An important lesson from Djibouti in strategic self-help

Djibouti is Africa’s third smallest nation that lies in the northernmost point of the Horn of Africa. It is named after its capital city, Djibouti City, where 60 percent of its population live. Djibouti is unique in Africa due to its extraordinarily important geostrategic position.

On the north of Djibouti lies the 19-kilometre wide Bab el Mandeb strait that connects the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden, and separates Djibouti from Yemen. This is the point where early humans crossed from Africa to the rest of the world, according to some scholars. But it is also the passage that carries about 5 million barrels of oil every day – 30 percent of the world’s oil supply.

That has got to attract attention.

In 2001, when the US declared its “War on Terror”, and later when piracy ravaged trade routes along the East African coast sea lanes, Djibouti’s proximity to both the Middle East and Somalia consolidated its geostrategic importance.

As a result, being limited in human and natural resources, Djibouti decided to sell the most important commodity it has – location. And there have been no shortage of buyers – France, US, China, Japan, Israel, UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Germany already have a presence in Djibouti, making it the biggest concentration of foreign military bases in one country in the world.

France, Djibouti’s former colonial master, was the first to establish its presence in the country over a century ago. When Djibouti gained independence, the French maintained their presence. They have about 1,500 troops there.

The French were followed by the Americans who leased Camp Lemonier in 2002. It is currently the only permanent US military facility in Africa, hosting about 4,000 troops.

Afterwards, other nations joined the club. The Chinese were the latest entrants, building a facility capable of hosting 10,000 soldiers – the talk of the town then. But the US base is only 50 times larger in size. Perspective.

Djibouti’s strategy makes a complete mockery of Africa’s opposition to Africom. Instead of becoming an apocalyptic scenario, as Africans’ logic would have predicted, it has actually flourished.

Firstly, Djibouti’s contract with France provides it with protection against foreign aggression. Thus, with the exception of some very extreme circumstances, Djiboutians should sleep soundly.

Secondly, while there is indeed a risk in hosting competing forces in one area, the incident where the Chinese pointed lasers at the incoming American planes highlights that point, but that risk is majorly neutralised because they are all assembled to keep the strait open for trade. Therefore, war is contraindicated.

Thirdly, the Djiboutians have reaped enormous economic dividends from hosting foreign military facilities. These amount to 10 percent of Djibouti’s GDP, providing about $300 million as rent. That has contributed to the quadrupling of per capita incomes in two decades. At $3,400, it is greater than that of Djibouti’s neighbours – Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Somalia – combined.

Moreover, hosting soldiers and their civilian entourages requires top-class facilities for housing, education, health, hospitality, etc. This means much needed upgrades of local facilities, thus improving the quality of service delivery for the general population too.

While chivalrous and radical in Africa, the Djiboutians’ approach appears to be common sense elsewhere.

When Donald Trump threatened to remove US bases from Germany, public opinion appeared to be mostly influenced by economics. Similarly, in nations such as Belgium, France, and Spain, which were to be beneficiaries of the new facilities, the biggest question was – what is in it for us?

There are about 1,000 military bases in the world, where 750 are American. Since 1990, the number of nations hosting US bases has increased from 40 to 80. In Europe, there are four in Spain, 11 in Belgium, 44 in Italy, 25 in UK, and over 100 in Germany. This means that there is nothing unique about hosting military bases. The main consideration ought to be the overlapping of interests.

There is another reason that appears to inform Africans – they largely assume that the Americans impose their military bases on their hosts, and that public opinion in those nations is against the Americans’ presence. Unfortunately, this is anecdotal at best, not corroborated by broad-based surveys. In fact, only Turkey, out of 14 nations recently surveyed, had a majority of people expressing unfavourable views of US presence. The vast majority of people in the Philippines, Poland, and Kuwait have a favourable opinion of the Americans, and believe that their nations are safer as a result.

In 2007, in the midst of the Africom hullaballoo, Liberian President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, wrote an article titled “Africom can help governments willing to help themselves”. She said, “Africom is undeniably about the projection of American interests—but this does not mean that it is to the exclusion of African ones.”

There is a need of mainstreaming this kind of thinking. African nations are not the only nations to have had deleterious effects of the West’s machinations. Some wounds may still be fresh, but it is unfortunate to confine Africa’s future to lose-lose strategic positions. Many nations have broken free from their pasts, and are sailing through into the future.

The Djiboutians’ positioning illustrates the value of pragmatism. Djibouti is made not only safer but also more prosperous (other issues remaining constant). Competitive positioning often leads to competitive advantage. This is, therefore, a call for Africa – and Tanzania in particular – to review its policy to this issue.