Tag Archives: Africom
From GSPC to AQIM: The evolution of an Algerian islamist terrorist group into an Al-Qa‘ida Affiliate and its implications for the Sahara-Sahel region
Al-Qa‘ida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), Algeria’s largest and most active Islamist terrorist organization, was formerly known as the Groupe salafiste pour la Prédication et le Combat, and usually referred to by its French acronym (GSPC, Salafist Group for Call/Preaching and Combat). It began in the late 1990s as a splinter faction of the Armed Islamic Group (GIA), then fighting a bloody insurgency against the Algerian military government with the goal of establishing an Islamic state. GSPC/AQIM eclipsed its predecessor and remains active not only in Algeria but also in the neighboring Sahelian states. Best known for its raids and bombings against Algerian military bases and convoys, the group has also perpetrated kidnappings of European tourists and terrorist attacks in Mauritania and Mali. It has likewise been linked to planned strikes in Europe, as well as to smuggling and human trafficking across the vast Sahara. This article will examine the transformation of the GSPC, whose stated goal was the overthrow of Algeria’s long-ruling secular nationalist government, into AQIM, a participant in the global jihad allegedly committed to the destruction of the “Far Enemy.”
AFRICOM and the Geopolitics of African Oil
On 1 October 2008, the new Africa Command (AFRICOM) officially became operational as America’s newest combatant command, with its headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany, to oversee U.S. military activities on the continent. Until the creation of AFRICOM, U.S.-African military relations was conducted through three different commands: the European Command, which had responsibility for most of the continent; the Central Command, which oversaw Egypt and the Horn of Africa region along with the Middle East and Central Asia; and the Pacific Command, which administered military ties with Madagascar and other islands in the Indian Ocean. This reflected the fact that Africa was chiefly viewed as a regional theater in the global Cold War, or as an adjunct to U.S.-European relations, or—as in the immediate post-Cold War period—as a region of little concern to the United States.
But since the late 1990s, Africa has become an increasingly important source of American oil imports. World oil production has peaked and, as production from older fields declines, there are only two parts of the world where significant new fields will come into production over the next 10-15 years: Central Asia and Africa. Africa now supplies more oil to the United States than the Middle East; it currently provides some 15-20% of total U.S. oil imports and is expected to provide at least 25% by 2015. In 2002, the Bush administration declared that access to Africa’s oil supplies would henceforth be defined as a “strategic national interest” of the United States. As a result, Africa’s status in U.S. national security policy and military affairs rose dramatically.
Administration officials have sought to portray AFRICOM as a demonstration of America’s commitment to help Africa and its benign intentions toward the continent. But the military officers who will run AFRICOM are under no illusions about the purposes of the new command. According to General William Ward and Vice Admiral Robert Moeller—the commander and deputy commander of AFRICOM respectively—the primary mission of AFRICOM are to protect access to oil and other resources, to make Africa a major front in the Global War on Terrorism, and to counter China’s growing economic and political involvement in Africa.
The creation of AFRICOM, thus, represents the globalization of the “Carter Doctrine,” the pledge made by President Carter in his final State of the Union Address in 1980 that the United States would use all necessary means “including the use of military force” to ensure the free flow of oil from the Persian Gulf. This pledge has now been extended to the entire world, driving the growing U.S. military presence not only in Africa, but in South America, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia as well. It is important to recognize that the United States is not the only country that is responsible for the militarization of African oil production and that China, India, Russia, and other countries are also playing significant roles.
So, what will AFRICOM actually do to fulfill its mission? When AFRICOM became operational in October it took over the implementation of a wide range of ongoing military, security cooperation, and security assistance programs that have already led to a series of U.S. air raids on Somalia as well as the establishment of a new U.S. military base in Africa—located at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti—and a vastly enlarged U.S. naval presence, particularly in the oil-rich Gulf of Guinea. It will also manage the delivery of increasing quantities of U.S. arms to Africa and a host of new programs that have been created in recent years to provide weaponry and military training to African allies. Over the past seven years, the value of U.S. security assistance to Africa has risen from about $100 million each year to an annual level of approximately $800 million.
The Pentagon would like to avoid direct military intervention in Africa whenever possible, preferring to bolster the internal security capabilities of its African friends and to build up the military forces of key states that can act as surrogates for the United States. But it is also preparing for the day when a disruption of oil supplies or some other crisis will lead to further direct military intervention. Washington has substantially increased the size and frequency of U.S. military exercises in Africa and has negotiated agreements to guarantee that U.S. troops will be able to use local military bases in a number of African countries, including Algeria, Gabon, Kenya, Mali, Morocco, Tunisia, Namibia, Sao Tome, Senegal, Uganda, and Zambia.
It is now up to the Obama administration to decide whether or not to follow the path marked out by the Bush administration—a strategy based on a determination to depend upon the use of military force in Africa and elsewhere to satisfy America’s continuing addiction to oil—or to chart a new path based on an international and multi-lateral partnership with African nations and with other countries that have a stake in the continent (including China and India) to promote sustainable economic development, democracy, and human rights in Africa and a new global energy order based on the use of clean, safe, and renewable resources.
Daniel Volman (dvolman@igc.org) is the Director of the African Security Research Project in Washington, DC, and a member of the Board of Directors of the Association of Concerned Africa Scholars (www.concernedafricascholars.org). He is a specialist on U.S. military policy toward Africa and African security issues and has been conducting research and writing on these issues for more than thirty years.
From The Geopolitics of Petroleum ACAS Blog Series
Film Review: ‘Blood and Oil’
Michael T. Klare’s Blood and Oil. A film by the Media Education Foundation, 2008; 52 mins. Written by Michael T. Klare, Jeremy Earp, and Scott Morris. Directed by Jeremy Earp.
Middle Eastern oil resources have long been considered “a stupendous source of strategic power” by the United States, evidenced by a State Department memo from August 1945. According to progressive energy analyst Michael Klare in the new documentary Blood and Oil, the same oil resources are also a “source of weakness” for the US. Based on Michael Klare’s book of the same name, Blood and Oil examines the relationship between oil and US foreign policy. Serving as the film’s commentator, Klare sheds light on the importance of access and control of oil in presidential doctrines from FDR through the Bush administration. He argues that the control of the world’s energy resources has been foundational to US foreign policy since World War II. Blood and Oil demonstrates how US foreign policy and energy policy are essentially intertwined.
Since 1860, the US has been the leading consumer of petroleum. Despite being a mere 5% of the world’s population, the US oil-based economy consumes 25% of the world’s oil, approximately 20 million barrels per day. Well into the 1960s, the US was largely self-sufficient producing 80-90% of its own oil. However, US reliance on imported oil has drastically grown during the last two decades and, according to the Department of Energy, the US is expected to import 70% of its oil by 2025.
This energy and foreign policy was the product of FDR during World War II. The film shows archival footage of a February 14, 1945 meeting between President Roosevelt and King Ibn Saud. Klare highlights the blatant contradiction of Roosevelt meeting with a man who exemplified the values that the US was fighting against at the time. The meeting solidified the pact of US protection and development of the Kingdom for oil. Klare argues that the modern Saudi military is largely the creation of the US, supplying the Kingdom with weaponry, advisers, and technology. This also highlights how America’s calls for democratization ring terribly hollow as its longest and most steadfast ally in the Middle East is a feudal monarchy.
Across the Middle East, Klare reveals the different mechanisms and policies presidents use to retain America’s hegemonic status in the region. Most presidents’ foreign policies are informed by what Klare calls a “strategy of maximum extraction.” This strategy requires compliant and reliable regimes providing the US with continued access to oil. In other words, Middle East governments are run by those who will ensure that Washington’s objectives are met, regardless of their seeming commitment to democracy.
Africa is given prospective coverage in the film. Given its increasing dependence on imported oil, Klare contends that Africa is of “growing importance” to US geostrategic interests. The documentary implies that colonial renewal is underway, especially in oil-rich parts of Africa. AFRICOM – an African command post created by the Bush administration in February 2007 – is an indication of this development. In addition, China is developing an equally militarized foreign policy to counter US influence in the region.
Despite its political relevancy to US foreign policy, this documentary has limitations. The most troubling limitation of Blood and Oil is that Israel receives absolutely no discussion nor does Klare discuss the leverage the US gains over Middle Eastern regimes by withdrawing material and ideological support from Israel’s brutal occupation of Palestinian territories. The film also does not examine the beneficiaries of US oil policy, as it leaves out the role of corporations. The analytical focus is also a bit tenuous. The first half of the film examines presidential doctrines while the second half deals more with recent foreign policy endeavors. Furthermore, too much emphasis is placed on the Saudis at the beginning of the film which makes other significant players like Iran hard to understand in historical context. Also, the connections between Saudi Arabia and other regimes in the region are not concrete. Finally, the film is weak on prescriptions for dealing with the criminal and hazardous nature of US foreign policy.
Klare warns that if the US fails to adopt a different policy direction, then the 21st century is on course to be “very bloody and dangerous and painful.” Considering the recent historic (and exhaustive) presidential election in the US, Klare’s assertion makes it virtually impossible to ignore the foreign policy problems facing the Obama administration. Despite the analytical shortcomings of this film, Blood and Oil makes a compelling case that needs to be confronted and the Obama administration must make this issue central to their agenda. This is all the more imperative considering the remaining world’s oil production comes from politically sordid and unstable regions with two-thirds of world oil reserves being in five Middle Eastern countries. While it remains to be seen, the prospects do not look promising, considering all of the establishment foreign policy hawks that have been tapped to be part of the new administration. At least in the realm of foreign policy, Obama’s campaign declarations for “change” are unfortunately leaning closer and closer to platitudes than new paradigms.
Rather than viewing it as a definitive statement, Blood and Oil should be approached as a way to start a much needed dialogue on some of the problematic characteristics and consequences of US policy.
From The Geopolitics of Petroleum ACAS Blog Series