Jew World Order

Washington’s “hunt” for Joseph Kony, the leader of the Lord’s
Resistance Army (LRA) rebel group, is a sideshow masking America’s real
intention to fulfill a long-held dream to gain a foothold in the DRC’s
minerals sector. ~ related artice

An analysis of America’s Africa policy shows that it is premised on
an axis of three strategic interests: securing minerals, off-setting
Chinese economic and political influence, and moving its African Command
(AFRICOM) from Stuttgart in Germany to the continent.

The “humanitarian” card is the pivot, with Washington’s propaganda
machinery being deployed to justify America’s increasingly bellicose
attitude towards the continent.

At the centre of America’s strategic interests are oil in East Africa
and the vast mineral potential in the DRC, which would by implication
give the US a significant foothold in Southern Africa.

Analysts say the LRA has been reduced to a rag-tag unit and does not
warrant the kind of military and financial resources the US is
dedicating, along with France and Britain who have been silently active
in East Africa and the Horn of Africa.

The US already has more than 2
000 troops at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti to combat “terrorism and
piracy”. America also has agreements with Gabon, Mali, Morocco, Namibia,
Sao Tome Principe, Senegal, Tunisia, Uganda and Zambia for use of
local military bases, dubbed “lily pads”, as and when required.

The “hunt” for Kony has given the US an opening to penetrate the DRC
as the LRA leader is said to operate fluidly across the borders with
Uganda and Rwanda.

Crucially, both Rwanda and Uganda were central players in the last war in the DRC.

And now a Bill has been introduced in the US Congress to garner support to expand the forces which are “pursuing” Kony.

The Bill calls for “enhancing mobility, intelligence and logistical
capabilities for partner forces engaged in efforts … to apprehend or
remove Joseph Kony”; and to expand “physical access and
telecommunications infrastructure to facilitate the timely flow of
information and access for humanitarian and protection actors”.

Minerals’ Achilles Heel

The DRC represents the “big prize” in Africa, with an estimated mapped mineral endowment worth US$24 trillion.

The minerals include cassiterite, wolframite, coltan, tantalum,
niobium, gold, diamonds, cobalt, copper, tin and iron ore; all of which
are central to America’s twin industrial and military expansion
interests.

America’s interest in strategic minerals in the region has been detailed over the years.

A 1982 US Congressional Budget office report “Cobalt: Policy Options
for a Strategic Mineral”) concludes that cobalt alloys are critical to
aerospace and weapons industries and that 64 percent of global supply is
in DRC’s copper heartland of Katanga, which stretches into northern
Zambia.

Cobalt has not been mined in the US since 1971 and despite being the
world’s largest consumer of the mineral, America is 100 percent reliant
on imports.

“At present, the US produces no cobalt. Thus, aside from cobalt
stockpiles and the recycling of used materials, the US is completely
dependent on imports.

“This gives rise to two kinds of vulnerability. The first is
essentially military in nature; the possible need to wage a war in the
absence of foreign supplies of cobalt.

“The second is economic: the effect on the economy of a disruption in
foreign supply with an attendant sudden increase in price,” the report
says.

President Barack Obama, then still a Senator, in 2006 acknowledged the DRC’s importance to America’s long-term interests.

And not everyone has been fooled by the “humanitarian” card.

Writes Nile Bowie for the Canada-based Global Research: “The concept
of US intervention into the DRC, South Sudan, Central African Republic
and Uganda under the pretext of disarming the LRA is an ultimately
fraudulent purpose.”

Bowie says the LRA, which has been around for some 20 years, is weak “with approximately 400 soldiers”.

He adds that not a single verified LRA attack has been reported in Uganda since 2006.

Bowie says that while Kony is indeed a villain, the LRA threat is
overstated and “wholly misrepresented in recent pro-intervention US
legislation”.

“An increasing US presence in the region exists only to curtail the
increasing economic presence of China in one of the most resource and
mineral-rich regions,” Bowie says.

He points out that it is in fact Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni
who should be blamed for the LRA’s existence after “a campaign of
genocide against the Acholi people”.

Most LRA members have been drawn from the Acholi.

Quoting figures from the Red Cross, Bowie says Museveni has displaced more than 1.5 million Acholi and killed at least 300 000.

A 1992 Amnesty International report accuses Museveni of “exerting a campaign of state sponsored terror onto the Acholi people”.

“The US is currently mobilising public opinion in favour of a greater
US presence in Africa, under the pretext of capturing Kony, quelling
Islamist terrorism and putting an end to long-standing humanitarian
issues,” Bowie says.

“The further consolidation of US presence in the region is part of a
larger programme to expand AFRICOM through a proposed archipelago of
military bases in the region.

“The push into Africa has more to do with destabilising the deeply
troubled DRC and capturing its strategic reserves of cobalt, tantalum,
gold and diamonds… The ostensible role of the first African-American US
President is to export the theatresque war on terror directly to the
African continent, in a campaign to exploit established tribal tensions
along tribal, ethnic and religious lines.”

Security for whom?

Since 2006, Washington has made a concerted push to permanently house AFRICOM in Africa.

The US believes 2012 is the year that dream becomes a reality.

In 2010 Peter Pham, a neoconservative African policy “expert” and US
military advisor, said Africa was a “neglected stepchild” of
Washington’s foreign policy.

“Myself, and a few other academics had been kicking around the idea
of a combatant command for Africa since the late 1990s, without much
success.

“When the (George W) Bush administration suddenly saw these
ungoverned spaces as a cause for concern, I thought, if you are looking
for ungoverned areas, porous borders and weak states, then look no
further than Africa.

That created a buzz,” Pham said.

The following year, Pham told the US Congress: “This natural wealth
makes Africa an inviting target for the attentions of the People’s
Republic of China, whose dynamic economy, averaging nine percent growth
per annum over the last two decades, has an almost insatiable thirst for
oil as well as a need for other natural resources to sustain it.

“It seems AFRICOM is off to a strong start as the opposition to China in Africa.

“The litmus test will be who Obama selects as his Africa person and
whether he tries to weaken Congo President Joseph Kabila in favour of
backing Nkunda’s death squads, naturally in the name of ‘restoring
democracy’.”

And then in July last year, as reported by The Southern Times, a US
Congressional Research Service paper for members and committees said
AFRICOM would have an African home in 2012.

The paper (“AFRICOM: US Strategic Interests and the Role of the US
Military on Africa”) was presented by Lauren Ploch, an American “expert”
on African Affairs.

She said, “A decision on AFRICOM’s final headquarters location has
been postponed to 2012 to allow the command to gain greater
understanding of its long-term operational requirements.”

The “humanitarian” card has already been used to deploy military in
Libya, Cote d’Ivoire, East Africa and the Horn of Africa in the last
year alone.

All eyes are now on the DRC.

However, Lysias Dodd Gilbert and Christopher Isike – doctoral
candidates at the University of KwaZulu Natal in South Africa – have
said the “humanitarian” card is too small to conceal resource greed.

In a research paper titled “USAFRICOM: Security for Whom?”, which
they co-authored with Ufo Okeke Uzodike (Associate Professor of
International Relations and head of the School of Politics at KwaZulu
Natal University), they said: “Can a military command of an imperial
power be truly as benign and contributive (socially and economically) as
suggested by the American declarations about AFRICOM?

“Why did Africa suddenly become an area of ‘vital interest’ to the US deserving the creation of a full-fledged military command?

“Was AFRICOM established for the development, and alleviation of
vulnerabilities and human security challenges in Africa or was it
created for the pursuit of US hegemonic and state centric security
interests?

“A cursory understanding of the imperialistic and hegemonic
inclinations of the US explains vividly the reasons why AFRICOM was
established.

“Put simply, AFRICOM was introduced to further America’s national security objectives …

“(T)he US has demonstrated increased readiness to use its power
unilaterally in pursuit of its national interests as evidenced by its
invasion of Iraq despite non-endorsement by the UN.

“…. AFRICOM was unilaterally created for the furtherance and
consolidation of US strate-centric security interests but packaged in
human security paraphernalia for the twin purpose of credibility and
acceptability by African statesmen.”

The Host

So which African country will host AFRICOM?

The sudden and inordinate interest in East Africa and the DRC could provide a clue.

The AU cannot bar member states or regional groupings from hosting
AFRICOM, Colonel Tanki Mothae, director of the Organ on Security at the
SADC Secretariat in Botswana told The Southern Times.

He said though SADC had effectively slammed the door on AFRICOM, the
US was negotiating with some African countries to hose the military
base.

“In SADC we are not ready to host AFRICOM but I know that there is
some consultation and negotiations all over Africa for a base for
AFRICOM.

“But in the SADC region, we haven’t had any information of a country willing to play host,” Col Mothae said.

“Whatever happens depends on the individual countries’ or some might
chose to agree at regional level and if they wish to share the
information with their African counterparts, they can but they are not
compelled to.”

Disdain for AFRICOM is not shared by all African countries.

“As you know, Africa is Africa, there are … individual interests
everywhere,” Col Mothae said. America is likely to use existing
bilateral military training programmes it has with African countries to
get a home for AFRICOM.

The US has a Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa; International
Military Education and Training with virtually all African countries
including several in SADC; and the Africa Contingency Operations
Training and Assistance Programme.

April 12, 2012 – posted at PhantomReport

Related article…

UGANDA OIL: US Africa Command, a tool to Recolonize the African Continent

diggmutidel.icio.usgoogleredditfacebook