Robin Diallo, Adviser at the American Embassy: “What We Are Doing With AFRICOM”

In response to the article that “Le Quotidien” dedicated to American military intentions in Africa (see: “AFRICOM, the United State’s Failure”, dated February 9, 2010), diplomat Robin Diallo explained, from an American point of view, the justification of creating an American military command specific to Africa.

Your excellency, the American military command for Africa was ultimately placed in Stuttgart. Why were African countries not willing to receive it?

Diallo: Once we established the relevance of AFRICOM, the question was where to base the new command. We did research and we spoke with Africans. One country, Liberia, publicly invited us to establish our command there, but there were seven other countries that also wanted to host AFRICOM.

Can you tell us which ones?

Diallo: No, because they were private offers. For each request, we evaluated the state of existing infrastructure, particularly in the telecommunication and transportation sectors. Ultimately, we decided to set up AFRICOM in Stuttgart because it was the most logical and the practical solution. In an African country, we would have faced a lot of challenges, for example, regarding transportation from one end of the continent to the other, which would often require passing through Europe. The infrastructure AFRICOM would need for immediate operation already exists in Stuttgart. You need to remember that, at any moment, we may have a staff of 2,500 civilians and soldiers spread throughout the continent in different partner countries. So, selecting Stuttgart rather than an African country is really a logistical question.

Diallo: Moreover, General Ward* said something very important: If AFRICOM chooses to reside in an African country, that means that the United States would be absent from forty-nine other countries on the continent. What I find interesting in this whole matter is that there are six commands. Aside from EUCOM (American military command in Europe) and AFRICOM, which are based in Europe, do you know where the other four command centers are? Do you know?

In the United States.

Diallo: Yes, they’re in the Unites States and not in their respective regions because there is always a fundamental concern that takes into account the state of on-site infrastructure and logistics. CENTCOM (central command), the Pacific Command (PACOM), and SOUTHCOM (for South America) are all on American territory. Maybe one day EUCOM and AFRICOM will move. If they do move, it will be to the United States.

So, we can gather that AFRICOM will never be set up in Africa.

Diallo: At the moment, we have no plans to establish AFRICOM on the African continent.

Apart from Liberia, you said seven other countries wanted to receive the African Command. Is this the case for Algeria, for example?

Diallo: No, I don’t know! (Pause) Wallaahi (I swear before God), I don’t know. It’s private. It’s between the soldiers and those countries. We did not refuse offers just for the joy of refusing them, but there were a large number of parameters to consider. In addition to the factors cited above, we had to know how much it was going to cost financially.

But generally, it seems that African countries, apart from Liberia, simply refused to receive American military bases on their land.

Diallo: You have been misled. That is not true. Everything AFRICOM does and has done has been by invitation from Africa and African countries. We spoke with many countries about the possibility of setting up a command in Africa, but at the end of the day, it wasn’t that a state said no or that the United States refused, but that we found it more worthwhile to settle the African command in Stuttgart. It is not true that Africans didn’t want AFRICOM set up in their continent. Perhaps there were some countries that didn’t want it, but there were others that were interested. Today, the program works because there everything is there and we are in permanent contact with the Pentagon. It’s efficient.

Many high-ranking U.S. officers were not convinced of the importance of setting AFRICOM up in Africa.

Diallo: General Ward, who is the commander of AFRICOM said: “I don’t think that it is a good idea to be in one African country and be absent from all the others!” General Ward is not the only person who made the decision, but all the high-ranking officers also agreed that it was neither logical nor ideal.

Why did the United States decide to create a command unique to the continent?

Diallo: Africa is a very important continent. It was divided between the other military commands, making it difficult to have a global view. That’s why the United States thought it important to promote security and stability there.

Do American troops make it their duty to intervene where there will be trouble, for example?

Diallo: No, AFRICOM is a mentoring program that does not intervene unless asked to do so by African countries. For example, it regularly provides training for soldiers and army employees of African countries who want it. Its purpose is not at all to bring troops to where there are problems. AFRICOM is an instrument of military cooperation that waits to be solicited. For example, Senegal may submit a request in a specific area, which we would then study and to which we would respond. Therefore, the AFRICOM program is different from one country to another, as each country has its own priorities and specifications.

This is the official side of the African command’s missions. Still, there are other reasons that justify why America wants to set itself up in Africa, particularly along oil routes.

Diallo: The United States Army does not want to set itself up in Africa. (She stresses each word.)

So what you’re saying is that the United States does not have any military bases in Africa.

Diallo: That’s it!

Not in Algeria, not in Morocco, not anywhere?

Diallo: No. We have one base, a sort of military base in Djibouti.

At Camp Lemonier?

Diallo: Yes, but we don’t have any other bases in Africa.

Not even in Sao Tome and Principe?

Diallo: No. We have soldiers who move around from time to time, but we don’t have a base in Africa except in Djibouti. We are not interested in having military bases. We want to work with Africans to guarantee the stability and the security of the continent and the world.

At the same time, don’t you want to secure the oil routes and the routes of other riches that pass through Africa?

Diallo: No, because we don’t receive a lot of oil from Africa.

But the experts estimate that by 2020, the United States will purchase 25 percent of their oil from oil-producing African countries. Isn’t that a lot?

Diallo: (Pause) But . . . Really . . . I can’t see into the future to say . . . It’s not a question of oil. I don’t see how military cooperation between the United States and Africa to stabilize the continent is related to 25 percent of American oil needs in the future!

Can’t we assume that the United States, understandably, is also in Africa to protect its economic interests?

Diallo: If that’s what we wanted, wouldn’t there be a better way to get it?

Which way?

Diallo: We are educating Africans because we do that everywhere, not only where there is oil . . . That doesn’t make sense, we have a lot of education programs and we spend a lot of money . . . If we really sought to protect our oil interests, we would have said it clearly . . . I don’t see how all this is connected. I don’t see it.

Diallo: You can accept that, just like the Europeans and China, the United States is in Africa to safeguard what it considers to be its interests. That’s legitimate.

Diallo: So you’re right. Each country acts in its own interest. Our interest is security and stability because without that, extremist groups can direct their destabilizing activities. I think using oil as a point of reference doesn’t allow us to see the whole picture. The stability of the African continent is very important to the entire world.

Do you agree that the security and stability of Africa could include the defense of economic interests in the United States?

Diallo: In the place of the word “defense,” I prefer the word “promotion,” because if a continent like Africa is economically viable, that really helps us and helps the entire world.

That also helps you have less work.

Diallo: (Laughs)

Does the United States see Africa as a terrain for rivalry?

Diallo: (Silence) I would say no because, in a global world, there is always competition, not rivalry, and that’s the foundation of the economy.

So countries like France and China are not competitors with the United States?

Diallo: Not at all on the African continent. Concerning Africa, we are in a partnership. We all want the same things: security and stability, and if we want to work with Africa in the economic domain, these two elements are essential.

Illegal Fishing, Pirating and Counter-Terrorism

The Department of Defense (DoD), AFRICOM’s supervising body, had $350 million available in the 2009 fiscal year “to aid counter-terrorism efforts abroad,” reads a January 8, 2010 release from the American Forces Press Service, available on AFRICOM’s website. One part of the budget, referred to as the “1206 funds” was destined for “building partner capacity on the African continent.” Ethiopia ($10.3 million), Kenya ($15.2 million), Tunisia ($8.8 million for general information) and Nigeria ($5 million) all received funding from Congress to “protect their people, secure their borders, support development, contribute to better governance and help achieve regional stability.”

However, that is not all AFRICOM does. The program also helps countries partnered with the U.S. military command to put an end to such scourges as “piracy, illegal trafficking, crime, corruption, sickness,” as well as the occurrence of “displaced persons.” As a matter of fact, the “illegal fishing” industry causes the continent’s countries to lose “$1 billion a year,” as stated on AFRICOM’s website.

* Translator’s note: William Ward is the commander of AFRICOM.