Navigating Tensions: AFRICOM's Role in SADC's Security Landscape
Image: AFP
Dr. Sizo Nkala
The US Africa Command (AFRICOM) – the combatant command responsible for carrying out the US Department of Defence's military operations, exercises, and security cooperation in Africa – could sow divisions within the southern African region.
The leadership of the AFRICOM, including the Deputy Commander Lieutenant General John Brennan and Ambassador Robert Scott, made what seemed to be successful visits to Angola and Namibia at the end of July.
In both countries, the parties discussed mutual security interests, including promoting stability in southern Africa, tackling wildlife and timber trafficking, drug cartels and terrorism, which are a threat to regional peace and stability. The visits followed the Obangame Joint Military Exercise conducted in Cape Verde in May, in which both Namibia and Angola took part alongside 22 other African countries and the US.
In Angola, it coincided with the Joint Combined Exchange Training (JCET) where Angolan and US troops were conducting live fire exercises aimed at improving combat readiness and the interoperability of allied forces.
With the US-funded Lobito Corridor, a railway track which will connect Angola's Lobito port to more inland countries like Zambia and the DRC, Angola is central to US economic interests in southern Africa. The AFRICOM leaders emphasised that they seek to work with African countries in a manner that enhances their sovereignty and autonomy rather than their dependency.
This dovetails with AFRICOM's doctrine of 'African Solutions to African Problems'. With its deeper knowledge and experience in maritime security, counterinsurgency activities, and peacekeeping operations, AFRICOM could be a valuable partner for states in the region dealing with violent conflicts in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Mozambique's Cabo Delgado province. In flaunting its credentials and values, the AFRICOM leaders could not miss an opportunity to throw shade at US geopolitical rivals – China and Russia – whom it accused of treating African militaries as their training aides.
However, the mood was decidedly different for AFRICOM's relations with another southern African country. Early in August, the US Department of Defence decided to cancel the Shared Accord military exercises between the US and South Africa. This was because of a disagreement over allowing armed American soldiers to guard the US aircraft.
It is reported that the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) preferred that its personnel protect the aircraft while the DoD insisted on having its soldiers take that responsibility. The DoD argued that the Status of Forces Agreement signed between Pretoria and Washington in 1999 allowed US security personnel to guard US assets.
This marks yet another negative turn in the bilateral relations between the two countries, which have deteriorated rapidly since the beginning of Donald Trump's second presidency in January. The latest cancellation is the third time the US has withdrawn from planned security cooperation activities with South Africa since last year.
In 2024, the US pulled out of the African Aerospace and Defence Expo and also decided against docking a US Navy ship in Cape Town. This was partly because of South Africa's refusal to sign the so-called 'Article 98', which enjoins countries to sign an agreement to protect the US security personnel from arrest by the International Criminal Court (ICC) when on their territory. The US is not a member of the ICC.
South Africa and AFRICOM have always had a frosty relationship since its establishment in 2007. The former vociferously campaigned against the establishment of an American military base in Africa. Pretoria was of the view that AFRICOM was an imperialistic venture, and a keen association with it would be seen as being a lapdog of American imperialism in Africa.
This stance was also in part an effort by the African National Congress (ANC) to differentiate itself from the Apartheid government, which had no issues protecting the interests of the US in the region - sometimes through destabilising neighbouring countries.
AFRICOM's less-than-cordial relations with South Africa will undermine the effectiveness of its security cooperation with the region. South Africa is a regional powerhouse with the strongest and most well-equipped military in southern Africa. The country is an active participant in peacekeeping operations in southern Africa, having recently contributed the bulk of the troops in the Southern African Development Community (SADC)'s peacekeeping missions in Mozambique and the DRC.
Without Pretoria's cooperation, AFRICOM's ventures will have a limited impact. The SADC region is an indivisible security considering the litany of transnational security threats it faces. As such, any engagement with a major external actor like AFRICOM would be more effective if done on a regional rather than a national and bilateral level.
Just last year, on the sidelines of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, the Zimbabwean President Emmerson Mnangagwa expressed his worries to the Russian President Vladimir Putin over AFRICOM's close cooperation with AFRICOM. He asked that Russia intensify security cooperation with his country as a counterweight to the West's projection of power in neighbouring countries.
If the regional leaders do not address this, the region could soon be divided into two security spheres of influence – one controlled by the US and the other controlled by China and Russia.
* Dr. Sizo Nkala is a Research Fellow at the University of Johannesburg's Centre for Africa-China Studies.
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
17 hours ago
- IOL News
ANC's Bhengu-Motsiri: National Dialogue is for all South Africans, not just politicians
ANC National Spokesperson Mahlengi Bhengu-Motsiri says the National Dialogue must involve all South Africans in shaping a future that tackles crime, corruption, and inequality while protecting democratic gains. ANC spokesperson Mahlengi Bhengu-Motsiri said she believes the National Dialogue Convention marks a significant moment in South Africa's history, one that should unite all South Africans in confronting the country's most pressing challenges. Speaking outside UNISA, where the national dialogue is being hosted, Bhengu-Motsiri stressed the importance of broad participation, noting that this is not a dialogue for politicians or any single sector, but one for 'the people of South Africa and by the people of South Africa.' 'We trust, as the ANC, that all South Africans from all walks of life, white or black, African or coloured or Indian, Christian, Muslim and all of the different religions represented in our country, organised civil society in the form of non-government organisations, in the form of public benefit organisations, we trust that they are going to utilise this opportunity for what it is worth,' she said. Bhengu-Motsiri said the dialogue must tackle core issues such as crime, unemployment, the land question, gender-based violence, and inequality. But beyond that, she said, it must also serve as a platform to build a shared national vision, one that addresses questions of patriotism, sovereignty, foreign policy, and most importantly, 'how to defend the gains of democracy.' She highlighted corruption as a central concern, warning against both public and private sector corruption and pointing out how ordinary citizens can sometimes enable corrupt practices.
The Citizen
19 hours ago
- The Citizen
President to send delegation to White House over US trade tariffs
President to send delegation to White House over US trade tariffs Deputy President Paul Mashatile has announced that President Cyril Ramaphosa will send a delegation to the White House to discuss trade tariffs with United States President Donald Trump's administration. Mashatile said the recently announced tariffs could disrupt trade flows and undermine the global competitiveness of the local automotive sector. As of August 8, a 30% tariff on all South African goods entering the United States is in effect. 'We will continue engaging with the USA to identify practical solutions. The president will be sending the delegation once again to the White House to engage with the US administration on this matter,' he said. The deputy president delivered a keynote address at the National Association of Automotive Component and Allied Manufacturers (Naacam) Show 2025, a premier forum showcasing the capabilities of the domestic automotive component manufacturing sector in Gqeberha, Eastern Cape. Benefits and global trade links Mashatile highlighted the importance of the African Continental Free Trade Area agreement on economic integration and industrialisation, which is projected to draw additional international investment into the African automotive industry. Creating a single continental market for goods and services could lead to increased trade, investment, and job creation within Africa. 'However, this does not suggest that we do not need other nations as trading partners. We believe in diversifying our investments and engaging in trade with several partners.' Impact of tariffs on the automotive industry Mashatile said Cabinet is committed to protecting the economic interests of the country and is working to strengthen the economy and address unemployment, poverty, and inequality. 'I must highlight that there will be repercussions felt throughout the entire value chain if we do not reach an amicable trade agreement with the White House.' He warned that South African suppliers supporting domestic original equipment manufacturers exporting automobiles or integrated systems to the United States could face volume reductions. 'This will put pressure on production planning, employment decisions, and investment choices.' He added that South African automobiles and components would face a direct rise in landed costs in the US market. 'Because of this, they would be unable to compete with goods from nations that have continued preferential or zero-duty access, such as those in the USMCA [United States, Mexico, Canada Agreement]. 'Overall, the imposed tariffs threaten to disrupt well-established trade flows and weaken the global competitiveness of South Africa's automotive manufacturing ecosystem.' Resilience and collaboration Despite the challenges, Mashatile said South Africa remains resilient in its efforts to grow and protect the economy. He called for collaboration between government and the private sector to address import dependence, infrastructural inadequacies, the transition to electric vehicles and the 30% tariff increase. Mashatile praised Naacam for investing heavily in localisation, transformation, and supplier development in South Africa. Economic significance of the sector The automotive industry plays a key role in the country's GDP and employment. It accounts for 22.6% of manufacturing output and contributes 5.2% to GDP. The sector employs about 115 000 people, with over 80 000 in the component sector. In 2024, the component sector exported R62.5b worth of components. 'We must never allow the loss of these gains because of external and internal pressures. I say this with concern because the employment levels in the sector have been under strain due to ongoing economic pressures and reduced production volumes.' In the past two years, Naacam has reported the closure of 12 companies, affecting over 4 000 people. Addressing unemployment Mashatile said the latest unemployment figures show the urgency of tackling joblessness. 'We need to do more to combat unemployment, which might include improving education and skills to match labour market demands, promoting entrepreneurship and small enterprises, and investing in public employment programmes to generate jobs.' He said government is committed to working with all sectors to create jobs and improve living conditions. 'As the government, we recognise the industry's significant role and see it as the backbone of our economic growth, promoting industrial development and encouraging innovation.' – Breaking news at your fingertips… Follow Caxton Network News on Facebook and join our WhatsApp channel. Nuus wat saakmaak. Volg Caxton Netwerk-nuus op Facebook en sluit aan by ons WhatsApp-kanaal. Read original story on
Daily Maverick
a day ago
- Daily Maverick
Trophy hunting in the greater Kruger area — what the study overlooks
Trevor Oertel is an Executive Committee member of the Sustainable Use Coalition of Southern Africa (SUCo-SA) and has represented SUCo-SA at CITES meetings both in Panama and Geneva. He has served under various ministers of Environmental Affairs on the Minister's Wildlife Forum. A recent study published in Biological Conservation Vol 309, September 2025, and amplified by Adam Cruise in Daily Maverick claims that communities near Kruger National Park reject trophy hunting and that alternative livelihood options should be explored ('Communities near Kruger Park reject trophy hunting, embrace ethical alternatives — study', 28 July 2025). Yet the very same study simultaneously acknowledges the conservation and economic benefits that trophy hunting has delivered in southern Africa for decades. advertisement Don't want to see this? Remove ads This contradiction is at the heart of the problem: the study does not confront the source of public opposition to hunting, nor does it critically assess how representative the voices quoted actually are of the broader land use reality in the region. The paper states that 'public pressure could end trophy hunting of wildlife, potentially negatively affecting species conservation and the human communities that depend upon the revenue hunting generates'. This is not an insignificant point. In fact, it is perhaps the most important finding in the study, though the authors treat it as a side note. But who is driving that public pressure? Animal rights ideology It is not coming from the rural African communities who live alongside wildlife and bear the costs of its presence. It is driven largely by foreign NGOs and urban-based lobby groups rooted in animal rights ideology, not conservation science or socioeconomic realities. These groups wield emotive campaigns across digital media, often misrepresenting facts and vilifying hunting without engaging the voices of landowners, conservation professionals or rural custodians. The resulting 'public pressure' is thus manufactured by narrative, and not grounded in local truth. The paper correctly identifies that banning hunting could harm both people and wildlife, yet it fails to interrogate why public opinion is being manipulated against a practice that has demonstrably conserved habitats, maintained viable populations of wild animals and their habitats, and generated revenue for landholders and communities. A prominent example of this group is World Animal Protection (WAP), a multimillion-pound UK-based animal rights group that has consistently lobbied against all forms of hunting, including regulated and sustainable hunting. Besides the study that Cruise cites being funded by WAP, it fails to clearly disclose up front that at least three of its authors are either employed by or have formerly been employed by WAP, calling into question the neutrality of the research and its conclusions (the authors' biographies are disclosed in hyperlinks, not in an up-front disclaimer). When those crafting the questions, framing the data and interpreting the findings are aligned with an organisation vocally opposed to hunting in any form, one must ask: Is this research or advocacy under the banner of science? The Daily Maverick article and the study it draws from focus on communities bordering Kruger National Park in the north-eastern Lowveld of South Africa. However, it is also worth asking: 'How much actual trophy hunting happens in this area?' The answer is very little, particularly on communal lands in the immediate vicinity of the park. Hunting in this region is constrained by land tenure, regulation and land-use policies. This means most households surveyed in the study have had minimal, if any, direct experience of benefits from hunting in general, and specifically from trophy hunting. advertisement Don't want to see this? Remove ads It is therefore not surprising that many interviewees do not see hunting as a livelihood opportunity — they have not been given the opportunity to benefit from it in the first place. Deeper issue This raises a deeper issue — is this study truly about assessing trophy hunting, or is it part of an agenda to explore alternatives in an area where hunting hasn't really been implemented or tested as a sustainable revenue model? The study proposes alternatives like vegetable farming, sewing or craft-making — all worthy initiatives, but hardly equivalent in income potential, ecological compatibility or explaining how they would incentivise conservation in any way. Hunting alongside photographic tourism aligns livelihoods with managing wildlife and its habitats. Generating income from vegetables, sewing or crafts moves communities away from wildlife and disincentivises conservation. For instance, vegetable farming in buffer zones around protected areas risks increasing human-wildlife conflict. Water access, crop raiding by elephants or baboons, fencing costs and soil degradation are real constraints. Yet the paper glosses over these very practical concerns. In contrast, hunting incentivises keeping wild land wild, placing value on intact ecosystems and large, free-ranging species. It doesn't require land clearance or conflict with the ecosystem — it works with it. advertisement Don't want to see this? Remove ads Instead of using communities' limited exposure to hunting as proof of rejection, the study could have investigated: Why opportunities from hunting have not reached these communities. How to expand access and equity in hunting revenue, including governance reforms. How existing conservation success in neighbouring areas like APNR (Associated Private Nature Reserves) or KwaZulu-Natal community hunting initiatives could serve as models. The Daily Maverick article is penned by Adam Cruise, who is well known for his opposition to trophy hunting. In this instance, Cruise's tone borders on celebratory. However, as a journalist Cruise would do well to temper his personal biases and acknowledge the full scope of the study's findings, including its clear warnings that banning hunting could harm both conservation and local livelihoods. The study paradoxically confirms that ending trophy hunting could harm both conservation and communities, yet it aligns itself with a movement that is pressuring governments to do just that, without addressing the source of that pressure or the sociopolitical power imbalance behind it. Real conservation solutions must be led by local needs, backed by science and sound conservation management, and shielded from ideological interference. advertisement Don't want to see this? Remove ads Disregarding proven conservation industries like hunting simply because of foreign sentiment, often divorced from African realities, risks sacrificing both people and wildlife for the sake of fashionable morality. The debate about trophy hunting should not be about emotion or optics. It should be about what actually works for conservation and for the people who live with wildlife every day. DM
