How Much Does the U.S. Empire Cost?
When he travels abroad, Barack Obama is the consummate pitchman. He tells stories, he cracks jokes, he delivers mini-lectures with a light touch -- all in the service of selling product. It's not an easy job. Imagine trying to sell GM cars after Ralph Nader's attack on its Corvair in the 1960s, or shilling for Nestlé after the infant formula boycott of the 1970s and 1980s. Obama's product -- America -- has taken a beating in the marketplace over the last eight years or so. The president has to do some serious rebranding.
Like any good ad-man, Obama does two things. He makes the audience feel good. But the people listening to him must also feel that something is missing in their lives, something that only Obama and his product can give them. If I get his product, the potential consumer thinks, perhaps I'll be as young, handsome, talented, and powerful as he is.
In his address over the weekend to the Ghanaian parliament, the president was careful to emphasize that "Africa's future is up to Africans." The United States is all about respecting self-determination. "America will not seek to impose any system of government on any other nation," he intoned. "The essential truth of democracy is that each nation determines its own destiny."
We're not telling you what to do, Obama insisted. But still, you have to get rid of your dictators, your corruption, and your bloody conflicts. And boy, do we have just the product for you!
Obama didn't "apologize for the CIA's role in overthrowing the democratically elected government of Ghanaian leader Kwame Nkrumah in 1966 to satisfy Cold War strategic interests," as Foreign Policy In Focus contributor Charles Abugre recommended in What Obama Should Say in Africa. "While he's at it," Abugre writes, "he should apologize for the role the CIA played in removing Patrice Lumumba from power in 1960 and the resulting mess that is today's Democratic Republic of the Congo."
Obama saw no need to apologize for past product defects. He's not peddling the ugly old empire that tortured people at the Guantánamo detention facility and the Abu Ghraib prison, meddled in elections past, and is embroiled in its own bloody and expensive conflicts. It's Empire 2.0.
Well, of course, he didn't say "empire." That's what rebranding is all about. Consider what the president had to say about one of the new services that Empire 2.0 offers: the Pentagon's new U.S. African Command (AFRICOM). "Our Africa Command is focused not on establishing a foothold in the continent, but on confronting these common challenges to advance the security of America, Africa, and the world," Obama said.
Partnership sounds nice. But as FPIF contributor Gerald LeMelle argues in Revealing the Real Africa Policy, the administration's Africa agenda make "no reference to the recent FY 2010 budget that doubles the size of AFRICOM's funds. Nor does it mention the doubling of financial support for counterterrorism projects throughout the continent -- including increasing funds for weapons, military training, and education at a time when U.S. foreign aid money is stagnating."
And despite his pointed remarks against dictators and military conflicts, Obama neglected to mention Uganda, where AFRICOM supports the Ugandan People's Defense Forces (UPDF) with arms and training. "Northern Ugandans have innumerable stories about the abuses committed by the UPDF in their communities," writes FPIF contributor Beth Tuckey in Denouncing Dictatorship in Uganda. "Although the UPDF's behavior has been slightly better in recent years, it would be a mistake for the United States to train and equip such a force for combat. Museveni has shown no interest in relinquishing his presidency, and yet the United States continues to shower his so-called democracy with aid and military support."
Let's translate the ad-speak. Partnership means: We give you weapons and training and you give us oil. "The U.S. Africa Command claims to 'help Africans help themselves,'" FPIF co-director Emira Woods writes in Obama Visits Africa's 'Oil Gulf.' "The command lists humanitarian missions like dental clinics, building of schools, wells, etc. What is more opaque is the intent to train and arm proxy militaries that can secure and sustain the ever-present fix for the U.S. addiction to fossil fuels."
In Nigeria, which will soon provide up to one-quarter of all U.S. imported oil, the government recently launched a full-scale offensive against armed resistance groups in the oil-rich Niger Delta. The Nigerian government receives official military assistance from the United States, as well as tens of millions of dollars in commercial U.S. military sales. "Peaceful resistance of minority ethnic groups across the Niger Delta has been met with brutal military repression and the broken promises of oil companies, with no opportunity for dialogue or genuine negotiation in 50 years," writes FPIF contributor Kia Mistilis in Niger Delta Standoff. "In this environment, the armed resistance group, the Movement for the Emancipation of Niger Delta Peoples (MEND) emerged in 2006. The group targeted oil installations and caused a 40% drop in supply, from 2.4 million to 1.3 million barrels per day" (a 60-Second Expert version of her commentary is here).
So, the United States is indeed helping Africans help themselves...to natural resources and the labor of the disenfranchised.
And don't forget the fine print at the bottom that tells you about the hidden costs to the U.S. taxpayer for military partnerships and access to oil. After all, the new African Command is only the tip of the imperial iceberg. According to a new FPIF Special Report by Anita Dancs, the United States is spending a quarter of a trillion dollars every year to maintain a global military presence. That's $250 billion worth of troops, equipment, fleets, and bases.
"Military strategy documents ascribe the vast presence overseas to projecting power and countering threats outside of U.S. borders before they can enter within the border," Dancs writes in The Cost of the Global U.S. Military Presence. "But as potential threats become increasingly nonconventional, defending the nation requires better intelligence, international policing, diplomatic efforts, and international cooperation, not a large military presence that irritates regional sensitivities."
When he travels to Ghana and elsewhere, Obama isn't only selling America to Africans. He's selling the new and improved American empire to Americans. We're the ones who have to pony up the $250 billion annual fee for this global garrison.
And like any good sales rep, he doesn't give you the price up front. "Don't worry," he tells you, handing over a pen and the bill of sale. "You won't have to pay immediately. Heck, you won't even have to pay most of the debt. Those your kids over there? Let's just make an extra copy of this agreement for them...."
Crossposted from Foreign Policy In Focus, where you can read the full post.
To subscribe to FPIF's e-zine World Beat, click here.
Amb. Marc Ginsberg: Obama's Foreign Policy: A Grand Century of Days -- Light Years Away from Bush
I resolutely accord President Obama and his foreign policy team a well earned grade of "A" in the conduct of America's national security challenges in the first 100 days of his presidency.
Adriana Dunn: Obama's First 100 Days: My 10 Favorite Moments
It's been a momentous time for America and our new president, who has restored the faith of many in our nation and our government.
Derek Shearer: The Shout Heard Round the World: Obama as Global Leader
Obama is the American President, but he is, in many respects, also the world's President. What he does will matter to young and old across the globe. The world, like America, is waiting for him to lead.
Jillian York: The View from Abroad: Obama to Speak in Morocco?
Algerian-American blogger The Moor Next Door has reported on a campaign set up by Moroccans to encourage President-Elect Barack Obama to make his first speech abroad in Morocco.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
A very good characterization of Obama, the salesman of the new 'improved' empire.
The $250 billion spent to maintain overseas military bases is money which could be better spent at home. Who ever appointed the US as the policeman of the world? This situation is sure to change in the near future, not out of common sense, the the fact that the US is broke and may need a bailout from the Chinese.
The American people will be infinitely better off when this empire collapses.
All the blather about "defending freedom" is crap.
Most of this waste is defending commercial interests which screw the American public on a daily basis.
We're debating healthcare costs while at the same time wasting enormous sums on a vast chain of military bases and weapons deployed everywhere.
We can easily afford real defensive weapons.
If the US enables an Israeli attack on Iran, that would cripple the economy and possibly spark uprisings here as gas prices hit $100. If that doesn't happen, our current policy as outlined or ignored by Obama will eventually produce more war and more attenuation of our resources.
The Europeans survived the collapse of their empires quite nicely.
Let's learn from them and focus on our real needs.
very well said, all points taken.
Americans are constantly brainwashed with false patriotism and false issues of "bringing democracy" to "evil" countries. But all actions are meant to feed the huge military complex of the USA. Eisenhower warned about it, JFK had to pay (IMO) and anyway outside the USA, like in Germany where I live, we feel your constant sabre rattling and wonder who will be next on your list.
At the same time you would need these precious resources on your home front for your own people. As an empire role model I say America is finished. Your corporate identíty is near zero. It seems time has passed you by. While other nations get on with their lives you seem to be constantly patrolling the planet and filling the pockets of a few under the smoke screen of freedom and democracy.
Our new German ambassador from America is one of the biggest donators to the Obama campaign. Right now Obama is rewarding his supporters with good posts all around the world. In the USA , EVERYTHING is about MONEY. That's why I fear the military complex will not allow to cut back on spending, just too much cash involved. And the next "threat" for you is possibly just round the corner, pathetic.
Sometimes I wonder what disasters we'll have to endure before we wake up.
I voted for Obama because I thought he would change the money-centered policies, but I'm being quickly disillusioned. McCain was a dangerous, impulsive warmonger (and seems to be proud of it) , so I'm happy he wasn't elected.
But I'm starting to think we only got a more methodical and reasonable-sounding leader who will try to steer the empire more intelligently.
In Ghana the other day, he praised our new "African Command" counterinsurgency venture -- which I translate as "congratulations, Africa, you've come a long way and now rate direct military intervention rather than mere proxy status."
Incidentally, I regard Germany as an occupied country. The Russians left the east and disbanded the Warsaw Pact. We kept our bases in your country and are pushing NATO eastward. I wonder if my country would consider itself sovereign if proportional Chinese forces were stationed in the US.
There is NO US Empire.
Absurd.
And we have military missions, missiles, naval forces, etc. around the world to keep our unemployed off the streets?
We control the World Bank and the IMF. We obtain "free trade" agreements that open foreign markets and keep ours closed. What do you suppose the OAS was/is for? NATO?
Oh, I forgot -- we're selflessly defending freedom all over the globe. Incurring gigantic costs, alienating billions, out of the goodness of our hearts.
What are all those bases for then? Do you really believe they are protecting your freedom? What did Iraq do to limit your freedom? What is Afghanistan doing now to limit your freedom? What is Iran doing?
Read Chalmers Johnson's trilogy: "Blowback", "The Sorrows of Empire", and "Nemesis"; Stephen Kinzer's "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change From Hawaii to Iraq"; William Blum's "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower" and "Killing Hope: U.S. Military and C.I.A. Interventions Since World War II"; and Noam Chomsky's "Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance" and "Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the assault on Democracy".
Of course, Chomsky spouts an infantile anti-americanism, and Chalamers Johnson, does so too.
And because you characterize it as infantile that makes it untrue huh? Care to back up your words with some facts?
if that is the case, Obama is like a sales man on one of those infomercia
Gypsy
serriously, when will we see the change we beleived in?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
