Foreign military bases: Strategic assets with catastrophic costs for host nations

Foreign military bases are installations or facilities located outside the home territory of a state, primarily used to project military power, protect strategic interests, and maintain global influence. They have been a significant aspect of international security strategies since ancient times, serving as critical points for resupply, strategic defense, and power projection. The concept of […]

Foreign military bases are installations or facilities located outside the home territory of a state, primarily used to project military power, protect strategic interests, and maintain global influence. They have been a significant aspect of international security strategies since ancient times, serving as critical points for resupply, strategic defense, and power projection.

The concept of foreign military bases has a long history, dating back to the ancient empires. The Romans established fortresses across Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East to maintain control over their vast territories. Similarly, the British Empire relied on strategic bases worldwide during its peak, enabling it to control sea routes and colonial possessions.

After World War II, the geopolitical landscape shifted dramatically, leading to the establishment of a new global network of foreign military bases. The United States and the Soviet Union emerged as superpowers, seeking to expand their influence during the Cold War. This period saw a rapid increase in the number of foreign bases as both superpowers sought to secure strategic positions globally.

During the Cold War, foreign military bases became central to US and Soviet military strategies. The United States established bases throughout Western Europe, the Middle East, and the Asia-Pacific region to counter Soviet influence. Key bases like Ramstein Air Base in Germany, Kadena Air Base in Okinawa, and the US Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay became strategic assets in projecting US military power.

• The vanity in the Abuja land
• Italian authorities demote prosecutor for misconduct in OPL 245 proceedings

The Soviet Union, similarly, maintained bases in Eastern Europe and allied countries, creating a network to support its global ambitions. The Soviet military presence in Cuba, Vietnam, and Ethiopia showcased its strategic reach beyond the immediate European theatre.

After the Cold War, many foreign military bases were closed or downsized as global strategic priorities shifted. However, the United States maintained a substantial network of bases, reflecting its continued role as a global superpower. NATO’s eastward expansion and the “War on Terror” post-9/11 led to the establishment of new bases in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Central Asia.

Meanwhile, emerging powers like China and Russia have also begun to expand their military presence abroad. China’s first overseas military base in Djibouti and Russia’s bases in Syria signal a shift toward a more multipolar global military presence.

Today, the global distribution of foreign military bases is dominated by a few major powers. The United States has the largest network of foreign military bases, with estimates ranging between 600 and 800 installations in around 80 countries. Key strategic regions include Europe with bases in Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and Poland which serves as the backbone of NATO’s military infrastructure.

In the Middle East, it has bases in Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, and Iraq, playing crucial roles in US military operations in the region. In Asia-Pacific, it has installations in Japan, South Korea, and in Guam that supports US operations in the Indo-Pacific region. In Africa, the US maintains bases and drone facilities in Djibouti, Kenya, and (until recently) in Niger for counter-terrorism operations.

Russia maintains military bases in several former Soviet states and allies, including Eastern Europe with bases in Belarus and the Kaliningrad enclave. In the Caucasus and Central Asia, it has installations in Armenia, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. In Syria, Russia’s naval facility in Tartus and airbase in Latakia support its strategic interests in the Middle East.

China’s military presence abroad is still relatively new but rapidly expanding. In Djibouti, China establishes its first overseas military base. In Pakistan, China has potential naval facilities in Gwadar. In the South China Sea, its militarised artificial islands provide strategic support to its interests.

Other nations also maintain limited networks of foreign military bases. France has bases in West Africa and the Indian Ocean. The United Kingdom has military facilities in Cyprus, the Falkland Islands, and Brunei. Turkey maintains bases in Qatar and Somalia.

Despite the strategic importance of foreign military bases for superpowers, their presence often results in significant negative implications for the host nations. These implications are multi-dimensional, ranging from economic and political to social and environmental.

The presence of foreign military bases often leads to economic dependency. Host nations can become reliant on the economic benefits provided by the bases, such as employment opportunities and local business support. However, this dependency can undermine economic diversification and resilience. Djibouti’s economy is heavily reliant on revenue generated from foreign military bases, including those of the United States, France and China. These bases contribute approximately 5% of the nation’s GDP. However, this reliance poses economic risks, as any geopolitical shift or base closure could severely impact the nation’s economy.

Foreign military bases occupy large tracts of land, often in prime locations. This land could otherwise be used for agriculture, tourism, or other economic activities that could generate higher economic returns for the host nation. The US military bases in Okinawa occupy around 18% of the island’s land. This has hindered local economic development, as prime land that could be used for commercial or residential purposes remains under military control. Local businesses also suffer due to competition with the duty-free shops inside the bases.

The presence of military bases can lead to skewed economic development in host nations. Base towns often experience economic booms, but neighbouring areas may not benefit equally, leading to regional economic disparities. While towns near US bases like Clark Air Base and Subic Bay Naval Station experienced economic growth during their operation, other regions of the Philippines remained underdeveloped. The closure of these bases in the 1990s further exposed the regional disparities.

One of the most significant political implications of foreign military bases is the loss of sovereignty. Host nations may find their foreign and defense policies heavily influenced or even dictated by the foreign power operating the base. The US naval base in Bahrain provides significant political support to the ruling Al Khalifa family, often at the expense of democratic reforms.

The US government has been criticised for prioritising base stability over human rights, leading to accusations of interfering in Bahrain’s internal affairs.

Foreign powers often exert influence on host nations to align their policies with the strategic interests of the base-operating country. This manipulation can undermine democratic processes and lead to unpopular policy decisions. During the Cold War, Soviet military bases in Eastern Europe were used to ensure that allied governments followed Moscow’s directives. The Soviet military presence played a critical role in suppressing uprisings, such as the Hungarian Revolution in 1956 and the Prague Spring in 1968.

Foreign military bases often support authoritarian regimes that are friendly to the base-operating country. This support can undermine democratic movements and entrench repressive governments. France maintains military bases in several West African countries, often supporting authoritarian regimes to secure its strategic interests. This has led to criticism that France’s military presence undermines democratic development in the region.

Foreign military bases often bring together different cultures, which can lead to cultural clashes and tensions between base personnel and local communities. Additionally, the influence of foreign cultures can erode traditional values and cultural identities. In South Korea, the presence of US military personnel has led to several cultural clashes, including incidents involving the disrespect of Korean traditions and the treatment of women. The increasing influence of American culture, particularly among the youth, has also raised concerns about the erosion of Korean cultural identity.

The presence of foreign military personnel can lead to increased crime rates in host communities. Crimes committed by base personnel, such as theft, assault, and sexual violence, often result in tensions between the military and local populations. US bases in Okinawa have been linked to several high-profile criminal cases involving military personnel. These include incidents of rape, assault and theft, leading to widespread protests and demands for stricter regulations on base personnel.

The influx of foreign military personnel can create a demand for illicit activities, such as prostitution and human trafficking. Local communities often bear the brunt of these social issues, which can undermine social cohesion and exacerbate poverty. During the operation of US bases in the Philippines, prostitution and human trafficking became widespread in base towns like Angeles City. The demand from US military personnel created a lucrative sex industry, leading to the exploitation of local women and children.

The construction and operation of foreign military bases often lead to environmental degradation, including deforestation, habitat destruction, and pollution. The construction and expansion of US military bases in South Korea have led to significant deforestation and habitat destruction. For instance, the expansion of Camp Humphreys required the removal of large forest areas, impacting local biodiversity.

Military activities generate hazardous waste, including chemicals, unexploded ordnance, and heavy metals, which can contaminate the environment and pose health risks to local populations. Improper disposal and leakage of hazardous materials exacerbate these issues. The US military bases in Guam have left a legacy of environmental contamination due to improper disposal of hazardous waste. Chemicals like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and dioxins have been found in the soil and water around the bases, posing significant health risks to local communities.

Soviet military bases in Eastern Europe, particularly in Poland, left behind large quantities of hazardous waste. The cleanup of these toxic sites remains a challenge, and the environmental damage continues to affect the health of local communities.

Military bases often cause water contamination due to the discharge of chemicals, fuel spills, and improper waste disposal. Contaminated water supplies can have long-term health implications for local populations and damage agricultural productivity. The US naval base in Diego Garcia has been linked to significant water contamination due to fuel leaks and chemical discharges. The contamination has affected local water supplies and the surrounding marine environment, impacting fishing activities and biodiversity.

Foreign military bases are prime targets for terrorist attacks, which can threaten the safety of military personnel and local communities. These attacks can also destabilise regional security and provoke military responses that exacerbate local conflicts. US military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan have been frequent targets of terrorist attacks by groups like Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. These attacks have resulted in significant casualties and disrupted military operations, while also increasing tensions with local communities.

The presence of foreign military bases can heighten regional military tensions, particularly if neighbouring countries perceive the bases as a threat to their security. This can lead to arms races and increased militarization, undermining regional stability. NATO’s expansion into Eastern Europe and the establishment of bases in countries like Poland and the Baltic states have provoked strong reactions from Russia. Russia views these bases as a direct threat to its security, leading to increased military deployments and aggressive posturing along its western borders.

Foreign military bases can contribute to the destabilisation of host nations, particularly if they become focal points for internal dissent or if military operations from the bases provoke local conflicts. The US conducted drone strikes against terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Pakistan from bases in the latter. These strikes often resulted in civilian casualties, leading to widespread anti-American sentiment in Pakistan and exacerbating tensions between the US and the Pakistani government.

The French military intervention in Mali, supported by bases in West Africa, has been criticized for failing to address the root causes of Islamist insurgency in the region. The continued military presence has provoked local resentment and further radicalization. This was largely responsible for the military takeover and eventual expulsion of the French.

Foreign military bases often operate under complex legal arrangements that can lead to jurisdictional issues. Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA) often provide foreign military personnel with immunity from local prosecution, leading to dissatisfaction and accusations of injustice among local communities. The acquisition and use of land for foreign military bases can lead to disputes over ownership, compensation, and displacement of local populations. Criminal cases involving U.S. military personnel in Japan have often sparked protests due to perceived injustices in the legal process.

The SOFA between the US and Japan provides US personnel with certain legal immunities, leading to dissatisfaction among the local population. The acquisition of land for US military bases in Okinawa has led to longstanding disputes over ownership and compensation. Many Okinawans were forcibly evicted from their land during the construction of these bases, leading to a legacy of resentment and legal challenges.

Foreign military bases represent a dual-edged sword for host nations. While they can enhance national defense and promote strategic alliances, they often come with catastrophic costs. Economic dependency, political manipulation, cultural erosion, environmental degradation, and security risks associated with foreign military bases create complex challenges that no host nation can afford to overlook.

Economically, these bases can undermine sustainable development by fostering dependency and skewed growth. Politically, they often lead to the erosion of sovereignty, policy manipulation, and support for authoritarian regimes. Socially, they contribute to cultural clashes, increased crime rates, and human exploitation, while environmentally, they result in hazardous waste pollution, deforestation, and water contamination. Security-wise, these bases can become terrorist targets, escalate regional military tensions, and destabilise host nations by provoking local conflicts.

These catastrophic costs make foreign military bases the last thing that Nigeria would want. The inherent rejection of foreign bases in Nigeria should serve as a lesson to any government, present and in the future, about the dangers of surrendering national sovereignty and security for perceived short-term gains. Nigeria’s firm stance against hosting foreign military bases is a testament to the country’s determination to protect its sovereignty and ensure that its national interests come first.

In a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape, it is crucial for Nigeria to carefully negotiate the terms of its defense relations, ensuring that sovereignty, economic development, and social cohesion are prioritised. Superpowers must also recognize the legitimate concerns of host nations and work toward creating mutually beneficial arrangements that promote global security and stability without compromising the well-being of host communities.

 

Kabiru wrote from No. 2 Nagogo Road, Kaduna