9/11, Iraq and the implications of U.S. Aggression for Africa

The employment of militarism by the U.S. as a means to seek and establish power and control is a troubling phenomenon for African democratic movements, which are struggling against regimes that came to power through military means and have relied on their monopoly of the means of violence to maintain power. For Africa, this paradigmatic shift is problematic given the prevalence of on the continent. Moreover, the economic implications of the Iraq war present troubling prospects for Africa's efforts to combat poverty. Amongst African social movements there is much agreement that the US war in Iraq had nothing to do with Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction, Iraqi support for Al Queda, or Iraqi role in 'terrorism', specifically 11 September. Neither was it been about Iraqi threats to international stability or liberating the people of Iraq. What the war is about, which has not been stated by the dominant media – primarily British and U.S.-owned – is money, power and control. The invasion and occupation of Iraq provides us with the latest and most graphic illustration of how these variables underpin action.

ABOUT MONEY: Some suggest the key motive was the Bush administration's goal of preventing further Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) movement towards the Euro as an oil transaction currency standard. Another monetary cause of the war concerns US corporate interests. American corporations have been jockeying for contracts to rebuild the country following the massive destruction of its infrastructure.

ABOUT POWER: Since the horrific 11 September attacks on the United States, the Bush Administration has sought to garner the international sympathy it engendered to clearly assert its hegemony to cajole and in some cases coerce other nations into supporting the promulgation and militarization of US national interests globally.

ABOUT CONTROL: US invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq is part and parcel of its ambition to control political and economic developments in the Middle East.

IMPLICATIONS FOR AFRICA

We are witnessing the manifestations of the new world (dis)order in which the US can pursue its national interests irrespective of international disapproval and opposition. What does this portend for Africans struggling to end dictatorships on the continent, particularly where desired changes may not include the free market ideology that characterises America's dominant vision? Moreover, what can Africans, who struggle daily under repressive regimes, do or say to 'shame' their leaders into behaving decently if not honourably? If the US can ride over agreed tenets of democratic governance and international law to achieve a much disputed objective, is there not increased legitimacy for tin pot dictators in Africa to characterise every real and perceived enemy as a 'terrorist' and therefore justify violent treatment against them? Already we have witnessed this in a number of African countries – Liberia and Uganda for example.

A second implication of the war in Iraq for Africa is the simple notion that the US will go to extensive lengths to assure its access to oil. It has been suggested that Africa will become a leading exporter of oil to the US. One only has to see the pauperisation of Nigeria, the wretchedness of Angola and the lack of democracy and respect for civil liberties in Gabon to understand the contention that this will lead to more misery. The U.S. Department of Defence is 'reportedly considering redeploying American troops to protect key oil reserves in Africa, particularly Nigeria'. One wonders what these troops will do there to protect US national (i.e. oil) interests. Will they shoot protesting Nigerian women, workers and inhabitants of the Niger Delta who are asking that proceeds from oil revenues be invested in social services?

A third implication might be considered one of declining shares of relief and humanitarian assistance. Humanitarian relief agencies are already stating the well versed and practiced double standard in the allocation of relief assistance. In the words of James Morris, the Executive Director of the World Food Program:

“As much as I don't like it, I cannot escape the thought that we have a double standard. How is it we routinely accept a level of suffering and hopelessness in Africa we would never accept in any other part of the world? We simply cannot let this stand.”

But it will stand! In the recently released 2003 World Development Indicators, the World Bank reported that Sub-Saharan Africa, unlike other regions of the world such as Asia and Eastern Europe and contrary to the targets of the Millennium Development Goals (a set of targets set by the United Nations to halve poverty by the year 2015), will witness an increment in the number of people living in poverty. Whereas:

“…the number of impoverished people in the world was forecast to drop from 1.29 billion people, or 29.6% in 1990, to 809 million, or 13.3% in 2015… in sub-Saharan Africa, the number of impoverished people would swell from 315 million in 1990 to 404 million in 2015.”

In addition to the economic factors that are likely to keep Africa in poverty - including structural adjustment type policies of the international financial institutions, unequal trade relations between Africa and the developed world, and Africa's debt overhang – other likely factors include the numerous civil conflicts, the widespread lack of democratic governance on the continent and the global propensity towards militarization.

The U.S. is seeking the cancellation of Iraq's $127 billion debt as part of Iraq's reconstruction. This amazing figure should be compared with the $40 billion for 26 highly indebted poor countries, most of which are in Africa, that the US has agreed along with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to cancel. Even more shocking is the fact that over $80 billion was relatively easily mobilised to intervene in Iraq and destroy much vital infrastructure. $50 billion required to achieve the millennium development goals globally can somehow not be located.

It is clear that while the US pursues its stated mission to 'liberate' Iraq, much of the world - particularly those of us in Africa - recognize that this war is not about making the world safe for 'democracy' or ensuring the security of the majority of Africans who live in hellish conditions on the continent. Rather, it is about the projection of U.S. military power and its assertion of imperial control. The lives of Africans can only be worsened by these actions. It becomes compelling that African leaders and people must, out of necessity, oppose U.S. aggression and occupation of Iraq, and other pursuits of U.S. national interest cloaked as 'international' security. It is of some comfort that two African Presidents, Thabo Mbeki of South Africa and Olusegun Obassanjo of Nigeria, got it right in opposing the war. Do they have the requisite spine to hold their grounds? We are not holding our breath.

* Ezekiel Pajibo is a Liberian independent researcher and analyst of Africa policy issues who lives in Harare, Zimbabwe.

* Please send comments on this editorial to

This is an edited version of a larger briefing in the Journal of Peacebuilding and Development Volume 1 Number 2, 2003. ISSN 1542-3166 JPD is a new tri-annual refereed Journal providing a forum for the sharing of critical thinking and constructive action on issues at the intersections of conflict, development and peace.

To subscribe to the Journal Write, call, fax or email to the following:

Journal of Peacebuilding and Development
South North Centre for Peacebuilding and Development
P.O. Box HG358, Highlands
Harare, Zimbabwe
Tel/Fax +263 4 746 543
email: [email][email protected]; [email][email protected]
or
Journal of Peacebuilding and Development
Centre for Global Peace, American University
4400 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20016-8123
Tel + 1 202 885 1656 Fax + 1 202 885 2494
Email: [email][email protected]; [email][email protected]