U.S. Assists in African Conflicts from Afar

A B U J A, Nigeria, Aug. 25, 2000 -- A month before Bill Clinton entered theWhite House in 1993, U.S. Marines stormed ashore in Somalia seekingto halt a devastating famine and cast the model for futurelife-saving interventions in convulsed African states.

Now in the twilight of his presidency, Clinton is making aweekend journey to Nigeria, home to the latest version of U.S.peacekeeping efforts in Africa. An advance party of 14 U.S.soldiers from North Carolina’s Fort Bragg touched down hereWednesday to train Nigerian soldiers for duty in beleaguered SierraLeone.

Limited U.S. Peacekeeping Role

Africa has endured more ruinous wars than any other region overthe past decade, yet the United States and other Western nationshave largely retreated from the continent. An overstretched UnitedNations has struggled to patch together peacekeeping forces made upmostly of African armies and soldiers from other poor nations.

“There is an unspoken policy that the United States won’t sendtroops to Africa,” said Salih Booker, head of the Africa PolicyInformation Center in Washington. “Africans are concerned that theUnited States has abandoned peacekeeping roles that are supposed tobe a shared international responsibility.”

More U.S. military trainers are coming to Nigeria, but they arenot expected to top a few hundred, and there may be fewer. Theyplan to work with several battalions of Nigerians at a base inIbadan, north of Lagos.

The United States has allocated $20 million to help train theNigerians, who have the most powerful army in West Africa andextensive experience as peacekeepers — and combatants — in SierraLeone and Liberia.

However, the Nigerians also have a reputation for ruthlessness;human rights groups have accused them of frequent abuses. The U.S.trainers plan to stress human rights, according to Major Ed Loomis,a U.S. military spokesman in Germany.

Critics: U.S. Effort Small Scale

The Americans have helped prepare several African armies forregional peacekeeping missions since 1996 in the belief that troopsalready on the continent could respond rapidly and would have abetter understanding of local disputes.

However, critics say the U.S. effort has been small scale and isdesigned mostly to counter the view that America is ignoringAfrica.

The Clinton administration and Congress have not “been willingto consider more than token funding for U.N. or regionalpeacekeeping forces, and each has consistently ruled out U.S. troopcontributions,” John Stremlau, a former U.S. State Departmentofficial wrote recently in the journal Foreign Affairs.

U.N. peacekeeping missions have traditionally involved soldiersfrom a broad cross-section of nations. And the United Nations isnow juggling 14 such operations around the globe, a number that hasrisen sharply in recent years.

Yet in Sierra Leone, none of the 13,000 U.N. troops comes fromWestern states. And in war-torn Congo, where the U.N. plans to sendin peacekeepers, neither the United States nor any country inEurope has volunteered forces.

Supporters: U.S. Policy Is Prudent

Supporters of the current U.S. approach — training and aid forAfrican armies, but no American troops — say it is a prudent policyin the post-Cold War world.

Africa’s wars do not threaten important U.S. interests, theyargue. Also, the African conflicts tend to be highly unstableguerrilla wars, and U.N. peacekeepers become embroiled.

Even Clinton’s detractors acknowledge he has devoted moreattention to Africa than his predecessors, including an 11-day,six-nation tour in 1998.

But the deaths of nearly 40 U.S. servicemen in Somalia in 1993,including graphic footage of a dead U.S. soldier being draggedthrough the streets, prompted a swift withdrawal.

Since then, American forces provided logistical supportfollowing Rwanda’s 1994 genocide, and helped deliver food to floodvictims in Mozambique earlier this year. But the Americans havesteered clear of combat.

A Double Standard?

Critics see a double standard, noting that Washington is willingto offer troops for long-term peacekeeping missions in Bosnia,Kosovo and Korea, but not Africa.

Nigeria had withdrawn its troops from Sierra Leone, grumblingabout the heavy cost in both money and lives lost. But now thecountry has sent more than 3,500 troops back and may send more.

“We would like to see a little more burden sharing,” saidOmafume Onoge, head of the Center for Advanced Social Science inPort Harcourt, Nigeria. “Given the continent’s weaknesses, theinternational community needs to step in to help in Africancrises.”

A small number of well-trained Western troops can make a bigdifference.

In Sierra Leone, the mere presence of fewer than 1,000 Britishsoldiers helped stem an advance by rebels who had taken 500 U.N.peacekeepers hostage and were approaching the capital Freetown inMay. But then the British forces pulled out and sporadic clashesbetween the rebels and the U.N. forces have resumed.