 |
| cc RFI |
By Narcisse Jean Alcide Nana
The international system has long become inured to the relentless hiccup of African insecurity malaise.
Major clichés and few strong allegories
conjure up the spasms of this ongoing malaise to the point of
oversimplifying the field of African security. A cascade of crises
encapsulated by patterns of sociopolitical ‘fragility’, ‘failure’, and
‘vulnerabilities’ has been plying the continent’s security environment
with regards to the HIV/AIDS pandemic, the Ebola outbreak in West and
Central Africa, as well as the hydra of terrorism and bout of violent
conflicts.
To be sure, the continent as a surrogate ideological
battleground between Western democracies and a soviet-centric security
dilemma has been put to rest. Noticeably today, a post 9-11
terror-centric security messianism has been perking up on Washington’s
foreign policy chariot wheels in Africa. This security messianism is
characterized by an insulated minimalist engagement riding on a
missionary rhetorical commitment to African security.
Not surprisingly, the continent is broadly painted under a missionary
diplomatic utopia that promises to terminate the ills of Africa. Putting
aside some headier geopolitical matters, President Bush in July 2005,
with an evangelical tone, made the confession that the U.S. ‘seek[s]
progress in Africa because conscience demands it.’ Binding tightly moral
imperatives with security concerns, Bush exited the White House
cementing his signature legacy as the AIDS president. He left behind a
strong savoury trademark of his long-standing gig to defeating the tides
of malaria and AIDS on the continent. By the time he left the world
stage, President Bush had increased aid to the continent by more than
640 percent. In humanitarian aid, the continent was the beneficiary of
more than $5 billion a year. The $46 billion President’s Emergency Plan
for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) was instrumental for at least 2 million people
who received antiretroviral drugs.
To be sure, the fine apostles of HIV/AIDS policy wonk have been battling
out support for access to drugs and treatment for AIDS patients. As a
result of this global battle, expensive treatment and drugs for AIDS had
garnered public resources and attention as well. Ironically, expensive
drugs and treatment have been raining down on environments without
proper hospitals, qualified medical doctors, and poorly equipped
clinics. While antiretroviral drugs are available to patients, the
resources to training health workers and building schools of medicine
have been drying up. Tellingly, American Ebola victims from the West and
Central have to be flown home to Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta for
treatment. Though the much-hyped PEPFAR project christened President
Bush as the healer- in- chief on African shores, the everlasting romance
between militarized health foreign policy and security is hard to
disconnect. As a shining jewel on President Bush’s chest, PEPFAR stands
out as a corporate bonanza for US pharmaceutical corporations to harvest
safe vouchers from financial manna. Oil corporations such as Mobil Oil
and Chevron own a share of some HIV-medicine patents and medication. Not
only had US foreign policy aid to HIV made vast profit for US firms,
but it softly tied up HIV/AIDS’ industrial headquarters to oil
corporations and the creation of the unified command for Africa to
oversee security and conduct military operations as necessary.
Of course, the hotly touted Obama’s West African foreign policy pledged a
major US military-led surge to stop the Ebola virus as a global health
and national security threat. Far from throwing a monkey wrench on
military expansion, such a foreign policy vision has not divorced from a
militarized version of epidemic diseases. On September 16, 2014,
President Obama made public his decision to establish a joint military
command headquarters in Liberia by quickly dispatching 3,000 US troops
to Monrovia and Senegal. The Ebola outbreak crafted its own response to
the military footprint on the continent. The Obama administration
pledged $ 1.26 billion to fighting against Ebola that has already
claimed more than 2,800 lives in West Africa. The crisis has spurred the
opportunity to hew a close look at some nichified source of security
fixes in order to reinforce the post-9-11 security quandaries.
President Obama’s quick policy stand is not unprecedented. The root of
the militarization of Washington foreign policy goes back to 1947 with
the Cold War. The National Security Act of 1947 amends the US armed
forces as intrinsically embedded with national security policy in
peacetime. To be sure, demilitarizing epidemic diseases in West Africa
will divert resources to building roads that lead to good hospitals and
schools of medicine to train public health personnel for the continent.
_____________
* Narcisse Jean Alcide Nana holds a BA in Philosophy, MA in Political
Theology from Boston College and is currently specializing in
International Security at the University of Leicester, UK.
Reprinted with permission from Pambazuka News.
