the majority prevailed.

He warned strongly that any country that did not abide by the view that US soldiers should not have an enlarged presence in Africa as part of Africom would have to consider the consequences. These could amount to neighbouring African countries refusing to co-operate with them.

"Africa has to avoid the presence of foreign forces on its soil, particularly if any influx of soldiers might affect relations between sister African countries," Lekota said. The idea of a renewed US focus on Africa was not new, he said.

"Nevertheless, the SADC has adopted the position that it would be better if the US did it from a distance", and did not cause instability in Africa.

R-Adm Robert Moeller of the US was reported last month as arguing that the goal of the US with Africom was to help build the capacity of African organisations such as the African Standby Force to promote peace and security and respond to crises on the continent.

Simon Tisdale wrote in the London-based Guardian: "Africom marks the official arrival of America's 'global war on terror' on the African continent."

http://allafrica.com/stories/200708300344.html

Rdokoye

August 31st, 2007, 05:10 AM

Mosiuoa Lekota is my new hero :D

Michaelda

August 31st, 2007, 05:24 AM

I don't understand this, but whatever. A US military base in some African nations wouldn't be such a bad thing-could help with unemployment, etc, etc.

http://allafrica.com/stories/200708300344.html

you kidding right? a few jobs is worth allowing a foriegn and many times hostile nation place a military base on your continent?

Xusein

August 31st, 2007, 06:25 AM

I could see them expanding the one in Djibouti, to keep an eye out on those pesky Somalis. :bash: :ohno:

Personally, I don't think it's a good idea to have any kind of foreign troops in your country.

naijalove

August 31st, 2007, 10:31 AM

I don't understand this, but whatever. A US military base in some African nations wouldn't be such a bad thing-could help with unemployment, etc, etc.

http://allafrica.com/stories/200708300344.html

Easy to say that when you are comfortably in America. Anyways, the opposition is unanimous:

Nigeria, others oppose US command in Africa

By Agency Reporter
Published: Thursday, 30 Aug 2007

United States government’s plan to establish a military command in Africa is not receiving the blessings of Nigeria and other African nations.

They fear that such a command may attract the ire of other African countries, Empowered Newswire, a US-based Nigerian news agency, has said.

Competent sources said that the Nigerian government in particular had diplomatically withheld support for the US plan, and instead passed the buck to the African Union.

A US military spokesperson, who spoke in Pentagon, Lt. Col. Todd Vician, confirmed that the US authorities had been meeting with African governments, including Nigeria, to discuss the US command plan in Africa.

However, he did not disclose the outcome of the meeting. He said one of the top Nigerian officials that the US has discussed the idea with was the former Chief of Defence Staff, Gen. Martin Agwai, who was consulted between April 15 and 21 this year.

Lt. Col. Vician said the US government was yet to decide on where the headquarters of the command would be, in what observers call a signal that the whole idea is not moving on very well with a majority of African governments so far.

Nigeria and some other African nations are believed to be opposing the idea of a US command in Africa since it might be perceived as violating a decision of the AU that Africa should hold common positions on defence and security, just like the Europeans do under the European Union. A common African position also discourages such initiatives as the US military command on African soil.

Europeans are also largely seen as opposing the idea, which is being cast as the triumph of US militarism and a possible attempt to fend off China‘s inroad into Nigeria and other African nations.

In the US the legislative arm of the government, the US Senate conducted a hearing on the matter through its Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Africa earlier this month.

Senators from both the Democratic and Republican parties are said to be wary of the idea so far.

American government officials, senators and congressmen are however pushing the idea and seeking to find suitable responses to the criticism of the US-Africa Command. For instance Senator Feingold is currently travelling in some parts of the continent, especially the Democratic Republic of Congo seeking to among other things explain the idea.

Recently Congressman Donald Payne, also a democrat and chairman of the US House of Representative Subcommittee on Africa, met with the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of External Affairs, Dr. Hakeem Baba-Ahmed, where the issue of the US-Africa Command also came up

FG withholds support from US

30.08.2007

United States government’s plan to establish a command in Africa is not receiving the blessings of Nigeria and other African nations, which feared that such a command in might attract the ire of other African countries, Empowered Newswire, a US based Nigerian news agency, has reported.

Competent sources said that the Federal Government in particular had diplomatically withheld support for the US plan, and had instead, passed the buck to the African Union.

A US military spokesperson, speaking to Empowered Newswire from Pentagon, Lt. Col. Todd Vician, confirmed that the US authorities had been meeting with African governments including Nigeria to discuss the US command plan in Africa.

However, he did not disclose the outcome of the meeting. He said one of the top Nigerian officials that the US had discussed the idea with included the former Chief of Defence Staff, General Martin Agwai, who was consulted between April 15 and 21.

Alex Roney

August 31st, 2007, 10:53 AM

Matthias Offodile

August 31st, 2007, 11:16 AM

U.S bases actually do wonders for the local community, creating jobs and investment. One base in a large country won't change the outlook either for good or bad. People who oppose this do so on ultra nationalist or anti American grounds. Fact is little sovereignty or any is lost with one U.S military base, by contrast a nation looses more sovereignty through joining a free trade economic union. Doesn't make it a bad.

Alex, you are Brazilian, so ask yourself a few questions

What did the Brazilian government do in response to the fingerprints that you are asked to give on entering the USA?

Does Brazil have any American military base on its soil?

A US base only leads to more despair and chaos (Irak is the shiniest and most recent example) of it. We all know that when the Americans come , they come in huuuge numbers.

Tiny Qatar is literally overrun by US soldiers, there are more than 150 000 troops (!!!!) for a local population of less than 200 000, this says it all....I don´t want any African country to end up this way. Thank you!

kulani

August 31st, 2007, 01:01 PM

Alex Roney

August 31st, 2007, 05:07 PM

Alex, you are Brazilian, so ask yourself a few questions

What did the Brazilian government do in response to the fingerprints that you are asked to give on entering the USA?

Does Brazil have any American military base on its soil?

A US base only leads to more despair and chaos (Irak is the shiniest and most recent example) of it. We all know that when the Americans come , they come in huuuge numbers.

Tiny Qatar is literally overrun by US soldiers, there are more than 150 000 troops (!!!!) for a local population of less than 200 000, this says it all....I don´t want any African country to end up this way. Thank you!

The Brazilian goverment's response not only was it childish but plain stupid. Why did they do it? Because their are plenty of short sighted people who don't the consequences of their action. What is the result? A drop in U.S tourists who are one if not the largest group of people who visit Brazil. However relations are good between both countries and the state dept. announced that they'd drop visa regulations from both Argentina and Brazil.

Brazil does not have U.S base, but if they had one, it really wouldn't bother me. Doesn't affect me in the slightest of ways. The U.S base in Mantua, Ecuador has helped that local community greatly, now that anti American president Rafael Correa will throw them out, that town will suffer.

Iraq is a completely different situation lol, what about Germany? Germany has lost more sovereignty through the European Union than through Ramstein, bases in Heildelburg, Wurzburg ect. It has in fact helped and employ those towns.

Gulf nations are U.S puppets and dependent on their protection. Their goverments WANT the Americans there.

Alex Roney

August 31st, 2007, 05:11 PM

So can we also go and setup a South African military command in the US too? Before i forget, we want to come along with the
Nigerians, Russians and Chinese too who will provide us with some backup. LOL

:nuts:

Well whats the Geo political purpose? Their is none, just like China won't allow a U.S base in their soil. U.S bases in Europe have proved quite important, such as Ramstein being a pit stop between the Middle East and the U.S. The island of Diego Garcia in the Indian ocean an ideal fueling stop. They do serve a purpose. Besides apart from the U.S, only Russia and China have long range capabilities.

Matthias Offodile

August 31st, 2007, 06:53 PM

The Brazilian goverment's response not only was it childish but plain stupid. Why did they do it? Because their are plenty of short sighted people who don't the consequences of their action. What is the result? A drop in U.S tourists who are one if not the largest group of people who visit Brazil. However relations are good between both countries and the state dept. announced that they'd drop visa regulations from both Argentina and Brazil.

Brazil does not have U.S base, but if they had one, it really wouldn't bother me. Doesn't affect me in the slightest of ways. The U.S base in Mantua, Ecuador has helped that local community greatly, now that anti American president Rafael Correa will throw them out, that town will suffer.

Iraq is a completely different situation lol, what about Germany? Germany has lost more sovereignty through the European Union than through Ramstein, bases in Heildelburg, Wurzburg ect. It has in fact helped and employ those towns.

Gulf nations are U.S puppets and dependent on their protection. Their goverments WANT the Americans there.

Alex, what kind of Brazilian are you, please????.... you would gleefully allow the US to open a foreign military base in your country more than 200 years after Brazil´s independence?? You must be out of your right mind! Brazil should have surpassed this stage of licking the ass of other nations.

As for the military base in Ecuador, I applaud the government of Ecuador for its strength to say "no" to foreign occupation by the Americans of a free, independent, fully pacified (!!!) and stable country. There is no need any more. They can leave, the two towns won´t dry up financially after their disappearence, what the heck is this, please? New sources of income can be created with a little bit of imagination.

As far as the finger-printing measures are concerned: Well, the Brazilian government´s reaction was not childish but an apprpriate and wise response of a non-subservient emerging power. Americans intorduced those procedures first so they should be surprised when American citizens have to undergo the same procedures wheny they travel abroad. It is simply fair play.

What is so "different" in Iraq, please? Expound your thought on it....

As for Germany, it is hilarious that 60 years after pacification there are still close to 30 000 American soldiers in Germany although many have moved back from where they came from, fortunately. Many German young and educated people are no longer US-friendly but highly critical of the country/government as a whole. (so I am no exception).

I don´t see any use of a military base in Africa. American interest for Africa had been virtually zero all over the decades before so why now? They can simply stay away. We can trade with them but nothing more, no form of military occupation/tutelage in the name of "fighting against terrorism in cooperation with the Africans in Africa", please. What is so difficult to understand this?

Matthias Offodile

August 31st, 2007, 06:55 PM

The Brazilian goverment's response not only was it childish but plain stupid. Why did they do it? Because their are plenty of short sighted people who don't the consequences of their action. What is the result? A drop in U.S tourists who are one if not the largest group of people who visit Brazil. However relations are good between both countries and the state dept. announced that they'd drop visa regulations from both Argentina and Brazil.

Brazil does not have U.S base, but if they had one, it really wouldn't bother me. Doesn't affect me in the slightest of ways. The U.S base in Mantua, Ecuador has helped that local community greatly, now that anti American president Rafael Correa will throw them out, that town will suffer.

Iraq is a completely different situation lol, what about Germany? Germany has lost more sovereignty through the European Union than through Ramstein, bases in Heildelburg, Wurzburg ect. It has in fact helped and employ those towns.

Gulf nations are U.S puppets and dependent on their protection. Their goverments WANT the Americans there.

Alex, what kind of Brazilian are you, please????.... you would gleefully allow the US to open a foreign military base in your country more than 200 years after Brazil´s independence?? You must be out of your right mind! Brazil should have surpassed this stage of licking the ass of other nations.

As for the military base in Ecuador, I applaud the government of Ecuador for its strength to say "no" to foreign occupation by the Americans of a free, independent, fully pacified (!!!) and stable country. There is no need any more. They can leave, the two towns won´t dry up financially after their disappearence, what the heck is this, please? New sources of income can be created with a little bit of imagination.

As far as the finger-printing measures are concerned: Well, the Brazilian government´s reaction was not childish but an apprpriate and wise response of a non-subservient emerging power. Americans intorduced those procedures first so they should not be surprised when American citizens have to undergo the same procedures wheny they travel abroad. It is simply fair play.

What is so "different" in Iraq, please? Expound your thought on it....

As for Germany, it is hilarious that 60 years after pacification there are still close to 30 000 American soldiers in Germany although many have moved back from where they came from, fortunately. Many German young and educated people are no longer US-friendly but highly critical of the country/government as a whole. (so I am no exception).

I don´t see any use of a military base in Africa. American interest for Africa had been virtually zero all over the decades before so why now? They can simply stay away. We can trade with them but nothing more, no form of military occupation/tutelage in the name of "fighting against terrorism in cooperation with the Africans in Africa", please. Why is so difficult to understand?

Alex Roney

September 1st, 2007, 05:03 PM

Alex, what kind of Brazilian are you, please????.... you would gleefully allow the US to open a foreign military base in your country more than 200 years after Brazil´s independence?? You must be out of your right mind! Brazil should have surpassed this stage of licking the ass of other nations.

As for the military base in Ecuador, I applaud the government of Ecuador for its strength to say "no" to foreign occupation by the Americans of a free, independent, fully pacified (!!!) and stable country. There is no need any more. They can leave, the two towns won´t dry up financially after their disappearence, what the heck is this, please? New sources of income can be created with a little bit of imagination.

As far as the finger-printing measures are concerned: Well, the Brazilian government´s reaction was not childish but an apprpriate and wise response of a non-subservient emerging power. Americans intorduced those procedures first so they should be surprised when American citizens have to undergo the same procedures wheny they travel abroad. It is simply fair play.

What is so "different" in Iraq, please? Expound your thought on it....

As for Germany, it is hilarious that 60 years after pacification there are still close to 30 000 American soldiers in Germany although many have moved back from where they came from, fortunately. Many German young and educated people are no longer US-friendly but highly critical of the country/government as a whole. (so I am no exception).

I don´t see any use of a military base in Africa. American interest for Africa had been virtually zero all over the decades before so why now? They can simply stay away. We can trade with them but nothing more, no form of military occupation/tutelage in the name of "fighting against terrorism in cooperation with the Africans in Africa", please. What is so difficult to understand this?

I'm a patriot not a nationalist, theirs a difference where imho the latter should be frowned upon. Again for me it doesn't affect me in the slightest of bits. If ONE U.S base was stationed it would employ and raise the standards of living in that community. Is that not a good thing? In return for what? A plot of land? Again as a Brazilian I have more important things to worry about like crime, poverty and social justice.

Yes but Ecuador is one of the most corrupt and politically unstable nations in Latin America. So while other solutions certainly do exist, its comical that you put such high esteem on this goverment, little do you know of instability of the Ecuadorean congress. Either way, victory for Ecuador and a loss for the people of Mantua. I doubt however the average poor Ecuadorean gives a damn either way.

Oh the whole eye for an eye measure, yes how appropriate. Fact is Brazil is more dependent on American tourists than the other way around. Again who is affected mostly by this? The poor who are employed in the tourist industry. Don't you see the pattern?

Difference is that Iraq is a war zone while Western Europe and South Africa are not.

List to me the negative economic impact of U.S bases in Germany and Europe as a whole? First off those plots of land aren't cheap and Uncle Sam annually pays a good sum to European goverments to be able to stay. Fact is the day Germany says "your not welcome" they have to go! Your frustration should be more towards European goverments than the U.S, no one is forcing nobody to stay. The possitives outweigh the negatives. Also please anti americanism is not a result of the U.S bases but American foreign policy as a whole. I've been to U.S bases in Germany and generally theirs a great relationship between the base and the German communities.

I'm not in the State Department so I don't know why. But their is a reason, it costs money so the U.S goverment would not set up a base for the hell of it. My point isn't that South Africa should allow the U.S inside, but that the rationale between stupid comments like "occupation" or "loss sovereignty" hold little merrit. Again using the European Union as an example, alot more sovereignty is lost than a U.S base, doesn't make it a bad thing. Other examples like Mercosur and NAFTA.

Finally this will be my last post on this issue, since I've made my points loud and clear. I will say this, 99% of Africans don't give a crap about issues like this, unless it directly affects them. Fact is these issues are only cared about priveledged Africans such as yourself and those here in this forum who are part of that 2% (including me) of the world population who own a computer. When people struggle to get by, side "issues" such as these are irrelevent, just to put things into perspective.

Matthias Offodile

September 1st, 2007, 06:38 PM

I'm a patriot not a nationalist, theirs a difference where imho the latter should be frowned upon.

There is no difference , how can you be patriotic without being a nationalist or viceversa? It is just as if you are saying I want to wear yellow panties instead of black ones, the fact is that you are still wearing panties in either case.

Moreover, if one reads your commenst with an alertness of mind, it is detectable that you are neither a patriot nor a nationalist, so you have no panties on, neither black nor yellow ones!;)

Again for me it doesn't affect me in the slightest of bits. If ONE U.S base was stationed it would employ and raise the standards of living in that community. Is that not a good thing? In return for what? A plot of land? Again as a Brazilian I have more important things to worry about like crime, poverty and social justice.

So you mean a plot of land is all what the USA wants and that they come to give "poor" Africans employment? No further comment. LOL!

Oh the whole eye for an eye measure, yes how appropriate. Fact is Brazil is more dependent on American tourists than the other way around. Again who is affected mostly by this? The poor who are employed in the tourist industry. Don't you see the pattern?

So one should be licking subserviently the ass of the USA, the US decides and the rest follows like empty-headed and conditioned sheep!
Moreover, as a Brazilian you seem to know your country pretty bad.

Difference is that Iraq is a war zone while Western Europe and South Africa are not.

Germany was also a war zone 60 years back, it was propped up by the USA because of the Cold War. The still 30 000 US soldiers in Germany are a relict of a by-gone era! There is absolutely no obligation for them to stay any longer, the country is entirely pacified for more than half a century.

List to me the negative economic impact of U.S bases in Germany and Europe as a whole? First off those plots of land aren't cheap and Uncle Sam annually pays a good sum to European goverments to be able to stay. Fact is the day Germany says "your not welcome" they have to go! Your frustration should be more towards European goverments than the U.S, no one is forcing nobody to stay. The possitives outweigh the negatives. Also please anti americanism is not a result of the U.S bases but American foreign policy as a whole. I've been to U.S bases in Germany and generally theirs a great relationship between the base and the German communities.

Are you sure of your Brazilian origin?

I'm not in the State Department so I don't know why. But their is a reason, it costs money so the U.S goverment would not set up a base for the hell of it. My point isn't that South Africa should allow the U.S inside, but that the rationale between stupid comments like "occupation" or "loss sovereignty" hold little merrit. Again using the European Union as an example, alot more sovereignty is lost than a U.S base, doesn't make it a bad thing. Other examples like Mercosur and NAFTA.

I will reply to this later.

Finally this will be my last post on this issue, since I've made my points loud and clear. I will say this, 99% of Africans don't give a crap about issues like this, unless it directly affects them. Fact is these issues are only cared about priveledged Africans such as yourself and those here in this forum who are part of that 2% (including me) of the world population who own a computer. When people struggle to get by, side "issues" such as these are irrelevent, just to put things into perspective

Opening a military base in Africa is a side issue in your mind?

Aley roney, you betrayed yourself, you are exactly like that Belgian-Congolese (that I saw in the report mentioned above) waiting for the "recolonization" of the Congo so that "law and order" is brought back to it.

I am sure that you are a white South African that fled South Africa (after 1994) who now dwells in the USA.

Matthias Offodile

September 1st, 2007, 08:18 PM

My reply now

List to me the negative economic impact of U.S bases in Germany and Europe as a whole? First off those plots of land aren't cheap and Uncle Sam annually pays a good sum to European goverments to be able to stay. (...)The possitives outweigh the negatives. Also please anti americanism is not a result of the U.S bases but American foreign policy as a whole. I've been to U.S bases in Germany and generally theirs a great relationship between the base and the German communities.:ohno:

Anti-Americanism is not a result of US bases but one of its causes. Those bases are even more obstrusive and invasive in non-European countries! Nobody can deny this.

Well, the employment generated by military bases was marginal perhaps it was bigger in the early 50´s for Germany but no more, Americans lived ENTIRELY fenced off in quarters where they had their own supermarkets stuffed with imported American products, they had their own restaurants, housing , hospitals and clothing stores. They lived wholly cut off from their social surroundings. The vast majority of the people that worked in "PX" as those quarters were called were of American origin and not of German.
American still have their own radio station nowadays.
Many of those "PX" have closed down in recent years and the military American air base at Frankfurt Airport is finally gone too. It will now give room for Terminal III to be constructed but the area has not been cleansed so far because Americans dumped their waste - some of which was toxic - into the soil. So they still have to clean the area up!
Are those communities collapsing now? No, it will even give room for new and better economic activity, the expansion of Frankfurt Airport on the site of the former American military air base will have more positive spin-offs/effects in terms of employment and emergence of new industries than it would have been the case if the Americans had still been there. So where are the economic benefits for installing a military base? I don´t see any.

I'm not in the State Department so I don't know why. But their is a reason, it costs money so the U.S goverment would not set up a base for the hell of it. My point isn't that South Africa should allow the U.S inside, but that the rationale between stupid comments like "occupation" or "loss sovereignty" hold little merrit. Again using the European Union as an example, alot more sovereignty is lost than a U.S base, doesn't make it a bad thing. Other examples like Mercosur and NAFTA.

Do you honestly believe in the fact that American will stay out of politics in Africa?Oh yes, A foreign military on another country is a loss of sovereignity...in the case of the US, it will even be more the case because they won´t come with 500 or 1000 soldiers "only" but with thousands if not tens of thousands in the long run. once you allowed them to enter, it is difficult to get rid off them. It is even a set-back and it will be difficult legitimazie it towards the populace of africa´s young democracies.

As I said earlier Qatar: more than 150 000 soldiers for a local population of less than 200 000 people, if that is not loss of sovereignity or foreign occupation I don´t know what else it is.

Europeans are currently helping helping African armies with "RECAMP" programmes and initiatives are taken to set up African regional armies by the African Union.

The USA can help to work closely together with armies in countries like South africa, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, Ghana or Angola but please refrain from setting up a military base in any of above-mentioned countries.

Alex Roney

September 1st, 2007, 09:18 PM

There is no difference , how can you be patriotic without being a nationalist or viceversa? It is just as if you are saying I want to wear yellow panties instead of black ones, the fact is that you are still wearing panties in either case.

Moreover, if one reads your commenst with an alertness of mind, it is detectable that you are neither a patriot nor a nationalist, so you have no panties on, neither black nor yellow ones!;)

So you mean a plot of land is all what the USA wants and that they come to give "poor" Africans employment? No further comment. LOL!

So one should be licking subserviently the ass of the USA, the US decides and the rest follows like empty-headed and conditioned sheep!
Moreover, as a Brazilian you seem to know your country pretty bad.

Germany was also a war zone 60 years back, it was propped up by the USA because of the Cold War. The still 30 000 US soldiers in Germany are a relict of a by-gone era! There is absolutely no obligation for them to stay any longer, the country is entirely pacified for more than half a century.

Are you sure of your Brazilian origin?

Opening a military base in Africa is a side issue in your mind?

Aley roney, you betrayed yourself, you are exactly like that Belgian-Congolese (that I saw in the report mentioned above) waiting for the "recolonization" of the Congo so that "law and order" is brought back to it.

I am sure that you are a white South African that fled South Africa (after 1994) who now dwells in the USA.

Okay I'll respond again because you seriously don't get it.

First off theirs a huge difference between patriotism and nationalism A patriot is someone who loves his country and is proud to be a citizen. A nationalist, has the same air of pride but this pride translates into disrespect and sense of superiority towards other nations. This individual tends to want to have a more isolationist and protectionist like country.

The fact that you question if I'm a patriot just shows you don't have the slightest clue about me.

I didn't say they come to give poor Africans employment, your just putting words into my mouth.

No the goverment should act in his/her nation's best interest, fingerprinting American's who come to visit Brazil discourages travellars. Ends up hurting the tourism industry which employs predominantly poor people. Bad buisness, lower wages. I didn't know trying to lure U.S tourists who represent the largest market in the tourist industry as ass kicking.

Okay, but its the German goverment whose keeping them from leaving. What part of that don't you understand?

I'm not of Brazilian origin, i'm a mixture of Italian, Irish and Gurani descendency. I'm Brazilian.

WTF? I really have no idea what that means? Your a priviledged African who has the luxoury to afford to care about such issues. Most of your compatriots aren't as fortunate.

White South African? LOL! I'm to good of a samba dancer and footballer to be a South African at all. You lack any decent arguments so you question whether I'm Brazilian and make a colorful "claim". Says Mr.I'm half white German.

Alex Roney

September 1st, 2007, 09:28 PM

My reply now

Anti-Americanism is not a result of US bases but one of its causes. Those bases are even more obstrusive and invasive in non-European countries! Nobody can deny this.

Well, the employment generated by military bases was marginal perhaps it was bigger in the early 50´s for Germany but no more, Americans lived ENTIRELY fenced off in quarters where they had their own supermarkets stuffed with imported American products, they had their own restaurants, housing , hospitals and clothing stores. They lived wholly cut off from their social surroundings. The vast majority of the people that worked in "PX" as those quarters were called were of American origin and not of German.
American still have their own radio station nowadays.
Many of those "PX" have closed down in recent years and the military American air base at Frankfurt Airport is finally gone too. It will now give room for Terminal III to be constructed but the area has not been cleansed so far because Americans dumped their waste - some of which was toxic - into the soil. So they still have to clean the area up!
Are those communities collapsing now? No, it will even give room for new and better economic activity, the expansion of Frankfurt Airport on the site of the former American military air base will have more positive spin-offs/effects in terms of employment and emergence of new industries than it would have been the case if the Americans had still been there. So where are the economic benefits for installing a military base? I don´t see any.

Do you honestly believe in the fact that American will stay out of politics in Africa?Oh yes, A foreign military on another country is a loss of sovereignity...in the case of the US, it will even be more the case because they won´t come with 500 or 1000 soldiers "only" but with thousands if not tens of thousands in the long run. once you allowed them to enter, it is difficult to get rid off them. It is even a set-back and it will be difficult legitimazie it towards the populace of africa´s young democracies.

As I said earlier Qatar: more than 150 000 soldiers for a local population of less than 200 000 people, if that is not loss of sovereignity or foreign occupation I don´t know what else it is.

Europeans are currently helping helping African armies with "RECAMP" programmes and initiatives are taken to set up African regional armies by the African Union.

The USA can help to work closely together with armies in countries like South africa, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, Ghana or Angola but please refrain from setting up a military base in any of above-mentioned countries.

How so? It provides employment opportunities for the local community and the goverment gets money in return for U.S owned land! The same money that goes into the German budget.

I've been to various U.S bases in Germany and to the NATO base SHAPE in Belgium. U.S bases is a 'home away from home" feeling and a bit of middle America. Many of those employed within the base (ussually cheap labor) is from the outside. Those that are employed are in the surrounding towns. U.S bases have always been fenced off and segregated. This isn't new!

If its a limited presence it shouldn't affect the politics of the goverment. Your telling me German politics is controlled by America? Is this why we see German troops in Iraq today? (sarcasm). South Africa is a strong enough country not to be pulled by this kinda crap.

Qatar is a U.S LAP DOG!! Gulf nations are U.S LAP DOGS! I don't know how strong I have to stress this point. These nations are dependent on the U.S presence to protect them! Do you know what spurred this? The first Gulf war, when little Kuwait was overrun by Iraq. Now the excuse is different, with Iran being seen as a threat.

The African Union is a poor excuse for a fighting force. Their poorly armed and trained, their failings have been highlighted in Darfur where they've proved incapable of providing security and comfort to the suffering people.

Michaelda

September 2nd, 2007, 04:30 AM

Gorgon

September 2nd, 2007, 04:55 AM

One only needs a bit of imagination to know we don't actually know all that goes in a military base. My guess is that military bases are actually a show of force, arrogance (we're so big we can have bases whenever we want), and diverts attention from intelligence operations, a.k.a spying. Once in Colombia, for instance, the US army went and built a school (just a crappy school, BTW)... Well, big surprise when a few months later a report came from the US saying how they could built something really big, like a Panama Canal 2.

Kenguy

September 2nd, 2007, 10:33 AM

American investments are welcome anywhere on the african continent, but a military base is not. It attracts the wrong type of attention especially in a region close to the volatile middle east with all kinds of anti-American sentiments.

For one, Kenya has suffered terrorist attacks in which hundreds of Kenyans died just for the mere fact that there are some American and Israeli interests in the country and is seen as an easier target as compared to attacking the U.S. directly. If those attacks were as a result of having non military interests, now imagine a military base here. And I think the same goes for many African countries.

kulani

September 2nd, 2007, 12:32 PM

alex if you cant see that having a foreign army on your soil is a loss of soveriegnty then you and matt or myself will never agree.

frankly i cant see what else could be greater evidence of this.

do you think the US would allow nigeria or saudi arabia to have a base in the states. and if not, why do you think so?

I don't give a damn how big the US is or whatever geo-political or strategic reasons they have but that does not give them a right to setup a military base in any sovereign country unless of course that country agrees.

What can a military base be for? Its obviously because they want to attack a future hostile country from our continent and cause us agony. Its not a church they are setting up, so there is no need to even debate this, its called a military base. Especially after the experience with Iraq, who knows who next they will be after? so i say down with US military base in Africa down!!! Phansi!!!

Michaelda

September 2nd, 2007, 10:30 PM

I don't give a damn how big the US is or whatever geo-political or strategic reasons they have but that does not give them a right to setup a military base in any sovereign country unless of course that country agrees.

What can a military base be for? Its obviously because they want to attack a future hostile country from our continent and cause us agony. Its not a church they are setting up, so there is no need to even debate this, its called a military base. Especially after the experience with Iraq, who knows who next they will be after? so i say down with US military base in Africa down!!! Phansi!!!

the base will from the corner stone of future coups, and attacks on countries in africa. if we think the murder of leaders in the post colonial period was rough, a US base would make those 30 plus years seem tame.

nairoberry

September 3rd, 2007, 03:56 PM

lemmie put it in black and white b4 i get mental on the issue. i say this to the usa, get the f@&k out of my homeland, visit it live in it but NO DAMN MILLITARY BASE. these crazy ass yanks think that they can screw up anybody anywhere, let us africans make a statement by making it know that NO DAMN US MILLITARY BASE WILL BE SET UP ON THE MOTHERLAND. anybody got a loudspeaker so that i can be heard alittle bit louder? anybody? damn you stupid ass yankees

^Anton^

September 4th, 2007, 04:47 PM

I don't understand this, but whatever. A US military base in some African nations wouldn't be such a bad thing-could help with unemployment, etc, etc.

Would you feel the same way about foreign armies settling bases in the US?

Skyprince

September 7th, 2007, 10:19 PM

Would you feel the same way about foreign armies settling bases in the US?

Agree with you, Anton :okay:

Let's say NO to US military bases
and say YES to the United Nations.

DanteXavier

September 8th, 2007, 02:28 AM

Would you feel the same way about foreign armies settling bases in the US?

Well, why not? It's not that harmful. To some extent, i think there already are a number of foreign militaries who are stationed in the US(a lot of time fro training, or joint operations).

^Anton^

September 8th, 2007, 10:28 AM

DanteXavier

September 9th, 2007, 06:54 PM

^^
That's not the same thing at all... one thing is to have foreign militaries stationed in your country as an invitation from the hosting country, and a very different thing is to have a foreign owned military base in your country.

I doubt many Americans would agree with... let's say, a French military base in the middle of Ohio, right?

Well, you must understand my background-I'm a Jamaican-and I could tell you honestly I wouldn't at all mind an American, British, or French military base back there.

Michaelda

September 9th, 2007, 08:22 PM

Well, you must understand my background-I'm a Jamaican-and I could tell you honestly I wouldn't at all mind an American, British, or French military base back there.

how does your background support that idea. because your head of state is the queen of england?

if you insist onit i guess it should go to jamaica. we dont need or want it in africa

Michaelda

September 14th, 2007, 03:14 PM

Nigeria Moves to Halt US Military From Juliana Taiwo in Abuja, 09.14.2007
Gulf of Guinea
The Federal Government has begun moves to frustrate the plan by the United States to establish a military base in the Gulf of Guinea.
The oil-rich gulf is bordered by Nigeria, Angola, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, and Sao Tome and Principe
US has been desperately wooing some countries in the West Africa sub-region to allow her establish a military base to protect the strategic gulf for sometime now.
The move, according to US, is to protect the area from alleged external aggressions but with America now looking in the direction of Africa for her energy needs given the instability in the Middle-east, many analysts say the move is to protect her oil interests. .
Defence sources, however, told THISDAY last night in Abuja that the Federal Government was already discussing with heads of government of the African Union and leaders of the sub-regional body, the Economic Community of West African State, on how to block any move by US to establish a base in the gulf.
"Nigeria is not taking the issue lightly at all and the government is not going to allow the US establish any military base anywhere in the ECOWAS region. The interest of the US government in the Gulf of Guinea has reinforced the commitment of the government to intensify its efforts at providing the needed security in the sub-region," the source said.
It was learnt that the Federal Government was worried by the terror alert raised by the US authorities last week and saw it as a ploy to label Nigeria and countries in the sub region as unsafe in order to get the opportunity to create a military base in the region.
As a first step to checkmate that plan, the FG has vowed to frustrate the campaign by the US to establish a base in the gulf.
"The government of this country is not ready for any blackmail. What they cannot get through the back doors they want to get through blackmail. We are not going to succumb to that game,” the source said.
THISDAY also learnt that the Defence Headquarters has concluded plans to visit Pentagon, in Washington, to further discuss the issue with the US government.
"In a few weeks from now, some top military personnel will be in the US to present papers on the plans by the African Union to establish an African Command, which will be charged with the responsibility of providing the needed security in the continent.
"We really want to let the US and other countries of the world know that we are capable of protecting the resources within our continent. Nigeria is one country that will continue to move against any plans by the US government to establish a military base in our sub-region. We cannot afford to allow them do that, otherwise we will be finished as military,” he said.
Last month, a delegation of the Government of Equatorial Guinea had visited Nigeria and signed a memorandum of understanding with the Nigerian Navy in the area of security, training and equipment.
Currently, US has some presence in the Gulf of Guinea and its forces have been engaging in frequent patrol of the gulf.
However, US interest in the gulf has been increasing amid rising oil exploration in the region.
It was being alleged that West African Navy fleet lacks the capacity to protect oil platforms in the gulf.
As far back as June last year, US explained that its presence in the Gulf of Guinea was aimed at protecting an area regarded as one of the richest sources of hydrocarbons in the world from international criminals.
"We hear a series of stories for our presence in the Gulf of Guinea, but I want to say that we are concerned for Nigeria and we want to help her protect the region from the hands of maritime criminals," said the Commander of US Naval Forces in Europe and Commander of the Allied Joint Force Command in Naples, Italy, Admiral Henry Ulrich.
"In all parts of the world, the US and any good nation want a safe coast for those countries who are supplying energy, and that is why we are often there. So there is nothing to fear for Nigeria," Ulrich said during a Seapower Africa Symposium in Abuja in June last year.
Ulrich had also disclosed that the US planned to increase its naval presence in the Gulf of Guinea in order to ensure maritime safety in the region.
US Naval official said it was necessary to secure the area from international criminals, including terrorists, sea pirates and smugglers.
The gulf’s oil and gas deposit is put in the region of 10 billion barrels.
Statistics show that as of 2004, Africa as a whole produced nearly nine million barrels of oil per day, with approximately 4.7 million barrels per day coming from West Africa.
Also, African oil production accounted for approximately 11 percent of the world’s oil supply, while the continent supplied approximately 18 per cent of the US net oil imports.
Both Nigeria and Angola were among the top 10 suppliers of oil to the US.

Michaelda

September 22nd, 2007, 12:38 AM

Africa: U.S. Plans No New Bases on Continent, Says Official

21 September 2007
Posted to the web 21 September 2007

Katy Gabel
Washington, D.C.

The United States' new African military command structure – Africom – will neither base nor deploy U.S. forces on the African continent, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for African Affairs Teresa Whelan said Thursday.

Whelan was speaking at an American Enterprise Institute conference in Washington, D.C.

She said that apart from the "forward operating site" which the U.S. Defense Department had been operating in Djibouti since 2002, "we will have no bases… and we will not be deploying U.S. forces on the African continent."

However, Africom as a command structure "will have a presence… in the form of staff officers" throughout Africa, she added. Nevertheless, "no more than 20 percent of the entire command will actually be physically present on the African continent."

Whelan also noted that a significant percentage of the command staff would be civilians from other departments such as the U.S. State Department, the Treasury, the Department of Commerce, and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

The conference, entitled "Africom: Implications for African Security and U.S.-African Relations" brought together experts from the United States and Africa.

Conference participants addressed recent criticism of Africom, including a recent statement in which South African defense minister Mosiuoa Lekota said the Southern African Development Community was opposed to hosting Africom.

"We don't want to be any place that doesn't want us," Whelan said, but having staff based on the continent would help manage the "tyranny of distance" that results from being out of touch with activities on the ground.

"The biggest concern of the DOD [Department of Defense] is not how to get involved in Africa, but how to stay out of Africa," Whelan said.

Linda Thomas Greenfield of the State Department said Africom will help address multi-faceted security threats in Africa, including "terrorism, wars and internal instability, the presence of militia, transport of narcotics and arms, religious intolerance, corruption, and poverty."

"Africom is not about dropping military troops on Africa," she added, or "competing with China."

The announcement of Africom has been met with skepticism in Africa, and retired U.S. Air Force General James L. Jamerson of the Lockheed Martin Corporation acknowledged that "the key is acceptance in Africa" but that "we have a ways to go."

Lieutenant General Tsadkan Gebretensae of the Center for Policy Research and Dialogue in Addis Ababa said the skepticism is "legitimate" and warned that African and American security priorities are not necessarily the same.

General Tsadkan warned against a "huge military presence" that could "bring [back] memories of colonialism." It would be best to "go slow" and "build trust," he said.

Former World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz said the announcement of Africom "took me completely by surprise."

He was, he said, "still not absolutely convinced that it's a good idea, but it is there and I believe it can be made into a good thing," citing the "success story" of the United States' part in peacekeeping in Liberia.

Wolfowitz addressed African skepticism to Africom by noting that "it wasn't Africans themselves who brought all this horrible conflict to the subcontinent… the U.S. and the Soviet Union had a fairly big role in supporting their various allies in the Cold War."

He said the effects of U.S. support for former Congolese President Mobutu Sese Seko provides a "fairly understandable" reason for African reluctance to see the American military on their soil.

DanteXavier

September 22nd, 2007, 04:00 AM

Not great news in my mind, but oh well.

naijalove

September 22nd, 2007, 05:35 AM

Fantastic news!

Michaelda

September 22nd, 2007, 11:12 PM

shows what a unified front on africa can produce. and shows the liberian president to be a fool and out of step with the rest of the continent

Kingofthehill

September 23rd, 2007, 07:11 PM

Not great news in my mind, but oh well.

Don't worry, there's always the somewhat ineffective AU with their vintage AK-47s and T-55s!

kulani

September 23rd, 2007, 09:28 PM

Thank you very much, keep your America and i will keep my Africa.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

^Anton^

September 24th, 2007, 01:42 PM

Not great news in my mind, but oh well.

Don't you see that in the international scene the US is making more trouble than solving it? No more US bases is certainly great news.

arzaranh

September 24th, 2007, 06:44 PM

Don't you see that in the international scene the US is making more trouble than solving it? No more US bases is certainly great news.

of course he doesn't see that. next question?

Xusein

September 25th, 2007, 05:31 AM

shows what a unified front on africa can produce. and shows the liberian president to be a fool and out of step with the rest of the continent

Well, they go by the US customary units, right? :D

Michaelda

September 27th, 2007, 06:20 PM

Conflicting reports.

Nigeria too late to stop US military on base in Africa
Horatius Egua, Abuja on 27 September, 2007 00:00:00 | 853 times read
Sections

Adjust font size: Decrease font Enlarge font
image The efforts of the Federal Government to halt the United States from establishing a miltary base in Africa, especially in the oil rich Gulf of Guinea, may have come too late as the US government has gone too far in the quest to do so.

A top government functionary told Business Day recently that government was expected to have invested about $1-billion from the excess crude account into the coastal security and safety arrangement in the last two years but nothing came out from government.

"The point is that former president Olusegun Obasanjo had seen the wisdom as a former military head of state to secure the area and immediately ordered strategic surveillance of the coastal area and the Niger Delta," the source said.

The source added that top government officials were uncomfortable with the method adopted by government in realising the project.

The issue was supposed to be tabled on the floor of the National Assembly.

A top defence source said the former president "knowing that anything on national defence and security issues cannot be subjected to public debate went ahead to mobilise the navy and the air force for what the US called minimum security requirement for the region."

The defence sources noted that the US expected Nigeria to have maintained that minimum-security provisions but unfortunately in the last four months the security provision was suddenly scaled down.

One of the sources said: "The US has completed all the ground work and have move into the offshore of Sao Tome and Principe, Angola and Guinea to secure positions for their submarines and other security facilities. Nigeria is the only country that has the minimum requirement and the financial capacity to provide those facilities because the other African countries cannot afford to put down even one percent of what is required.

"It is a challenge for President Musa Yar’Adua to quickly work within his own defence structure and provide the needed funds if government really wants to stop the US establishing military base in the sub-region," the source noted.

It would be recalled that a senior military official had disclosed that government had begun moves to frustrate the plan by the US to establish a military base in the Gulf of Guinea.

The sources said government was already discussing with heads of government of the African Union and leaders of the sub-regional body, the Economic Community of West African State, on how to block any move by the US to establish a base in the gulf. "Nigeria is not taking the issue lightly at all and government is not going to allow the US establish any military base anywhere in the ECOWAS region. The interest of the US government in the Gulf of Guinea has reinforced the commitment of the government to intensify its efforts at providing the needed security in the sub-region."

The gulf’s oil and gas deposit is put in the region of 10-billion barrels.

Statistics show that as at 2004, Africa as a whole produced nearly 9-million barrels of oil a day, with approximately 4.7-million barrels a day coming from West Africa.

Also, African oil production accounted for approximately 11 percent of the world’s oil supply, while the continent supplied approximately 18 percent of the US net oil imports. Both Nigeria and Angola were among the top 10 suppliers of oil to the US.

DanteXavier

September 28th, 2007, 02:03 AM

Don't you see that in the international scene the US is making more trouble than solving it? No more US bases is certainly great news.

The way I see it, US military aid in Africa in thef rom of bases/stations there could be a good thing in that it would provide a large amount of employment, and training for local african militaries who could then better be able to keep order in their own nations.

I don't see how this move can be seen in the light it is-it's not a bad thing for the continent(or, at least, it wouldn't have been).

Xusein

September 28th, 2007, 05:15 AM

Well, there's the whole sovereignty issue.

A foreign base, whatever the country is, isn't a good idea, IMO. It brings benefits, of course, but the thought of foreign troops in your country is nausea for some people. Africa needs to wean off this kind of dependence.

Michaelda

October 6th, 2007, 12:19 AM

i wonder why the western press decided to tell the truth for once. what benefit to they get for this? to butter us up for the base?

Nigeria buries troops killed in Darfur

By EDWARD HARRIS, Associated Press Writer Fri Oct 5, 1:46 PM ET

ABUJA, Nigeria - A small girl in a tulip-yellow dress, tears gathering along her quivering chin, sobbed before the newly filled grave of a Nigerian soldier killed in the deadliest attack on peacekeepers trying to calm Sudan's Darfur region.

Mourners at Friday's military funeral — colleagues and relatives of seven Nigerians killed in a weekend attack by Darfur rebels — vowed Nigeria would continue a long history of sending its sons and daughters to try to secure peace across the world's poorest continent.

"This is the sacrifice Nigeria is making for the world. We must view it as a badge of honor," President Umaru Yar'Adua said in remarks delivered at the funeral by an aide.

"There is no sacrifice Nigeria won't make for the African man, the black man," said Yar'Adua, who was traveling abroad Friday.

Nigeria has long been a leader of Africa's homegrown peace initiatives. The country has the continent's largest population on the continent — 140 million people, split between Christians and Muslims — one of its largest militaries and among the world's largest oil deposits.

Earlier this week, an army spokesman said the deaths might prompt a rethinking of Nigerian peacekeeping. But there has been no national debate nor calls to withdraw from Darfur; Nigeria has lost more troops in previous peacekeeping forays.

The country's troops battled rebels in Sierra Leone — now at peace since a decade-long civil war ended in 2001 — and Nigerian negotiators have hammered out peace deals in various countries.

While Liberia was in the throes of its 1989-2003 civil war, Nigeria sent a former military leader to Ghana to lead peace talks sponsored by a regional bloc based in Nigeria.

After rebel representatives began arriving at the long-running talks with new suits and sunglasses, the Nigerian envoy cut their daily food allowance and moved all negotiators from a four-star hotel to more downscale lodgings.

A deal was soon at hand, and Nigerian troops became the vanguard of a peacekeeping force that is now among the largest anywhere in the world. Liberians handed out cigarettes to the Nigerian troops and chanted "Thank you, oga," a Nigerian term meaning "boss."

"Nigeria has committed itself to a number of pan-African processes ... to put out the fires of conflict. It sees itself as an African leader," says Ross Herbert, an analyst with the Johannesburg-based South African Institute of International Affairs. "To their credit, they've shown some commitment to ending conflict and recognizing that's there a contagion effect for the whole of Africa."

Nigeria's Gen. Martin Agwai leads the African Union peacekeeping force that has struggled to stop Darfur's bloodshed for four years. In the weekend attack, the AU post of 157 peacekeepers and support staff was overrun by some 1,000 Darfur rebels. Three other African troops were also killed, and three Nigerians are missing.

The attack has spurred new calls for swift deployment of the joint force of 26,000. The first troops are expected to arrive this month, and the new mission is expected to assume responsibility for Darfur on Dec. 31.

Nigeria, which has a battalion of about 800 troops in Darfur, has said it will likely send another battalion to join the joint AU-United Nations force.

The slain Nigerian troops were meant to be home by Christmas, rotated back after a nine-month stint in Darfur. About 500 people attended their funeral on an open, grassy plain in the capital that serves as the main military cemetery. The slain troops' boots stood on their flag-drapped caskets.

The Muslim soldiers were taken out of their caskets and placed into the ground by hand, following Islamic custom, while the coffins of the Christian troops were lowered by ropes.

The sobs of the girl in the yellow dress pierced the silence as family members laid bouquets of plastic flowers.

"Anywhere you have war, you will have losses," said Matthew Edoh, whose uncle, Lance Corp. Danjuma Madaki, was among the seven buried. "But if you can go for peace, even if you sacrifice yourself, you must go. We are all fellow human beings."

"We're all African brothers, so we must all help each other," said Sunday Ebute, a 25-year old shop clerk burying his uncle, Pvt. Samuel Orokpo. "But Nigeria, Nigeria is the king of Africa, and it must settle the peace."