Abdulaziz Osman VOAFILE – Al-Shabab fighters sit on a truck as they patrol in Mogadishu, Somalia, Oct. 30, 2009. The U.S. military says its airstrike killed at least nine militants. However, the Somalia government says its soldiers were killed in the strike.
Somalia’s government is demanding an explanation from the United States for Wednesday’s deadly airstrike in central Somalia.
The Pentagon said in news release Thursday that its forces launched a “self-defense” strike against al-Shabab near the town of Galkayo, killing at least nine militants.
However, Galmudug state vice-president Mohamed Hashi Abdi told VOA’s Somali service that the U.S. airstrike killed 13 members of Galmudug forces.
After the weekly cabinet meeting in Mogadishu, ministers in the government said they want “a clear explanation on the airstrike carried out by U.S. against forces belonging to the Galmudug, a Somali federal member state.”
The cabinet said it will appoint a ministerial committee to investigate the airstrike.
Abdi said the Americans were “misguided” in a request that came from officials in the semi-autonomous Puntland region.
“We fight against al-Shabab, and there is no al-Shabab presence in Galmudug area,” he added.
Abdi said the Galmudug president and the U.S. deputy ambassador to Somalia met Thursday in Mogadishu to discuss the issue, and the U.S. diplomat pledged to provide clear answers.
Meanwhile, residents in Galkayo who were protesting the strike burned the U.S. flag Thursday.
The U.S. has carried out numerous airstrikes in Somalia targeting al-Shabab members, including a missile strike that killed the group’s former emir, Ahmed Abdi Godane, in 2014.
CAIRO — The Egyptian government is determined to build a new capital in the desert 28 miles southeast of this iconic city — and it’s no longer a mirage now that China is bankrolling most of the $45 billion project.
Work has already begun on a 270-square-mile tract of army-owned land that would house as many as 5 million people when completed in 2021. PresidentAbdel Fattah al-Sisi, who is pushing the project, has his skeptics, who wonder how cash-strapped Egypt can afford such an ambitious development.
Enter the Chinese. On Sunday, China Fortune Land Development announced it would invest $20 billion in the still-unnamed capital. That comes on top of a $15 billion agreement by China’s state-owned construction company to finance 14 government buildings, a zone for trade fairs and a 5,000-seat conference center that would be the largest in Africa.
This week, the Egyptian government also announced it was speaking with the Chinese about building a university in the new city. China’s role is the latest example of using its new-found wealth to expand its influence in global affairs.
The move was prompted by the chaos and congestion of this ancient city of nearly 30 million people, a third of Egypt’s population.
“I can say with total honesty that this project is 20 years overdue,” said Mohsen Salah El Din, chief executive of the state-owned Arab Contractors, which is involved in the project.
“We had to find an alternative location to suck this congestion out of Cairo and relocate where the government would be and where the civil servants working in these agencies would live so that they don’t have to commute long distances between home and work,” he said.
Supporters of the move say Egypt is following a proven model: Turkey, India and Brazil all moved their capitals in the 20th century.
“Egypt’s administrative capital is not different from Ankara, New Delhi or Brasilia,” said Zeyad Elkelani, a political science professor at Cairo University. He said the new city would help the president reduce unemployment and streamline the country’s massive bureaucracy — an estimated 7 million public workers.
Many government workers won’t want to leave Cairo and move to the new capital, Elkelani said. Their families pass down their Cairo apartments from generation to generation. And there is no culture of commuting on a highway to work in the country. The result will be a welcome attrition in government employment.
“The new capital is an important step to make room for the private sector,” Elkelani said. “The bureaucracy has been choking business in Egypt and the residents of Cairo.”
Several hundred apartment buildings already have gone up in the new city, and construction crews are building roads and laying sewage lines.
In a sign of how determined the government is to move, the Interior Ministry announced it would phase out operations by July 2017 at the Mogamma building, where 30,000 state employees handle everything from new business registrations to issuing passports. The ministry plans to convert the landmark building into a hotel.
Mogamma dominates downtown’s Tahrir Square, where anti-government demonstrations in 2011 led to the ouster of longtime President Hosni Mubarak.
“Nobody likes coming here,” said Razan Bishara, a biology student who recently accompanied a visiting French friend to the building to renew her tourist visa. “But at least I can take the Metro to Tahrir Square. I don’t know how we are going to get bureaucratic stuff like this done when they move this place to the middle of the desert.”
Khaled Abbas, an assistant minister at the Ministry of Housing, said his agency will be the first to move. “And we’ve already designated the area for a new presidential palace and a nearby presidential district with 25,000 housing units in the works there,” he said.
Still to be determined: what to name the new city.
Officials now refer to it as the “New Administrative Capital,” but that doesn’t generate excitement for an audacious plan that will include green areas comparable to New York’s Central Park, soaring skyscrapers rivaling Dubai’s unique towers, an airport bigger than London’s Heathrow and an amusement park that outdoes Disneyland.
“The name is an issue,” Abbas said. “We are working on branding now.”
If anyone thinks the project is diverting needed funds to improve Cairo’s crumbling infrastructure and other pressing needs, they aren’t saying so publicly for fear of retribution from a military-run government that ousted Egypt’s first democratically elected president in 2013 after renewed popular unrest.
Nezar Al Sayyad, an Egyptian-born professor of architecture at the University of California-Berkeley who is now a U.S. citizen, was detained briefly last year at Cairo International Airport and questioned about humorous jabs he made on his Facebook page about the new city.
“The whole thing reflects the top-down thinking of the government,” Al Sayyad said. “It is a military-style operation on land that is owned and being sold by the army.”
“I called the new city Sisi-land,” Al Sayyad said, “and that upset them.”
China and Saudi Arabia are building military bases next door to US AFRICOM in Djibouti—and bringing the consequences of American withdrawal from the region into stark relief.
Djibouti, a resource-poor nation of 14,300 square miles and 875,000 people in the Horn of Africa, rarely makes international headlines. But between its relative stability and strategic location—20 miles across from war-consumed Yemen and in destroyer range of the pirate-infested western edge of the Indian Ocean—it is now one of the more important security beachheads in the develohttp://www.amazon.com/Joseph-Braude/e/B001KDV64Kping world. Its location also matters greatly to global commerce and energy, due to its vicinity to the Mandeb Strait and the Suez-Aden canal, which sees ten percent of the world’s oil exports and 20 percent of its commercial exports annually.[1] Since November 2002, the country has been home to Camp Lemonnier, a U.S. Expeditionary base—the only American base on the African continent—along with other bases belonging to its French, Italian, Spanish, and Japanese allies. (The United States maintains numerous small outposts and airfields in Africa, but officially regards Lemonnier as its only full-scale military base on the continent.)
But now there are two new kids on the block: On January 21st, the Chinese Foreign Affairs Ministry announced an agreement with Djibouti to host its first-ever base beyond the South China Sea, and construction commenced days later.[2] Though Beijing called the installation a “logistics and fast evacuation base,” the Asian power’s “near-abroad” rivals, such as Taiwan, opined that it is more likely the beginning of a new, aggressive military buildup to rival the United States. Six weeks later, Saudi Arabia declared that it too would construct a base in Djibouti,[3]apparently as part of its newly assertive policy of countering Iranian proxies politically and militarily throughout the region.[4]
Both new players have made substantial economic and soft power investments in the country to boot. Since 2015, Beijing has poured over $14 billion into infrastructure development.[5] Saudi Arabia, itself a prominent donor to Djibouti’s public works, has spent generously on social welfare projects for the country’s poor; built housing, schools and mosques for its swelling Yemeni refugee population; and dispatched teachers and preachers from the World Assembly of Muslim Youth, long a pillar for the promulgation of Saudi-backed interpretations of Islam. Augmenting Saudi aid, moreover, has been further spending by some of its Arab military allies. The United Arab Emirates and Bahrain have poured millions into charitable work over the past few months—and the UAE in particular is working to spur economic development along the lines of the “Dubai model.” Even cash-poor North Sudan, newly returned to the Saudi orbit after a years-long alliance with Iran, began construction of a hospital in Djibouti in early February.
Neither the timing nor the confluence of these projects is mere coincidence. America’s diminishing global military footprint has begun to affect the calculation of allies and rivals alike, and the outsized role Djibouti is poised to play in its neighborhood presents a case in point of the consequences. An examination of the changing role the country plays in American, Chinese, and Arab security policy offers a glimpse into potential conflicts as well as opportunities arising from the shift—and some steps Americans can take to prepare for both.
The American Posture
As the only American base in Africa, Camp Lemonnier serves a vital function for US AFRICOM. Housing 4,000 military and civilian personnel, it is the nerve center of six drone launching stations across the continent, which have attacked targets as far-flung as Al-Shabab in Somalia, Boko Haram in Nigeria, and Yemeni-based Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. U.S. Special Forces, the CIA, and Air Force surveillance craft converge to process and pool intelligence at the camp. It also serves as headquarters to Task Force 48-4, a counterterrorism unit that targets militants in East Africa and Yemen.[6] Special Forces rely on it too: In 2012, when Navy SEALs rescued American and Danish hostages from Somalia, they brought them to safety in Camp Lemonnier.[7] And as a springboard for American-led anti-piracy operations, Camp Lemonnier helps the U.S. maintain its role as the primary guarantor of mercantile security in the Gulf of Aden, the Horn of Africa, and the Indian Ocean. The significance of the base grows only greater amid regional conflagration: The U.S. has been using it to meet its pledge of technical and intelligence assistance to Saudi Arabia in its war against the Iranian-backed Houthi militia in Yemen.
In 2014, the U.S. signed a new 20-year lease on the base with the Djiboutian government, and committed over $1.4 billion to modernize it in the years to come.[8] This significant expenditure bucks the overall trend of diminishing American military commitments overseas. For example, President Obama has announced plans to reduce the number of active naval vessels to 1917 numbers, possibly including aircraft carriers.[9]
As the segments below will show, America’s status in the country stands to be affected by the activities of the Chinese and Saudi bases. It may also be affected by the two countries’ soft power deployments, each aiming to influence the cultural and political fiber of the country and, by extension, the policies of its government. America’s own soft power commitments have been minimal: the U.S. supplies $3 million worth of food aid annually through USAID as part of the U.N. World Food Program, runs modest health and education projects, and netted only $152 million in trade in 2015.[10] Nor is there any concerted effort to enter the public discussion in Djibouti in the service of American goals or values.
The Chinese Posture
By contrast to the U.S., China has never previously established a base beyond its “near abroad.” Thus the Djibouti project, however modest, fuels the perception that China’s military footprint is growing. Sending such a message may itself be among Beijing’s goals. David Shedd, former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told us that “[The Chinese] want to signal to the world that they have a worldwide presence. Part of the mission is simply defined as being seen. That in and of itself is defined as an interest.”[11]
With respect to its potential operational significance, the Chinese Foreign Ministry says, “Facilities will mainly be used for logistical support and personnel recuperation of the Chinese armed forces conducting such missions as maritime escort in the Gulf of Aden and waters off the Somali coast, peacekeeping, and humanitarian assistance.” It would also enable fast evacuation for any of the million Chinese citizens now living in the Middle East and Africa should they require it.[12]The need to prepare for such eventualities became clear to China in the bloody aftermath of the Arab Spring: It evacuated 35,680 nationals employed mainly in Libya’s oil industry, and 629 more from Yemen soon thereafter.[13] During the Libya evacuation, China had only one frigate available in the vicinity, so most of the evacuees had to be flown out of the country on chartered commercial planes.
But from Washington to Taipei, observers suspect that the project is more ambitious than the Chinese let on. In an interview on the national news network Taiwan Today, political analyst Lai Yueqian said, “[The base] can be used to pin down the United States and any U.S.-led organizations, and if [the U.S.] wants to intervene against China’s interests, they will have to think carefully, because China will use their military to protect their citizens and their property.”[14] In the following clip, Yueqian elaborates on this analysis, bespeaking Taiwanese concerns about the base:
Yueqian’s assessment, shared by most Chinese “near-abroad” allies of the United States, is also the view of prominent members of the political class in Washington. At a December hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on African Affairs in which rumors about the base were discussed, Senator Chris Coons (R-De.) stated in relation to the Djibouti base, “[The US has to be] vigilant in the face of China’s growing ambitions.”[15]
Beijing’s outlook toward nearby North Africa and the Middle East differs with American policies. As Taiwan’s Lai Yueqian described in the video above, the U.S.- and NATO-led military intervention in Libya angered China. At the U.N. Security Council, Beijing subsequently blocked attempts to engineer a Western military intervention in Syria. With respect to the region-wide conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, America’s tradition of siding with Saudi Arabia — or, for that matter, its more recent tendency to tilt toward Iran — may conflict with Chinese policies: Guided by the need to quench its substantial thirst for oil, Beijing mostly seeks to avoid irking either oil-rich nation. A new military base in boating range of North Africa as well as the Arabian peninsula promises to bolster any Chinese political stance—however modestly—with a measure of force. The base, to be located near the small port city of Obock on the northern coast of Djibouti, lies 20 miles closer than Lemonnier to the conflict in Yemen, to which Washington has committed resources in support of Saudi Arabia’s war with the Houthis.
But China’s strategic goals cannot be explained solely in terms of a perceived reaction to Western policies. According to Beijing’s most recent defense policy paper, released in May 2015, “China’s armed forces will work harder to create a favorable strategic posture with more emphasis on the employment of military forces and means.”[16] This formulation is widely believed to allude to China’s “String of Pearls” and “One Belt, One Road” initiatives. “String of Pearls” is a metaphor for an envisioned network of naval ports of call, predominantly along the Indian Ocean, to secure sea lanes of transit, commerce, and communication from mainland China to Sudan. The “One Belt, One Road” initiative seeks to strengthen Chinese exports through commercial land and sea roads, largely along the historic “silk road,” straddling Europe and the Middle East. The Djibouti base would be vital in ensuring the success of the latter goal, since most of China’s $1 billion in daily exports to Europe traverse the Gulf of Aden and the Suez Canal.[17] With respect to the former plan, Toshi Yoshihara, Chair of Asia-Pacific Studies at the U.S. Naval War College, has been mapping the intersection of Chinese naval and commercial ventures across the Pacific region. Arrayed together, he told us, they “certainly do look like a string of pearls.”[18] Djibouti, home to both the nascent base and extensive Chinese economic investment, would clearly amount to a new pearl on the string (see Figure 1).[19]
Are Chinese and American pursuits in the vicinity of Djibouti necessarily a zero-sum game? Some of China’s stated goals do not conflict with American aspirations, and to the contrary, may benefit both superpowers as well as their allies: Both the growing Chinese capacity to evacuate citizens from war-torn areas and its further enhancement of anti-piracy operations are each a “public good.” On the other hand, a different term in Beijing’s political vocabulary raises more disturbing possibilities. In our conversation with FPRI Senior Fellow June Teufel Dreyer, she stressed the principle of “All Under Heaven”—rooted in Chinese imperial history—which places Chinese central authority at the epicenter of a tributary system of dominance over lesser powers. Some analysts of China see the country’s recent installation of surface-to-air missiles and fighter jets on Woody Island in the South China Sea as a manifestation of this supremacist tendency.[20] One might ask whether the construction of a Djibouti base reflects the extension of “All Under Heaven” beyond China’s traditional orbit.
At a time of rapid Chinese construction of aircraft and aircraft carriers and more serious competition with American military industries, the base in Djibouti could indeed reflect a Chinese aspiration to eventually meet and surpass the United States as a military and economic power in the area. In January 2016, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) conducted a 72-hour exercise involving thousands of marines and the navy special operations regiment in the Gobi Desert in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. The area’s topography and climate resemble much of North Africa and the Sahel.[21] Between “All Under Heaven” and China’s stated goal of housing up to 10,000 Chinese servicemen in Djibouti, such exercises offer ample basis for concern.[22]
Beijing’s hard power initiative in Djibouti is meanwhile accompanied by its soft power initiatives to build ties with state and society alike. The $14 billion in Chinese support for infrastructure development, widely publicized in Djibouti, has generated enormous goodwill with the population. Far exceeding U.S. spending, the injection is also an investment in the government of President Isma’il Omar Guelleh. There are also cultural ventures, such as the new Confucius Institute in Djibouti City, which Beijing typically uses to cultivate personal ties and “assets” within the society.[23] Add to all this China’s $1.1 billion in trade in 2014—roughly ten times that of the United States.[24] As Chinese influence grows in Djibouti, its ability to influence the government’s foreign policy and security strategies promises to grow along with it.
The Saudi Posture
From a Saudi perspective, stationing troops in Djibouti is both a defensive and a potential offensive measure in its pan-regional conflict with Iran, with particular bearing on the nearby war in Yemen. The defensive aspect was on display in mid-February, when Saudi intelligence officials, tracking the flow of munitions from Iran to its Houthi proxy militia in Yemen, discovered that the Islamic Republic was using Djibouti as a waystation. A ship en route to Yemen carrying encrypted military communication equipment and other hardware had originated in the southern Iranian port of Bandar Abbas. The Kingdom intercepted it en route, and recognized the importance of strengthening its capacity to act in and around Djibouti.[25] In terms of “offense,” Ben Ho Wan Beng, a military analyst in Singapore, speculates that given the Houthi presence in western Yemen, Riyadh could use the base to “open up a new front against the Houthis, who [would] then face the prospect of being attacked from another axis.”[26]
By contrast to the U.S. and its Japanese and Western allies, for which the establishment of a base in Djibouti is a matter of paying rent on a discrete strip of land, Saudis view their own barrack walls as permeable. Djibouti is an Arab League member state, bound to its brethren by ties of blood, culture, and faith. It has also joined the 34-member, Saudi-led “Islamic coalition” against Iran-sponsored terror announced by Deputy Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman in December.[27]Thus from Riyadh’s perspective, all of Djibouti is a kind of “base”—and the Kingdom feels it has a right to weigh in on any of the country’s non-Arab military installations. It was hardly a coincidence when the Djiboutian government recently rejected a Russian proposal to establish its own base in the country: Moscow, a staunch ally to the Iran-backed Assad regime in Damascus, would have been at best unhelpful to Saudi Arabia in the Yemen war.
Saudi soft power activity in the country serves to intensify this bond. One of the state-backed organizations spearheading it is the Riyadh-based World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY). The group historically served as a primary exporter of Islamist preaching across the globe—a mission that enabled both Salafi jihadists and the Muslim Brotherhood to politicize and radicalize Muslim communities. But the Kingdom more recently purged the organization of jihadist preachers, and streamlined WAMY’s religious line to follow “Salafi traditionalism,” which holds that only the head of state has the right to declare “jihad.” Moreover, clerical elites who traditionally controlled the group now share authority with stalwarts of the government—call them “lay leaders”—who have their own direct line to the royal family. In Djibouti, WAMY funds and staffs health and human services for the indigenous population, and tends to the needs of Yemeni refugees. Other goals determined by the state appear to take precedence over preaching: provide disaster and poverty relief; back the government of President Isma’il Omar Guelleh; instill an ethos of Djiboutian nationalism that insulates the population from trans-state ideologies; build person-to-person relationships between Saudis and Djiboutians; engineer support for the Kingdom’s specific regional objectives. Some of these goals are subtly on display in the following excerpt from a March 21, 2016 report by WAMY on its Djibouti bureau:
To be sure, the positive aspects of WAMY’s programs should not diminish the concern that Salafi missionary activity may still promote a profoundly sectarian worldview in Djibouti, casting the Sunni-Shi’ite conflict in existential, rather than political, terms.
As to the presence of 30,000-and-counting Yemeni refugees in Djibouti, Saudis view it as both a humanitarian concern and a strategic opportunity. Twenty-five years ago, in the aftermath of the “Gulf War” to repel Saddam Hussein’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia established a refugee camp in the northern town of Rafha to host 33,000 Iraqis fleeing persecution by Saddam. The installation served Riyadh and some of its international allies as an intelligence listening post—hundreds of Iraqis were debriefed about the situation inside the country—and as a platform for cultivating Iraqi assets.[28] Though the Yemeni and gulf wars are far from analogous, the presence of a substantial number of newly departed Yemeni civilians in a safe environment far from the battlefield presents the opportunity to tap a similar wealth of information and human networks.
In deepening their security and intelligence presence in Djibouti at a time of unease between Riyadh and Washington, they will be keen to explore potential security partnerships with China. As recently as 2014, Beijing sought to forge joint counterterrorism training programs with the Yemeni government that Saudi Arabia is now fighting to reinstall.[29] More recently, Beijing made a rare break with its policy of neutrality between Iran and Saudi Arabia to express support for the Saudi position in Yemen. In January 2016, King Salman hosted a landmark visit to Riyadh by Chinese President Xi Jinping, together with high-level meetings between senior security and intelligence officials of both countries. The strengthening of these ties may serve to lessen Saudi reliance on American support.[30]
The importance of Djibouti has become a popular topic of discussion throughout the Saudi-allied Arab world. Prominent voices in Egypt, for example, are talking about building a base there too, while other Gulf allies are ramping up their own soft power projects in the country. The following video montage begins with a clip from Tawfiq Okasha—an eccentric, ultranationalist Egyptian pundit known for his fondness of Israel—in which he makes the case for a Djibouti base. In perhaps a sign of the times, he bolsters his argument by saying that Djiboutians are one of the lost tribes of Israel, and therefore “good people.”
Grappling with New U.S. Challenges
In a February letter to Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, Representatives Dana Rohrabacher (R-Ca.), Chris Smith (R-N.J.), and Duncan Hunter (R-Ca.) raised alarms about China’s rising influence in Djibouti: “[We are] worried that our own strategic interests around the Horn of Africa, specifically our critical counter-terrorism operations, will be impacted by China’s growing strategic influence in the region.” Recognizing Beijing’s soft power gains, they castigated the Djibouti leadership for its “cozy relationship with China,” and dubbed the government of Ismail Omar Guelleh a “corrupt and repressive regime.” Guelleh is indeed a human rights violator, and the lawmakers’ criticism have been echoed repeatedly by the White House in recent months. Doing so has of course done little to improve Washington’s relationship with Guelleh: Judging from the angry reaction in Djiboutian state media, he reads the American denunciations as support for his political opponents. When Djibouti holds its presidential elections on April 8, the incumbent’s likely victory will bring the government another step closer to China—and a step away from the United States.
America’s shifting circumstances in Djibouti—and, by extension, the Horn of Africa and southern Arabia—are a symptom of its broader political and military withdrawal from conflicts in which longtime Asian and Arab allies have a stake. The situation also reflects the weakness of Washington’s commitment and capacity to wield soft power in politically contested foreign environments. It will ultimately be difficult for Washington to address the concerns about Djibouti raised by American lawmakers and Taiwanese analyst Lai Yueqian without restoring its support for longtime allies in the Middle and Far East, as well as deploying American soft power alongside military might. To be sure, the U.S. should welcome efforts by China to help protect civilians from the region’s tumult and secure the sea lanes for international trade. But it should also be prepared for a formidable new presence in the area capable of challenging American objectives politically and militarily.
Meanwhile, the growing presence of Saudi Arabia alongside China in the country promises to strengthen security ties between Riyadh and Beijing, potentially at Washington’s expense. It is but one example of the increasing interplay between China and the Arab world, for which it behooves Americans to prepare. A first step toward doing so is to address an American gap in studying the phenomenon. From government to think tanks and the academy, Arab affairs specialists have long been institutionally separated from their counterparts in Asian affairs. As the leaders, peoples, and armies of these diverse environments begin to intermingle, the Americans who study and engage them must do the same.
Joseph Braude and Tyler Jiang originally published this article as an E-Note at the Foreign Policy Research Institute.
[1] Ben Ho Wan Beng, “The Strategic Attractions of Djibouti,” The National Interest, March 18, 2016.
[2] Hong Lei, “Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hong Lei’s Regular Press Conference on January 21, 2016,” January 21, 2016.
[3] Habib Toumi, “Saudi Arabia ‘to open military base in Djibouti’ Djibouti keen to expand ties and cooperation with Saudi Arabia,”Gulf News Saudi Arabia, March 8, 2016.
[4] Hasan al-Mustafa, “Al-Diblomasiya al-Sa’udiya Tub’id Iran ‘An al-Qarn al-Ifriqi” (Saudi Diplomacy Ejects Iran from the Horn of Africa). Al-Arabiya, October 21, 2015.
[5] Dana Sanchez, “China Financing Most of Djibouti’s $14.4 Billion In Planned Infrastructure Projects,” AFK Insider, June 11, 2010.
[6] Nick Turse, “The US military’s best-kept secret,” The Nation, November 17, 2015.
[7] BBC News, “Somalia: Western Hostages Freed in US Military Raid.” BBC News, January 25, 2012.
[8] Josh Wood, “Djibouti, a Safe Harbour in the Troubled Horn of Africa,” The National, June 2, 2015.
[9] Colin Hanna and J.D. Gordon, “Obama naval Doctrine: Anchors Away?” The Hill, March 3, 2014. http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/199570-obama-naval-doctrine-anchors-away
[10] United States Census Bureau, “Trade in Goods with Djibouti,” accessed 3/27/2016. USAID, “Food Assistance Fact Sheet – Djibouti,” accessed 3/27/2016.
[12] Ankit Panda, “Confirmed: Construction Begins on China’s First Overseas Military Base in Djibouti,” The Diplomat, February 29, 2016.
[13] CCTV, “35,860 Chinese nationals in Libya evacuated:FM,” CCTV.com, 3/3/2011.
[14] Entering Taiwan – Taiwan Today, “China to Build Military Base in Djibouti,” Filmed [December 2015], YouTube video, Posted [December 2015]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZVfEGj0Gh4.
[15] Geoffrey Aronson, “China to open its first naval base in Africa,” Aljazeera, December 22, 2015.
[16] The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China, “China’s Military Strategy,” en.people.cn, May 26, 2015. http://en.people.cn/n/2015/0526/c90785-8897779.html
[17] European Commission, “Countries and regions: China,” accessed 3/27/2016.
[18] Interview with Toshi Yoshihara, March 9th, 2016.
[19] Ross Rustici and Christopher D. Yung, with Scott Devary and Jenny Lin, “‘Not an Idea We Have to Shun: Chinese Overseas Basing Requirements in the 21st Century,” (National Defense University, October 2014,) 29.
[20] Ray Sanchez and Barbara Starr, “U.S. Says China deploys fighter jets to disputed South China Sea Island,” CNN, February 23, 2016.
[21] Shang Wenbin, Liang Jingfeng, and Li Youtao, “Chinese Marines, Special Forces Training in Gobi Desert,” Military Training International, January 19, 2016.
[22] Daily Pioneer, “China’s military might, now for Africa to see,” Daily Pioneer, February 11, 2016.
[23] Joseph Braude, “Radio Beijing in the Middle East,” The American Interest, January 20, 2014.
[24] World Bank, “World Integrated Trade Solution,” accessed 3/27/2016.
[25] Abd al-Rahman ‘Atiya, “I’tiradh Safina Iraniya min Miyah al-Yemen” (Interception of an Iranian Ship from the Waters of Yemen). Al-Hayat, February 14, 2016.
[26] Beng, “The Strategic Attractions of Djibouti.”
[27] “Al-Sa’udiya Tu’lin Ta’sis Tahaluf Yadhum 34 Dawla li-‘Muharabat al-Irhab’” (Saudi Arabia Announces Establishment of a Coalition of 34 States to ‘Fight Terrorism’). BBC Arabic, December 15, 2015.
[28] Interview with Rafha camp administrative officials, Rafha, Saudi Arabia, January 2003.
[29] Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, “Wang Yi: China and Arab Countries Should Carry Out Counter-Terrorism Cooperation,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, June 4, 2014.
[30] Ben Blanchard, Edited Simon Cameron-Moore and Paul Tait, “China offers support for Yemen government as Xi visits Saudi Arabia,” Reuters, January 20, 2016.
China and Saudi Arabia are building military bases next door to US AFRICOM in Djibouti—and bringing the consequences of American withdrawal from the region into stark relief.
Djibouti, a resource-poor nation of 14,300 square miles and 875,000 people in the Horn of Africa, rarely makes international headlines. But between its relative stability and strategic location—20 miles across from war-consumed Yemen and in destroyer range of the pirate-infested western edge of the Indian Ocean—it is now one of the more important security beachheads in the develohttp://www.amazon.com/Joseph-Braude/e/B001KDV64Kping world. Its location also matters greatly to global commerce and energy, due to its vicinity to the Mandeb Strait and the Suez-Aden canal, which sees ten percent of the world’s oil exports and 20 percent of its commercial exports annually.[1] Since November 2002, the country has been home to Camp Lemonnier, a U.S. Expeditionary base—the only American base on the African continent—along with other bases belonging to its French, Italian, Spanish, and Japanese allies. (The United States maintains numerous small outposts and airfields in Africa, but officially regards Lemonnier as its only full-scale military base on the continent.)
But now there are two new kids on the block: On January 21st, the Chinese Foreign Affairs Ministry announced an agreement with Djibouti to host its first-ever base beyond the South China Sea, and construction commenced days later.[2] Though Beijing called the installation a “logistics and fast evacuation base,” the Asian power’s “near-abroad” rivals, such as Taiwan, opined that it is more likely the beginning of a new, aggressive military buildup to rival the United States. Six weeks later, Saudi Arabia declared that it too would construct a base in Djibouti,[3]apparently as part of its newly assertive policy of countering Iranian proxies politically and militarily throughout the region.[4]
Both new players have made substantial economic and soft power investments in the country to boot. Since 2015, Beijing has poured over $14 billion into infrastructure development.[5] Saudi Arabia, itself a prominent donor to Djibouti’s public works, has spent generously on social welfare projects for the country’s poor; built housing, schools and mosques for its swelling Yemeni refugee population; and dispatched teachers and preachers from the World Assembly of Muslim Youth, long a pillar for the promulgation of Saudi-backed interpretations of Islam. Augmenting Saudi aid, moreover, has been further spending by some of its Arab military allies. The United Arab Emirates and Bahrain have poured millions into charitable work over the past few months—and the UAE in particular is working to spur economic development along the lines of the “Dubai model.” Even cash-poor North Sudan, newly returned to the Saudi orbit after a years-long alliance with Iran, began construction of a hospital in Djibouti in early February.
Neither the timing nor the confluence of these projects is mere coincidence. America’s diminishing global military footprint has begun to affect the calculation of allies and rivals alike, and the outsized role Djibouti is poised to play in its neighborhood presents a case in point of the consequences. An examination of the changing role the country plays in American, Chinese, and Arab security policy offers a glimpse into potential conflicts as well as opportunities arising from the shift—and some steps Americans can take to prepare for both.
The American Posture
As the only American base in Africa, Camp Lemonnier serves a vital function for US AFRICOM. Housing 4,000 military and civilian personnel, it is the nerve center of six drone launching stations across the continent, which have attacked targets as far-flung as Al-Shabab in Somalia, Boko Haram in Nigeria, and Yemeni-based Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. U.S. Special Forces, the CIA, and Air Force surveillance craft converge to process and pool intelligence at the camp. It also serves as headquarters to Task Force 48-4, a counterterrorism unit that targets militants in East Africa and Yemen.[6] Special Forces rely on it too: In 2012, when Navy SEALs rescued American and Danish hostages from Somalia, they brought them to safety in Camp Lemonnier.[7] And as a springboard for American-led anti-piracy operations, Camp Lemonnier helps the U.S. maintain its role as the primary guarantor of mercantile security in the Gulf of Aden, the Horn of Africa, and the Indian Ocean. The significance of the base grows only greater amid regional conflagration: The U.S. has been using it to meet its pledge of technical and intelligence assistance to Saudi Arabia in its war against the Iranian-backed Houthi militia in Yemen.
In 2014, the U.S. signed a new 20-year lease on the base with the Djiboutian government, and committed over $1.4 billion to modernize it in the years to come.[8] This significant expenditure bucks the overall trend of diminishing American military commitments overseas. For example, President Obama has announced plans to reduce the number of active naval vessels to 1917 numbers, possibly including aircraft carriers.[9]
As the segments below will show, America’s status in the country stands to be affected by the activities of the Chinese and Saudi bases. It may also be affected by the two countries’ soft power deployments, each aiming to influence the cultural and political fiber of the country and, by extension, the policies of its government. America’s own soft power commitments have been minimal: the U.S. supplies $3 million worth of food aid annually through USAID as part of the U.N. World Food Program, runs modest health and education projects, and netted only $152 million in trade in 2015.[10] Nor is there any concerted effort to enter the public discussion in Djibouti in the service of American goals or values.
The Chinese Posture
By contrast to the U.S., China has never previously established a base beyond its “near abroad.” Thus the Djibouti project, however modest, fuels the perception that China’s military footprint is growing. Sending such a message may itself be among Beijing’s goals. David Shedd, former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told us that “[The Chinese] want to signal to the world that they have a worldwide presence. Part of the mission is simply defined as being seen. That in and of itself is defined as an interest.”[11]
With respect to its potential operational significance, the Chinese Foreign Ministry says, “Facilities will mainly be used for logistical support and personnel recuperation of the Chinese armed forces conducting such missions as maritime escort in the Gulf of Aden and waters off the Somali coast, peacekeeping, and humanitarian assistance.” It would also enable fast evacuation for any of the million Chinese citizens now living in the Middle East and Africa should they require it.[12]The need to prepare for such eventualities became clear to China in the bloody aftermath of the Arab Spring: It evacuated 35,680 nationals employed mainly in Libya’s oil industry, and 629 more from Yemen soon thereafter.[13] During the Libya evacuation, China had only one frigate available in the vicinity, so most of the evacuees had to be flown out of the country on chartered commercial planes.
But from Washington to Taipei, observers suspect that the project is more ambitious than the Chinese let on. In an interview on the national news network Taiwan Today, political analyst Lai Yueqian said, “[The base] can be used to pin down the United States and any U.S.-led organizations, and if [the U.S.] wants to intervene against China’s interests, they will have to think carefully, because China will use their military to protect their citizens and their property.”[14] In the following clip, Yueqian elaborates on this analysis, bespeaking Taiwanese concerns about the base:
Yueqian’s assessment, shared by most Chinese “near-abroad” allies of the United States, is also the view of prominent members of the political class in Washington. At a December hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on African Affairs in which rumors about the base were discussed, Senator Chris Coons (R-De.) stated in relation to the Djibouti base, “[The US has to be] vigilant in the face of China’s growing ambitions.”[15]
Beijing’s outlook toward nearby North Africa and the Middle East differs with American policies. As Taiwan’s Lai Yueqian described in the video above, the U.S.- and NATO-led military intervention in Libya angered China. At the U.N. Security Council, Beijing subsequently blocked attempts to engineer a Western military intervention in Syria. With respect to the region-wide conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, America’s tradition of siding with Saudi Arabia — or, for that matter, its more recent tendency to tilt toward Iran — may conflict with Chinese policies: Guided by the need to quench its substantial thirst for oil, Beijing mostly seeks to avoid irking either oil-rich nation. A new military base in boating range of North Africa as well as the Arabian peninsula promises to bolster any Chinese political stance—however modestly—with a measure of force. The base, to be located near the small port city of Obock on the northern coast of Djibouti, lies 20 miles closer than Lemonnier to the conflict in Yemen, to which Washington has committed resources in support of Saudi Arabia’s war with the Houthis.
But China’s strategic goals cannot be explained solely in terms of a perceived reaction to Western policies. According to Beijing’s most recent defense policy paper, released in May 2015, “China’s armed forces will work harder to create a favorable strategic posture with more emphasis on the employment of military forces and means.”[16] This formulation is widely believed to allude to China’s “String of Pearls” and “One Belt, One Road” initiatives. “String of Pearls” is a metaphor for an envisioned network of naval ports of call, predominantly along the Indian Ocean, to secure sea lanes of transit, commerce, and communication from mainland China to Sudan. The “One Belt, One Road” initiative seeks to strengthen Chinese exports through commercial land and sea roads, largely along the historic “silk road,” straddling Europe and the Middle East. The Djibouti base would be vital in ensuring the success of the latter goal, since most of China’s $1 billion in daily exports to Europe traverse the Gulf of Aden and the Suez Canal.[17] With respect to the former plan, Toshi Yoshihara, Chair of Asia-Pacific Studies at the U.S. Naval War College, has been mapping the intersection of Chinese naval and commercial ventures across the Pacific region. Arrayed together, he told us, they “certainly do look like a string of pearls.”[18] Djibouti, home to both the nascent base and extensive Chinese economic investment, would clearly amount to a new pearl on the string (see Figure 1).[19]
Are Chinese and American pursuits in the vicinity of Djibouti necessarily a zero-sum game? Some of China’s stated goals do not conflict with American aspirations, and to the contrary, may benefit both superpowers as well as their allies: Both the growing Chinese capacity to evacuate citizens from war-torn areas and its further enhancement of anti-piracy operations are each a “public good.” On the other hand, a different term in Beijing’s political vocabulary raises more disturbing possibilities. In our conversation with FPRI Senior Fellow June Teufel Dreyer, she stressed the principle of “All Under Heaven”—rooted in Chinese imperial history—which places Chinese central authority at the epicenter of a tributary system of dominance over lesser powers. Some analysts of China see the country’s recent installation of surface-to-air missiles and fighter jets on Woody Island in the South China Sea as a manifestation of this supremacist tendency.[20] One might ask whether the construction of a Djibouti base reflects the extension of “All Under Heaven” beyond China’s traditional orbit.
At a time of rapid Chinese construction of aircraft and aircraft carriers and more serious competition with American military industries, the base in Djibouti could indeed reflect a Chinese aspiration to eventually meet and surpass the United States as a military and economic power in the area. In January 2016, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) conducted a 72-hour exercise involving thousands of marines and the navy special operations regiment in the Gobi Desert in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. The area’s topography and climate resemble much of North Africa and the Sahel.[21] Between “All Under Heaven” and China’s stated goal of housing up to 10,000 Chinese servicemen in Djibouti, such exercises offer ample basis for concern.[22]
Beijing’s hard power initiative in Djibouti is meanwhile accompanied by its soft power initiatives to build ties with state and society alike. The $14 billion in Chinese support for infrastructure development, widely publicized in Djibouti, has generated enormous goodwill with the population. Far exceeding U.S. spending, the injection is also an investment in the government of President Isma’il Omar Guelleh. There are also cultural ventures, such as the new Confucius Institute in Djibouti City, which Beijing typically uses to cultivate personal ties and “assets” within the society.[23] Add to all this China’s $1.1 billion in trade in 2014—roughly ten times that of the United States.[24] As Chinese influence grows in Djibouti, its ability to influence the government’s foreign policy and security strategies promises to grow along with it.
The Saudi Posture
From a Saudi perspective, stationing troops in Djibouti is both a defensive and a potential offensive measure in its pan-regional conflict with Iran, with particular bearing on the nearby war in Yemen. The defensive aspect was on display in mid-February, when Saudi intelligence officials, tracking the flow of munitions from Iran to its Houthi proxy militia in Yemen, discovered that the Islamic Republic was using Djibouti as a waystation. A ship en route to Yemen carrying encrypted military communication equipment and other hardware had originated in the southern Iranian port of Bandar Abbas. The Kingdom intercepted it en route, and recognized the importance of strengthening its capacity to act in and around Djibouti.[25] In terms of “offense,” Ben Ho Wan Beng, a military analyst in Singapore, speculates that given the Houthi presence in western Yemen, Riyadh could use the base to “open up a new front against the Houthis, who [would] then face the prospect of being attacked from another axis.”[26]
By contrast to the U.S. and its Japanese and Western allies, for which the establishment of a base in Djibouti is a matter of paying rent on a discrete strip of land, Saudis view their own barrack walls as permeable. Djibouti is an Arab League member state, bound to its brethren by ties of blood, culture, and faith. It has also joined the 34-member, Saudi-led “Islamic coalition” against Iran-sponsored terror announced by Deputy Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman in December.[27]Thus from Riyadh’s perspective, all of Djibouti is a kind of “base”—and the Kingdom feels it has a right to weigh in on any of the country’s non-Arab military installations. It was hardly a coincidence when the Djiboutian government recently rejected a Russian proposal to establish its own base in the country: Moscow, a staunch ally to the Iran-backed Assad regime in Damascus, would have been at best unhelpful to Saudi Arabia in the Yemen war.
Saudi soft power activity in the country serves to intensify this bond. One of the state-backed organizations spearheading it is the Riyadh-based World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY). The group historically served as a primary exporter of Islamist preaching across the globe—a mission that enabled both Salafi jihadists and the Muslim Brotherhood to politicize and radicalize Muslim communities. But the Kingdom more recently purged the organization of jihadist preachers, and streamlined WAMY’s religious line to follow “Salafi traditionalism,” which holds that only the head of state has the right to declare “jihad.” Moreover, clerical elites who traditionally controlled the group now share authority with stalwarts of the government—call them “lay leaders”—who have their own direct line to the royal family. In Djibouti, WAMY funds and staffs health and human services for the indigenous population, and tends to the needs of Yemeni refugees. Other goals determined by the state appear to take precedence over preaching: provide disaster and poverty relief; back the government of President Isma’il Omar Guelleh; instill an ethos of Djiboutian nationalism that insulates the population from trans-state ideologies; build person-to-person relationships between Saudis and Djiboutians; engineer support for the Kingdom’s specific regional objectives. Some of these goals are subtly on display in the following excerpt from a March 21, 2016 report by WAMY on its Djibouti bureau:
To be sure, the positive aspects of WAMY’s programs should not diminish the concern that Salafi missionary activity may still promote a profoundly sectarian worldview in Djibouti, casting the Sunni-Shi’ite conflict in existential, rather than political, terms.
As to the presence of 30,000-and-counting Yemeni refugees in Djibouti, Saudis view it as both a humanitarian concern and a strategic opportunity. Twenty-five years ago, in the aftermath of the “Gulf War” to repel Saddam Hussein’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia established a refugee camp in the northern town of Rafha to host 33,000 Iraqis fleeing persecution by Saddam. The installation served Riyadh and some of its international allies as an intelligence listening post—hundreds of Iraqis were debriefed about the situation inside the country—and as a platform for cultivating Iraqi assets.[28] Though the Yemeni and gulf wars are far from analogous, the presence of a substantial number of newly departed Yemeni civilians in a safe environment far from the battlefield presents the opportunity to tap a similar wealth of information and human networks.
In deepening their security and intelligence presence in Djibouti at a time of unease between Riyadh and Washington, they will be keen to explore potential security partnerships with China. As recently as 2014, Beijing sought to forge joint counterterrorism training programs with the Yemeni government that Saudi Arabia is now fighting to reinstall.[29] More recently, Beijing made a rare break with its policy of neutrality between Iran and Saudi Arabia to express support for the Saudi position in Yemen. In January 2016, King Salman hosted a landmark visit to Riyadh by Chinese President Xi Jinping, together with high-level meetings between senior security and intelligence officials of both countries. The strengthening of these ties may serve to lessen Saudi reliance on American support.[30]
The importance of Djibouti has become a popular topic of discussion throughout the Saudi-allied Arab world. Prominent voices in Egypt, for example, are talking about building a base there too, while other Gulf allies are ramping up their own soft power projects in the country. The following video montage begins with a clip from Tawfiq Okasha—an eccentric, ultranationalist Egyptian pundit known for his fondness of Israel—in which he makes the case for a Djibouti base. In perhaps a sign of the times, he bolsters his argument by saying that Djiboutians are one of the lost tribes of Israel, and therefore “good people.”
Grappling with New U.S. Challenges
In a February letter to Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, Representatives Dana Rohrabacher (R-Ca.), Chris Smith (R-N.J.), and Duncan Hunter (R-Ca.) raised alarms about China’s rising influence in Djibouti: “[We are] worried that our own strategic interests around the Horn of Africa, specifically our critical counter-terrorism operations, will be impacted by China’s growing strategic influence in the region.” Recognizing Beijing’s soft power gains, they castigated the Djibouti leadership for its “cozy relationship with China,” and dubbed the government of Ismail Omar Guelleh a “corrupt and repressive regime.” Guelleh is indeed a human rights violator, and the lawmakers’ criticism have been echoed repeatedly by the White House in recent months. Doing so has of course done little to improve Washington’s relationship with Guelleh: Judging from the angry reaction in Djiboutian state media, he reads the American denunciations as support for his political opponents. When Djibouti holds its presidential elections on April 8, the incumbent’s likely victory will bring the government another step closer to China—and a step away from the United States.
America’s shifting circumstances in Djibouti—and, by extension, the Horn of Africa and southern Arabia—are a symptom of its broader political and military withdrawal from conflicts in which longtime Asian and Arab allies have a stake. The situation also reflects the weakness of Washington’s commitment and capacity to wield soft power in politically contested foreign environments. It will ultimately be difficult for Washington to address the concerns about Djibouti raised by American lawmakers and Taiwanese analyst Lai Yueqian without restoring its support for longtime allies in the Middle and Far East, as well as deploying American soft power alongside military might. To be sure, the U.S. should welcome efforts by China to help protect civilians from the region’s tumult and secure the sea lanes for international trade. But it should also be prepared for a formidable new presence in the area capable of challenging American objectives politically and militarily.
Meanwhile, the growing presence of Saudi Arabia alongside China in the country promises to strengthen security ties between Riyadh and Beijing, potentially at Washington’s expense. It is but one example of the increasing interplay between China and the Arab world, for which it behooves Americans to prepare. A first step toward doing so is to address an American gap in studying the phenomenon. From government to think tanks and the academy, Arab affairs specialists have long been institutionally separated from their counterparts in Asian affairs. As the leaders, peoples, and armies of these diverse environments begin to intermingle, the Americans who study and engage them must do the same.
Joseph Braude and Tyler Jiang originally published this article as an E-Note at the Foreign Policy Research Institute.
[1] Ben Ho Wan Beng, “The Strategic Attractions of Djibouti,” The National Interest, March 18, 2016.
[2] Hong Lei, “Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hong Lei’s Regular Press Conference on January 21, 2016,” January 21, 2016.
[3] Habib Toumi, “Saudi Arabia ‘to open military base in Djibouti’ Djibouti keen to expand ties and cooperation with Saudi Arabia,”Gulf News Saudi Arabia, March 8, 2016.
[4] Hasan al-Mustafa, “Al-Diblomasiya al-Sa’udiya Tub’id Iran ‘An al-Qarn al-Ifriqi” (Saudi Diplomacy Ejects Iran from the Horn of Africa). Al-Arabiya, October 21, 2015.
[5] Dana Sanchez, “China Financing Most of Djibouti’s $14.4 Billion In Planned Infrastructure Projects,” AFK Insider, June 11, 2010.
[6] Nick Turse, “The US military’s best-kept secret,” The Nation, November 17, 2015.
[7] BBC News, “Somalia: Western Hostages Freed in US Military Raid.” BBC News, January 25, 2012.
[8] Josh Wood, “Djibouti, a Safe Harbour in the Troubled Horn of Africa,” The National, June 2, 2015.
[9] Colin Hanna and J.D. Gordon, “Obama naval Doctrine: Anchors Away?” The Hill, March 3, 2014. http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/199570-obama-naval-doctrine-anchors-away
[10] United States Census Bureau, “Trade in Goods with Djibouti,” accessed 3/27/2016. USAID, “Food Assistance Fact Sheet – Djibouti,” accessed 3/27/2016.
[12] Ankit Panda, “Confirmed: Construction Begins on China’s First Overseas Military Base in Djibouti,” The Diplomat, February 29, 2016.
[13] CCTV, “35,860 Chinese nationals in Libya evacuated:FM,” CCTV.com, 3/3/2011.
[14] Entering Taiwan – Taiwan Today, “China to Build Military Base in Djibouti,” Filmed [December 2015], YouTube video, Posted [December 2015]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZVfEGj0Gh4.
[15] Geoffrey Aronson, “China to open its first naval base in Africa,” Aljazeera, December 22, 2015.
[16] The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China, “China’s Military Strategy,” en.people.cn, May 26, 2015. http://en.people.cn/n/2015/0526/c90785-8897779.html
[17] European Commission, “Countries and regions: China,” accessed 3/27/2016.
[18] Interview with Toshi Yoshihara, March 9th, 2016.
[19] Ross Rustici and Christopher D. Yung, with Scott Devary and Jenny Lin, “‘Not an Idea We Have to Shun: Chinese Overseas Basing Requirements in the 21st Century,” (National Defense University, October 2014,) 29.
[20] Ray Sanchez and Barbara Starr, “U.S. Says China deploys fighter jets to disputed South China Sea Island,” CNN, February 23, 2016.
[21] Shang Wenbin, Liang Jingfeng, and Li Youtao, “Chinese Marines, Special Forces Training in Gobi Desert,” Military Training International, January 19, 2016.
[22] Daily Pioneer, “China’s military might, now for Africa to see,” Daily Pioneer, February 11, 2016.
[23] Joseph Braude, “Radio Beijing in the Middle East,” The American Interest, January 20, 2014.
[24] World Bank, “World Integrated Trade Solution,” accessed 3/27/2016.
[25] Abd al-Rahman ‘Atiya, “I’tiradh Safina Iraniya min Miyah al-Yemen” (Interception of an Iranian Ship from the Waters of Yemen). Al-Hayat, February 14, 2016.
[26] Beng, “The Strategic Attractions of Djibouti.”
[27] “Al-Sa’udiya Tu’lin Ta’sis Tahaluf Yadhum 34 Dawla li-‘Muharabat al-Irhab’” (Saudi Arabia Announces Establishment of a Coalition of 34 States to ‘Fight Terrorism’). BBC Arabic, December 15, 2015.
[28] Interview with Rafha camp administrative officials, Rafha, Saudi Arabia, January 2003.
[29] Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, “Wang Yi: China and Arab Countries Should Carry Out Counter-Terrorism Cooperation,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, June 4, 2014.
[30] Ben Blanchard, Edited Simon Cameron-Moore and Paul Tait, “China offers support for Yemen government as Xi visits Saudi Arabia,” Reuters, January 20, 2016.
A top South Sudanese opposition leader called Saturday for armed resistance to the government in Juba – a stance that suggests the troubled Central African nation could face a renewed civil war in the near future.
Leader Riek Machar and top officials of the opposition SPLM-IO party issued a statement saying their forces would reorganize to “wage a popular armed resistance against the authoritarian and racist regime of President Salva Kiir.” It’s the first political statement by Machar since he fled South Sudan in August.
The statement, obtained by The Associated Press, came after a meeting Saturday of Machar and his supporters in Khartoum, Sudan.
His call for armed resistance adds to South Sudan’s spiraling problems. South Sudan gained independence in 2011 but fell into a civil war in 2013 in which at least 50,000 civilians died and more than 2 million were displaced. A peace deal was forced on both Kiir and Machar last August, but fighting in the capital, Juba, in July put that deal in doubt.
“We have been driven back to the bush,” James Gadet, a spokesman for Machar, told the AP on Saturday in a call from Nairobi, Kenya.
Gadet called for the removal of Taban Deng Gai, who was controversially named to replace Machar as the country’s First Vice President. He says the South Sudan government must stop attacking civilians and a regional protection force must be deployed in the country or there will be “an escalation of the civil war,” which he says began again on July 8.
“(We) call on the international community to declare the regime in Juba a rogue government,” the document says, adding that international agencies monitoring the peace deal should “suspend their activities” until the agreement is “resuscitated.”
Some critics blame American foreign policy in South Sudan, saying the U.S. has given Kiir a “blank check” to pursue a militant policy.
“It’s not at all surprising to see Machar call for continued armed struggle, in light of the U.S. policy to back Taban Deng as First Vice President and the clear absence of a viable political process,” Kate Almquist Knopf, director of the Africa Center for Strategic Studies, told the AP.
Machar has demanded that the government accept the U.N. Security Council’s decision to send an additional 4,000 peacekeepers to increase the size of the existing U.N. force of 12,000 in South Sudan. The Kiir government has resisted the U.N. decision, saying it violates South Sudan’s sovereignty. State Department officials say if South Sudan doesn’t accept the additional peacekeepers, the U.S. would support an arms embargo on the country.
A top South Sudanese opposition leader called Saturday for armed resistance to the government in Juba – a stance that suggests the troubled Central African nation could face a renewed civil war in the near future.
Leader Riek Machar and top officials of the opposition SPLM-IO party issued a statement saying their forces would reorganize to “wage a popular armed resistance against the authoritarian and racist regime of President Salva Kiir.” It’s the first political statement by Machar since he fled South Sudan in August.
The statement, obtained by The Associated Press, came after a meeting Saturday of Machar and his supporters in Khartoum, Sudan.
His call for armed resistance adds to South Sudan’s spiraling problems. South Sudan gained independence in 2011 but fell into a civil war in 2013 in which at least 50,000 civilians died and more than 2 million were displaced. A peace deal was forced on both Kiir and Machar last August, but fighting in the capital, Juba, in July put that deal in doubt.
“We have been driven back to the bush,” James Gadet, a spokesman for Machar, told the AP on Saturday in a call from Nairobi, Kenya.
Gadet called for the removal of Taban Deng Gai, who was controversially named to replace Machar as the country’s First Vice President. He says the South Sudan government must stop attacking civilians and a regional protection force must be deployed in the country or there will be “an escalation of the civil war,” which he says began again on July 8.
“(We) call on the international community to declare the regime in Juba a rogue government,” the document says, adding that international agencies monitoring the peace deal should “suspend their activities” until the agreement is “resuscitated.”
Some critics blame American foreign policy in South Sudan, saying the U.S. has given Kiir a “blank check” to pursue a militant policy.
“It’s not at all surprising to see Machar call for continued armed struggle, in light of the U.S. policy to back Taban Deng as First Vice President and the clear absence of a viable political process,” Kate Almquist Knopf, director of the Africa Center for Strategic Studies, told the AP.
Machar has demanded that the government accept the U.N. Security Council’s decision to send an additional 4,000 peacekeepers to increase the size of the existing U.N. force of 12,000 in South Sudan. The Kiir government has resisted the U.N. decision, saying it violates South Sudan’s sovereignty. State Department officials say if South Sudan doesn’t accept the additional peacekeepers, the U.S. would support an arms embargo on the country.
Just months after the 21 September 2014 coup, Houthi militias stormed the Central Bank of Yemen along with other government institutions and Yemen’s largest national newspaper, Al Thawra, in order to establish as much institutional control of Yemen as possible. President Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi was later placed under house arrest on 22 January 2015, only to escape to Aden a month later before relocating to Saudi Arabia after the airstrikes began.
The current Yemeni government under Hadi has been very disconnected from the capital city Sana’a since the start of the coup. It is often forgotten that at the beginning of August last year, the then-governor of Aden, Nayef Al Bakri, announced that Aden was to become the capital city of Yemen for the next five years. This decision was welcomed for many reasons that range from the political to the economic, but it also signalled that the Yemeni government was losing hope of regaining Sana’a in the near future. Such sentiments can only be seen as being amplified following the government’s latest move of transferring the country’s central bank to Aden.
Militarily speaking, the Houthis and former Yemeni dictator Ali Abdullah Saleh have the upper hand in Sana’a. They have complete control of governmental institutions and local resistance forces have not been making advances against the Houthi and Saleh militias. It is also clear that the Saudi-led coalition airstrikes are not helping to clear Sana’a of militia forces. Currently, whatever is in Sana’a is subject to being coerced, threatened or swayed by the Houthis and Saleh, including the Central Bank.
The bank is seen as the last hope for some form of stability in Yemen with the political and security situation spiralling out of control. Exports have decreased dramatically and the government is finding it increasingly difficult to pay for imports. The fact that there is $5 billion missing from the bank means that the country’s economic security is at high risk.
In Sana’a, the Houthis and Saleh have been using the Central Bank to fund their war expenses. In August, the president of the Houthi revolutionary committee announced a pledge of 1 billion Yemeni riyals (just under $4 million) to restore Saleh’s Republican Guard. The Houthis have also recently stolen $1.2 million of public funds to start a radio station after they broke into the Central Bank’s headquarters. This is despite the fact that, in May, the Central Bank stated that it will allow for $100 million a month to finance the Houthi-Saleh side to the war.
Politically speaking, Mohamed bin Hammam, the former governor of the Central Bank was seen as an ally to the Houthis. In August, the Hadi government openly announced its mistrust toward the former governor, accusing him of turning a blind eye to the Houthi and Saleh induced corruption in the bank. Houthi spokesman Mohamed Abdel Salam slammed the government’s decision to dismiss Hammam, along with the decision to relocate the bank earlier this week, perpetuating sentiments of the bank being subjected to Houthi and Saleh corruption if it remained in Sana’a. This is making it harder for aid to get to the Yemeni people and even making creditors and donors reluctant to pay sums of money into the bank.
Having the Central Bank situated in the temporary capital means there will be a significant amount of autonomy for Aden. The Adeni authorities will most likely receive a priority for financing and pay, including civil servants many of whom have not yet received their salaries.
It will also affect the separatism debate. On the one hand, taking the Central Bank out of Sana’a could calm separatist views, as one of the main grievances for southerners was that the Yemeni government was centralised in Sana’a under Saleh who purposely marginalised southerners. On the other hand, the bank’s move could also mean separatist perceptions could be heightened as it poses an opportunity for southern Yemen to institutionally prepare itself for autonomy. This is something only southern Yemenis can decide for themselves at some time in the future.
The Central Bank is the last lifeline for Yemen. With war and famine widespread across the country, the faltering of economic security could be catastrophic. Though the move of relocating the Central Bank is overdue and ideally should have been done in September 2014 after the Houthi coup, it is one of the only ways to ensure money does not continue to pour itself into the militia forces. Now, the country faces the challenging process of relocating the bank and preventing any further corruption and damage from occurring to the economy.
File – In this file photo taken Thursday, April 14, 2016, government soldiers follow orders to raise their guns during a military parade in Juba, South Sudan. Escalating violence in South Sudan is casting a light on Israel’s murky involvement in that raging conflict, with the government’s use of Israeli arms and surveillance equipment drawing criticism from human rights activists and a lawmaker who are demanding that Israel halt such transfers to the embattled African country. The scrutiny comes as Israel has been forging new ties with countries across Africa, hoping their support will counter Palestinian diplomatic offensives at the United Nations. (Justin Lynch, File/Associated Press)
By Tia Goldenberg and Justin Lynch | AP
JERUSALEM — Escalating violence in South Sudan is casting a light on Israel’s murky involvement in that conflict and raising questions about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s new strategy of strengthening ties with African countries.
Netanyahu has been forging alliances across Africa in an effort he says will help blunt Palestinian diplomatic initiatives against Israel at the United Nations.
But critics says these new ties — illustrated by Netanyahu’s high-profile visit to several African countries in July — have come without regard for the human rights records of those allies.
Such concerns have been magnified by Israel’s close ties to South Sudan, whose government has used Israeli arms and surveillance equipment to crack down on its opponents. Critics say Israel’s global arms export policies lack transparency and proper oversight, and ignore the receiving country’s intended use.
“It is the role of the prime minister, the defense minister and the foreign minister to look out for Israel’s interests. But this has a limit: not at any cost and not with everyone,” said Tamar Zandberg, an Israeli opposition lawmaker who has filed a court appeal to halt Israeli sales of sensitive technology to South Sudan.
Israel has long viewed South Sudan as an important ally and a counterweight to neighboring Sudan’s support for Islamic Palestinian militants. Israel was one of the first countries to recognize South Sudan’s independence in 2011, and South Sudanese leader Salva Kiir visited Israel months later.
Since South Sudan descended into civil war in 2013, some 50,000 people have been killed and 2 million have been displaced.
In July, hundreds died when fighting erupted in the capital, Juba. South Sudanese troops went on a nearly four-hour rampage at a hotel, killing a local journalist while forcing others to watch, raping several foreign women, and looting the compound, several witnesses told The Associated Press.
Just days earlier, Netanyahu had traveled to four African countries — Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda and Ethiopia — in a visit meant to cultivate new allies in his diplomatic battle with the Palestinians. It was the first visit to sub-Saharan Africa by a sitting Israeli prime minister in nearly three decades.
During the visit, he convened a summit with seven regional leaders, including Kiir — nearly all of whom have been criticized by rights watchdogs for alleged abuses.
Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta has been charged by the International Criminal Court with crimes against humanity for his role in stoking ethnic violence, charges that were later withdrawn, with the prosecutor accusing Kenya of blocking her investigation. Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, 71, has served for 30 years and is trying to change the constitution so he can effectively extend his rule for life. Rwandan President Paul Kagame has been dogged by allegations of human rights abuses in neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo and criticized by rights groups for being an authoritarian ruler.
A U.N. report in January said Israeli surveillance equipment was being used by South Sudanese intelligence, allowing it to intercept communications in a “significantly enhanced” crackdown on government opponents.
The report also found that an Israeli automatic rifle known as the Micro Galil is “present in larger numbers than before the outbreak of the conflict.”
According to the report, Israel sold the rifles to Uganda in 2007, which transferred the weapons to South Sudan’s National Security Service in 2014. According to the report, Israel said it didn’t receive a request from Uganda for the transfer.
Eitay Mack, an Israeli lawyer working with Zandberg, the opposition lawmaker, said weapons export licenses require knowledge of end users and mid users — meaning the transfer would either have been done with Israel’s knowledge or would have prompted an investigation into the offending company. He said no investigation was known to have been opened.
The U.N. report said Israeli ACE rifles were used in a massacre that targeted Nuer citizens in Juba in 2013.
Zandberg said Israel stopped sending firearms to South Sudan in 2013 but that export licenses for the surveillance equipment continue. The Israeli Defense Ministry did not respond to requests for comment.
Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Emmanuel Nahshon said Israel is “extremely satisfied with our renewed relations with many African countries and Israel does not interfere in those countries’ internal affairs.” He rejected criticism of the Israeli outreach, suggesting Israel was being unfairly singled out. The United States and other Western countries also consider many African countries important allies.
The European Union has placed an arms embargo on South Sudan, and following the outbreak of violence, the U.S. imposed sanctions on top military officials from both sides of the conflict.
In August, the U.N. Security Council approved an additional regional protection force to enter South Sudan, but decided against an arms embargo on the country.
“Even without an international arms embargo, states should unilaterally suspend arms transfers given the likelihood that arms would be used to commit human rights violations,” said Elizabeth Deng, Amnesty International’s South Sudan researcher.
Zandberg and Mack asked Israel’s Supreme Court in May to force Israel to explain why it has continued export licenses for the surveillance system to South Sudan. Reflecting Israel’s typically opaque approach to such transfers, the Defense Ministry asked for a gag order to be imposed on the proceedings. A hearing is scheduled later this month.
Zandberg is also seeking to change Israel’s weapons export oversight law, which she says does not adequately ensure that Israeli arms don’t end up in troubled countries.
The law states that Israel shall not supply weapons to any country under a Security Council arms embargo. But the council can often be slow to act, and Zandberg wants Israel’s Foreign Ministry to have clout in determining whether it should allow arms transfers.
A 2013 report by Israel’s state comptroller pointed to “shortcomings, some of them significant,” in export oversight, including a lack of personnel to investigate possible breaches and lax enforcement of requirements for exporters.
“A country that hands out these export licenses has to be accountable and to take responsibility for the (weapons’) final use,” Zandberg said.
___
Lynch reported from Juba, South Sudan.
Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Credit Devin Yalkin for The New York Times Why Berhanu Nega traded a tenured position for the chance to lead a revolutionary force against an oppressive regime. BY JOSHUA HAMMER The NY Times Berhanu Nega was once one of Bucknell University’s most Read More ...
Credit Devin Yalkin for The New York Times Why Berhanu Nega traded a tenured position for the chance to lead a revolutionary force against an oppressive regime. BY JOSHUA HAMMER The NY Times Berhanu Nega was once one of Bucknell University’s most Read More ...
FILE – Al-Shabab fighters sit on a truck as they patrol in Mogadishu, Somalia, Oct. 30, 2009. The U.S. military says its airstrike killed at least nine militants. However, the Somalia government says its soldiers were killed in the strike.
© AFP file picture | Rebel chief Riek Machar on Saturday issued a statement urging armed resistance against the government in Juba
