China’s Expanding Military Influence in Africa

In recent years, China has noticeably extended its presence in Africa, particularly in nations like Tanzania, Djibouti, and the Central African Republic. One striking facet of this expansion is the establishment of military academies capable of training an ever-growing number of African officers. This change doesn’t just represent a shift in military alliances; it signifies a broader and more complicated geopolitical landscape.

General Michael Langley, the commander of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), has raised alarms about this systematic program by China. He argues that these initiatives appear designed to directly mimic the U.S.’s established engagement strategies. The implications are significant: as African nations increasingly gravitate towards Beijing and Moscow, a reduced U.S. military presence could place Washington at a disadvantage.

“They’re trying to replicate what we do best, especially in education and joint training,” Langley remarked during a recent address. Could this serve as a wake-up call for U.S. policymakers? The urgency of his comments underscores not only direct competition but a potential duplication that could challenge U.S. influence on the continent.

Interestingly, Langley mentioned instances where China has even conducted joint military exercises in Tanzania this fall, mirroring similar exercises the U.S. has held. “It’s not just competition — it’s duplication,” he stressed, drawing attention to a calculated effort to win the trust and allegiance of African militaries through stronger defense ties and appealing partnerships. What does this mean for countries that may feel marginalized by U.S. responses, particularly those facing sanctions or aid restrictions?

With newfound partnerships come obligations. Langley advised African governments to voice their support for AFRICOM’s continued presence through diplomatic avenues. He urged, “If we’re important to you, make your voice heard in Washington,” a call to action that narrows the focus back to the very nations whose voices matter most.

In a larger context, during the African Chiefs of Defense Conference held in Nairobi, Langley communicated a significant shift in U.S. military strategy from extensive aid to fostering African self-reliance. “Our aim is not to serve as a permanent crutch but to achieve U.S. security objectives that overlap with our partners. We should be able to help African nations build the self-reliance they need to independently confront terrorism and insurgencies,” he explained.

This sentiment showcases the nuanced balance that the U.S. is trying to achieve. By emphasizing self-reliance, can we reshape perceptions of American involvement? The long-term goal appears to be empowering African nations to take the helm in their own security issues, enabling them to tackle challenges unilaterally. Yet, what happens when capacity building appears insufficient for tackling rapidly evolving threats?

Langley also noted the complexities facing the U.S. Department of State, as it absorbs USAID’s responsibilities. Some aid programs that are deemed “really helpful” to stabilizing efforts may be evaluated for retention or elimination. The unpredictability of this reassessment raises questions about how security assistance will evolve, especially as threats become more intertwined with socio-economic conditions.

Rethinking AFRICOM’s Role

Complications multiply when considering that Langley’s remarks come amid discussions about merging AFRICOM into the European Command as a cost-cutting measure. Since its inception in 2008, AFRICOM has been pivotal in counterterrorism operations and building partnerships. What would a merger imply for U.S. military operations and partnerships in Africa?

Africa’s challenges, particularly in the Sahel region, underscore urgent concerns. Langley identified this area as the “epicenter” of global terrorism. He points out that networks tied to ISIS and al-Qaeda are not merely surviving; they are thriving, particularly in nations like Burkina Faso, a worrying situation where the government has lost significant control over its territories.

“Terrorist networks affiliated with ISIS and al-Qaeda are thriving there, particularly in Burkina Faso, where the government no longer controls vast parts of its own territory,” he commented. The implications of such instability often extend beyond the continent, potentially impacting U.S. national security interests. What would it take for U.S. policymakers to address these vulnerabilities directly, given the rising tide of militant groups?

Amidst these tensions, the recalibration of U.S. engagements reshapes existing alliances. Langley highlighted how the ruling junta in Niger ordered U.S. forces to withdraw from a crucial $100 million drone base last year, further complicating intelligence-sharing agreements. Meanwhile, Russia is creating inroads by enhancing ties with various African juntas, offering military support in exchange for valuable resources like minerals. Where does that leave traditional allies?

In a broader context, insurgent groups such as al-Shabaab in Somalia exploit reduced aid to brand Western powers as unreliable. Yet, Langley emphasized that the U.S. is firmly committed to remain involved in Africa, albeit under a new framework. “We’re not here to dominate or dictate,” he reiterated, emphasizing the cooperative nature of the U.S. approach. But with shared security interests at stake, how can these alliances evolve to tackle multifaceted threats more effectively?

“But we do have shared security interests, and we must address them together,” he concluded. The road ahead is undeniably complex, but one thing is clear: the future of security collaboration in Africa is under a spotlight, prompting all parties involved to reconsider their strategies and alignments.

Edited By Ali Musa
Axadle Times International – Monitoring