|
U.S. military's Africa command
alarms aid workers
Thu Dec 13, 2007
By Andrew Gray
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Mary Yates is deputy to the commander of
the U.S. military's new Africa Command. But she has no stars on
her shoulder and does not wear a uniform.
Yates is a career diplomat who has served as U.S. ambassador to
Ghana and Burundi. Her appointment symbolizes the military's
effort to make its newest command very different from the others
and a possible model for the future.
The command, responsible for U.S. military operations in Africa,
will include more diplomats, aid experts and other civilians than
headquarters for other parts of the world. And they will be
integral to the organization, not just advisers.
The U.S. government bills that change as an effort to make sure
all its branches work together.
But the structure has alarmed aid agencies, who see the military
encroaching into traditionally civilian areas such as aid work and
economic development and believe armed forces should have a
minimal role in those efforts.
Yates says putting more civilians in a military command is an
attempt to learn from the past. The Pentagon, State Department and
other U.S. agencies have often been accused of failing to
cooperate or working at cross purposes.
"Clearly we have all learned a lot in the last decade from the
Balkans to Afghanistan to Iraq that we need work together," she
said in a telephone interview.
"Instead of having to do it ... in a battleground, we have a
chance to build this structure from the ground up," Yates said
from the command's current home in Stuttgart, Germany. The
headquarters hopes to have a presence in Africa later.
REGIONAL COMMANDS
The U.S. military divides the world into regional commands.
Previously, responsibility for Africa was split between European
Command, Pacific Command and Central Command, which is the
headquarters for the Middle East.
In February, President George W. Bush announced the creation of
Africa Command. Known as Africom, it is being set up under
European Command in Stuttgart but should become a fully
independent command by October.
Some African states have criticized the move. Many Africans
suspect an effort to secure mineral resources and assert U.S.
interests. Major nations such as South Africa and Nigeria have
said they do not want Africom on their soil.
U.S. officials have said the command's main mission will be to
work with African militaries, helping them train and modernize.
But they have also said it will play a role in humanitarian
operations. Bush said the command would work with Africans to "promote
our common goals of development, health, education, democracy, and
economic growth in Africa."
That is the kind of language that concerns aid agencies, who say
development and aid efforts should be undertaken for humanitarian
reasons and not tied to a military agenda.
Aid workers also say putting civilian officials inside a military
command sends the wrong signal to African nations, where military
forces have a history of staging coups and riding roughshod over
civilian institutions.
"Our fundamental belief is that U.S. development aid towards
Africa should be civilian-led," said Paul O'Brien, director of aid
effectiveness at Oxfam America.
"We're worried that Africom may put a military face on what should
be a non-military goal -- long-term development."
U.S. officials insist Africom has no intention of taking over the
work of other agencies, it just wants to work in harmony with
them. But analysts say the Pentagon unnecessarily stoked many
concerns in the way it launched the headquarters.
"The command was presented as this massive integrated platform,"
said Jennifer Cooke, codirector of the Africa program at the
Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank in
Washington.
She said greater coordination between U.S. agencies was a good
idea but even the appearance that the Pentagon was in charge of
that process sent the wrong signals.
The command should concentrate on the core mission of building
relationships with African militaries to allay concerns about its
role, Cooke said.
"The military needs to stick with its value-added, what it does
best," she said. "There's just plenty to be done on that front."
(Editing by Cynthia Osterman)
|
