http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6336063.stm The US gets more than 10% of its oil from Africa and is worried about increased economic and diplomatic competition from China, the BBC's defence and security correspondent Rob Watson reports. Looks a new "competition" going on.
If we're going to maintain global hegemony we may as well do it right. As you can see from this map it seems ineffective to keep including Africa under the same command center as Europe. I thought that BBC 10% figure sounded kind of high so I looked for some figures and actually it's kind of low. Turns out we got 18% of our oil from Africa in 2004. And with Sao Tome coming on tap maybe that figure will increase. The other thing about Africa as concerns US military interests, is that the Horn of Africa is at one end of the "arc of instability" that spans from Afghanistan through the Middle East and over to the Horn. How are we supposed to keep the pressure on Iran if our carriers need to keep going back and forth between the coast of Somalia and the Persian Gulf? Better to just divide up the command centers.
And with all this talk of American interests let's not forget American values. Two genocides in a decade and we haven't stopped either one of them. Who knows, once we have an African command center and a possible President Obama, he might heed Samantha Power's advice and get the US military involved in Sudan.
No sure whether it's your geography thats wrong or your math!!! But I work it out at 10.75% comes from Africa........... I agree that Africa should be given seperate consideration to Europe, however I am unsure if you increase military presence in Africa that it will be welcome.
American values? Oh please. Sudan is a large supplier of Oil to China in case you didn't realise. There is not way the Chinese will let America interfere in Sudan. Two genocides? I'm assuming you mean Rwanda and Darfur? No-one could realistically of stopped Rwanda apart from the French. And thats only a small possibility. In real terms it just happened so quickly and no-one moved quickly enough to prevent it. The French were the only country to have troops on the ground. Darfur - well the killings have been going on for a while and nothing has been done. Military action would solve nothing as has been proved many times in Africa. The vast majority of African wars are tribal conflicts for power. It will not solve anything to do either a) Put the other side in power as they will massacre the former government supporters or b) Split the country as the two tribes in the South will start fighting each other. As much as it's nasty - the West sometimes has to step back and let evolution play out in Africa. The majority of African countries have been involved in conflict and until one tribe has the ultimate upper hand, peace will not prevail. That is how at the end of the day peace came to be accross Europe and the West hundreds of years ago.
The US is facing stiff diplomatic and economic competition from Iran as well. Indeed, commenting on the establishment of a Samand automobile factory and a power transmission center in the Senegal, Senegal's ambassador noted just yesterday: I can post quotes from various presidents, and other government officials in a host of other African countries, saying pretty much the same thing. In a very short time, Iran has been able to do much more for some of these African countries than what has been done for them by the West in many decades since their independence from western colonial rule. Right now, in many places in Africa, the countries to look for in terms of development are no longer exclusively those from the West. Not only China, but increasingly Iran as well, are playing a prominent role in many of these countries. Already failing in its neo-colonial policies in the Middle East, the US is trying to maintain and expand its neo-colonial power over the African continent. Besides some tactical military issues, this new US command is created for that purpose.
People probably don't know--the largest US intelligence center is built at capital of Suden. USA has the full support of Suden government on anti-terrior operations that oversea the whole Africa. Also pending with South Sudan's independance vote, Sudan is in the transition from an oil exporter (most of oil fields are in South) to a financial hub (2nd Dubai). Guess where the money comes from? Ya. Saudi Arabia. About future of Dafur, when South Sudan got independant, the rebels would launch their war toward the New South Sate for the oil revenue sharing. One big reason why Sudan government doesn't care. They rather just let Dafur to have its own country that has no any resources. Kind of like Sunnis in Iraq for poor folks in Darfur.
I appreciate you taking the time to check my work, however using the numbers provided in the link I posted I think you'll see both my geography and my math are correct. Nigeria 1078 Angola 306 Algeria 215 Gabon 142 Cameroon 18 Congo (Kinshasa) 14 Congo (Brazzaville) 8 Ivory Coast 5 Total from Africa = 1786 Total from world = 10088 Percent from Africa = 17.7 % (rounded up to 18% in my previous post)
I'm aware of Chinese energy security as it relates to Africa in general, and Sudan in particular. I'm also aware that the political power of the Chinese government is heavily dependent on a tenuous demographic and economic situation in which large numbers of Chinese flee the countryside and attempt to assimilate themselves into the urban labor force. The Chinese economy is able to absorb these workers in large part because it creates new jobs by an ever growing current account surplus, one component of which is the massive trade surplus with the US. Any unwillingness on the part of the US to continue playing along with this global account imbalance game presents a potential threat to the stability and growth of the Chinese economy, and to the livelihood of the current regime. The US has the potential for leverage with China whether it be with regards to Sudan or other policy options. Yes, I was referring to Rwanda and Darfur. As for Rwanda happening so quickly I will have to assume you are not familiar with the message sent to the UN headquarters in New York on January 11, 1994 (the killing started April 6). Here is a summary and here is the entire cable. Note the clear warning of potential genocide: "Since UNAMIR mandate he has been ordered to register all Tutsi in Kigali. He suspects it is for their extermination. Example he gave was that in 20 minutes his personnel could kill up to 1000 Tutsis." [Emphasis mine]. This cable was sent almost three months before the killings began.
sebakoole, 1) as I pointed out, USA will NOT piss off Sudan Government because its anti-terror operation there. 2) Even without China's oil security, you cannot have a workable economic sanction if Saudi's money came in like rains. 3) Civilians caught between rock and hard place in Darfur cannot solely blamed on Sudan government side. Rebels had their shares out blames too. Sudan doesn't object peacekeepers from Africa, only have objections from West. You may feel it funny, but a LOT of places don't like Western "peacekeepers" who have other agenda beside peacekeeping. 4) China's current economy is NOT eaxctly as you described. But that is a different big topic. Put it short, USA has ZERO economic leverage on China today.
This thread serves as a testament to the above quote. While Africa is engraved in poverty, disease, and lack of most basic human needs, the US is more concerned about securing its interests first -- btw, having an "African-American" as persident would certainly ease the way.
There's no doubt China has become economically formidable, in aggregate. But GDP per capita is still just over $1,000, which is poorer than many African nations. So to say the USA had zero economic leverage on China is a bit overstated I think, otherwise the Chinese wouldn't have felt the need to revalue the Yuan up, which they've been doing since last year consistently (though in small steps), at the US's request. It's more accurate to say if the US and China were to engage in an economic war, China would get destroyed but the US would get badly hurt in the process.