A Narrative Summary of the 18th Annual Africa/Disapora Conference on Race, Religion
and Ethnic Relations in Africa/Diaspora: Creating Peace & Justice Dialogues
April 30-May 2, 2009
Sponsored by California State University, Sacramento,
The College of Health & Human Services and
The Center for African Peace and Conflict Resolution (CAPCR),
In collaboration with Pan African Studies Program
Promptly at 9:00 a.m., May 1, 2009, the 18th annual CAPCR Africa/Diaspora
conference opened with a fiery half hour of drumming and dancing by the African Dance
Connection. Then, Lionel Von Frederick Rawlins of North Central University, Prescott
Valley, Arizona stepped to the podium and introduced conference moderator, Don Taylor
of CSU Sacramento.
After Dr. Taylor’s introductory remarks to the 18th Annual Africa/Diaspora
Conference, there followed more formal welcoming remarks from Lila Jacobs, Vice
Chair of CAPCR: from Boatamo Mosupyoe, Director of Pan African Studies and
Cooper-Woodson College; from Bruce Bikle, Chair of the Faculty Senate; from Miguel
Cervantes, ASI President; from Marilyn Hopkins, Dean of the College of Health and
Human Services; and Joseph Sheley, Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs.
Then, Dr. Taylor returned to the podium to introduce CAPCR Director, Prof.
Ernest Uwazie who offered opening comments pertinent to the conference topics and
subtopics. He noted not only the dominance of Christian and Muslim religions in African
nations but also the growth and influence of more recent Pentecostal Movements, where
some glamorize material wealth. He noted the ethnic conflicts throughout Africa: the
women’s sex strike in Kenya, over the political wrangling between the country’s
president and prime minister; the 500,000-800,000 dead in the 1994 Rwanda genocide;
and the over 300,000 dead and 2.7 million displaced in the current Darfur genocide.
Then, with an emphasis upon the importance of continuing consensus-building
and dialogue to bring about more successful resolutions to Africa’s problems, Prof.
Uwazie acknowledged the success of South Africa’s most recent election and the power
sharing arrangements in Zimbabwe, albeit shaky. He also acknowledged the role of the
CSUS –CAPCR in getting Africans of “blood and the soil”—i.e., in America and in
Africa—collaboratively involved in the continuing struggle to politically and
economically stabilize African nations and her populations in the diaspora. In conclusion,
he officially declared the 2009 conference open.
Next, Dr. Taylor introduced keynote speaker, Kelechi Kalu of Ohio State
University, the first keynote speaker. In his paper, “Religion, Race/Ethnic Relations in
Africa: Creating Peace Dialogues,” Dr. Kalu refuted the notion that African conflicts
“derive from primordial ethnic and religious differences.” Ethnicity and religion are not
inherently violent, he contended. Rather, violence is contingent upon the manner in
which ethnic and religious diversity are articulated.
In his opinion, ethnic and religious diversity are strengths when embedded in a
constitutional government of laws that allow for strategic negotiation in a context where
enforceable rules are understood by all actors and where leaders’ personalities do not
subvert those rules. Nevertheless, “In public officials’ hands language does not reflect
reality but shapes it.” Resurrecting the European colonial practice of “divide and
conquer”—i.e., manipulating African diversity in order to dominate it by force—postcolonial politicians too often have manipulated ethnicity and religion in order to advance
divisive, self-serving agendas. For instance, in Malawi, Somalia, and Rwanda, disastrous
instability resulted not from ethnic division but from the political manipulation of
hierarchies. Also, the imposition of Islam in Sudan without consultation with the people
is an example of charismatic leaders subverting Constitutional government.
Hence, the language of scholarly analysis should intervene. Beginning with a
rigorous critique of hierarchical relations, its goal is to supplant the discourse of violence
with a Constitutionally regulated dialogue that can “re-envision Africa.” That dialogue,
he contended, is crucial at the present time, when the President Obama’s exercise of
power through dialogue is supplanting former President George W. Bush’s policy of
exacting compliance through military force. From there, Dr. Kalu suggested several
admirably well-informed and closely reasoned strategies for such scholarly intervention.
Then, Dr. Taylor returned to the podium to introduce the second keynote speaker,
Dr. Judith Byfield of Cornell University. Her paper, “Echoes of History, Peace, Justice,
and Idealism in the 21st Century” emphasized writing, intellect, and spirituality over
violence. She recalled Martin Luther and Coretta Scott King’s 1957 visit to Ghana when
thousands gathered to “watch the Union Jack lowered and the Black Star, Ghana’s flag,
rise in its place.” According to Byfield, that day affirmed King’s statement that
“oppression never voluntarily relinquishes power; rather, freedom comes through
persistent revolt and agitation” in defense of the people’s rights. Moreover, that occasion
inspired King’s understanding that “this freedom—the freedom in the birth of a new
nation—will influence the situation [in America]” (quoted from Etta Barnett’s 1957
interview with King).
Although Byfield lamented that, fifty years later, many tyrannical African leaders
have as much reason as their colonial precursors to be fearful of a politically mobilized
citizenry—especially of “the unions, college students, women’s organizations that
brought them into power,” she maintained that King would acknowledge that the struggle
for freedom in Africa has persisted, due to the efforts of celebrated activists such as
Wangari Mathai, the late Ousmane Sembene, the late Ken Saro-Wiwa, Nelson Mandela,
Desmond Tutu and “countless individuals and organizations we do not hear about in the
New York Times or the Washington Post.” She hoped that President Obama’s victory
can provide new impetus to that struggle.
Afterward, Nii Akuetteh of TransAfrica, Washington D.C., offered a special
luncheon presentation: “Responding To the Somali Conflict and Piracy Dilemma.” At
the root of the problem, he insists, are not only the Ethiopian occupation—now ended—
but also the lack of democracy, the years of low-level civil war, the country’s
humanitarian crisis, and the recent history of wealthier countries using Somalia as a
dumping ground for toxic materials.
Why is it America’s problem? he queried rhetorically.
It is America’s problem because of four episodes of American intervention in
Somalia. 1). In 1977, Jimmy Carter with the support of Sing Buri engineered a coup
d'état in an effort unify Somalia. 2). November 1992, George Bush Sr. order American
marines to secure grain deliveries against warlords. 3). Subsequently, Clinton protected
grain deliveries, which led to Blackhawk Down, whereupon Clinton became “gun shy”;
4). The worst intervention, tantamount to war crime, was led by George Bush Jr., who
opposed peace by paying off Somali warlords to overload the Islamic union, thereby reescalating the civil war that had been de-escalating for four years.
The only lasting solution, contends Akuette, is to rebuild Somalia, which is
America’s responsibility because of the history of America’s disastrous interventions.
As usual, plenary and concurrent panels begin the afternoon preceding the
opening ceremonies. At 1:00 p.m. Thursday April 30, Dr. Ricky Green of CSUS chaired
Plenary A, “An Inquiry into the Concept of Soul in African Diaspora: Art, Politics and
Philosophy as Mediating Discourse of Justice and Peace.” CAPCR Board member
Beatrice Russell provided the following summaries of their presentations.
Toni Tinker’s essay titled “Coded Messages” addressed how coded messages in
African-American music inform youth politics. Since black dissent has been violently
suppressed throughout most of American history, black musicians have been agents of
African-American activism. Whites, she asserts, are drawn to black rhythms but do not
necessarily understand the “hidden transcript” of political dissent in the lyrics.
Her paper is an attempt to give outsiders an insider’s view of some of the lyrics’
coded messages. For instance, black insiders hear the resonance between Sam Cookes’
“Change is Gonna Come” and Barack Obama’s “change has come to America”: between
Robin Kelley’s “Race Rebels”, W.E.B. Dubois’ The Souls of Black Folk, and Angela
Davis’s speeches on the blues and black feminism: between Tupac Shakur’s “If I Were
President” and Barack Obama’s run for the Presidency: and between the expectations of
white violence in Marvin Gaye’s “What’s Going On?” and rapper Naz’s attacks on Fox
News coverage of President Barack Obama.
Darryl Freeman’s paper, “Examination of the Lost Soul connection between the
African-American Community and its Traditional African Heritage” lamented loss of the
African communal spirit among African-Americans. The modern diaspora has sacrificed
its “soulful” communal emphasis in favor of American individualism and the
conspicuous consumption of capitalism.
Citing the Fifth Pan-African Congress that “positioned [its] political and
economic demands within a new world context of international cooperation,” he
suggested that “perhaps it is time for a new Pan African Congress. . . to reaffirm the
communal goals and processes of African nationalism and [to reaffirm] a unity of
purpose for the African Diaspora around the world.”
At 2:50, Concurrent Panel One, “Religion and Societal Values,” combined with
Concurrent Panel Two, “Religion, Ethnicity, and Peace Education.” The combined panel
was chaired by Lila Jacobs and Sylvester Bowie of CAPCR CSUS. The initial speaker,
Victor Adefemi Isumona from University of Ibadan, Nigeria, presenting his paper “The
Clergy Class: Domination and Accumulation in Nigeria.” Whereas, argued Isumona,
post-colonial America adopted constitutional democracy, Nigeria took a different path:
those able to get power tyrannized over others and disrupted efforts to implement
democracy. Why have not the people revolted? he asked. The answer: the clergy play an
important role in perpetuating the system of oppression.
The clergy claim to solve poverty, barrenness, disease, and unemployment
through miracles, then claim that the people lack sufficient faith to bring about the
promised miracles. Thus, the Church absolves the government of its responsibility,
pacifies the population, and suppresses dissent.
Following Isumona, Elizabeth Anyaonu of Nnamdi Azikiwe University read her
paper, “Religious Practices: The Bane of Peace & Justice: A Continuum in Nigeria,” cowritten with Ogugua V.C. Ikpeze. Their paper attributed Nigeria’s rising tide of violence
to religious practices that “encourage discrimination and violation of the rights of other
religious practitioners.” It cites conflicts between Roman Catholics and Anglicans,
between the Islamic Maitasine and Shiites and, most disastrously, between the Christian
Association of Nigeria (CAN) and the Jama-atu Nasril Islam (JNI).
Friday at 1:00 p.m., following Nii Akeuette’s Special Luncheon Presentation on
Somalia, Concurrent Panel Three “The Politics of Justice, Ethnicity, and Conflict
Resolution” and Concurrent Panel Four combined. Panel chairs were Kaylene RichardsEkeh of CSU Sacramento and Browne Onuoha, a visiting Professor at CSUS from
University of Lagos, Nigeria. Barbara Tint of Portland State University led off with her
paper, “Dialogue & Reconciliation Process within African Diaspora”—co-written with
Roland Clarke and Carmina Rinker. The paper emphasized the authors’ involvement with
immigrant refugee communities in Portland, Nigeria, and Ethiopia. There were four
phases of the project: 1). assessing each community’s needs, challenges, and issues; 2).
participant led dialogue in each community’s own language; 3. participant led conflict
resolution; and 4). capacity building.
With respect to conflict resolution, the paper cites four areas of inquiry: 1). When
are antagonists most amenable to peaceful conflict resolution? 2). How do intensity and
immediacy of experience result in amenability? 3). How does one sustain the transition
from conflict to peace? 4). How does one develop replicable dialogue and conflict
resolution processes?
The discussion remains general, noting that antagonists are most amenable to
change at moments when status is about the change, at moments of spiritual crisis, at
moments of loss of control, or with threats to family, self-esteem, health, freedom,
profession. It is at such moments that dialogue can most successfully intervene:
facilitating new identity construction, healing, curiosity, and risk taking; and bringing an
end to fear, despair, paranoia, judgment, avoidance, and hierarchical relationships.
Barbara Tint’s paper was followed by “The Tiv-Jukun Conflict: The State of
Human Rights Violations in Central Nigeria,” read by A. O. Banjo from the University of
Zululand, South Africa. The paper is basically a survey of the conflict.
Before 1926, there was no conflict between between the Tiv and Jukun. Then,
British patronage of the Jukun led to violations of Tiv civil rights and eliminated the Tiv
leadership. After, decolonization the Tiv retributive civil war waged from 1962-1964,
followed by sporadic outburst of violence but no large scale escalation until 1990-1992
when hundreds of houses, businesses, and schools, were looted and burned. The killing
was extremely brutal, including beheading, setting victims ablaze. Children and pregnant
women became targets. Since then, the government has failed to assist the victims and
the destruction is still visible.
Thereafter followed Jennifer de Maio from CSU Northridge, reading her paper
“Africa’s Scramble for Africa: The Case of the Transnationalization of Conflict in
Darfur.’ The paper attributed the transnationalization of war in Darfur not to diffusion
but to spillover of violence resulting from the Sudanese government deliberately
exploiting the violence in Darfur to wage proxy wars in Chad and the Central African
Republic.
This excellent and detailed analysis concluded with the argument that, short of a
change in leadership in Khartoum and a revision of policy goals, it is very likely that the
transnationalization of the conflict in Darfur will involve not only the Central African
Republic and Chad but also Ethiopia, Eritrea, Uganda, and Somalia, and thereby become
Africa’s second continental war.
Finally, Eric H. Honda applied game theory to the analysis of the Rwanda
genocide in “Rationalizing the Rwanda Genocide: The Irrationality of the Three-Player
Decision Game.”
Next, Concurrent Panel Five “Ethnicity, Democracy, and Justice Dialogues”
combined with Concurrent Panel Six “Ethnicity, Democracy and Justice Dialogues,”
chaired by Professor Beatrice Russell and Cecil Canton of CAPCR CSUS. Russell also
recorded the minutes of Concurrent Panel Five. Jesse Mills from University of San Diego
led off with her paper, “Rebirth in the Refugee Diaspora: Organizing Somali Youth
Around Religion, Gender and Culture in San Diego, California.” Working with the youth
among the 12,00-15,000 Somali refugees in San Diego, Mills notes three examples of
Somali religious youth leadership, giving particular attention to a youth group
empowering women to go to school. Mills argues that the youth activism must be
fostered because of its capacity to help unify Somalia.
Following Mills, Scopas S. Poggo of Ohio State University presented “The
Origins and Patterns of Migration of Southern Sudanese Ethnic and Linguistic Groups.”
Poggo traces a general history of migrations of the Luo, Bantu, and Nuba to Southern
Sudan, British colonialism’s role in fostering enmity between them, and the Center for
Bridging Community working to mediate ethnic relations between them.
Next, Browne Onuoha from University of Lagos read his paper “The State,
Culture of Peace and Consensus Building in Africa.” His paper proceeded in three parts.
The first part offered a framework for understanding the nature of State in Africa: rooted
not in democratic processes but the “logic of power.” Thus, he rejects the present
assumption in Africa that the civil society exists. The second part argues that the logic of
power does not allow culture of peace and consensus building to prevail. The third part
of the paper “suggests that a culture of peace and consensus building begins with the
reduction of the high premium placed on politics in Africa, followed by the development
of an ideologically imbued and oriented civil society to act as counter-force to the
professional politician.” His paper takes the position of a whistle blower, pointing to the
pitfalls confronting culture of peace and consensus building in Africa.
Following Onuoha, Jacqueline Munalula Msitwa of Drexel University read her
paper “Is the Discovery of Oil Promoting Racial and Religious Unity in Sudan?” arguing
that oil is the instrument for the death, not the life of Sudan. Rather than religion, the
source of conflict in Sudan is “the resource curse,” hampering rather than promoting
unity and resulting in civil conflict rather than peace. As the elite benefit from oil
revenues, the quality of public spending declines, and the government borrows billions to
cover shortfalls when commodity prices fluctuate. Ultimately, the elite are in control and
foreign investors reap the greatest advantages.
8:30-10:40 a.m., Saturday, May 2, Concurrent Panels Seven “Gender, Media,
Ethnicity, and Peace Building” and Eight “Ethnicity and Peace-Building Dialogues”
combined. Panel Chairs were Jessie Gaston and Marlyn Jones of CAPCR CSUS.
Beatrice Russell led off with her paper, “Gendering War: Searching for Peace and
reconciliation in President Sirleaf’s Speeches.” Russell briefly traced a history of
Liberian heads of State with an emphasis on Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, jailed in 1985 after
challenging the Liberian government, yet elected over football star George Weah in 2005.
Sirleaf’s speeches wage semantic war against the physical, sexual, and psychological
violence of Liberia’s past, thus breaking with the past violence of the Doe and Taylor
presidencies, argued Russell.
Then, Veronica Ehrenreich of University of California, Santa Barbara read her
paper, “Best practices for creating peace and justice dialogues: Memory, Performative
Art, and the TRCs on South Africa’s Post Independence Stage.” Ehrenreich objected to
South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s (TRC) manipulation, reification,
and commoditization of the black South Africans’ testimonies of their treatment during
the independence struggles, resulting in the disruption and delay of reconciliation
processes. “Performance and profit,” not forgiveness and reconciliation motivated the
TRC, she contended. Although Bishop Desmond Tutu applauded the first generation
TRCs “warm atmosphere,” transcribers of the second generation works from the TRC
“did not always respect the survivors’ ownership of stories.” Rather, they altered
survivors’ testimonies, turning the TRC’s effort at reconciliation “toward performance
and profit at the expense of the survivors.”
Then, Adekola Yinusa Adekunle of Federal College of Education, Asaba, Nigeria
read his paper, “Advancing Positive Lessons for Peace Dialogues in Nigeria Through
Islamic Prospect-Case Study of Islamic Faithfuls in Asaba, Delta State, Nigeria.” His
contention was that the major hindrance to Nigerian development is not, as the media
asserts, due to the violence of the majority of Muslims. “Islam means peace,” he
asserted, although “many Islamics fail to faithfully apply Islamic principles.” He
suggested that adherents to Islam in Nigeria must be better informed, requiring that the
Koran be translated into local languages. Moreover every Imam must emphasize peace
in the teaching of Islam and offer workshops teaching peace through dialogue.
Thereafter, M.O. Adeleke of Obafemi Awolowo University, Ife read his paper
“The Effect of Socio-Legal Intervention in Building Sustainable Peace in Post-Conflict
Ife-Modakeke Communities of Nigeria,” co-written by E.O. Ekundayo from the
Department of Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria.
Adeleke traced the Ife-Modakeke conflict dates back to the collapse of the Oyo empire in
the eighteenth century. However, the post-colonial stage of the conflict began in 1960,
when the Ife denied the Modakeke autonomy. The first major war began in 1981 and the
crisis revived in 1983.
Then, on October 11, 2002, the government of Osun State acting on the
recommendation of the Olabode George Committee enacted a ten point memorandum of
understanding offering reparations but not autonomy to the Modakeke, administered by
the Ife–East local Government office. Other key recommendations of the memorandum
of understanding remain to be implemented, specifically the special reorientation
program to get youths on both sides back to normal life and the mobile police force to
maintain a buffer zone between the Ife and Modakeke.
Following Adeleke, Reverend Titus Oyeyemi, ecstatic leader of the African
Projects for Peace and Love Initiative at Country Club Hills, Illinois read his paper
“African, the Future land of Peace: a Case of Proactive Grassroots Peace Building.” He
began with a recollection of a vision he had in 1996—and many subsequent visions—
which inspired his institute for peace education at Country Club Hills and his
commitment to starting “peace clubs” throughout the world. Then, his paper unfolded in
three parts: 1). an account of the past four thousand years of foreign occupation (going
back to the Egyptian occupation of Ethiopia), during which colonizers ruled in their own
interests; 2). an account of the present democratic and human rights reforms; and 3). his
vision of a future Africa with a peace club in every school and community.
Plenary Panel C, “(Re)Energizing U.S. Policy Toward Africa Under The New
President Obama Administration: Prospects and Challenges On Conflicts, Democracy,
Human Rights, USAFRICOM, Environment, Health, and Trade/Commerce,” convened at
10:55. Plenary C featured discussants Lisa Aubrey of Arizona State University, Tempe;
Nii Akuetteh of TransAfrica Washinton, D.C.; Judith Byfield of Cornell University, New
York; Kelechi Kalu of Ohio State University, Columbus; and Brown Onuoha of
University of Lagos, Nigeria. The proceedings of Plenary C were recorded by Dr.
Marlyn Jones of the CAPCR, CSUS.
The central question considered by the panel was posed by panel chair and
moderator, Ernest Uwazie: “If President Obama’s African roots give new perspective to
US Africa arrangements, then he will not craft US policy towards Africa in a vacuum.
On the contrary, he pays attention to ideas emerging from different quarters. So, What is
special about Obama in his orientation toward Africa?”
Nii Akuette was first to respond. Akuette did not expect Obama to solve all of
Africa’s problems, but he did take heart from Obama’s effort to link up with the African
side of his family and from the expectation that Obama will be a stronger proponent of
democracy in Africa than former President George Bush. Nevertheless, Obama needs the
support of strong social movements promoting peace and democracy throughout Africa.
Akuette came out against AFRICOM, a Pentagon initiative to send American
troops to intervene in African conflicts 1. because the African people were not consulted,
2. because its agenda has not been discussed, 3. because prostitution, rape, and violence
are rampant where troops are concentrated and 4. because, under suspicion of having
helped overthrow Kwame Nkrumah and having betrayed Nelson Mandela, the American
military record in Africa is not good.
Judith Byfield, also recalling the days that Nelson Mandela was on America’s
terrorist list, was concerned that President Obama is under pressure to continue the
existing policy of framing the African question in terms of American National security
interests rather than promoting democracy in Africa. As a force for transformation,
Obama must introduce a different agenda with a special emphasis on healthcare and
childcare. Moreover, she contended, women need greater access to politics and capital,
more secure access to land, and stronger institutions protecting them from domestic
violence. She also agrees that Obama needs the support of strong social movements
promoting peace and democracy throughout Africa.
Kelechi Kalu called Obama a magician, who makes the impossible seem possible:
he got a substantial number of votes from rural whites during his campaign; he draws
huge crowds in Europe; and he even gives hope to Pariahs in India and to rural
populations in Africa. Nevertheless, Obama’s posture in Africa appears, so far, to be
anti-terrorist rather than pro-democracy, exemplified by the strong military background
of Obama’s special envoy to Sudan and Obama’s order to kill the Somali pirates .
Browne Onuoha confirmed the CIA overthrow of Nkrumah and America’s
betrayal of Mandela but preferred to emphasize the need of the U.S. to take positive
action to ensure the welfare of the oil rich Niger Delta. Although the oil is of extremely
high quality, accounting for 90% of the nation’s economy, the majority of the people do
not prosper. The U.S. government needs hold corporations and corrupt leaders
accountable the lack of overall economic development in Nigeria despite the wealth that
oil brings in.
All of the panelists agreed that the United States needs to stop supporting African
leaders who are not accountable to a Constitutional democracy.
From that panel emerged the central terms constituting the 18th annual
Africa/Diaspora conference “Communiqué on US Policy towards Africa - (Re)energizing
US Policy toward Africa under the Obama Administration – Prospects and Challenges,”
an outgrowth and affirmation of CAPCR director, Ernest Uwazie’s assertion that
“Scholarly impact builds global partnerships.”
Transcribed by CAPCR Board member, Marlyn Jones, a draft of that communiqué
follows:
Communiqué on US Policy towards Africa - (Re)energizing US Policy toward Africa
under the Obama Administration – Prospects and Challenges
Preamble:
In comparison with other Presidents, President Obama’s ethnicity, parentage, and
previous engagement with Africa provide him with a unique insight into the prospects and
challenges with which Africa currently grapples. However, the President of the United States is
mandated to defend the Constitution and keep the United States secure, hence, he/she must be
cognizant of, and is directed by, the US Congress. Consequently, President Obama’s decisions are
not entirely “personal.” Hence, the conference participants, cognizant that new US/Africa
relations will not occur in a vacuum, but more so, that the President is amenable and
attentive to ideas emerging from different perspectives and constituents, wish to weigh in on
dialogues relating to US engagement with Africa.
Many past Presidents have, with mixed results, promulgated policies, made statements
and engaged in activities putatively undertaken in pursuit of improving the democratic landscape
of Africa. Often, though, many of the statements were not transformed into actions and or
practices. This raises the question about how President Obama can distinguish himself from
previous presidential practices of statements, rhetoric and lack of action. This communiqué
addresses three primary areas: military interest, gender empowerment.
Military Interest
Military interests are often couched in language favorable to nation building. In the past,
the bureaucracy addressing African interests and issues, especially military “aid” were dispersed
into different departments with different mandates and interests, hence with varied results. It is
envisaged, therefore, that one department could provide a more coordinated response with better
results. Africom has been suggested as one such framework.
The Bush administration identified the African continent as a strategic location for U.S.
foreign policy, creating the US African Command (AFRICOM), a program of the US Department
of Defense designed to create a single U.S. regional military command to oversee all U.S. military
training and operations on the African continent, with the additional mandate to oversee the
U.S./Africa diplomatic and development work. Under AFRICOM diplomacy and development
are subordinated to military power and defense spending, are emphasized. Over-emphasis on
military and defense issues means less support for indigenous democracy. The primary problem
with military/defense is the (un)intended support for, and endorsement of, both dictators and
violent regime change. AFRICOM is not an appropriate response for the following reasons.
First, there does not seem to be a definitive mandate for AFRICOM; instead, U.S. policy
on the ground is reflective of the often conflicting agencies and or personnel articulating it. These
vary from protecting Africa, to fighting terrorism, to promoting democracy and nation building.
Secondly, consistent with previous American involvement in Africa—including helping to
destabilize and or remove the democratically elected governments of Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana
and Patrice LaMumba of the Congo—AFRICOM does not tend to support public opinion and
political engagement by Africans generally. Thirdly, AFRICOM requires the presence of a large
number of young, predominantly male, and heavily armed U.S. military personnel. Heavily armed
foreign soldiers mean trouble: force/brutality, prostitution, rape and other factors that contribute to
social decay
Finally, there is the issue of respect. Africans were never included in discussions of
programming and hence were not able to participate in determining priorities. In addition, there
are powerful reasons from an African point of view that Africom is not positive for Africa. For
example,
By clarifying the mandate and coordinated diplomatic efforts, AFRICOM can play a
significant role in strengthening democracies and nation building in Africa.
Gender engagement
There are further challenges relating to reenergizing America’s policies towards Africa.
Analysis of gender is important for inclusion for several reasons, especially because what the US
does internationally, and specifically in Africa, impacts both its internal and external relations.
First, US foreign policy cannot simply be self interest. The destabilization of African
governments results in displaced refugee populations, primarily comprised of women and children
Consequently, women and children are disproportionately impacted by US foreign policy towards
Africa.
There needs to be a paradigm shift from how the US frames its policy towards Africa.
Instead of US national interest, the emphasis need to put in place a framework for sustainable
development and women’s empowerment by working in areas such as courts.
While there is a need to support and celebrate President Obama’s presidency, this must
be tempered by the fact that the President of the USA, with a large contingent of compelling
powerful voices that will lay pressure to continue existing policies and practices, will constrain
President Obama. Therefore, if he is to go as far as proponents would like, they cannot be
complacent but must lay the groundwork to enable him to do things differently.