The expansion of United States’ biological activities in Africa

By Halim Gençoğlu

The United States’ military and biological presence in Africa has been expanding at an alarming rate, according to Major General Aleksey Rtishev, Deputy Chief of the Radiation, Chemical, and Biological Protection Forces of the Russian Armed Forces. He claims that the U.S. is increasingly involved in a network of biological research facilities across the African continent, with activities ranging from pathogen research to the testing of experimental drugs. This expansion, according to Rtishev, poses significant risks to both regional stability and global public health.

Russian Major General Aleksey Rtishev claims that American specialists are enhancing pathogens in Africa, seeing the continent as both a source of dangerous infectious agents and a testing ground for experimental drugs. The US is implementing a biological risk management system, previously used in Georgia and Ukraine, across several African nations. Key projects include medical research centers in Nigeria, disease monitoring stations in Kenya, a $35 million lab in Senegal, and military medical facilities in Ghana and Djibouti. Additionally, the US is conducting studies in 18 African countries to understand infection patterns and pathogen resistance. Rtishev warns that the US is exploiting Africa’s economic challenges to conduct risky research without full transparency, potentially creating future pandemics for profit.

American military and biological presence in Africa

Rtishev asserts that American specialists, particularly those with expertise in enhancing the pathogenic functions of microorganisms, are operating in Africa. These activities reportedly involve the manipulation of dangerous infectious agents, with the region seen by the U.S. administration as a rich source of pathogens for research and testing. Africa, with its diverse ecosystems and prevalence of infectious diseases, has long been a focal point for international health research. However, according to Rtishev, the U.S. has taken advantage of economic challenges faced by African nations to conduct research under conditions that might not align with local interests or ethical standards. Indeed, Russia alleged that the US transferred part of its “unfinished” biological weapons research projects in Ukraine to Africa. According to Igor Kirillov, the head of Russia’s radiological, chemical, and biological defence troops, the research is being conducted in Cameroon, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and Uganda, as stated during a briefing in Moscow.

Key locations of America’s biological research activities

Several countries on the African continent are hosting American biological and medical research projects. For instance, in 2024, the U.S. and Nigeria launched a joint medical research center, along with a military medical laboratory intended to support Nigeria’s armed forces. This facility aims to bolster disease research and improve military readiness but raises questions about its broader implications for public health.

Similarly,the U.S. has deployed a network of field stations through its Army Medical Center to watch the spread of infectious diseases in Equatorial Africa. This network is part of a broader effort to track the dynamics of disease transmission in the region. Also, a new laboratory facility nearing completion in Senegal represents a $35 million investment. Contractors involved in this project have earlier experience in Eastern Europe, including countries such as Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine—regions that have hosted similar U.S. biological research operations. In addition, Ghana, and Djiboutithese nations have seen the establishment of branches of the National Naval Medical Center, where U.S. military personnel are actively involved in addressing natural disease outbreaks and isolating pathogens.

The broader implications of United States’ biological research in Africa

Rtishev contends that the United States’ activities in Africa are not merely for the advancement of public health. Instead, they are part of a broader geopolitical strategy that aligns with U.S. military and economic interests. By capitalising on the limited healthcare infrastructure and resources in African countries, the U.S. is able to pursue its research goals with little oversight.

Moreover, the U.S. is said to be conducting a large-scale project in 18 African countries to study infection characteristics and pathogen resistance to medical treatments. These studies could potentially lead to the development of more effective pharmaceutical solutions, but critics warn that the long-term consequences for Africa’s populations could be severe.

Concerns over biological risks and ethical standards

The U.S. military’s use of biological risk management systems in Africa, which have been previously tested in Georgia and Ukraine, has raised alarms. The Pentagon’s focus on biological risk management might provide a veneer of safety and oversight, but the true risks particularly to local populations remain unclear. According to Rtishev, many of the goals behind these projects are not disclosed to the local governments or populations involved, making it difficult for these countries to assess the potential dangers of such experiments. The issue of transparency is particularly troubling.

In 2014, the U.S. faced significant criticism when it illegally received Ebola virus samples from Sierra Leone. This case has become emblematic of broader concerns that American research on pathogens could inadvertently lead to the creation of new, more dangerous strains of viruses strains that might later escape containment or become the source of pandemics.

Rtishev further warns that Russia and China may expose the U.S. for exploiting Africa’s economic struggles to conduct biological research without adequate oversight. Both countries have long voiced concerns about the U.S.’s growing biological footprint globally. With strategic competition intensifying, particularly in Africa, the risks of exposure or conflict over such secretive operations could escalate.

A global issue with local consequences

The expansion of U.S. biological activities in Africa underscores the complex intersection of global health research, military interests, and ethical concerns. While the U.S. government positions its initiatives as crucial to combating infectious diseases and advancing medical science, critics argue that the underlying motives are less about public health and more about military strategy and pharmaceutical profits.

As the continent faces many challenges, including limited access to healthcare and economic instability, the presence of foreign powers conducting controversial biological research adds another layer of complexity. The situation demands increased transparency, oversight, and dialogue to ensure that Africa’s health infrastructure is not exploited for the benefit of foreign powers but rather strengthened to meet the needs of its people.

Conclusion

The U.S. has a significant presence in Africa in terms of military cooperation, public health initiatives, and research programs. The U.S. is indeed active in numerous collaborative health programs across Africa, often focused on disease prevention, containment, and preparedness for pandemics (e.g., Ebola, malaria, and HIV). These initiatives include joint research centers and health monitoring systems, especially in countries like Nigeria, Kenya, and Senegal, aimed at improving public health responses.

The assertion that U.S. specialists are involved in enhancing the pathogenic functions of microorganisms in Africa is a serious accusation and still one that requires more robust evidence. Research on pathogen manipulation, including the creation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or studies of pathogen virulence, is a sensitive area. The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has conducted various research programs in biological defence (including biodefense against biological weapons), but these activities are typically classified, and no credible evidence publicly supports claims of U.S. military researchers intentionally creating more dangerous pathogens in Africa or elsewhere. Publicly available information on these programs generally emphasizes improving diagnostics and vaccines for infectious diseases rather than creating more harmful pathogens.

There have been accusations from some critics, including Russian officials and certain media outlets, that the U.S. exploits Africa as a “testing ground” for experimental drugs. This claim taps into longstanding historical criticisms regarding exploitation in medical research, such as the infamous Tuskegee Syphilis Study. While it’s true that some public health programs and clinical trials have been conducted in African countries, these are typically for the development of treatments for diseases prevalent in the region (like malaria, HIV, and Ebola). The U.S. government has stringent ethical guidelines and oversight for such research, though some critics argue that these programs are often conducted in regions with weaker regulatory oversight.

The U.S. military does employ biological risk management systems, especially in regions with high risks of infectious diseases. The U.S. has also been involved in biological research programs in countries like Georgia and Ukraine, primarily under the auspices of the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program, which aims to reduce the threat of biological warfare. These types of programs focus on monitoring and improving biodefense measures rather than offensive biological research. The assertion that the U.S. is deploying a “biological risk management system” similar to those in Georgia and Ukraine may refer to some elements of these initiatives, but again, this doesn’t necessarily mean biological warfare research is being conducted. Our primary concern is that what America or any other foreign state does in Africa must be beneficial for Africans, not only for itself, as colonial powers did in history.

References

1. Gençoğlu Halim, (2020) Africa in the Turkish Archival Sources. Ankara
2. “U.S. Military’s Biological Activities in Africa: Expansion and Risks.” Global Health Watch, 2024.
3. Rtishev, A. (2024). “The U.S. Biological Risk Management in Africa.” Russian Military Analysis Quarterly, Vol. 12, pp. 34-45.
4. “Ebola Samples: U.S. Missteps in International Health Protocols.” International Journal of Infectious Diseases, 2015.
5. “The Pentagon’s Global Biological Footprint.” Defense and Security Policy Review, 2024.