Search

Two dialectical tendencies in military affairs have characterized the ethos of Tanzania under Julius Nyerere. One is a marked distrust of men professionally under arms at home and in inter-African relations. The other is a faith in military or quasi-military solutions to some of the remaining colonial problems, in Africa. In this paper,author hopes first to demonstrate that there has been a tradition of anti-militarism in Tanganyika, going back well into the days before the union with Zanzibar. Involved in this is the story of East African integration at large. This article then examines the growth of militancy in African liberation movements and how this affected the nature of Tanganyika's involvement in such movements. Tanganyika attained internal self -government in the same year in. which the Congo attained her independence. Tanganyika also shared a border with the Congo! This double-nearness to the Congo's experience caused speculation about Tanganyika's future as she approached independence.

The establishment of a military command for Africa (US AFRICOM) symbolizes the radical repositioning of the US military. Facilitated by the consensus in contemporary Western foreign policies - that there can be no development without security - over the last ten years the US military has expanded its activities into civilian domains including development and conflict prevention. As a reaction to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, recent US military doctrines on counterinsurgency and stability operations have singled out the need for more civilian and long-term activities as a precondition for success. AFRICOM has put most of these „military innovations" into practice. Due to the command's focus on development activities, on civil-military coordination and its proposed engagement in non-war situations, in military circles AFRICOM is seen as a role model for future military practices. This paper problematizes the military's expanding mandate and discusses its implications. It argues that the military's increasing engagement in issues of governance and development deeply blurs the normative boundary between the military and the civilian and exposes development as a technology of security. Furthermore, the military's repositioning follows the dominant securitization of so- called „fragile states" and classifies social spaces along Western strategic interests. As a consequence, targeted communities find it hard to separate development efforts aimed at countering poverty and those aimed at countering insurgency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]