On February 6, 2007, The United States of America’s State Department published an article called U.S. Creating New Africa Command to Coordinate Military Efforts. In this article, it mentioned that “the Defense Department is creating a new U.S. Africa Command headquarters, to be known as AFRICOM, to coordinate all U.S. military and security interests throughout the continent [with the exception of Egypt].” In an official statement by the Bush administration, the aim of AFRICOM is to “strengthen our security cooperation with Africa and create new opportunities to bolster the capabilities of our partners in Africa.” Rumors of AFRICOM started to circulate in September, 2006, in publications such as Time Magazine that speculated on reasons for the implementation of such a program. Time referred to developments of AFRICOM as “the most glaring admission that the U.S. military needs to dramatically readjust how it will fight what it calls the long war.” On October 1, 2007, Theresa Whelan, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Defense for African Affairs, testified before the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health, as part of the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs (HCFA), stating that AFRICOM has attained the status under the European Command of a sub-unified command and will be fully operational by October, 2008.

Since the initial speculations in September, 2006, the United States has steady moved forward in the implementation of AFRICOM as a historic foreign military presence in Africa - preceded only by the occupations by European nations during the colonial era. It is because of the traumatic reference to history that this unraveling policy inspires agitation in the responses to AFRICOM by the majority of African leaders and Africa advocates. For example, organizations like the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and TransAfrica Forum have been outspoken in their opposition to AFRICOM with new organizations (ex. Africans Against Africom), following suit in their opposition to such a seemingly natural step in U.S. military history. After all, AFRICOM is not the first U.S. Command to come into existence; the Pentagon already has five geographic Unified Combatant Commands around the world - of which issues pertaining to Africa have been distributed to three regional central commands:

1. The European Command, headquartered in Stuggart, Germany
2. Pacific Command, headquartered in Camp H.M. Smith, Hawaii
3. Central Command, headquartered in Tampa Bay, Florida

With the US owning or renting over 700 military bases in 130 countries around the world, not inclusive of the 6,000 bases within the United States and the surrounding territories, the grounds in which opposition to AFRICOM stand are primarily based not only on broader oppositions to what is dubbed the Military Industrial Complex but also on the implications that such an expansive structure has for a continent already grappling with various disempowering issues such as poverty and low access to treatment for various physical ailments plaguing the inhabitants. This paper will examine the factors in which opposition to AFRICOM are rooted, as well as examine the response strategies of these oppositions that are based in artistic expression.

There have been many movements, specific to African liberation, that have incorporated song, music, dance and visual art as an organizing strategy to effect desired political change. It is with this knowledge that this paper focuses on the hot button policy issues concerning AFRICOM as a potential modern case study for how the arts can be better implemented to stop the execution of public policies that hold within them latent detrimental social consequences. Due to the contemporary nature of AFRICOM, a lot of what will be asserted in this paper is admittedly speculation. However, these speculations will draw from history for examples of not only previous military domination but also the organized non-violent and artistic reactions that have helped stop the realization of exploitative policies enforced by military impositions. Also, in an effort to understand the historic context in which opposition toward AFRICOM is based, this paper will broadly examine US foreign policy from the specific angle of the Military Industrial Complex – a term introduced in the early days of the Cold War, where the government and corporations collaborate to create and institutionalize power concentrations that are out of the control of the public.

AFRICOM Dissected

There are two angles to look at when considering AFRICOM:

1. African history with colonial rule
2. US rise to power through military growth

Although the United Sates of America was not a direct collaborator in colonizing Africa, there are certain key points in history that merge these two stories. First of all, prior to what is known as the US Colonial Period (1600 – 1775), Africans were being exported abroad as early as 1441 with an estimated 9,556,000 slaves transported between the years of 1441 – 1866. The United States of America earned its independence from British colonial rule in 1776, so for 110 years the US officially benefited from free African labor – a story that lays the foundation to all US and African relations.

African Colonial Legacy

Despite the fact that the US was a full participant in the first international trade deal between African and Western nations, with the exception of Liberia, the US was exempt from direct colonial occupation of African territories. It is through this lens that the African Colonial Period is widely viewed. From the late nineteenth century until the late twentieth century, Africa was under imperial domination from several European nations. The mechanisms used to institute foreign colonial domination were a combination of military occupation and skilled diplomacy. As a historian recounted:

Never in the history of Africa did so many changes occur and with such speed as they did between 1880 and 1935. As late as 1990, only very limited areas of Africa had come under the direct rule of Europeans and African rulers and lineages heads were in control of their independence and sovereignty…But by 1914, with the sole exception of Ethiopia and Liberia, the whole of Africa had been partitioned and occupied by the imperial powers of France, Britain, Germany, Portugal, Belgium, Spain and Italy and colonialism had been installed.

As stated earlier, the Trans Atlantic slave trade began in 1441 so from that point until the mid-nineteenth century, there was a lapse of approximately 300 years of African-European relations in which African territories were sovereign and independent. Many African leaders opposed an alternative relationship, despite suggestions by Europeans for them to give up their sovereignty in order to warrant protection from invasion. For example, here is a recount from an Asante ruler in reaction to a British offer of protection for the Asante kingdom:

The suggestion that Asante in its present state should come and enjoy the protection of Her Majesty the Queen and Empress of India I may say is a matter of very serious consideration and which I am happy to say we have arrived at this conclusion, that my kingdom of Asante will never commit itself to such a policy. Asante must remain as of old at the same time to remain friendly with all white men.

Many rulers throughout the various kingdoms and communities in Africa responded in a similar manner to that of the Asante. However, due to the Industrial Revolution, the Europeans were able to upgrade their weaponry and, with this technology, they were able to militarily defeat the African resistance, killing of many prominent leaders of various tribes. As a result, colonialism as remembered today, became a fully functional operation with several military posts set up in what are now African cities and towns. These military posts were set up primarily to enforce colonial policies that would be met with opposition by the indigenous residents. This was the case in the Aba Women’s Rebellion in southeastern Nigeria, in which women organized and decided to revolt against taxes imposed by British rule.

This history of European military domination in Africa that led to the undesired colonial era has shaped the ways in which many African leaders are responding to AFRICOM. For example, South Africa, Nigeria and Libya have all made statements opposing AFRICOM. These rejections come as a surprise to many, as all three of these powerhouses in Africa have much to gain from the promises of AFRICOM to make more monies available for infrastructure and other development needs.

US Military Industrial Complex

On January 17, 1941, President Dwight D. Eisenhower made a heartfelt farewell address, warning the US about the Military Industrial Complex. During this televised broadcast he stated:

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations. This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved, so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

As stated in the speech, prior to World War I and II, “the United States had no armaments industry” and worked to build up a powerhouse so as to protect against the potential threats that war invaders from both Europe and Asia posed – as well as to come to the aide of allied European nations during this era. At the same time, as the US built up its military capacity, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was also coming into power with an equally expansive military system. Interestingly, the US and the USSR were allies at combating against the fascist states of Italy and Germany during World War II but before the end of the war, they disagreed on policies concerning post-war reconstruction efforts. On March 5, 1946, shortly after the end of World War II, in his famous “Iron Curtain” speech, given at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, Winston Churchill warned Western Democracies against the USSR, stating that they “cannot afford…to work on narrow margins, offering temptation to a trial of strength,” and that “…nobody knows what Soviet Russia and its Communist international organization intends to do in the immediate future, or what the limits if any to their expensive and proselytizing tendencies.” It was this band of Western Democracies against the United Communist states that birthed the arms struggle between the US and USSR, otherwise known as the Cold War.

Ironically, the Cold War was not an official war against the rising Superpower nations but was rather a sort of game between the US and USSR to sponsor smaller arms struggles between conflicts around the world with opposing forces that aligned themselves with either capitalism(i.e. pro US) or communism (i.e. pro USSR). It was during this era that both of these nations built up their military forces to what is now known as the Military Industrial Complex. However, since the end of the Cold War, marked by the dissolution of the USSR in the early 1990s, the US has steady built up a remarkable military force competent of the most modern technology available and is unmatchable by any other nation in the world. As noted earlier in this paper, the US has over 700 military bases in about 130 countries in the world - a record breaker that supercedes the efforts of the military forces of the Colonial Period of European world domination.

As a result of the Cold War, African nations became pawns for the US and the USSR, resulting in a series of coup d’etats and assignations that colored the early years of post-colonial Africa. Most notably, the Iran-Contra scandal exposed many of the covert US tactics to monitor and annihilate non-US friendly regimes in many regions of the world, including Africa, through joint intelligence and military efforts. Although Iran-Contra was specifically about the Reagan administration’s illegal arming of counterrevolutionary (otherwise known as “contra”) forces in Nicaragua as well as selling weapons to the Iranian government to secure the release of US citizens held hostage in Lebanon, the ensuing reports opened a slew of investigations about US foreign policy, in particular regarding the military. Though President Reagan was not implicated in any of the charges, the Iran-Contra scandal exposed the operational control of the “contra” program shift from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to the National Security Council (NSC), where high US officials would solicit “contra” military aide from private individuals and third countries, inclusive of South Africa and Middle Eastern nations.

Since the end of the Cold War, US and Africa military relations have been based on bilateral and multilateral joint training programs and military exercises in which the US would provide military training to African military personnel through a wide variety of training and education programs. It is also important to note that many of the programs were set up after the September 11, 2001 attacks on US soil, as part of counter-terrorism strategies. Listed below is a summary of current US military programs in Africa as published in an article by Daniel Volman of the African Security Research Project in Washington, DC:

• Flintlock 2005 and 2007: a program of Joint Combined Exchange Training (JCECT) conducted by units of the U.S. Army Special Forces and the U.S. Army Rangers, along with contingents from other units, to provide training experience for both American troops and for the troops of African countries. The first training took place in June, 2005, in which over a thousand US personnel were sent to North and West Africa for counter-terrorism exercises in Algeria, Senegal, Mauritania, Mali, Niger, and Chad that involved more than three thousand local service members. As part of the Operation Enduring Freedom-Trans-Saharan Counter-Terrorism Partnership (TSCTP), the second training conducted in both April and August, 2007, was with forces from Mali, Algeria, Chad, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Tunisia, Burkina Faso, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.

• Africa Contingency Operations Training and Assistance Program (ACOTA): This program replaced the 1997 African Crisis Response Initiative launched under Bill Clinton’s administration. In 2004, it became part of the Global Peace Operations Initiative and is officially designed to provide training to African military forces to improve both offensive and defensive operations in order to enhance their ability to conduct peacekeeping operations. This controversial program is also argued to enhance the ability to enforce police operations against unarmed civilians, counter-insurgency operations, and even conventional military operations against the military forces of other countries. Participating African countries include Benin, Bostwana, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia.

• International Military Education and Training Program (IMET): This program brings African military officers to military academies and other military educational institutions in the United States for professional training. In the 2006 fiscal year, this program trained 14,731 students from Africa (excluding Egypt) and continues to train students from nearly all African countries.

• Foreign Military Sales Program (FMS): Under the Defense Security Cooperation Agency of the Defense Department, this program sells US military equipment to African countries. This program is administered by the Military Financing Program (FMF), which provides loans to African nations in order to finance the purchase of this equipment, however, repayment of these loans is almost always waived. It the 2006 fiscal year, sub-Saharan African countries received about $14 million and North African countries received about $21 million through FMF funding.

• African Coastal and Border Security Program (ACBS Program): This program provides specialized equipment (i.e. patrol vessels and vehicles, communications equipment, night vision devices and electronic monitors and sensors) to African countries for the improvement of their ability to patrol and defend their own coastal waters and boarders from terrorist operations, smuggling, etc.

• Excess Defense Articles Program (EDA): This program administers a transfer of surplus US military equipment to foreign governments. As a part of this program:

1. South Africa and Bostwana have received C-130 planes
2. Uganda has received trucks
3. Senegal has received M-16 rifles
4. Nigeria has received coastal patrol vessels

• Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA): Established in 2002, as part of the US Central Command, this project was set up to detect and counter terrorist activities in the areas surrounding the Red Sea, Gulf of Aden, and the eastern Indian Ocean. This effort is based at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti and is made up of approximately 1,400 US military personnel who work with multinational navies from France, Italy, Germany and other NATO allies. In January 2007, the CJTF-HOA provided intelligence to Ethiopia in support of its invasion of Somalia.

• Joint Task Force Aztec Silence (JTFAS): In December of 2003, the U.S. European Command created this joint task force under the commander of the US Sixth Fleet (Europe) to share information with US intelligence agencies and African military forces. This program carries out counter-terrorism and surveillance operations in North and West Africa and coordinates U.S. operations with countries in those regions.

These facts, exemplifying pre-AFRICOM US military relations in Africa, add to the various protests against the implementation of AFRICOM, as it would increase an already alarming US military presence in the region. There is much speculation of the underlining motivations of AFRICOM coming into existence at this time – some of which include US interest in Africa’s oil and other resources. These speculations are not so farfetched if viewed from the broader historic context of African nations’ relating with Western nations as well as the pre-existing US military presence in Africa (both during and after the Cold War).

Strategic Incorporation of the Arts: A Case Study

Much of what is being witnessed in this contemporary issue of AFRICOM can be addressed from many historical angles. As stated in sections above, a review of colonial military presence in Africa is necessary in comprehending opposition toward AFRICOM, as noted by SADEC and other groups within Africa. It is also important to review the factors that have shaped US foreign policy in general as it relates to the Military Industrial Complex, in an effort to understand opposition to AFRICOM coming from organizations within the US such as TransAfrica Forum. In the case of strategic means of effecting change, as exemplified by sound and logical opposition toward such a policy as AFRICOM, it is also necessary to draw on some historical context. There are many ways to show opposition toward policies and, as this paper has exemplified, military means have been well exercised in the past century. However, there are other means of effecting change that do not result in arms struggles or in supporting the Military Industrial Complex. Around the world, there are many examples of non-violent efforts to show opposition that were effective in not inspiring or utilizing the sophisticated military technology we see in the development of guns, tanks and bombs. It is estimated that about 80% of war victims are women and children. With this in mind, it is essential that there be increased effort at incorporating successful means of opposing damaging policies without devastating those who are most vulnerable in conflict situations. In indigenous Africa, song, music and dance have been used in both violent and non-violent disputes – depending on the desired result of using such arts. The aim of highlighting the Aba Women’s Market Rebellion is not only to illustrate how African women have opposed colonial impositions but also to show alternate non-violent, yet effective, organizing strategies to achieve desired goals of change.

Policy Review: Riot or Rebellion? The Women’s Market Rebellion of 1929

The Aba Women’s Market Rebellion of 1929, also known as the Aba Women’s Riot, was a pioneering event of movement, remarkable for the ingenious organizing strategies that incorporated song and dance, was as militant as any liberation struggle before or after. The fact that it was organized by African women in times of European male colonial domination of the territory called Nigeria – one of the most lucrative colonies – is a credit to the courage and diligence it took to ensure the participants' imprints on the pages of history. In addition to being respected for the biological role of childbirth, African women are also widely respected for their participation in agricultural production, trade and other economic pursuits for the sustainability of their communities. It is with this self-awareness of the their importance to the sustainability of enterprising efforts that these women organized and decided to revolt against the imposition of taxes, as was noted in the literature in review, Riot or Rebellion.

At the end of 1929, just when the government was congratulating itself upon the success with which the difficult task of introducing direct taxation into the provinces had been accomplished, rioting of a serious and unusual kind broke out in Calabar and Owerri. In Owerri province, in the heart of the Igbo country, where a particularly dense population inhabits the palm forest, there is a place called Oloko. Here, a warrant chief, Okugo, under instructions from the district officer, was making a reassessment of the taxable wealth of the people. In his attempt, he counted the women, children, and domestic animals. A rumor at once spread among the women that the recently introduced taxation of men was to be extended to them.

This report was documented by Margery Perham, a British woman who dedicated her career to studying British colonial administration and was concerned with moral and ethics of colonial rule. She was noted for being “fiercely critical of British rule and was the scourge of the Colonial Office. She wanted to know why the British had opposed the development of nationalism and how they might assist nationalists, especially in Africa, in building new nations.” An interesting discovery was that most of the primary sources used in studying the Aba Women’s Riot were compiled by the British, who were more interested in understanding how they could have miscalculated their “citizens” and hence began gathering intelligence information on the Igbo people. It is this quest for understanding the Igbo people, in general, and Eastern Nigerian women, specifically, that led to policy changes in the colonial structure – a temporary victory that would be characterized by the lack of support by the British during the Biafran War (1967-1970).

The question of calling it a rebellion versus a riot, while a worthy distinction not to be minimized by mere semantics, is not the focus of this paper. Rather, this paper aims at highlighting the causations of this women’s movement, rare in form yet very powerful, especially when reviewed with awareness of present day analysis of the role of women and development in Africa.

The causations were simple enough: the British policy on taxation of individuals was economically frustrating for these colonial ‘citizens’. As Perham reported, “…the price of palm-produce was falling, and new customs duties had put up the cost of several imported articles of daily use.” The British had first imposed taxes on the men, a case for controversy yet was tolerated, but the straw that broke the camel’s back was the further insistence that these taxes be extended to women, children and animals. The other important, and more complex, policy trigger to this movement was the creation of the loathed role of the warrant chief. This colonial role was extremely disruptive to the traditional system of governance used in the time prior to British rule. Particular to the Igbos, there was a de-emphasis on roles such as ‘chiefs’ and ‘kings’ and the few men who managed to acquire some level of prestige to be acknowledged as great men or chiefs, did so only after rigorous initiation that was difficult for most to complete successfully. Despite the rigor toward attaining this position, the role of the chief did not equate with a king or ruler but was more akin to spokesperson for the people in relation with neighboring tribes. In addition, Igbo women had their organizations that controlled certain spheres of community life such as priestesses that headed traditional spiritual orders. This role was also only attained after rigorous initiation. Igbo women, as most other African women, were able to attain social standing by successfully trading, farming and weaving and many Igbo sub-tribes are matrilineal. Though Igbo women generally did not engage in physical combat, they were key advisors in war strategies and their place in society was honored as such. With the implementation of these warrant chiefs, roles that were imposed by the British mainly to communicate colonial law, there was a power shift that displaced traditionally held roles by both women and men.

Perham documents the role of one particular warrant chief who went by the name Okugo. It was noted that, as a result of Okugo’s insistence that the women pay taxes, the women organized themselves in masses and went to all the houses of the chiefs to verify that this law, in fact, was to be mandated in all provinces. Perham reports an incident that followed the implementation of the new tax law:

Okugo, continuing reluctantly to carry out his orders, sent a messenger to count some of his people. This man entered a compound and found one of the married women, Nwanyeruwa, who was pressing oil, to count her goats and sheep. She replied angrily, ‘Was your mother counted?’ at which they closed, seizing each other by the throat. A meeting was called and Nwayeruwa’s excited story was told as confirmation of the rumor.

It was at this point that the women started their rebellion. Shortly following this incident, masses of women from the countryside came to the town of Oloko to protest Okugo’s treatment of Nwayeruwa. Perham documented:

…All night they danced round his house singing a song quickly invented to meet the situation. Growing hourly more excited, they went on to Okugo’s compound where his own people tried to defend him with sticks and bird arrows. The crowd mobbed him, damaged his house, demanded his cap of office, and charged him with assault before the district office of Bende.

This vigilante behavior, without full comprehension of the consequences of their behavior, would be exhibited in many other anti-colonial movements around Africa… many to meet the same fate as the market women of Eastern Nigeria. After many months of organized demonstrations, the market women’s movement grew increasingly stronger and was estimated to have been about fifteen hundred women demonstrating at one time. Their demands for justice were also increasing in militancy and as a result mandated military involvement. As Perham reported on the bloody incident that occurred on December 17, 1929:

…[the women] made threatening and obscene gestures toward the troops, called them sons of pigs, and said they knew the soldiers would not fire at them. At last they struck at the district officer with their sticks. The lieutenant caught the blows, made signs to the district officer as to whether he should fire (for it was impossible to make himself heard in the uproar) and, just as the fence began to give way before the rush of women, shot the leader through the head with his revolver. Two volleys were then fired on the crowd which broke and fled, leaving thirty two dead and dying, and thirty-one wounded.

Although, the Aba Women’s Market Rebellion of 1929 ended in bloodshed, there were many achievements attained. For one, a flood gate had opened for the plight of African women under colonial rule, that was to be revisited in 1947 in the Egba Women’s War, which was spearheaded by Yoruba women in South Western Nigeria and predicated by similar triggers of taxation, lack of political representation, the oppressive excesses of the warrant chiefs, court clerks and the police. Another major achievement of the Aba Women’s Market Rebellion of 1929 was the abolition of the warrant chief system in the Igbo region. The warrant chiefs were replaced by Ezeala, or sacred authority holders of their communities, and the process of identifying these Ezeala’s was a democratic system that involved the input of the women, who where also now allowed to serve as members of the Native Court (a restorative justice court system rooted in indigenous beliefs of justice). The taxation, however, remained.

AFRICOM and the Future

Herein lies the rare point in history where people decide what position to take on an issue that has the potential to impact many generations to come. It is unknown at this time what the true impact of AFRICOM will be, but for many who draw on history to project the future, it has the potential to invite another generation of oppressive impositions throughout the African continent. Just as many ancient African kingdoms refused the presence and alleged protection of the European military forces throughout the nineteenth and early part of the twentieth centuries, the idea of AFRICOM is being received in similar ways by presidents of some of the most powerful African nations. Whatever repercussions such strong opposition holds for US-Africa relations remains to be seen, however, it is within the capacity of the masses to organize and implement various strategies of expressing opposition in order to effect policy change. This paper aims at promoting a strategy that utilizes some of what is believed to come naturally to Africans: song, music and dance. Given that the present world has been largely shaped by the Military Industrial Complex, it is crucial to explore other sources of resolving conflicts that do not threaten the vulnerable populations of women and children. As was the case with the Aba Women’s Revolt in southeastern Nigeria, the arts served as a strong force in changing policy. These women were militant and determined in their desire to block the imposition of taxes. Their strategy not only worked but inspired similar successful revolts in other neighboring regions. It is with this in mind that this paper encourages more organizing efforts to implement the arts, with the desire to effect change for generations to come.

Chioma "Journey Woman" Oruh is an artivist (artist + activist) originally of the Igbo tribe located in southeast Nigeria. She is also currently a graduate student in the African Studies at Howard University with a focus on music and its affects on liberation movements. Click here to contact Ms. Oruh.

Your comments are always welcome.