One excerpt from
an editorial in the Sunday Times (South Africa)
...
Until now, Africa has been for Bush little more than a useful political backdrop to soften his image. During his last state of the union address, for example, he showcased a long-term programme providing $15-billion to combat Aids in Africa.
But cynics couldn't help suspecting a prophylactic intention in making that announcement, effectively as a curtain-raiser for the main body of the speech, which was a sales pitch for his invasion of Iraq.
Africa offers US politicians an opportunity to look good, and Bush's handlers may be hoping his trip provides images of a foreign visit during which he is popularly welcomed .
Of course, looking good in Africa right now carries a price for Bush: Washington is suddenly under pressure to send peacekeeping troops to Liberia, precisely the sort of mission the administration was hoping to rule out for the US military (Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently even closed the US Army's Peacekeeping Institute).
But at a time when it is demanding help on Iraq, saying no to Liberia doesn't look good.
But there may be a deeper reason for the US to get involved in West Africa, which brings us to the Bush administration's strategic concerns in Africa - oil and terrorism.
The US today imports more oil from Africa (principally Nigeria and Angola, although US companies are fast developing fields in Equatorial Guinea and elsewhere) than it does from Saudi Arabia. The African share of the US oil supply is projected to rise from the current 15% to as high as 25% over the next decade.
That makes West and Central Africa something of a strategic "sphere of interest", in which the US priority is maintaining stability.
Oil producing countries, like frontline anti-terror allies, are generally excused their trespasses when it comes to domestic political arrangements.
...