The US Counterterrorism Training Program Gets Under Way in West Africa

A special US counterterrorism training program for West Africa is at last under way -- a year after it was announced. I filed this report from the Pentagon on the Pan-Sahel Initiative in November, 2003.

The initiative is a multimillion dollar security training and equipment program to assist Chad, Mali, Mauritania and Niger in countering terrorist operations.

The program, funded by the State Department and carried out by the Pentagon, got under way this month in Mali and will continue in the other three countries over the next several months.

Army Colonel John Schnibben, operations director at the US military's European Command, responsible for most of sub-Saharan Africa, says the effort could have a big pay-off for the United States and its Sahel partners.

“It's a proactive approach to the war on terrorism that maybe if we spend a little bit of effort now, a few people now, in some of the small, focused programs throughout the AOR (area of responsibility), it would prevent us from having to deal with a larger problem later on.”

Colonel Schnibben says the initial training emphasis is on small-unit tactics so security forces in the four African countries will be better able to stop the formation of terrorist cells early instead of letting them fester. Military officials say the training will also cover other soldiering skills and first-aid training.

The equipment being turned over by the United States includes uniforms and helmets, generators, fuel containers, communications gear and medical supplies.

Pentagon officials have called Africa an area of growing concern because it is a continent where terrorist groups could take advantage of weak governments and porous borders. They say this is particularly true in the Sahel region, where terrorists with suspected links to al-Qaida have been operating in remote frontier areas among ethnic groups that are predominantly Islamic.

Implementation of the initiative comes after some US government sources expressed concern that officials in the four targeted Sahel countries promised the counter-terrorism training and assistance might be growing impatient.

Those sources told me last June they believed two stories about alleged terrorist threats aimed against the US embassy in Mali may have been concocted by Malian authorities anxious to obtain the pledged security aid.

Coming Next: The Story You Have Been Waiting For – The US Considers Air Strikes Against Suspected Terrorists in West Africa’s Wastelands!

The US Opens Its Embassy In An African Police State Run By A Corrupt Dictator

In October, 2003, with little fanfare and no formal announcement, the United States re-opened its embassy in the tiny West African country of Equatorial Guinea. Long viewed as a police state run by a corrupt dictator, Equatorial Guinea had by then emerged as a major oil producer that was now receiving heavy American investment.

When the original US embassy closed in 1995, budgetary considerations were cited. But privately, officials acknowledged the real reason involved Equatorial Guinea's poorhuman rights record.

Since then, however, more than one thousand American citizens have flocked to the small West African country, most of them oil workers. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Walter Kansteiner, who stepped down this past week, says those Americans need services that can only be provided by an embassy.

Mr. Kansteiner joined Equatorial Guinea's president, Teodoro Obiang, at low-key ribbon-cutting ceremonies for the new embassy in mid-October. He says he is pleased with the re-opening decision.

“We closed that embassy some seven or eight years ago. So we cut the ribbon, and we were glad to do it. You know, on any given day, we have up to one thousand 500 American citizens in Equatorial Guinea... And so we have, obviously, a huge obligation to consular affairs issues for all those Amcits [American citizens].”

Admittedly, it will be a small embassy -- with only a single American diplomat who doesn't hold ambassadorial rank, working out of a rented home.

But some human rights groups say even this sends the wrong signal to Equatorial Guinea's President Obiang, who seized power in a coup and won election last year in a vote that the State Department says was marred by extensive fraud and intimidation.

Sarah Wykes is with Global Witness, which campaigns for greater openness in the management of oil, gas and mining revenues worldwide.

“On paper, Equatorial Guinea has the fastest G-D-P [Gross Domestic Product] growth in the world and according to the World Bank its oil revenues may reach 700 million dollars this year. However you have to put that in the context of a country, again according to the World Bank, in which 65 percent of the population live in extreme poverty and all the oil wealth is concentrated in the hands of a mere five percent of the population. There have also been numerous reports of serious and persistent human rights violations by the Obiang regime and that's according to the US's own State Department... There is also very strong evidence of government misappropriation of oil revenues and that's according to the US's own Energy Information Agency.”

Still, the State Department hopes that by re-opening the mission, it will enable the United States to engage Equatorial Guinea's leaders. The goal will be to ensure the country's oil revenues are used to improve not only the human rights situation in the country but also the standard of living for its estimated population of about half a million.

But US authorities are taking a cautious approach. Because of its human rights problems and corruption, Equatorial Guinea has not been made eligible for trade benefits under the African Growth and Opportunity Act.

As for possible US military assistance, only some 50 thousand dollars has been set aside this year for a possible training program but even that tiny amount is contingent on progress in the human rights area. US officials have also declined to sanction a private American security company's 10 million dollar plan to revamp Equatorial Guinea's entire security structure.

Equatorial Guinea is split into two main parts, the island of Bioko, where the capital Malabo is located, and a stretch of the African mainland called Rio Muni, bordered by Cameroon and Gabon. It is the only Spanish-speaking country in sub-Saharan Africa, having gained independence from Spain in 1968. President Obiang came to power in a 1979 coup in which he overthrew his uncle, the country's first leader.

The General Has Africa Base Proposals But Keeps Silent On Details: Could Sao Tome Be In Play? Mali? Ethiopia?

The commander of the US military's European Command says he has made proposals to the Bush Administration for establishing new facilities in Africa. I reported in October 2003:

General James Jones declines to say what specific locations in Africa he has recommended to the Bush administration as sites for possible future US militaryfacilities.

But speaking at the Pentagon, General Jones says his plan for setting up what are called Forward Operating Locations is part of an overall effort intended to help US forces in Europe, postured in the past to meet a Soviet threat, to now meet 21st century challenges, including possible threats from Africa.

“Large ungoverned areas which are potential havens for the terrorists of the world and the future merchants of all kinds of things we are trying to do battle with. It is a huge continent and there are many places for this type of activity to go on so we are examining it, we're calling more attention to it and we think it's a source of future difficulty.”

General Jones says the European Command's proposals are now being weighed within the administration and could be subject to change. But he says the proposal stresses the potential utility of having such facilities.

“What we tried to do is explain the utility of Forward Operating Bases and Locations in this very dynamic century we're moving into as an example of how we can achieve strategic effect, greater engagement with the more focused use of rotational type forces which is a growing concept within the Army, the Navy and the Air Force of the United States and the Marines.”

The Pentagon already has special arrangements at various locations around Africa --- including a two-decade old access agreement with Kenya for ports and airfields.

It also has what is termed an "intermediate staging base" in Senegal, which is one of the US military's so-called "fuel hubs." Additional fuel hubs for US forces are located in Gabon, Ghana, Uganda and Zambia.

But a senior Pentagon official said earlier this year defense officials were considering an expansion of this network of facilities. The official said Mali, Ethiopia and Eritrea had all approached the United States to offer facilities.

One top US military commander suggested Sao Tome might also be an ideal location.

But the senior official emphasized there are no plans to establish any permanent US bases or even to station US military personnel in Africa to oversee these facilities.

Forward Operating Locations are not permanent military bases. They are instead facilities that could be used temporarily if needed in an emergency. They might consist of hangars or other warehouse type equipment storage buildings along with fuel facilities. They would not be continuously occupied by US military personnel.

The only sizeable US military presence in Africa is in Djibouti, where some 18-hundred personnel have been deployed in connection with the war on terrorism. But that base is considered temporary. Other US forces gathered off the coast of Liberia earlier this year to assist in a West African peacekeeping operation. But that was a short-term, emergency activity.

Pentagon: More African Offers of Facilities Than US Military Needs

A senior Pentagon official says the United States has received more offers for access to military facilities in sub-Saharan Africa than it can take up. But as I reported in late July 2003, the senior official insists the Bush administration has no plans to station military personnel on the continent permanently.

A senior Pentagon official says defense officials are considering an expansion of the network of military facilities which American forces have access to in Africa.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, links the Bush administration's interest in such an expansion to the global war on terrorism, calling it another reason besides humanitarian crises and emergency evacuations why US forces may have to conduct operations in Africa.

The Pentagon already has special arrangements at various locations around the continent including a two-decade old access agreement with Kenya for ports and airfields.

It also has what is termed an "intermediate staging base" in Senegal, which is one of the US military's so-called "fuel hubs." Additional fuel hubs for US forces are located in Gabon, Ghana, Uganda and Zambia.

Beyond these countries, the official says Mali has approached the United States to offer facilities --- an offer which the official says is under consideration.

Ethiopia has also offered US forces airfield access. But the official indicates that while this might be useful in the war on terrorism, it is not under active consideration.

The official says Eritrea is willing to open its airfields and ports to US forces and, given the country's strategic location, says, quoting now, "there could be something there in the future." But the official cautions that the Bush administration is not looking at Eritrea's offer seriously and notes there is what the official terms a "sizable political obstacle" --- a reference to Eritrea's continued detention of two local workers for the US Embassy.

The official concedes some of the sites currently open to US forces may require American-financed improvements.

But the senior official emphasizes there are no plans to establish any permanent US bases or even to station US military personnel in Africa to oversee these facilities.

The only sizable US military presence in Africa is in Djibouti, where some 18 hundred personnel have been deployed in connection with the war on terrorism. But that base is considered temporary.

Other US forces are gathering off the coast of Liberia to assist in a West African peacekeeping operation. But that is considered a short-term, emergency assistance activity.

The senior Pentagon official insists the United States is not imposing its forces on Africa, noting all arrangements granting access to military facilities involve negotiated agreements. The official says - quoting now - "They are not coerced in any way, shape or form and in many cases the offer comes first from the African country."

The official says there are more offers than the United States can take up because African countries perceive there will be benefits.

I obtained copies of a recent exchange of letters between the Pentagon and a leading African-American Congressman, who has suggested the Bush administration may be imposing its military will on Africa. Congressman Charles Rangel has written two such letters. The second came after he described as inadequate the Pentagon's response to his first. That response, a brief, two-paragraph letter, says many African countries have offered military access but emphasizes the Defense Department has no plans for permanent bases in Africa.

The senior official dismisses the Congressman's criticism about US intentions as unjustified but says another reply is being prepared.

Next: The commander of the US military's European Command says he has made proposals to the Bush Administration for establishing new facilities in Africa.

US Bases in Africa; Scouting the Somali Border

In mid-June 2003, a senior defense official said there were no plans at that time to increase the US military presence in Africa by opening permanent or even semi-permanent bases. But as I learned, the Pentagon was likely to seek expanded access to existing military facilities on the continent in case troop deployments are necessary in the future.

An article in the Wall Street Journal newspaper this past week quoted defense officials as saying as part of the Pentagon's post Cold War realignment of forces, the UnitedStates could open as many as a dozen semi-permanent bases in Africa. It said this could see an increase in the US military presence across the continent to as many as 65-hundred troops from the 15-hundred or so now based only in Djibouti.

The article quoted the unnamed Pentagon officials as saying the countries being looked at as the sites for new bases included Algeria, Morocco and possibly Tunisia along with Senegal, Ghana, Mali and Kenya.

But a senior defense official, responding to my questions, says, quoting now, "there are no plans afoot to base or even semi-permanently base troops in Africa."

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, says even the presence of US troops on anti-terrorist operations in Djibouti is a temporary phenomenon. The use of Camp Lemonier there is temporary, the official says, and the lease for the facility expires in two years. The official says whether it will be extended will depend on circumstances at the time. [Note: Since the US is still there, it is apparent the lease has been extended.]

The official concedes the Defense Department has always had an interest in gaining access to military facilities in Africa for use in such emergencies as non-combatant evacuations or crises like those of the past decade in Rwanda and Somalia. The official says the US military's European Command, which has oversight for most of Africa, currently has a so-called "fuel hubs initiative" with countries including Senegal and Ghana in order to gain support in emergencies. Airports in both those countries have been used by US forces recently in connection with possible evacuation operations. The official tells me efforts may be undertaken to reinforce and supplement these types of access and support agreements to allow for the construction of special facilities intended for US military use.

The official notes US forces have had "one or two" special hangars in Uganda since the 1990s. Those hangars are still in place at Entebbe Airport and the official says the United States recently turned them over for use by UN and French forces in connection with the current peacekeeping operation in northeastern Congo-Kinshasa.

In addition to possible facility construction, the official says US forces will continue to visit Africa from time to time to conduct exercises lasting from four to ten weeks. But the official notes these will only occur if operations elsewhere in the world permit training deployments.

In a related development, a spokesman for the US military's special Djibouti-based anti-terrorist task force has disclosed American troops have visited Ethiopia for training with Ethiopian forces. In that connection, the spokesman says US officials have in recent months carried out what he describes as "airfield surveys" in a variety of locations, including sites close to the Somali border. The spokesman says these missions were intended to identify sites for future training.

The spokesman denies the surveys represent any effort to "mass" US troops on the Somali border. A recent Somali news report, posted on the US military's Horn of Africa Task Force web site, claimed US and Ethiopian forces were gathering along the Somali border, perhaps in preparation for sealing it off in an apparent precautionary move aimed at blocking terrorist incursions.

Coming Up: Plans for US Bases in Africa?

In mid-June 2003, a senior defense official said there were no plans at that time to increase the US military presence in Africa by opening permanent or even semi-permanent bases. But as I learned, the Pentagon was likely to seek expanded access to existing military facilities on the continent in case troop deployments were necessary in the future.

Mali Concocts A Terror Plot To Speed US Security Aid?

Back on the terror track and the steps leading to the creation of AFRICOM: in May 2003, I reported that US officials had no information to substantiate two reports of alleged terrorist plots aimed against the American Embassy in the West African country of Mali.

A US defense official says over the last two weeks, several suspected terrorists with possible links to al-Qaida have been arrested in the border area between Algeria and Mali.

But this US official and others, speaking on condition of anonymity, say they have no information to substantiate two recent reports of alleged terrorist plots aimed against the US embassy in Bamako, Mali's capital.

One report, which appeared on the Internet Web site of the American broadcasting company ABC News, quoted foreign intelligence sources as saying Algerian and Malian security forces had uncovered evidence of a possible bomb plot in border raids. The alleged plan to bomb the embassy was linked to Mokhtar Belmokhtar, a former Algerian army colonel who I first reported last year has been operating an arms smugglingnetwork in west Africa with links to al-Qaida.

The second report appeared last month in the Bamako independent daily French-language newspaper Le Republicain. It alleged an anonymous telephone caller to the US embassy warned of an unspecified type of attack. The newspaper said the caller claimed to belong to a previously-unknown al-Qaida network operating in Mali.

Despite the reports, both Defense and State Department officials who spoke to me say there have been no recent changes in the security alert status at the US embassy in Bamako. Privately, some sources speculate the threat stories may be the concoctions of Malian authorities anxious to win US security assistance, capitalizing on known concerns in Washington about an emerging terrorist threat in West Africa.

US defense officials acknowledge the Algerian-Malian border area is not well-controlled by authorities of either country. They say the relatively remote area is also populated by Islamic groups that they characterize as "very rugged, individualistic" and "politically marginalized and ostracized." The officials say this makes it likely that terrorist groups like the one led by Mokhtar Belmokhtar find it easy to operate there.

US defense officials say they do not see the potential for a large terrorist center developing in the frontier area.

Nevertheless, the State Department late last year announced a Pan-Sahel Initiative to assist Mali, Niger, Chad, and Mauritania in detecting and responding to the suspicious movement of people and goods across and within their borders through training,equipment and cooperation.

A State Department announcement said the initiative would serve two US national security interests in Africa: waging the war on terrorism and enhancing regional peace and security.

US authorities credit Mali with taking what a State Department report calls "active steps to combat terrorism." The report says the Malian government has been particularly receptive to the idea of strengthening its borders.

If The Lions Don’t Get You, Maybe the South African Army Will: The Plight of Migrants in South Africa

A suspected Mozambican immigrant died a horrible death in mid-1998 after he was attacked and eaten by lions while trying to cross illegally into South Africa through a border game park. The incident focused fresh attention on the seemingly unending flood of illegals, mainly from poor or strife-torn African countries, trying to forge a new life in South Africa. South African officials complain the deluge is draining off resources critically needed to meet the socio-economic aspirations of South Africans themselves in the post-apartheid era. In 1998, 10 years before the latest anti-immigrant violence in South Africa, I travelled to a place near Komatipoort on the Mozambican border favored by most of the illegal border-crossers.

It is dusk -- and time for the soldiers of the South African Army's 33 Group to go on high alert along this section of the Mozambican frontier near the town of Komatipoort. This is the time of day the illegal border-crossers favor. Having made the day trip from Maputo a little over 100 kilometers away, they are ready to sneak across the border fence, push through the sugar cane fields on the South African side, and get down to the nearest road. From there, they hope to travel to places like Johannesburg -- to look for jobs in the mines, in restaurants, wherever.

Most of them will succeed. But the men and women of 33 Group, tipped by electronic monitoring wires in the border fence, caught nearly 22-thousand illegals last year in the 62-kilometer section of the frontier they patrol. That was nearly half of all the illegals caught along all of South Africa's borders during 1997. Still, it is believed to be just a fraction of the flood.

The commander of 33 Group, Colonel Hein Visser, says he would need a battalion to cut off the flow through his area of responsibility. But because of budget cuts, he could deploy only one company along the border last year. He is facing even greater spending cuts this year. To put it mildly, he is frustrated.

“This is not a military problem. This is a political, social, economic problem... This is a welfare thing. It's ladies, or it's women with children, it's old people, it's pregnant women and you know it's a hell of a burden on the soldier on the ground.”

Captain Gustav Brink is in direct command of the soldiers on the ground. He has watched the illegals cross and watched them get caught -- often the same persons several days in a row.

“What can we do, we just catch them and take them back, catch and take them back, nothing else we can do.”

The illegals coming across here are from places as far off as Burundi, Ethiopia and Somalia. But most are from Mozambique -- like the two glum-faced young men caught while I was touring the border fence. A South African Army corporal related their story.

“These two, they say they were on the way to Johannesburg. They hoped to get some work... All these immigrants, their problem is the same: about work in Mozambique, they don't have work.”

And they believe South Africa holds the key to their prosperity. Seventeen-year-old Marcus Manuel Fernando Toal, interviewed in the Army's border detention center before his deportation, sold brooms to get enough money to pay an escort to take him across
the border. He was unlucky. But speaking through an interpreter, he explained his hopes.

“People speak of South Africa and they say it's a place where you can get work and make a living without having to turn to crime.”

Unfortunately, South African officials claim a growing number of illegals are turning to crime -- to drug smuggling, gun-running, carjacking, prostitution, and more. Between that and the jobs they take from South Africans, more than 30 percent of whom are
unemployed, South African Home Affairs Minister Mangosuthu Buthelezi says it is not surprising there is growing resentment to foreigners.

Violence Against Immigrants in South Africa: It’s Not New

Because of the latest outbreak of anti-immigrant violence in South Africa, I thought it appropriate to interrupt the current stream of postings on US military involvement in Africa to recall that attacks on immigrants in South Africa are not new. But first, the latest news: President Thabo Mbeki has called on South Africans to treat foreigners with respect and dignity --- this after a week of violence in Johannesburg directed mainly at immigrants, many of them from Zimbabwe and Mozambique. Attackers are accusing the immigrants of taking jobs and increasing South Africa's already-high crime rate. At least 23 people have died in the latest unrest.

In June 1998, almost exactly 10 years ago, I reported from Johannesburg that South African hostility toward migrants -- legal and illegal alike -- from other African countries appeared to be on the rise. South africans accuse these foreigners of stealing jobs and business opportunities. They also blame them for crime and other social problems. Here is that original report from 10 years ago:

At a busy intersection in one of Johannesburg's wealthy, predominantly white suburbs, a 23-year-old Zambian sits patiently by the roadside, close to the small display of hand-made African toys he is selling to motorists.

Business is okay, he says, but he longs to return home. As someone from another African country, he says he has been made to feel unwelcome by South Africans who, he says, feel they are superior.

“The South Africans feel they are very superior. They feel when you leave a country and come here it's because you are running away from hunger, you are running away from poverty, you are running away from domestic problems such as political instability, such as a lot of fighting around African countries. So on those grounds they feel that since their country is better, it's free, there's no conflicts, and so on, that they're superior.”

The young man, let's call him John, has escaped physical attacks and theft of his property -- problems reported by other foreigners.

But he had to abandon his original market stall in another part of the city because of what he says was constant harassment from black South African traders. Since moving to his new location, John says his only problem has been with the police.

“They (police) are the people that normally come here and all the time they look at my papers and one time I happened to be hit in the chest by a white South African policewoman because I didn't produce my paper as quickly as she wanted it.”

John is not his real name. As a political refugee, who fled arrest in his native Zambia, he is concerned about his family's fate if his true identity is revealed. He is also worried about the possible reaction from South African authorities, who have granted him temporary residence while they investigate his asylum claim.

The US based human rights group, Human Rights Watch, recently voiced alarm at the growing resentment demonstrated to foreigners in South Africa. Noting how other African countries opened their doors to South Africans during the apartheid-era, the organization calls it "shameful" to see how hostile South Africans have become to present-day migrants and refugees in need.

Human Rights Watch has documented physical assaults on foreigners as well as the looting of their property. It has also accused South African government authorities, like the police, of victimizing migrants. The group cites cases of beatings and other forms of mistreatment at detention facilities for illegal immigrants awaiting deportation.

Responding to the charges, Home Affairs Minister Mangosuthu Buthelezi says the problems identified by Human Rights Watch do not reflect the mainstream of activities, practices, procedures and conduct carried out by his department. He calls many of the cases isolated incidents and charges the report contains many inaccuracies.

However, Mr. Buthelezi, in written remarks to a Parliamentary Committee, acknowledges some remedial actions are being taken to deal with problems exposed by Human Rights Watch. He says the Home Affairs Department is committed to eradicating violence and harassment directed at foreigners.

Next: A 1998 trip to South Africa’s border with Mozambique to join troops trying to catch would-be illegal frontier-crossers.

NATO In Search Of A Mission: The General Predicts Greater Attention on Africa

In May 2003, one of America's top military leaders predicted the United States and its NATO allies would begin focusing greater attention on instability in Africa in the future. But as I reported at the time, defense officials stressed that no firm decisions had been made.

In the post-Cold War era, a Pentagon official says, NATO might best be described as an alliance in search of a mission.

Now, the American four-star general, who is NATO's senior military commander, is suggesting one future mission for alliance forces might be found in Africa.

General James Jones, the former commandant of the Marine Corps, moved to Europe at the beginning of this year to take over the NATO post, as well as the job of commander of the US European Command, which oversees American forces in Europe and has military responsibility for most of Africa.

General Jones' job, says one top Pentagon official, is to shake up the alliance and the command, and his mandate is backed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Mr. Rumsfeld, speaking to American soldiers in Baghdad this week, says new thinking is needed to meet the threats of the 21st century.

“What we are doing now is systematically working with our friends and allies around the world to examine our footprint, to see where we are, how we want to be arranged for the future. And there is no question in my mind, but that we have a – probably too large a number of folks in Western Europe that -- some of which is still a leftover from the Cold War and the fear of the Soviet Union coming across the North German plain. It was appropriate then. It is less appropriate now.”

Mr. Rumsfeld predicts what he characterizes as adjustments in the US presence, as well as new assignments for forces assigned to NATO.

“So General Jones, the European commander and the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, is in the process of analyzing that. And there is no doubt in my mind that, but that, we will be making adjustments. As to what particular units he will decide oughtto be shifted and make a recommendation to me, we are just not at that point yet.”

General Jones indicated this week in a meeting with a small group of Washington defense writers that more attention may be paid to Africa, an area where he concedes there has, until now, been only what he terms "a very marginal effort" to confront potential security threats.

In the past, he notes, most American military involvement on the continent has been by Special Forces and defense contract teams, mostly pursuing training missions.

But he points out there are many potential threats brewing in Africa, threats not only to the NATO alliance but to US interests. He says these include what he describes as "some large ungoverned areas ... that are clearly the new routes of narco-trafficking, terrorist training and just hot beds of instability."

General Jones names no countries, and offers no specific ideas on how NATO forces might counter such threats. But he suggests one way the United States might contribute is by re-directing aircraft carrier strike groups, so that they spend more time in waters off Africa than in more conventional areas like the Mediterranean.

Off West Africa, that would put them inposition to cast a protective shadow over offshore oil facilities that provide an increasing amount of America's energy needs. General Jones says, quoting now, "as Africa becomes more and more of a challenge and more and more of a focus for, not only us but for the alliance, the carrier battle groups ...and the expeditionary strike groups of the future may not spend six-months in the Med (Mediterranean). But, I will bet they spend half the time going down the west coast of Africa, and starting a fairly focused engagement in that part of the world."

He notes that is something US naval forces have not done in the past. In fact, a spokesman for the US European Command tells me that, unlike other parts of the world, there is no existing port call plan for US naval vessels to make regular scheduled stops in Africa.

That could change in the future. But for the moment, Pentagon officials stress, none of the new ideas under consideration have been formally approved by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld.

Next: A terrorist threat to Americans in Mali?

Security Assistance for a Human Rights Abuser?

Long viewed as a police state run by a corrupt dictator, Equatorial Guinea had by 2002 become the fourth largest recipient of US investment in Africa, following significant oil discoveries. But continuing concern about human rights problems in the tiny West African country effectively blocked a proposed US security assistance plan sought by Equatorial Guinea's President.

In 1988, the United States donated a 20 meter patrol boat to Equatorial Guinea's Navy to police its coastal economic zone. That boat, like most of the small West African country's large pieces of military equipment, is no longer operational.

But with official military contacts essentially dormant since the early 1990's because of US human rights concerns, Equatorial Guinea's President, Teodoro Obiang, knew better than to approach Washington for formal help in getting his country's small military back into shape.

Instead he did the next best thing, approaching MPRI, or Military Professional Resources Incorporated, a private American security company run by retired military officers. According to an application submitted by the firm to the State Department in 1998, President Obiang wanted MPRI to assist in establishing "an effective national security enhancement program."

The proposed 10-million dollar deal was designed to beef up the ability of Equatorial Guinea's armed forces to control the country's borders, both land and sea. It would have included training for both land and sea forces, including training in logistics and maintenance, and recommendations for new equipment purchases to replace such now-defunct items as that American-donated patrol boat.

But the program is now dead, according to MPRI spokesman Ed Soyster. He says there were objections by the State Department and some members of Congress concerned about human rights abuses in Equatorial Guinea.

“It's essentially dead from the standpoint of, I don't think the State Department is going to change [its attitude], and there's some congressional interest as well.”

The State Department did not totally reject MPRI's 1998 application. But when it finally responded last year, it said it would only sanction a coast guard assistance program --nothing else. Mr. Soyster says that was not enough for President Obiang who he says is now likely to look elsewhere for assistance.

“Probably the president will look somewhere else to have the work done and there's obviously a lot of interest now and other countries will probably ask if he wants the assistance to give it.”

Foreign interest in Equatorial Guinea has been booming because of recent oil discoveries. It is already the fourth largest recipient of American investment in Africa. Oil company representatives have visited the Pentagon to lobby for greater US engagement in the country's security.

The prospect of Equatorial Guinea now turning somewhere else for assistance does not sit well with some Pentagon officials. One military source tells me that having MPRI in the country would be useful. The source fears the alternatives for Equatorial Guinea are likely to be China, North Korea, Russia or Ukraine.

But even this source acknowledges Equatorial Guinea's leaders are notorious human rights violators.

MPRI spokesman Soyster says in the company's discussions with President Obiang, he admitted to past mistakes but insisted he wanted to change his ways, with MPRI's help.

“He openly talked about his record on human rights and wanting to change that and hoped that we could be of assistance in that process.”

Documents I obtained show MPRI tried to sway the State Department to support its proposed deal by emphasizing how it could help in the human rights area. The firm pledged that it would, quoting now, "keep human rights in the forefront." It also said it would help train soldiers not just for combat, but for helping the people. MPRI proposed training civic action battalions that could assist in road building, health care and disaster relief.

But allegations of human rights abuses in the country have not diminished. In the past year alone, for example, Amnesty International has protested the alleged use of torture against some 70 people detained on charges of undermining the security of the state. The defendants have included members of Equatorial Guinea's political opposition. News reports say their detention came ahead of planned national elections.

Equatorial Guinea is split in two main parts, the island of Bioko, and a stretch of the African mainland called Rio Muni. It is bordered by Cameroon, Gabon and the Gulf of Guinea. The United States closed its embassy in the capital, Malabo, on Bioko island, in 1995. State Department officials say there are plans to re-open a small diplomatic office there next year to meet the needs of the growing number of American oil workers. Officials say the mission will also be able to encourage human rights improvements.

Oil Trumps Human Rights: Ties With Equatorial Guinea Despite The Squeamishness

In mid-November 2002, American officials revealed to me that the United States planned to re-open an embassy in Equatorial Guinea despite lingering concerns over human rights abuses in the small West African nation. As I reported at the time, the move followed pressure from American oil companies who have invested heavily in the country.

A State Department official says the Bush administration's plan is to open what is described as a "small embassy" next year (2003) in Malabo, the island-based capital ofEquatorial Guinea, a small West African nation divided in two main parts: the island of Bioko and Rio Muni on the mainland.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, the US official says the reason for the diplomatic move is to provide services to a growing number of American citizens, most of them oil workers in what was once the only Spanish colony in sub-Saharan Africa.

But the official also tells says that having a diplomatic presence will allow the US government to discuss with authorities in Equatorial Guinea the need to improve the human rights situation there. The country is still described by US intelligence sources as a police state with an abysmal record of human rights abuses and political repression.

[Despite the “engagement” of an embassy, things don’t appear to have changed much since. The latest US State Department Human Rights report on Equatorial Guinea states: “The following human rights problems were reported: abridgement of citizens' right to change their government; instances of physical abuse of prisoners and detainees by security forces; poor conditions in prisons and detention facilities; impunity; arbitrary arrest, detention, and incommunicado detention; harassment and deportation of foreign residents with limited due process; judicial corruption and lack of due process; restrictions on the right to privacy; restrictions on freedom of speech and of the press; restrictions on the right of assembly, association, and movement; government corruption; violence and discrimination against women; suspected trafficking in persons; discrimination against ethnic minorities; and restrictions on labor rights.”]

The United States closed its last embassy in the country in 1995, citing budgetary restrictions. Responsibility for American interests was shifted to the US Embassy in Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea's main neighbor.

But since the closure, there have been significant oil discoveries in Equatorial Guinea -- and the tiny country, with fewer than 500-thousand inhabitants, has become the fourth largest recipient of American investment in Africa, behind South Africa, Nigeria and Angola.

Official sources say those oil companies are deeply concerned about the security of their investments -- one reason they have been pressing for greater US engagement, including a formal security assistance program.

But security is one area where there are clear signs of continuing official US squeamishness in dealing with Equatorial Guinea. The Pentagon has had no military-to-military contacts with Equatorial Guinea since 1997 and US authorities have declined to sanction a private American security company's 10-million dollar plan to revamp Equatorial Guinea's entire security structure.

Instead, MPRI, a Virginia-based firm run by retired military officers, has been granted a US license only to assist Equatorial Guinea with coast guard activities. A spokesman for MPRI, which stands for Military Professional Resources Incorporated, says that as a result, the program has been essentially abandoned.

Next: More on the MPRI security plan.

P.S. I seem to recall the State Department did not openly announce the decision to reopen the embassy but only disclosed it to reporters who asked -- a strange way of doing things, in my view, and apparently a sign that State itself recognized the move was distasteful.

Africa: Oil, The War on Terror, The US Military And Rumors And Speculation

Africa has become an increasingly important source of oil for the United States and possible American military involvement in the security of the continent's oil facilities has been the subject of intense speculation. But as I reported in November 2002, there is a vast gap between rumor and reality – something that hasn’t changed in 2008.

The rumors have included one about the possible establishment of a US naval base on the tiny but oil rich West African island nation of Sao Tome.

Another foresees the imminent deployment of a special fleet to patrol the lucrative oil fields of the Gulf of Guinea.

But a senior Pentagon official says that while African oil is important to the United States, so far all that has happened from a military standpoint is contingency planning.

The official, interviewed at the Pentagon, insisted on anonymity, but in an unusual arrangement, agreed to allow her voice to be used.

“African oil is an increasing factor in the oil sector. There's no question about that. From the defense perspective, given that fact, we would be remiss if we did not spend some time thinking about the security implications of this for us.”

Indeed, while African oil presently makes up about 15 percent of all US imports, analysts are forecasting that number will grow to 25 percent in the near future. US oil company investments on the continent are now in the billions of dollars.

But with such competing priorities as the war on terrorism, a possible conflict with Iraq and plans for deploying a missile defense system, the senior official says the military resources available for Africa are simply too limited for anyone to expect a sudden and significant US armed presence in West Africa.

In any event, the official minimizes the potential threat to oil facilities there.

“Right now, our view is we don't have to take any extraordinary measures; that the vulnerability of these assets at the present time is not such that we need to put bases in Sao Tome or have constant naval presence all along the coast of Africa or puthundreds of millions of dollars in security facilities in these nations.”

Still, this official acknowledges American oil company executives have visited her Pentagon office to voice concern about the security of their investments -- most recently discussing their investments in tiny Equatorial Guinea. While its oil output is still relatively small compared to such powerhouses on the continent as Nigeria and Angola, it has become the fourth largest recipient of American investment in Africa -- behind those two countries and South Africa.

But Equatorial Guinea can expect no American troops or naval vessels. Instead, all the US government has sanctioned is involvement by a private American company in developing a coast guard security program. The firm, MPRI, was initially approached four years ago by Equatorial Guinea's President, Teodoro Obiang, to provide a sweeping security overhaul for the country, on both land and sea.

But US officials remain concerned about what they see as Equatorial Guinea's abysmal human rights record, and they have blocked all but the maritime security plan.

Next: The US Plans To Re-Open Its Embassy in Equatorial Guinea As Oil Apparently Trumps Human Rights.

AfroTerror: The Pan-Sahel Security Initiative Unveiled

Soon after learning about the US concerns over alleged terrorists operating in West Africa, I reported that the Pentagon was working with four West African governments to improve their border security capabilities against terrorist penetration. This report in November 2002 was the unveiling of the Pan-Sahel Initiative. (The PSI was followed in 2005 by the Trans Saharan Counterterrorism Initiative.)

A senior Defense Department official says the Pentagon is working with Chad, Mali, Mauritania and Niger to improve their security forces' ability to control border areas and to respond to suspicious activities in remote frontier sites.

The senior official, speaking on condition of anonymity, says the Pentagon believes the four countries are particularly vulnerable because they have, what the official terms, very porous borders and vast chunks of territory where the governments have limited or no control.

The official says this makes the region a "great operating area" for terrorists, arms smugglers and other criminal groups interested in avoiding detection. The official also notes the four countries border nations like Sudan, Libya, and Algeria that harbor known terrorist groups.

The official describes the Pentagon's assistance effort as a long-term program that also involves the State Department and other agencies. The official says a key aim is to get the countries to work together and also to get individual agencies in the separate countries, like Ministries of Defense and Interior, to cooperate.

The official says the assistance effort is still in the planning and discussion stage. But the official indicates it will involve military training and possibly equipment sales. The official gives no details, but suggests the emphasis will be on training and equipment that improves the ability of security forces in the region to move quickly into remote areas and to communicate.

The senior defense official declines comment directly on my report earlier this week that quoted intelligence sources as saying an al-Qaida terrorist connection has been identified in West Africa that could be a threat to stability in that region.

The sources said a man they identified as a former Algerian Army Colonel named Mokhtar Belmokhtar has been operating an arms smuggling network that has been floating between Algeria, Mali and Mauritania. They said the group, known by the initials MBM, has conducted arms deals with various radical Islamic organizations, including Algeria's Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat, which has been linked directly to al-Qaida.

The sources say that authorities in Mali have staged at least one military action against the group. They say the action failed to result in the death or capture of any of the suspected terrorists. But they say the action, in the words of one intelligence source, "sent a clear message" to the Belmokhtar organization.

Next: A Naval Base in Sao Tome?

Africa: Suddenly, The Al-Qaida Connection Rears Its Head

In 2002, US officials uncovered what they believed was an al-Qaida terrorist connection in west Africa that they said could be a threat to stability in that region. I had this exclusive report in November 2002.

Intelligence sources say a man they identify as a former Algerian Army Colonel named Mokhtar Belmokhtar has been operating an arms smuggling network in west Africa that has links to al-Qaida.

These sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, say the man, whose group is known by the initials, MBM, floats between Algeria, Mali and Mauritania. The sources say MBM has conducted arms deals with various radical Islamic organizations, including Algeria's Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat.

The Salafist group, also known by the initials GSPC, is headed by Hassan Hattab, who is considered a key al-Qaida associate. A Salafist document is among those reportedly found in the luggage of September 11th hijacker Mohamed Atta.

US officials say they now view MBM as a potential threat to American interests in west Africa. They claim the group, in addition to supplying arms to al-Qaida, could also provide shelter to fugitive al-Qaida leaders.

The disclosure of US interest in terrorist connections in west Africa comes as the Chief Pentagon spokeswoman, Victoria Clarke, says America's armed forces are prepared to go after al-Qaida wherever they can.

“We've made it very, very clear that we will go after the al-Qaida wherever we can.”

However it is unclear whether the Pentagon might be considering creation of a new military task force like the one being deployed to the Horn of Africa to tackle possible terrorist activities in west Africa.

Algeria's problems with terrorists are well known. However little has been heard of any apparent terrorist activities in Mali --- save the reported detentions of several Pakistanis shortly after the September 11th al-Qaida terrorist attacks in the United States. Officials later said there was no evidence of any terrorist connections by the Pakistanis, who were arrested after a meeting held in support of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.

At the time, there were suggestions the detentions may have been ordered by Malian authorities in an effort to show interest in cooperating with the United States in the war on terrorism.

Next: The Pentagon begins working with four West African governments to improve their border security capabilities against terrorist penetration.

Coming Up Next: The Al-Qaida Connection Rears Its Head

In 2002, US officials uncovered what they believed was an al-Qaida terrorist connection in West Africa that they said could be a threat to stability in that region. See the exclusive original report here next.

AFRICOM: Is It The Oil?

Increasing US energy reliance on sub-Saharan African oil-exporting countries could pave the way to expanded security cooperation between the Bush administration and select African governments. In late April 2002, from the Pentagon, I looked at some of the factors that may help push defense planners toward closer military ties with Africa.

Islamic oil-producing countries in the Middle East suspend energy exports to the United States, hoping to use oil as a weapon to weaken American support for Israel. The move forces energy-hungry Washington to rely more heavily on oil exporters elsewhere, including Africa.

But along the oil-rich coast of West Africa, militants seize offshore rigs owned by US multinationals. Because local naval forces are extremely small with most ships in poor condition and many effectively abandoned, there is no quick military response.

These are mere fictional scenarios.

But they reflect the kinds of concerns prompting Pentagon planners to evaluate potential actions aimed at bolstering the security of America's energy sources in Africa. They also explain a terse and almost-cryptic line by Michael Westphal, the Pentagon's top African affairs official, during a recent news conference.

“We're also working to identify an African as well as US awareness in the importance of African energy reserves.”

In the year 2000, the United States imported oil from seven African countries. The principal African sources were Nigeria and Angola, both in the top 10 of all US foreign oil suppliers. The other African sources, in order, were Gabon, Congo Brazzaville, Congo Kinshasa, Cameroon and Ivory Coast.

Mr. Westphal says Africa already holds a significant share of the US market and its share is likely to grow.

“To begin with, 15 percent of the US's imported oil supply comes from sub-Saharan Africa. This is also a number which has the potential for increasing significantly in the next decade.”

For the moment, US military-to-military relations with African countries are extremely limited, both in scope and funding. The biggest program of recent years has seen the training of several thousand select African army soldiers in peacekeeping and crisisresponse. That program is currently being redesigned.

But Africa experts at the Defense Department are already looking ahead to an expanded military cooperation program. Sources suggest this could include a first-ever naval assistance plan linked to improving security for offshore African oil fields.

Under this plan, the United States might work to improve African naval capabilities in the Gulf of Guinea, perhaps providing oil exporting countries in the region with patrol vessels as well as training in a host of naval and coast guard type tactics. This could not only enhance security at offshore or coastal oil installations, an issue of economic importance to the United States, but it could also help African countries enforce their sovereign rights at sea --- cracking down on illegal fishing operations and interrupting the flow of illegal drugs, weapons and slaves.

The concept has not yet taken on a formal shape nor has it been presented to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for consideration. But Pentagon sources appear to believe military relations with African countries now stand their best chance ever of expanding --- given such factors as the Bush administration's concerns about Middle East stability and the past energy industry connections of such senior officials as Vice President Dick Cheney, a former Defense Secretary.

Expanded military ties could in turn lead to a re-evaluation of America's Unified Command Plan, under which senior generals and admirals have been been assigned command responsibilities spanning the globe.

Africa has no independent command of its own. Responsibility for the continent in military matters is shared mainly by the US European Command and the Central Command, which focuses chiefly on the Middle East and South Asia.

Pentagon officials say Africa has not merited its own command because while it is an area of interest to the United States, it is not an area of "vital" national interest.

The growing importance of African oil could change that assessment.

No AFRICOM Yet

In April 2002, the Pentagon released a revised US global military organization plan. It left one major world geographic area uncovered by its own unique and dedicated American military command. That area was Africa. I had this report.

The highlight of the new US command plan is the creation of Northern Command, called NorthCom. It will, for the first time, coordinate military responsibilities in North America, including the defense of US territory.

It joins the other existing so-called, unified military commands with geographic responsibilities - SouthCom, covering Central and South America; EuCom, or the European Command covering East and West Europe including Russia; PaCom, responsible for the Asia-Pacific region; and CentCom, or Central Command, covering the Middle East and Southwest Asia.

But there is no Africa Command.

The responsibility for coordinating military-to-military matters with officials on the African continent is still split between the US European
Command and the Central Command (and the Pacific Command). It reflects what the Pentagon's top Africa official concedes is the continent's low-priority status at the Department of Defense.

But Michael Westphal insists Africa is important and events there are followed closely by the Pentagon.

“Africa is not always a topic, which is high on the agenda list here in the Pentagon. But I am here to tell you that it is actually something, which does matter, and we do follow it very closely.”

One reason Mr. Westphal says Africa is important, and stands to grow in importance, is its oil production.

“Fifteen-percent of the United States' imported oil supply comes from sub-Saharan Africa. This is also a number that has a potential for increasing significantly in the next decade."

Mr. Westphal says Bush administration officials are, in his words, "working to identify an African as well as US awareness in the importance of African energy reserves." He does not explain how nor did he respond to a request for elaboration.

But the energy card has clearly not played well, at least among military planners. Senior officials effectively say Africa does not merit its own dedicated US military command because, while there are US interests on the continent, they do not consider them "vital" interests.

Mr. Westphal concedes Africa gets short-shrift when it comes to military budget resources.

“Because overall resources for military-to-military activities in sub-Saharan Africa are limited, and we do not have US military infrastructure on the continent, we wound up doing a lot more with a lot less.”

The list of current Defense Department projects in Africa is relatively short. There is the recent munitions removal project in Nigeria, conducted jointly with Nigerian and British forces to clear up unexploded ordnance from a tragic January accident in Lagos. There is a military health initiative involving HIV/Aids prevention among soldiers in select African countries. There is a small US role in the Nuba Mountains Joint Military Commission, designed to monitor a cease-fire between Sudanese government troops and rebels.

And there are also training programs, including the Africa Crisis Response Initiative helping African nations respond to peacekeeping missions and humanitarian crises. That program is currently being re-designed, the Pentagon says, leaving only the Africa Center for Strategic Studies actively involved in training.

The Center offers courses for civilian and military leaders from Africa in civil-military relations, national security strategy, and defense economics.

All in all, it is not much.

But the mere fact that Pentagon Africa chief Westphal recently appeared before reporters to discuss the programs was unprecedented. As one African magazine reporter who attended the briefing said, when he first heard it was taking place, he did not believe it.

The Pentagon and Africa: A Warning About Terrorist Havens

In April 2002, the Pentagon's then top official on Africa was warning that many countries in sub-Saharan Africa could be havens for terrorists. Let’s begin our look at the origins of AFRICOM with this report:

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for African Affairs Michael Westphal says the United States is closely monitoring the situation in Somalia.

US officials have long considered Somalia a potential haven for al-Qaida terrorists because of its lack of a central government and its long and porous borders.

But Mr. Westphal tells reporters at the Pentagon it is unknown at this moment to what extent al-Qaida may have found a sanctuary in Somalia and what activities the group's members may be involved in if they are there.

Still, the senior Pentagon Africa official warns there are many other countries on the continent where terrorists could find a foothold --- even using Africa countries as bases for operations as well as for activities like fund-raising.

“When I look at the map of Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, I see many countries that are not failed-states but they may not necessarily have the government structures to deal with or to keep track of who is coming in and out of their country and what they are doing. So there is plenty of potential throughout the continent to serve as a haven, base of operations, etc. for terrorists.”

Mr. Westphal declines to single out any country by name and will not say how much Defense Department funding for programs in Africa is directed at counter-terrorism efforts.

But he says any programs aimed at promoting stability on the continent are of assistance in halting the spread of terrorist activities.

“Instability creates a vacuum which can draw terrorists to it so by working on things such as stability issue, written large, that is something in and of itself that helps to deal with the war on terrorism.”

Mr. Westphal says the Pentagon is working to develop military partnerships with individual countries and regional groups for crisis response, peace support and humanitarian operations.

Among the Pentagon's current activities in Africa, US troops are working with Nigerian and British military personnel to clear unexploded munitions left over from a fatal series of accidental explosions in January.

There is also a health initiative under way focusing on HIV/Aids prevention among uniformed military personnel in select Africa countries.

Coming Up This Week

A look at US military involvement in Africa...and crucial steps on the way to the creation of AFRICOM.

CongoNuke: When Does Missing Not Mean Missing? (And where else has this kind of IAEA accounting gone on?)

Authorities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2002 received support from an unlikely source for their contention that no nuclear materials were missing from the small research reactor in Kinshasa. This was the final report in my exclusive series.

Nuclear officials in Kinshasa reacted with predictable outrage when I reported that not one but two fuel rods have gone missing from the research reactor and that one is still unaccounted for.

In a statement, these officials denounced the report as "absurd" and an "invention" --- even though the source of the disclosure about the missing low-enriched nuclear materials came from the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Its spokesman revealed the IAEA had known about the missing rods since the mid-1970's, keeping silent about the matter until four years ago when one of the fuel elements was recovered in Italy from criminals.

It kept silent about the second missing rod until I raised questions this month (July 2002) about the additional loss.

Now the IAEA has come to the support of authorities in the Congo, explaining their denial of any lost nuclear materials.

In a statement, IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky says, quoting now, "several years ago the Congolese adjusted the inventory of their material to take into consideration the two missing fuel elements."

Mr. Gwozdecky says their denial therefore, in his words, "is accurate from the standpoint of this new baseline for their inventory."

As for the IAEA's own quarter-century-long silence on the missing material, the spokesman explains that all so-called nuclear safeguards information is confidential.

But he reveals the latest inspection of the one megawatt Kinshasa research reactor took place just this past Tuesday, July 9th. He calls the inspection routine --- despite the recent publicity.

He says all nuclear materials at the facility were accounted for --- minus, of course, the one missing fuel element no longer carried on the reactor's official inventory.

Note: Hmmmmmm. Is this standard inventory accounting practice for any other nuclear facilities?

CongoNuke: The Authorities in Kinshasa Cry Foul

Despite confirmation from the International Atomic Energy Agency, authorities in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2002 denied that another nuclear fuel rod was missing from the small research reactor in Kinshasa.

In a statement, the Regional Center for Nuclear Studies in Kinshasa dismisses as "false,""absurd" and an "invention" last week's report that nuclear material is missing from the one-megawatt Congolese reactor.

But the confirmation of the loss of low-enriched uranium fuel rods comes directly from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' body in charge of promoting the safe and peaceful use of nuclear energy worldwide.

IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky revealed last week for the first time that the agency has known two fresh fuel assemblies were missing from the reactor since the mid-1970's. That information had never before been made public.

But the loss of one fuel rod was confirmed after officials in Italy recovered one of the assemblies from criminals in a 1998undercover operation.

That a second fuel rod was also missing and unaccounted for remained a closely-held secret until last week when Mr. Gwozdecky, responding to my inquiry, disclosed its loss. He said its whereabouts remain unknown and authorities cannot rule out the possibility it is in the hands of terrorists.

Still, he downplayed the potential danger.

“Although the whereabouts of that single fuel element are not known, we would say that one element would be of essentially no use in constructing a nuclear device, nuclear explosive device, and it would also be a poor choice for constructing aradiological or so-called dirty bomb.”

It is unclear why authorities in Kinshasa would deny the loss of the nuclear materials, especially since the loss was disclosed by the IAEA.

However, some nuclear industry sources say Congolese officials, as a matter of national pride, have in the past resisted international efforts to shut down or impose stricter controls on the reactor, long considered a kind of embarrassment as well as a potential hazard.

IAEA spokesman Gwozdecky said in an interview the agency has sent several expert missions to Kinshasa to inspect the facility and to recommend improvements. He said authorities there have been cooperative.

“I think it is important to say that while there were measures that needed to be corrected, and a good number of them, that the authorities in Congo have taken the recommendations that we have put to them very seriously and have done a number of things to address both the safety issues with regard to the reactor and security issues.”

Nevertheless, the spokesman, in his words, says the reactor still "has some ways to go" before the IAEA would certify it meets all requirements.

Kinshasa received its first research reactor in the late 1950's under the late US President Dwight Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace program. The more modern Triga Mark Two reactor replaced the original facility in the early 1970's.

Next: The IAEA explains the Congolese denial. Trust us, it’s a weird one.