With the re-election of our illustrious President, administration changes, continued war context, and financial shortages, how will Sub-Saharan Africa be impacted?  The first four years of George Bush saw a proliferation of promises, a new “priority” focus on Africa, and a presidential trip to the region.  What will the coming four years look like for Sub-Saharan Africa?  We only need look to the past to understand what lies ahead…

So-called Priorities

Economic Growth

Under Administration Bush three major initiatives were launched: first being the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which is errantly credited to Bush but was developed elsewhere during the Clinton administration.  The original law was passed in 2000 and had as a primary goal to increase economic trade and opportunity between Sub-Saharan African countries and the United States with reduced tariff barriers until 2008.  The first two years saw negative growth in trade between the regions prompting multiple revisions of the law AGOA II, III, and an extension to 2015 in order to address complications and allow for more countries to benefit before the expiration date.

Since 2002 economic growth in trade has occurred particularly for a small number of countries whose primary exports are natural resources.  Nigeria, Angola, and Gabon constitute 82.9% of U.S. imports from Africa in 2003 – concentrated in oil, followed by diamonds, platinum and motor vehicles from South Africa. This too closely resembles U.S. historical exploitation of Africa’s natural resources and cheap labor, not to mention provides a convenient alternative to mid-East oil supplies.  U.S. financial and technical support for its own initiative is not sufficient to bolster the economies it purports to help.  Further, the concentrated benefits of AGOA promote the unequal trade relationships that characterize globalization in favor of U.S. interests rather than real economic growth and development for Africa.  

Development Aid

In response to the Millennium Development Goals established by the United Nations in 2000 (to eradicate extreme poverty, hunger and disease among the world’s poorest), the Bush administration launched the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA).  It is intended to increase U.S. foreign aid over the next couple years and double current funding levels by 2006.  As cited in the New York Times, “latest available figures show that the percentage of U.S. income going to poor countries remains near rock bottom at 14%.”  This is nowhere near the goal of the 70% requested of national incomes for aid by developed countries such as U.S., Britain, and France. The U.S. ranks at the bottom of all donor countries with this percentage rate up only four hundredths of a percent from last year. How does Sub-Saharan Africa figure into that amount? Glad you asked.  Approximately $10 billion U.S. dollars go to foreign aid a year, half of which goes to two countries: Israel and Egypt. One hundredth of one percent or $1 billion goes to all of Sub-Saharan Africa. 

Additionally, monies channeled through the MCA will be doled out in a highly selective manner with eligibility based on 16 criteria.  Regarding the MCA, Admin Bush said it would donate $1.7 billion the first year, $3.3 billion the second and $5 billion the third.  Even the $5 billion would only represent 4% of U.S. national income, falling short of Millennium goals by a whopping 66%.  Fittingly, the December 23rd NY Times editorial “America the Indifferent” shared, “Washington is quick to say it contributes more money to foreign aid than any other country.  But no one is impressed when a billionaire writes a $50 check for a needy family.” In any event, the Administration requested smaller amounts and were appropriated even less than they asked.  Worst of all the account has not dispersed a single dollar in development aid to date.  Not to mention, potential turf wars between the already existing U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and MCA, and all the money soaked up in two huge development aid organizations with global offices, tremendous bureaucracies including innumerate staff, overhead etc…

HIV/AIDS

In the State of the Union Address 2003, BUSH promised $15 billion over 5 years toward the global fight against AIDS.  $10 billion in new money was to be concentrated in Africa and the Caribbean.  The initiative was hailed as an act of tremendous generosity and a significant contribution.  However, shortly thereafter Admin Bush fell short of its own proposed effort.  Following the speech, the White House submitted its 2004 budget which asked for $450 million of new money that was ostensibly coming from cutting $500 million from international child health programs.  The President has consistently refused to request the full $3 billion per year and will likely follow this pattern entering January 2005. 

In addition, rather than utilizing existing efforts and joining a truly global initiative to address the problem, Administration Bush opted to channel funds through USAID and created a new position to combat AIDS.  The position’s responsibility is to oversee resources and activities in the global fight against HIV/AIDS pandemic. Um, I thought that’s what the Global Fund for AIDS was doing.  But Admin Bush’s egotism mandated that only $200 million go to the Fund, which has repeatedly pleaded with the U.S. to increase its share of funding in order to meet real needs and avert bankruptcy.  Instead of meeting the challenge and opportunity of taking real global leadership in addressing the AIDS pandemic, the U.S. has backed away from commitments to international organizations, domestic promises, and Sub-Saharan Africa.

Overshadowed

The non-committal relationship of Admin Bush to its own policies and initiatives in Africa is a frightening indication of what’s to come.  Now with Powell – a hesitant voice for U.S. Africa policy, regardless of his other duties and decisions – out of the picture, who will continue the limited engagement with Africa during this watch?  Condoleezza?  A virtual guarantee that Africa interest will wane beyond its already lukewarm level.  Powell’s involvement in Sudan talks, UN negotiations for sanctions and going out on a limb and telling the President its ok to use the “G” word in this case will be somewhat missed.  His at least verbal understanding of the unique historical relationship with Liberia and position to support Gyude Bryant, the transitional government leader, will be left vacant?  Will Admin Bush press Nigeria to bring Charles Taylor to justice after his exile/vacation?  Where’s the follow-up?

One question that can easily be answered is whether the so-called priority status of Sub-Saharan Africa will continue.  Pretty much, no.  The tremendous continent of Africa is overshadowed by one country, Iraq.  Iraq and the war on terrorism will continue to affect development aid in the world and in Africa indefinitely.  Said priorities don’t matter when Iraq and the domestic agenda are playing tug of war with strapped resources.  Domestic budgets continue to dwindle as evidenced by problems with programs such as Medicaid.  Even non-controversial aid such as feeding the hungry is no longer possible.  Just last month, Admin Bush reduced its contributions to global food aid programs aimed at self-sufficiency and hunger reduction by $100 million at a time when world hunger is rising, particularly in Africa.  In 2003, lobbyists had to scrape for $200 million for Liberian reconstruction out of an $87 billion bill for Iraq.  With things in Iraq looking uglier than ever and, not-surprisingly violent elections approaching, one can only imagine the kind of financial support that will be requested in the coming year.  Meanwhile people in Africa are dying of hunger, disease and relatively minor conflicts that could be addressed by a fraction of Iraq’s costs. 

Playing Favorites

I won’t paint the picture that the situation in Sub-Saharan Africa is uniformly bad.  There are some countries doing very well in fact and experiencing economic growth, addressing their AIDS rates, and serving as arbiters of regional conflicts.  However, it is no surprise that these countries reap the benefit of U.S. support that is inevitably tied to their economic resources and military usefulness.  First, Nigeria.  In 2003, over 40% of U.S. imports from the continent came from Nigeria alone.  Main product, no surprise: oil.  Disregard questionable elections and their human rights record regarding political and religious repression (See the case of Amina Lawal).  Second, South Africa, when it behaves.  The U.S. has a long standing relationship with South Africa and benefits from diamond resources amongst others.  South Africa and Nigeria are also favorites for the role they play in conflict intervention and regional peace keeping, as this deflects some of the heat off the U.S. to actually participate in what Admin Bush deems the important priority of peace. (Of course, South Africa messes up every now and again with its reticence on AIDS policies and off-the-cuff statements from President Thabo Mbeki).

Then we have Uganda, the poster child for reducing AIDS.  The U.S. promotes its ABC model (abstinence, be faithful, use condoms), more like ACA (abstinence conquers all).  Uganda was even a stop on a five country presidential tour.  Despite legitimate accusations of military and proxy forces involved in the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and committing human rights violations to gain control of their slice of Congo’s tremendous natural resources. All is fair in love and war.  Last we have Rwanda, Admin Bush’s favorite due to residual guilt from inaction during the 1994 Genocide.  This guilt allowed the U.S. to turn a blind eye to repeated Rwandan incursions and military threats to the DRC and its eastern province inhabitants. While playing favorites with interestingly flawed countries, how is U.S. foreign policy measuring up for so many other African countries in need?  As Darfur continues to emerge as the new conflict, what will happen to older, less obvious conflicts such as Burundi and DRC that still have not achieved peace and successful democratic transitions?

Conclusions

As we embark on another four year tour of Admin Bush, we will probably see more of the same for Africa: hollow promises, self-serving foreign policy, standoffish responses to conflict, and financial resources that fall perilously short of the need.  In a recent press conference with President Obasanjo of Nigeria, Bush continued to tout his African priorities as having tremendous impact on Sub-Saharan Africa; citing his trip, the central role of HIV/AIDS in his administration, AGOA and its impact on economic growth, and the Millennium Challenge Account to encourage good governance.  I have taken the creative liberty to adjust Bush’s statement at the end of these talks to more accurately reflect reality.  “I think it is vital that the continent of Africa be a place of freedom of natural resource flows to the U.S. and democracy ies that cater to U.S. military and economic needs and prosperity of the few and hope deferred of the millions that still look to the U.S. to provide real global leadership to address extreme poverty, conflict, disease and despair.”

Devanne Brookins is an International Fellow with the International Foundation for Education and Self-Help (IFESH) and Africare, currently living in Conakry, Guinea. Contact at: [email protected]

is published every Thursday.