African Unification Front
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
May 30, 2005
NATO BACKS DOWN OVER DEPLOYING TROOPS IN AFRICA
By Dan Kashagama, AUF General Secretary
Because of the resistance by concerned Africans to NATO’s intervention in Africa, NATO has drastically de-escalated its plans to interfere in Africa's internal affairs. In recent days NATO leaders have been at pains to show that they did not mean to intervene militarily, but only to provide training and airlift to AU troops. NATO has been under pressure by the AUF and other Pan Africanist organizations, to stop trying to dominate the African Mission in Sudan.
The AUF is opposed to the presence of NATO troops in Africa. The AUF is also opposed to the presence of French troops in Africa. Any other foreign troops in Africa can only be there as part of a UN peacekeeping mission, and must be under the command of African officers. Attempts by foreign powers to intervene militarily and politically, undermines democratic governance in Africa. When the intervention is done without proper permission, it diminishes the prestige and authority of the Pan African Parliament, and undermines unity, stability and security in Africa.
Soldier plays with kids at Kab Kabiya AU Army Base, Darfur
 The AUF policy is based on the recognition of the historic and ongoing brutal oppression of Africans, and the loss of our sovereignity as a result of foreign intervention in Africa, on various humanitarian pretexts, that has resulted in slavery, colonization, neocolonialism and genocide. The continuing attempts of the US and EU to export their social conflicts to Africa, and to control African society and resources, is the main reason why Africans continue to face grave crises.
NATO initially intended to deploy its Rapid Response Force, which became operational in October 2004. The force, allegedly composed of elite land, sea and air troops, set up mainly to counter terrorist threats, is supposedly on stand-by, ready to act "whenever and wherever" needed. For many years NATO has been trying find an excuse to deploy in Africa...and it nearly did, but for the continuing campaign to prevent it from violating African sovereignty.
Now NATO insists formally that there "is no question of NATO soldiers on the ground, but some personnel might nonetheless be necessary." "Nobody wants to make a big show about a NATO presence in Darfur," said the NATO Secretary General. He added that there may be "a very light" NATO presence in Darfur. "But certainly nobody wants to overshadow the AU."
NATO has also made claims lately that it intended all along to merge with a UN force in destinied for Southern Sudan. But concerned Africans have made it clear that the only troops welcome in Sudan are African troops. Unless NATO has an African force somewhere in reserve, it won’t be allowed to deploy even under the UN. In fact the proposed joint NATO-UN force makes one wonder why NATO is necessary at all, since all 26 NATO members are UN members, and all their troops could conceivably work under the UN alone.
The craving that NATO showed, first by blatantly pushing to get into Africa, through subterfuges, lies and intimidation, is a result if America’s attempt to shore up the useless organization. The EU no longer needs NATO, and Africa appeared to be the only theatre where NATO thought it could thrive, in the pretext of providing training and logistics, if not outright military deployment of combat troops to guard oil wells of states they plan to sabotage.
It is important for Africans to understand that although NATO has backed down from a full-scale intervention, this time…it will try again later. Africans must give no quarter and must insist that all foreign troops vacate African soil as soon as possible. Even after the recent climb-down, diehard NATO supporters, including Marlene Albright, are still clamoring for NATO to deploy a brigade of combat troops. Others are building a case for NATO to deploy in other places in Africa.
Because of oil reserves and its strategic dominance in Africa, Nigeria has long been a temptation for NATO. Recently an unwarranted and ignorant report posted by the CIA made claims that Nigeria will suffer state collapse in 15 year's time. Presumably it is now necessary for NATO to deploy in Nigeria in order to prevent this state collapse and disorder. It is possible that the CIA/NATO may work to destroy political order in Nigeria in order to justify the intervention 15 years from now. Hopefully NATO won’t exist by then. This is in keeping with the desires expressed by NATO even before the start of the Darfur conflict, for the establishment of up to 200 military bases in Africa, and for NATOs navy to start patrolling in the waters off West Africa.
It is doubtful that any NATO force could actually end the war in Darfur…all of NATOs active force of 17000 could not effectively patrol and control a determined highly mobile African rebel force. Besides the cultural insensitivity and the extremely aggressive and counter productive approach to peacekeeping, NATO troops are highly vulnerable to attack by ill-equipped and disorderly fanatics. Protection of vulnerable people from attacks is the most important component of the peacekeeping, and even that will mostly consist of negotiating between peacekeepers and combatants, not firepower. NATO commanders without proper training in African culture would be ineffective.
However, the introduction of the NATO factor into the Darfur crisis, shows once again how insensitive, muddleheaded, and subversive the leadership of the AU Commission is. Oumar Konare, the chair of the of the Commission has done everything possible to keep the AU mired down in bureaucratic minutia, with senseless attempts to enhance his own prestige at the expense of the Pan African Parliament.
The continuation of the Darfur crisis shows that the AU Commission has mishandled this problem. All the equipment and troops required are all abundant in Africa, including the helicopters and office supplies and whatever else the mission requires. But the AU insists on paying international civil service rates for troops, so it refuses to deploy soldiers until all the money has come in. In the meantime it spends more money creating new and unnecessary bureaucratic organs, hiring unnecessary consultants, and creating posting more diplomats on all kinds of marginal assignments…all money that could have paid for security in Darfur.
In spite of the sabotage by an incompetent commission, the African federal government is significantly scaling up its forces, from 2,200 to more than 7,700 - made up of 5,500 soldiers, 1,600 civilian police officers and 700 military observers. The mission will eventually increase to 12,000 troops. The claim that these troops need NATO airlift is ridiculous. African troops do NOT need to cross the ocean. They can drive their trucks, armored personnel carriers, and buses to Darfur from any location in Africa. They can sleep in proper barracks along the way, or in hotels, or they can set up camp along the way like the echo-tourists do. We have a national emergency in Darfur, we have to get troops there with or without airlift. It can be done.
It clear that the Sudan regime of Omar Bashir has to be brought down. It has accumulated a vast record of distressing and brutal violence against the society in the Sudan. The AU parliament must insist on elections in Sudan, as well as complete demobilization of the entire Sudanese army and its replacement by a permanent African peackeeping force, under the control of the AU Parliament.
END
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
printable version
