Bush’s Goal: Bring African leaders in line with U.S. policy (FCN, 12-08-2006) President Bush plans to travel to Africa Feb. 15-21. In his second visit to the continent, the president wants to see firsthand the fruits of U.S. efforts. Though the president and the State Department consistently boast of the increased benefits of attention paid to the Motherland, reality does not reflect their rhetoric.

For the fifth year, the presidents own flagship initiative for Africa the Presidents Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) will remain woefully underfunded. During his Jan. 28 State of the Union Address, Mr. Bush proposed funding for 2008 that will literally make it impossible for African nations to get ahead of the spread of the virus. His plan will make it possible to treat an additional 500,000 new infections in the next five years worldwide. This in the midst of a pandemic that will cost the lives of at least two million mothers, fathers, sons and daughters this year alone.

Limiting doctors and healthcare facilities on the African continent even further, President Bush has blocked every effort to increase the effectiveness of treatment dollars by refusing to allow countries to buy generic medications instead of costly name brand drugs. It is clear he is not serious about assisting people on the African continent. What does President Bush take seriously? U.S. military positioning and control of the African continents natural resources. According to the National Intelligence Council, the U.S. is likely to draw 25 percent of its oil from West Africa by 2015, surpassing the Persian Gulf. Since the beginning of the Iraq War, President Bush has redirected over $1 trillion through the Department of Defense. Little known, however, is that defense funding increasingly includes monies for economic development, also known as foreign assistance programs. The administration is placing progressively more funding for humanitarian and diplomatic efforts, typically State Department functions, into the hands of the Pentagon. This dual initiative has come together in the form of the Africa Command, or AFRICOM.

opposition by African nations, the Pentagon has begun to restructure U.S. forces to bring the new Africa Command on line, with a headquarters on the continent and lily pads around the continent. These lily pads allow for forward basingof U.S. military enabling them to ignore national boundaries and political sensitivities.

In the face of opposition, the administration has begun to spin new stories lauding the benefits of good works completed by U.S. military forces in Djibouti, for example water wells and good roads for the poorest of Africas poor. However Djibouti which hosts the U.S. Combined Joint Task Force Horn of Africa, remains a country strapped with political concerns and rampant disease with an average life expectancy of 43 years for its citizens. There is no evidence to support the presence of the U.S. military or tales that an American military presence automatically improves the lives of Africans.

The historical record cannot be disputed: U.S. military power has left nations devastated and unstable. Past administrations have underfunded vital programs, undermined indigenous democracies, backed vicious dictators and used the Africa continent as a playground for proxy wars. In short, there is little reason for U.S. military motives on African continent to be trusted. The price of oil is at an all time high. The African continent is becoming an attractive investment site for many other growing economies, notably China. Africas governments and peoples know the Bush administration and its corporate allies want to ensure U.S. control over the continents vast resources.