While the US claims China is the top threat to the so-called “rules-based international order,” one thing Beijing lacks is a global military presence like Washington has. In fact, China only has one overseas military base on the east coast of Africa, in Djibouti.
Gen. Stephen Townsend, the head of US Africa Command, is warning that Beijing is looking to expand its military presence in Africa and wants to house a military base on the west coast.
“They’re looking for a place where they can rearm and repair warships. That becomes militarily useful in conflict,” Townsend told The Associated Press. “They’re a long way toward establishing that in Djibouti. Now they’re casting their gaze to the Atlantic coast and wanting to get such a base there.”
It’s not clear if China is actually planning to build a military base on the Atlantic coast. While it is possible, claims from US military leaders about countries like China and Russia should be taken lightly, as they are usually used to justify more US military expansion. But even if it were true, Beijing’s overseas military presence would still be nothing compared to Washington’s.
The US has somewhere around 800 overseas bases. In Africa alone, there are 29 US bases. While the US has been fighting wars and building drone bases in Africa, China has been investing in infrastructure and is gaining influence that Washington views as a threat.
“The Chinese are outmaneuvering the US in select countries in Africa,” Townsend said. “Port projects, economic endeavors, infrastructure, and their agreements and contracts will lead to greater access in the future. They are hedging their bets and making big bets on Africa.”
As the US military is shifting its focus away from counterterrorism towards “great power competition,” Townsend has been trying to sell Africa as an important battleground for these new Cold Wars.
“China and Russia don’t ignore Africa, and that alone should say something,” Townsend said in an interview in April.
Last year, Townsend argued that the US military footprint in Africa was more critical for countering China and Russia on the continent than economic investments. “There are some areas where we’re just not going to out-compete China. We’re not going to build bridges and roads and stadiums and palaces like they’re doing,” he said.
What if it does ?
Military bases are more a liability than an asset. They cost money, they can be targeted by many opponents, and they then require you to maintain good relations with the host nation, or else you can get booted out. Let your adversary build as many bases as they can – each one makes them more vulnerable.
Costing money and being vulnerable to targeting are features, not bugs from the point of view of those who make money building/maintaining bases and selling arms.
Interesting comment -/ we are not going to be building bridges, stadiums and palaces? And presumably China is building stadiums and palaces? The irony is — this is what we do! Build a stadium, get local strongman give us mine concessions. Such frivolous investments are built to give strongmen. I an not aware of any palaces built by China.
Our bases keep corrupt officials in power. They do not like China and bridges. You cannot take bridge to Swiss bank account. Also, our bases keep their economy, as we rent space, buy supplies, spend all kinds of money there.
” we rent space, buy supplies, spend all kinds of money there. ”
Not necessarily true. Japan is forced to bear most of the cost of the Occupation, and Trump was demanding the same from South Korea.
I know, I know. But these examples of rich countries hosting our military (Japan, Korea, Germany). are not the bulk of out military bases presence. Most of our 800 plus bases are in smaller or poorer countries where our presence has multiple meanings.
We are there either to protect our corporate interests there, or to send a message to the neighborhood that our military can interfere in their affairs on a moments notice — should they step out of line. In the country where bases are stationed, ruling elite gets the privileges. And we keep them in power, as their country is either geopolitically important, or most likely, we have our corporations extract resources. From mines to coffee. Children mostly work harvesting bens as adult pay is too high for those corporations.
How are these bases useful to local elites? First, by insuring that no opposition to ruling clique is possible, basic intimidation. Second, aid coming to the country through US AID, is distributed for free to the ruling clique. They sell it to wholesale merchants and pocket the money. Wholesale sells it to retail for profit. In the stores, you can by US AID cans of oil, bags of sugar, flour or rice. ALL of them have US AID logo and the following statement: NOT TO BE SOLD OR EXCHANGED. This is everyday occurrence going in for years, decades. I was shopping these at local grocery store in Yemen’s capital Sana’a in the seventies. Nothing new in all countries where US AID reaches.
At the same time, US suppliers of those bases make huge profits for deliveries. Since many goods American soldiers needs is not available locally — transport of those supplies is costly. But base also buys locally. pays rents, and soldiers spend some of their earnings locally, keeping economy up.
If a president decides to pull out all those small bases, and brings soldiers back, fills up those vacant commercial spaces — making all spending occur locally — just savings on transport will be huge, and everyone from pizza delivery to cleaning service would have income. We would improve our economy without cutting military expense for those bases, and save in transport costs.
What will happen too those elites? Do we really must meddle? They will continue to sell to us whatever they can anyway. Will they have a shakeup of elites? Sure, but can we really shield anyone on this earth from reality. They themselves must find the way to govern their countries, or will become failed countries that will end up restructured politically and territorially,
We have not learned a thing from European colonial experiences . Not a thing. We believe that because of technology advances we can achieve imperial objectives other colonial empires failed to achieve.
It is a delusion, old paradigm in globally connected world. Eventually, some global governance would emerge. But countries, global citizens, will not give their consent to be governed by those that seek to dominate.
https://www.juancole.com/20…
Is the US promoting regime change in Sudan?
Perhaps the bigger picture is Sudan being removed from the State Sponsor of Terrorism List. This would open Sudan to IMF and World Bank loans. That essentially means the US will continue manipulating Khartoum well into the 2020s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_W._Shukan
Regime change happened. The long serving president Bashar was hounded fir once popular humanitarian cause — Darfur. But gave to Western powers the whole South Sudan — they left him alone. He became Saudi Ally in Yemen, as well as Egypt, he was almost safe from Hague, But when a spate of embassies opened in Damascus (UAE, Bahrain and Sudan), and be became the first president to visit Assad in Damascus, that was it. He was target of long planned color revolution. But military stepped in, with Saudi snd Egypt’s help, Russian and Chinese. Military did not wish to provoke the easily flammable students, handsomely supported by the regime change typical funding. Military had cut a deal with “civic” groups, and over time — I think that military has kept the lid, while reforming old institutions,
Civic side has some ministers and through those is pushing for neoliberal “opening” and foreign control. Enticement is removal from list, but remains to be seen just how much neoliberal trashing is possible.
Here is the thing to watch — Sudan signed an agreement with Russia for the use of Port Sudan for Russian navy, including nuclear vessels and submarines.
There are limits on number of military but surprisingly there are NO limitations as to the airports or sea ports through which weapons or military personnel could be brought into the country. US has been vigorously working against it. And if the contract remains, that would mean that military has an upper hand. Enticing in the form of loans is, naturally, the “democratic ” option.
Not that they could not use the money . But the IMF option is really the debt trap. Money goes for budgetary shortfalls, and is always spent on presumably advanced projects, such as seminars for government officials, all conducted by Western consultants. And projects in how to develop service industry, anything and everything but nothing tangible,
And in order to get MORE, so called standby loans — nice name to alleviate fear of borrowing. But to be able to raise more money — IMF experts look at the budget and recommend cuts, so that another installment loan can be granted,
Over time, cuts in education, health care, roads, utilities, public services , retirements — exhaust the system, social traumas result in some propped up dictator. Migrations , poverty, crime — all attributed to incompetent natives, We have sapped the very life of their institutions. The pushback against IMF is strong , but many are in that trap.
Significance of the base cannot be overestimated— as it sits right across Saudi largest port city —Jeddah. And as the most misunderstood war in/around Yemen is taking place, it hopefully helps clear the fog — fear of losing freedom of navigation through Bab Al Mandeb,
Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Sudan share the same fear — as all of their trade with Asia passes through that waterway.
Ohhh oh…the hypocrisy…Do US generals have this word in their lexicon, of are they just off scale arrogant?