US Naval Bases In Africa (AFRICOM): Sababu, Pingamizi, Faida na Hasara

US Naval Bases In Africa (AFRICOM): Sababu, Pingamizi, Faida na Hasara

Dr.Mbura said:
Yawezekana naibu waziri wa mambo ya inje wa USA yuko Tz kwa maandalizi ya AFRICOM
Click to expand...
Africom inatakiwa kati ya nchi hizi zifuatazo! wengine wote hamna kitu hata wakijipendekeza
kenya, somalia, sudan (darfur) that is the target wengine wazushi subiri uone.
 
With the Obama administration set to oversee significant increases in US security assistance programmes for African countries, Daniel Volman examines the US government's plans for its military operations on the African continent over the coming financial year. Stressing that the US president is essentially continuing the policies outlined under his predecessor George W. Bush, the author considers the proposed funding increases for initiatives like the Foreign Military Financing programme and the International Military Education and Training (IMET) programme.

Pointing out that the administration is yet to offer any public explanation of its policy, Volman concludes that it would be a mistake to assume that there will be no US military action if the situation in Somalia deteriorates.

At the beginning of May 2009, President Obama submitted his first budget request to Congress. The Obama administration's budget for the 2010 financial year proposes significant increases in US security assistance programmes for African countries and for the operations of the new US Africa Command (AFRICOM). This shows that - at least initially - the administration is following the course laid down for AFRICOM by the Bush administration, rather than putting these programmes on hold until it can conduct a serious review of US security policy towards Africa. This article outlines the administration's plans for Africa in the coming year and the money it intends to spend on military operations on the continent.

FOREIGN MILITARY FINANCING
The Obama administration proposes maintaining or significantly increasing funding for the Foreign Military Financing programme, which provides loans for the sale of weaponry and other military equipment to a number of African countries. The administration's request raises the total funding for arms sales to Africa from $8.3 million in financial year (FY) 2009 to $25.6 million in FY 2010.

The new funding includes funding for arms sales to Chad ($500,000), the Democratic Republic of Congo ($2.5 million), Djibouti ($2.5 million), Ethiopia ($3 million), Kenya ($1 million), Liberia ($9 million), Nigeria ($1.4 million), South Africa ($800,000) and African regional programmes ($2.8 million).

INTERNATIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION AND TRAINING
The Obama administration proposes small increases in the International Military Education and Training (IMET) programmes for African counties, raising the total funding for this programme from $13.8 million in FY 2009 to $16 million in FY 2010. Significant increases in funding are requested for Chad ($400,000), Djibouti ($350,000), Ethiopia ($775,000), Ghana ($850,000), Kenya ($1,050,000), Liberia ($525,000), Mali ($350,000), Niger ($250,000), Nigeria ($1,100,000), Rwanda ($500,000), Senegal ($1,100,000), South Africa ($900,000) and Uganda ($550,000). The United States will continue its major IMET programme in the Democratic Republic of Congo ($500,000), and the Obama administration is proposing to start new IMET programmes in Equatorial Guinea ($40,000), Somalia ($40,000) and Zimbabwe ($40,000).

PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS

 The Obama administration proposes major new funding for security assistance provided through the Peacekeeping Operations programme. The FY 2010 budget proposal includes increasing funding for the Trans-Sahara Counter-Terrorism Partnership - from $15 million in FY 2009 to $20 million in FY 2010 - and for the East Africa Regional Strategic Initiative - from $5 million in FY 2009 to $10 million in FY 2010. It also includes $42 million to continue operations in support of the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Accords in southern Sudan, $10 million to continue operations to create a professional 2,000-member armed force in Liberia, $21 million to continue operations in the Democratic Republic of Congo to reform the military (including the creation of rapid reaction force for the eastern Congo), and $3.6 million for the Africa Conflict Stabilization and Border Security Program, which will be used to support monitoring teams, advisory assistance, training, infrastructure enhancements, and equipment in the Great Lakes region, the Mano River region, the Horn of Africa, Chad, and the Central African Republic. The budget request also includes $67 million to support the African Union Mission in Somalia. And it contains a request for $96.8 million for the Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI). The request for GPOI includes funding for the African Contingency Operations and Training Assistance Program (ACOTA) - which provides training and equipment to African military forces to enhance their peacekeeping capabilities - although the specific amount requested for ACOTA is not provided in the budget summary.

INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT

 The budget request for International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) programs contains $24 million for Sudan to support implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Accords (CPA) in southern Sudan and to assist programmes to stabilise Darfur by providing technical assistance and training for southern Sudan's criminal justice sector and law enforcement institutions as well as to contribute to UN civilian police and formed police units in southern Sudan and Darfur. It also includes funds for police reforms in the DRC; for training, infrastructure, and equipment for police units in Liberia; to operate the American-run International Law Academy in Gaborone, Botswana; and to create a Regional Security Training Center for West, Central, and North Africa. The Obama administration is also asking for funding to be provided through the INCLE programmes for the first time to provide security assistance to countries participating in the Trans-Saharan Counter-Terrorism Partnership: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Mauritania, Senegal, Mali, Niger, Chad and Nigeria.

NON-PROLIFERATION, ANTI-TERRORISM, DE-MINING AND RELATED PROGRAMMES

The Obama administration proposes to almost double funding for counter-terrorism programmes. These include the Anti-Terrorism Assistance Program, which provides training to countries throughout the world; the Terrorist Interdiction Program/Personal Identification, Secure Comparison, and Evaluation System Program, which supports identification and watch listing systems to 18 countries (including Kenya); the Counterterrorism Financing Program, which helps partner countries throughout the world stop the flow of money to terrorists; and the Counterterrorism Engagement Program, which is intended to strengthen ties with key political leaders throughout the world and 'build political will at senior levels in partner nations for shared counterterrorism challenges'.

AFRICOM

 The Obama administration's proposed FY 2010 budget for the Department of Defense requests some $300 million in operation and maintenance funds to cover the cost of AFRICOM operations and Operation Enduring Freedom-Trans-Sahara Counter-Terrorism Partnership operations at the AFRICOM headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany. The administration is also requesting $263 million to provide additional personnel, airlift and communications support to AFRICOM. And the budget includes a request for a total of $451 million to replace or upgrade facilities at enduring CENTCOM and AFRICOM locations, but does not provide a separate figure for AFRICOM. According to the budget, the administration intends to carry out significant investment at Camp Lemonier in FY 2010. In addition, the administration is requesting $30 million to pay the annual lease for the 500-acre base at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti and $170 million to cover the annual operational budget of the base.

The administration is requesting some $400 million for Global Train and Equip (Section 1206) programmes, some $200 million for Security and Stabilization Assistance (Section 1207) programmes, and some $1 million for the Combatant Commander's Initiative Fund. This money will be used primarily to pay for emergency training and equipment, the services of personnel from the State Department, and humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi and Afghani armed forces, but it will be available for the use of AFRICOM as well. The administration's budget request also contains $1.9 billion to buy three Littoral Combat Ships and another $373 million to buy two Joint High Speed Vessels, ships that will play a crucial role in US Navy operations off the coast of Africa. It also includes $44 billion to fund US Navy operations throughout the world - of which a significant proportion will be needed to cover the costs of US Navy operations in African waters - but the budget does not provide enough information to estimate these costs.

SECURITY POLICY TOWARD THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO AND SOMALIA

 Obama administration officials have not said anything in public to explain why they are proceeding with the Bush administration's plan to increase US security assistance to African countries and to expand US military activities on the continent. General William Ward, commander of AFRICOM, at a news conference that he held during his visit to Kinshasa in April 2009, provided one of the few pieces of evidence we have about the administration's thinking. The United States will continue working in training and advising the armed forces of the Democratic Republic of Congo 'to help the host nation build capacity to more effectively conduct its military operations and provide for its own security.' The United States currently has a seven-member mobile training team training Congolese military officers. This training, Ward said at the news conference, is intended 'to support the increased professionalization of the Congolese armed forces as best we can as they work to bring security and stability here in Congo.' This suggests that President Obama - despite his rhetorical commitment to multilateralism and 'soft power' and the abysmal record of military incompetence and human rights violations by the Congolese armed forces - is convinced that unilateral US military involvement can still work and that he can succeed where his predecessor failed.

The only other indication we have about the president's true intentions is provided by his decision to authorise the use of force to rescue the kidnapped captain of the Maersk Alabama in May 2009. When he was a candidate, President Obama declared that he believed that 'there will be situations that require the United States to work with its partners in Africa to fight terrorism with lethal force.' But his action during the kidnapping episode show that he is also willing to use military force in situations that have nothing to do with terrorism. According to recent news articles, a debate is currently underway within the administration about the wisdom of direct US military intervention against Somali pirates or against the al-Shabaab insurgents. Top administration officials and military officers are convinced that, in the words of Defense Secretary Robert Gates, 'there is no purely military solution' to piracy and political conflict in Somalia. And Johnnie Carson, the president's new assistant secretary of state for Africa, told the BBC that 'there would be no case of the US re-engaging on the ground with troops' in Somalia. But some in the military and a number of prominent neo-conservative leaders contend that the United States must strike back at the pirates and the insurgents to prevent future acts of piracy and terrorism against Americans. It would be a mistake to assume that Obama will not take further military action if the situation in Somalia escalates.
* Daniel Volman is the director of the African Security Research Project in Washington, DC, and a member of the board of directors of the Association of Concerned Africa Scholars.

* For more information, see the Department of State, Summary and Highlights for International Affairs Function 150: Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request, and the Department of Defense, Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request: Summary Justification.
 
whether the Americans have the AFRICOM HQ in Africa or not, they will continue doing their activities as planned and no body will humper their missions in Africa.
 
[FONT=Verdana,Arial]AFRICOM: Western Self-Serving Interests or African Security?[/FONT]

 By Paul I. Adujie

 [FONT=Verdana,Arial]August 22, 2009 - New Liberian

America’s establishment of the so-called African Command(AFRICOM), should be seen for what it is: America’s self-interested armada of protection for America, and her allies and not for Africa’s security. Africa has steadily and increasingly become more important by playing the role for Westerners as repository of energy resources which powers the engine-rooms of Western economies.

Additionally, America and her Western allies are in trepidations and stampede to stem China’s forays into Africa with plethora of real investments in solid infrastructures in many African nations.

The formation of this command was made official by former president of the United States, George W. Bush on February 6, 2007. It has been controversial since, particularly among
Africans.

There is as well a lively debate by Americans in the Department of Defense, the War College, US State Department, and various Policy Foundations by policy wonks, aside from the Africans.

A major component and a key element in these debates is the fear of China. China is buoyed by her recent economic progress. China has, for more than a decade, attained major economic expansion of more than nine percent annually.

China has become exceedingly confident on the world stage. America and her Western allies are therefore deeply troubled by this state of affairs. China is seen by Western governments as a nuisance, an irritant and a competitor worth her weight in gold.

The sheer size of China, her industrial and technological ascendancy, tripled with her ability to produce with low overhead costs, empowers China, like no other nation. China is as well a major financier of America’s public debt, in the trillions. Sino-phobia in Western countries can also be blamed for America’s sudden desire to establish military presence in Africa.

In my view, therefore, America’s Africa Command, in conceptual terms and actual implementation, is not intended to serve Africa’s best interests. It is just happens that Africa has grown in geopolitical and geo-economic importance to America and her allies. Africa has been there all along.

Africa suddenly has the attentions of Western governments? Africa is suddenly a priority? I very much doubt it. As America and her allies are ensnared in the volatile Persian Gulf-Middle East, there is suddenly these self-serving attention being paid to the long neglected, ridiculed and forlorn Africa?

Given Africa’s experience in the hands of Western governments, from slave trade to colonialism to the hemispheric Cold War hegemonic struggles for chunks of the African continent, it should be no surprise to the United States and other Western governments that Africans view them with enlightened and sanguine suspicions. These suspicions are informed by Africa’s extremely checkered history and the roles of Westerners in it.

There are, in addition to African historical experiences with Westerners, the experiences of other regions and nations outside of Africa. There are such places such the Honduras, Grenada, Panama, Haiti, Dominican Republic to mention a few, where American military presence has not served best interests of the local populations.

The collective experience of these countries in which American military presence has been parceled and touted as being of some sorts of mutual benefit for America and the host country, has turned out, in many cases, that America’s interests were all she was interested in.

There were for instance, reports of how American military, acting supposedly in partnership or cooperation with Nigerian military, literally took over Nigerian Defense Headquarters. I know for a fact that the US military would not brook such behaviors by foreign military personnel at the Pentagon, the US Department of Defense or military complex.

It is probably important as a mention, that the United States already operates at least three other commands, namely, the European Command (EUCOM), Central Command, (CENTCOM) and Pacific Command (PACOM), therefore, Africa Command or (AFRICOM) will be the fourth leg of US military global spread.

America’s Africa Command, in the circumstances, cannot be seen by Africans as instrument for African Security. America’s Africa Command is instead seen as machinery for Western governments to pursue their vaunted economic, political and hegemonic hemispheric influence at the expense of Africans as well as a backdoor through which Westerners can outmaneuver rivals such as China and perhaps, Russia in addition.

Interestingly, the only interests which Westerners pursue, have ever pursued in Africa, are Western interests regardless of their protestations to the contrary; regardless of new and improved fanciful packaging.

Just think about it. Africa has lay as greenest field and fallow before the very eyes of Westerners for hundreds of years. Westerners have exploited Africa for Western benefit enough already. Africans can do without Western nations’ afterthoughts. AFRICOM and the current debate about China are two sides of the same coin.

There is a renewed scramble for Africa that is motivated mostly by the search for hydrocarbon and beyond that, an opportunity for those in the scramble to expand their global market share in this era of globalization. Africa is still their pawn, sadly! They have never been committed or dedicated to our cause or best interests.

This is the crux of the matter for Africans who have become deeply and extremely suspicious about the motives by Westerners who are pretending, permanently, to be on right side of all that is good for Africa.

Meanwhile, all through history, there have been no scintillas of truth in claims by Western governments which have pretended to be assisting Africa in some sorts of altruistic, disinterested, selfless or gratuitous way.

History is the witness and it is verifiably the case that Western contacts with Africa have had most negative consequences. It began with slave trade, then colonialism, neocolonialism, cold war and through all these, Westerners stripped and exploited Africa for Africa’s human, mineral and sundry resources.

As a consequence, discerning Africans have gone beyond merely being wary of Westerners. Again, we should be mindful, when an umbrella seller doubles as someone who predicts daily rain falls. Africans have become more circumspect in evaluating advice offered by Westerners, in matters of continental, regional security or matters of trade and investments on the continent.

The attitudes of Westerners to Africans have been based mostly on some sorts of ad hoc policy thrusts. It is marked by the absence of a well thought- out and well reasoned substantive and significant policy position for Africa.

Be it economic, political or military-strategic, Africa has always been seen as of no strategic or national security relevance to Westerners. Recount how many Western policy papers which explicitly and implicitly state such positions abundantly. But suddenly, exigent circumstances, which are propelled solely by Western interests, are now pushing Western governments to a waking moment of Africa’s importance.

And Westerners expect Africans to be jumping for joy and dance in the streets in excitements? Should Africans should be overjoyed and happily receive America’s Africa Command? If past is prologue, think again.

For starters, former president of the United States George W. Bush’s administration underestimated what would be Africans’ reaction to the presence of America AFRICOM. Non-Africans are too frequently presumptuous about Africans. Africans are taken for granted quite too often.

This all has smudges of condescension and it is an attitude which smacks of Western paternalistic talk-downs in dealings with Africans. This is why unpleasant failure results are consequences sometimes. Herein lies the difference between the West and resurgent China in Africa. China invited African countries to Beijing, China. And together, Africans and the Chinese, created the China-Africa Cooperation Forum (CACF). This Africa-China body has met in China and in parts of Africa since its creation.

And this is the sort of partnership, the sort of friends and robust engagement which has been absence between the West and Africa. Africa, for far too long, remained the inconvenient part of the world in the eyes of the Western governments.

Westerners have only been in exploitation mode and Africa as the butt of their dinner jokes, bluntly put. China on the other hand is, practical, engaged and straightforward. When was the last time the United States invited African leaders together to a joint summit or conference on economic, strategic or military cooperation?

When was the last time (ever) did the United states or Western nations practiced active engagements and rapprochement with African leaders the way China has demonstrated her leadership in that direction? China has excelled in action and not rhetoric and false promises.

China has over the years sent almost 20,000 medical doctors into many nations on the African continent. Beyond that, China has given loans, guaranteed loans for infrastructure development for African nations. China has been engaged, as well, in the direct creation of public infrastructures in some African nations.

Railways, refineries and sundry public works are abundant evidences which are already on the grounds in different parts of Africa and these, it must be said, tells you where China stands.

Africans are tired of profound platitudinous proclamations by Western governments. China in a short span of time has proven its worthiness to Africans, through its actions.

Westerners are alarmed, understandably so, because it is becoming obvious to the Africans, tremendous difference between hundreds of years of words by Western governments, compared with the recent Chinese presence. China does not seek to dictate leadership choice to Africans.

China is not dictating to Africans a mode of government as in presidential or parliamentary systems. China is not interested in meddling in the internal affairs Africans. That is how it should be!

Africans are now children of the West! Chinese goods are all over the United States. Chinese products are known by Westerners and Africans alike, to be cheap and to fulfill intended utility.

China is not known to hold Chinese products over and above products made in Africa. Western nations have done just that for decades, for instance, Schnapps was held up in Nigeria as superior to local brew, which is now almost extinct.

And this is the practice of the West across the board. And yet, some people wonder why African farmers and manufacturers can not compete against Western multinationals? For that, we recommend, "Life and Debt of Jamaica" the negative impact upon developing nations’ productive capacities occasioned by dumpings by Western nations.

And furthermore, on matters of impositions, China, quite unlike the West which imposed English, French or Portuguese etc, so far, China is not known to be force-feeding Africans any Cantonese and /or Mandarin.

Western contact with Africa began by imposing Christianity as the "civilized" non-primitive and superior religion. China, unlike the West which exulted Christian faith over every and any of Africa’s holies, China has not preached any religions to Africans.

China has given loans to African nations. China has guaranteed loans to African nations for public projects and sundry public infrastructures. Western nations on the other, have always led African nations to the World Bank and/ or the International Monetary Fund (IMF) through which Western nations put punishing strictures upon developing nations in Africa and Latin America etc.

These strictures, which are well coordinated, act to stifle development in Africa and elsewhere. You the reader must have heard of something called the Structural Adjustment Program or SAP. It ruined many nations in Africa and Latin America and ruined millions of lives elsewhere.

China has given loans, guaranteed loans to some African nations. China has also speedily executed some key projects in some African nations they go busily like acts and voila.

End results or outcomes are seen by the Africans. China has, in loan grants and loan guarantees, been acting for some African nations the way the United States acted on behalf of Israel when the US single-handedly made a $10 billion loan guarantee for Israel in one single year.

And this excludes the $5 billion yearly financial aid to Israel with no strings attached, with no meddling and interference with Israel domestic and foreign policies.

The amount of US foreign aid to all of the 53 countries in Africa during the last ten years is less than $10 billion. This, despite the presence of over 900 million people in Africa and this, despite the recognition that the need in Africa is greater than in Israel with her 5 million in population.

Africans are tired of ostentatious pledges and promises which are never fulfilled and never redeemed. China is a suitable alternative and a welcome change.

On matters of repressive and undemocratic governments in Africa, Western nations are friends to Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, with his notoriously repressive government.

He is a man who has been president for about thirty years. Most Western nations had dealings with Mobutu Sese Seku, a tyrant and dictator, who was as corrupt as corruption itself. Western nations have historically been strange-bedfellows with the world’s worst dictators, and tyrannical brutal leaders.

The West have perennially been in marriages of convenience with political leaders of other nations, particularly, leaders who do not pursue the interests of local electorates, but rather, selfish personal interests of select individuals and the West winks and nods so longs as Western interests are amply protected.

The West practice permanent Expediency, with an uppercase E. And frequently, it is counterproductive and chickens come home to roost. Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Iran etc, are historical example. Expediency can never be good substitute for thorough policy which contemplates and anticipates long term outcomes and consequences.

Western nations seem to have no issues with governments in Arabia and Persia, that is, regarding the abject absence of Democracy and Human Rights, Women Rights, in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the Emirates.

And yet, the West lectures us about how China has been uninterested in Africans’ progress through forms of government.

And that China deals with repressive African governments. And how China is willing to deal with some corrupt officials. Swiss Banks are notorious for being safe havens for the prodigiously corrupt and criminal looters who pillage and plunder and not Banks in Beijing or Shanghai.

Western nations serve as harbors for fleeing thieves, and their families. Western nations serve as their refuge, and hospitals, and choice place to acquire sumptuous opulence, mansions, and investments and squander resources stolen from Africa. Show a mansion in China which belongs to an African rogue. China actually executes corrupt officials by firing squad.

It should be obvious to even the undiscerning, that Western nations excel in hypocrisy and double standards. The only things of importance to hypocrites are usually, their self-serving sanctimonious sermons which serve their self-interests.

Discerning Africans already know those who are friends and partners to Africa. Africans do not need Western nations’ preachment of the West as being holier than thou, in comparison to China. And someday, Africans and peoples of African descent will rise upon seeing the difference.
[/FONT]
 
well said, but Africans need neither of them in the long run. What Africans need is each others. The chinese might appear fair players but mainly due to the lessons they have learnt from the west. Offcourse they're not going to come with the same tricks used by Westerners, its too obvious for many Africans what a white man stands for.

Therefore they have their own tacktic, befriending us as allies but they have no good interst at heart for our countries. For instance, Chinese is known for producing similar products in grades just look at the grades they bring to us and what they sent to other parts of the world, this should just tell how they see us (inferior), they just happen to use a different tactic to show as if their different from the West with fake ethical practises but the intention is no different to that of the Western world. Since a thief can spot another thief this is why they quarrel over our natural resources.

What africa need the most is to stop sleeping and wake up before anything can come of productive we need to sort our messy politics, its the main course of many evils in africa today, though African leaders havent got castles in China but the chinese still trade with the same corrupt official i do not see any difference apart from not interfering in local politics but the aim aint no different to the west abusing our resources. All taking advantage of poor African politics for that matter they are all the same but the approach is a bit different. That is using and abusing Africans.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
lazima wataanzisha hapa kwetu kwa jinsi viongozi walivyo.si kuna uranium kibao humu ndani.lazima wanajipanga sababu wakizubaa tu wachina,wairan watakuja kuwapiga bao katika hilo
 
It is unfair for all African to be part on this base, but i heard Mr Museven akisema kuwa lazima base iwe kwake yeye na kufanya kambi hiyo. na pia ujue ukiweka hiyo base ndio itakuwa target kubwa sana ya watu wenye maslahi ya waamerica
 
acha base iwepo tu kwa sababu sisi wenyewe tunashindwa hata kushika vibaka.
 
i1665_jkjeshi.jpg

​

DAR ES SALAAM, Tanzania - Tanzanian, President Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete and the U.S. Ambassador to Tanzania, Alfonso Lenhardt, board the Africa Partnership Station (APS) East platform USS Nicholas (FFG 47), January 23, 2010 in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania. During their visit aboard the ship, Kikwete and Lenhardt met with sailors and discussed APS East's involvement with Tanzania. APS East has just concluded its maritime training of over 130 maritime professionals from the Tanzania Navy. (U.S. Navy photo by Chief Petty Officer Jason Morris)
​

DAR ES SALAAM, Tanzania, Jan 25, 2010 — Tanzanian President Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete visited Africa Partnership Station (APS) East platforms High Speed Vessel Swift (HSV 2) and USS Nicholas (FFG 47) in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, January 23, 2010, to meet with sailors and learn m ore about APS.

Also in attendance was U.S. Ambassador to Tanzania, Alfonso Lenhardt, and Tanzanian Navy Commander, Major General Said Omar.

During his visit, the President expressed his appreciation towards the APS program.

"The waters belong to all of us and it is everyone's responsibility to develop the skills necessary to stop illegal activity. Africa Partnership Station is helping Tanzania to continue to build its maritime capacity," said Kikwete. "I am very grateful to the United States and its partners for this program. I am committed to this program and continue to help develop stability and maritime security here."

Kikwete's first stop was aboard Nicholas where he was welcomed aboard by the APS international staff and received a brief on APS in the ship's wardroom by Captain James Tranoris, commander, APS East.

Following the brief, Kikwete received a tour of both Nicholas and Swift. Upon completion of his tour on Swift, the President was greeted with a song by children from the Kidz Care orphanage who came aboard to thank APS Sailors for their hard work at their home earlier in the week and tour the ship.

APS East arrived in Tanzania on Monday and immediately began conducting training and maritime exchanges between APS Sailors and members of the Tanzanian Navy.

More than 130 members of the Tanzanian Navy received maritime training in basic ground skills, instructional theory, law of war/ethics, medical response, pier security, small boat maintenance, and visit, board, search and seizure (VBSS) culminating in a graduation ceremony on Friday.

Swift and Nicholas will visit ports in Comoros, Djibouti, Kenya, Mauritius, Seychelles, Mozambique and Tanzania. The ships bring teams of maritime experts from the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps and will provide training and participate in exercises with their African counterparts in order to further develop maritime safety and security in the region.

Swift and Nicholas are on scheduled deployments within the U.S. 6th Fleet area of responsibility. APS East is being conducted in cooperation with Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Africa, a component of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM).

Source: Africa Partnership Station
 
Inawezekana watu tunafikiria tofauti hapa lakini ngoja niweke mawazo yangu wazi. Nchi jirani za Africa mashariki zinatumia kiasi kikubwa cha budget kwenye majeshi yao. Hili si swala nzuri kwani hizo pesa zingeweza kutumika vizuri kwenye shughuli za kimaendeleo. Uganda na Kesha wanatumia pesa nyingi sana kwenye vifaa vya kijeshi ambavyo kwa miaka michache ijayo vitapitwa na wakati na itabidi waviuze au wawe na vifaa vya kizamani. Kama tunavyoelewa Kenya wana majirani kama Sudan na Somalia na Uganda wana Sudan hivyo kwa kiasi fulani inaeleweka. Lakini imefika wakati wa Tanzania kufanya uamuzi (1) Tukuze jeshi kwa kutumia pesa kununua vifaa (2) Tukubali kufanya uhusiano na Marekani wa kijeshi na kuzuia nchi yeyote Duniani kutugusa. Mimi naona hili swala la kuruhusu marekani si baya kama tunavyofikiria.Ngoja tuangalie marekani iko wapi sasa kwenye hizi base. (1) German ni nchi inayoongaza kwa uchumi ulaya nzima (2) Japan ni nchi ya tatu kiuchumi duniani kwa pesa lakini ni ya pili kwa maendeleo na Technology. USA, Japan na German zinaongoza kwa technologia ya aina yeyote duniani. (3) Korea ni nchi inayoendelea kwa kasi sana. Nchi zote hizi ukiacha Marekani hazina mafuta, madini, na kwa Korea hawana hata ardhi nzuri ya kulima lakini zina maendeleo sana kwasababu ya Technology. China imekuwa ikisifiwa sana hivi karibuni lakini China ni nchi ambayo bado inaendelea na kuna nchi 12 za Africa zenye GDP kubwa kuliko China. Mpaka sasa Japan na Marekani zinatoa misaada China!!!. Hizi nchi zinatumia pesa zao kufanya shughuli za maendeleo badala ya kutumia kwenye jeshi na hii inasaidia dunia nzima. Mimi kwa misingi hii naamini serikali ya Tanzania inafanya vizuri kutokutumia pesa nyingi kwa jeshi badala yake kuzitumia kwenye shughuli za maendeleo. Uganda wanampango wa kutumia $740 million kwenye jeshi na hii pesa ingeweza kujenga barabara nyingi sana. Tuwaruhusu Wamarekani kuweka base lakini wakishirikiana na jeshi letu la taifa kwenye elimu, technologia na ulinzi. Marekani wameanza mikakati na tusipige kelele bila kuanngalia mbali nchi yetu inaenda wapi. Sehemu zote ambazo kuna base za marekani ukiacha sehemu za vita kuna maendeleo na tusiogope.
 
Samahani ninavyosema GDP kubwa kuliko China namaana ya Income per capita
 
Huo ni upande mmoja wa coin. Madhara ni mengi kuliko faida.
 
we Kamundu ni kweli hili litawezekana? Mimi natamani hata kesho waje? kwanza hao wanajeshi wenyewe ni watalii, ni watumiaji vibaya, na wakiletwa kama 50,000 basi jua ni zaidi ya watalii 1,000,000 kwa mwaka, pia wataleta usalama na kutuweka kwenye ramani za usalama duniani na nchi itaaminika zaidi duniani na wawekezaji na watalii hasa makundi makubwa ya meli za kitalii.
Uganda inatumia dola milioni mia saba? hizo ni robo ya pesa zinazotakiwa kupata ndege moja kama hizo zinazopiga Libya, wataletewa na wahuni wa Kirusi kupitia dalali wa Kihindi, lakini wamesahau vile videge walivyoletewa mwaka juzi visivyo na bawa? makabati ya vifaru eti wakarabati? maskini hawa waafrika jeuri uzembe... Bora tumtafute Brother kama marekani, duniani hapa tumeshachelewa bara tusaidiwe...
 
Marekani? Kituo cha jeshi? Ili tupigane na nani?

Nilifikiri unapendekeza tuwaruhusu Warusi watusaidie kutumia gesi yetu kama wao walivotumia Yao wakatajirika. Au Hugo Chavezi kutusaidia kutumia mafuta yetu kutajirika. Au Irani kutusaidia kutumia Uranium yetu kutajirika. Au Botswana kutusaidia kutumia madini yetu kututajirisha

American army base? As if itakuza uchumi wetu na kutuondolea umaskini wa kipato
 
Kamundu said:
Inawezekana watu tunafikiria tofauti hapa lakini ngoja niweke mawazo yangu wazi. Nchi jirani za Africa mashariki zinatumia kiasi kikubwa cha budget kwenye majeshi yao. Hili si swala nzuri kwani hizo pesa zingeweza kutumika vizuri kwenye shughuli za kimaendeleo. Uganda na Kesha wanatumia pesa nyingi sana kwenye vifaa vya kijeshi ambavyo kwa miaka michache ijayo vitapitwa na wakati na itabidi waviuze au wawe na vifaa vya kizamani. Kama tunavyoelewa Kenya wana majirani kama Sudan na Somalia na Uganda wana Sudan hivyo kwa kiasi fulani inaeleweka. Lakini imefika wakati wa Tanzania kufanya uamuzi (1) Tukuze jeshi kwa kutumia pesa kununua vifaa (2) Tukubali kufanya uhusiano na Marekani wa kijeshi na kuzuia nchi yeyote Duniani kutugusa. Mimi naona hili swala la kuruhusu marekani si baya kama tunavyofikiria.Ngoja tuangalie marekani iko wapi sasa kwenye hizi base. (1) German ni nchi inayoongaza kwa uchumi ulaya nzima (2) Japan ni nchi ya tatu kiuchumi duniani kwa pesa lakini ni ya pili kwa maendeleo na Technology. USA, Japan na German zinaongoza kwa technologia ya aina yeyote duniani. (3) Korea ni nchi inayoendelea kwa kasi sana. Nchi zote hizi ukiacha Marekani hazina mafuta, madini, na kwa Korea hawana hata ardhi nzuri ya kulima lakini zina maendeleo sana kwasababu ya Technology. China imekuwa ikisifiwa sana hivi karibuni lakini China ni nchi ambayo bado inaendelea na kuna nchi 12 za Africa zenye GDP kubwa kuliko China. Mpaka sasa Japan na Marekani zinatoa misaada China!!!. Hizi nchi zinatumia pesa zao kufanya shughuli za maendeleo badala ya kutumia kwenye jeshi na hii inasaidia dunia nzima. Mimi kwa misingi hii naamini serikali ya Tanzania inafanya vizuri kutokutumia pesa nyingi kwa jeshi badala yake kuzitumia kwenye shughuli za maendeleo. Uganda wanampango wa kutumia $740 million kwenye jeshi na hii pesa ingeweza kujenga barabara nyingi sana. Tuwaruhusu Wamarekani kuweka base lakini wakishirikiana na jeshi letu la taifa kwenye elimu, technologia na ulinzi. Marekani wameanza mikakati na tusipige kelele bila kuanngalia mbali nchi yetu inaenda wapi. Sehemu zote ambazo kuna base za marekani ukiacha sehemu za vita kuna maendeleo na tusiogope.
Click to expand...

It is the most stupid idea I have ever read in my life. Ni kwa sababu moja tu. Unajikanganya na dhana yako ya utegemezi. Na huu ndio udhaifu ambao marekani wanautaka kwa viongozi na wananchi wapuuzi wa nchi yo yote duniani.

Kama tayari utekelezaji wa wazo hilo upo basi nchi imekwisha na ndoto ya kuwaondoa CCM madarakani inakabiliwa na changamoto kwa sababu interest za marekani hata siku moja hazijali maslahi ya wananchi (mfano Misri ya Mubarak); wanawarubuni watawala na kuwabakiza madarakani kwa gharama yo yote wananchi wakilia. Nilikuwa na hisia kuwa JK na safari za marekani zinahusu hilo sasa hisia zangu zinaimarishwa na hii thread. Ukiona taifa linafikia kusalimisha sovereignity yake kwa maslahi ya nchi nyingine maanake ndiyo hiyo.

KWA KWELI TUNA VILAZA NCHI. Vita zote zinazopiganwa na marekani ni hela za mkopo au unyang'anyi toka China au uarabuni. Marekani sasa hivi wana mgogoro wa mizania ya nchi yao. Deni la nchi haliendani na uchumi wa marekani. I am sorry but I am sure you are selling a very stupid idea.
 
Kwangu mimi huo ni uvivu wa kufikiri, kuwa hatuwezi kujipatia maendeleo bila wamarekani.

Mara nyingi humu tumekuwa tukiikosoa serikali kuwa bajeti yake ni tegemezi, sasa tunataka hata tuwe tegemezi ki ulinzi kwa 100%.

Halafu sio kweli kuwa watausaidia kiuchumi, nchi kama kenye in base za kimarekani kwa miaka mingi sana lakini mbona wote tupo kwenye kapu moja?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Our Community

Regional Communities

Back
Top Bottom
Menu
Forums
New posts
Log in
Register