Back Issues

Editors note on the Bush in Africa - Bush out of Africa - Special Issue

Pambazuka News Editors

2008-02-19

http://pambazuka.org/en/category/editorial/46224

Dear Pambazuka Community,

We are very pleased to bring you this Special Issue, a collaboration with Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF). First Clinton, then Blair and now Bush – it seems Africa is fast becoming a legacy maker. With Iraq up in flames and Afghanistan still at war, and with a Pakistan where democratic voices are assassinated, Africa (a few select countries) for Bush seems like a logical destination. But what is his legacy?

Activist organizations Africa Action, Africa Faith and Justice Network (AFJN), International Labor Rights Forum, and Jubilee USA Network tackle this question by looking at the various components to his foreign policy: AIDS, Global War on Terror/AFRICOM, and Debt Relief.

We have also included in this Special Issue the contact information and the general take of a number of these organization on Bush for those who may wish to follow up on this conversation.

A very special thanks to Emira Woods, Co-Director of Foreign Policy In Focus (www.fpif.org) for being the force behind this special issue.

Thank you,
Pambazuka Editors

The US ‘War on Terror’ Exported to Rwanda: A Threat to Peace in DRC

Bahati Ntama Jacques and Beth Tuckey

2008-02-19

http://pambazuka.org/en/category/features/46217

Bahati Ntama Jacques and Beth Tuckey argue Bush's support for Rwanda through the prism of the Global War on Terror and US access to natural resources will in the long run be disastrous to peace in the DRC.

There is a common flaw in US foreign policy. In giving aid to foreign nations, the United States prioritizes its own foreign policy goals over any standards of good governance. Because this system of support ignores the realities on the ground, it ultimately backfires, undermining US long term interests and fueling instability, conflict, and violations of core human rights standards. Nowhere is this more true than in Africa. Today, President Bush supports corrupt, illegitimate regimes that will either cooperate in the Global War on Terror, provide US companies access to much sought-after natural resources, or both. If history is any indication, this infusion of wealth and military training for such self-interested gains is likely to be disastrous for the people of Africa.

A particularly good example of this is Rwanda – a country that has abused its neighboring people in the Democratic Republic of Congo with support from the United States government. President Paul Kagame will host President Bush this week. Will the leader of the most powerful country in the world have the courage to discuss Rwanda’s negative role in peace and economic development in DRC? Will he castigate Rwandan President Kagame for not providing the political space for Hutus to return to Rwanda? Likely, no. He will announce US support for peace in Congo while simultaneously pushing forward a foreign policy that favors only America’s narrow interests.

From 1996-2003, the people of the Democratic Republic of the Congo suffered a great deal from two wars that pitted Rwanda and its allies against the Congo. The Congolese loss was other people’s gain. According to Global Policy Forum’s Tito Dragon in DR Congo: Dirt Above Ground, Precious Metal Below, “it was the attempt to control coltan mines that was the principal, if not the only, motivation behind the US-backed 1998 occupation of part of DRC territory by Rwanda and Uganda.” In fact, in 2004, after a three-year investigation, a UN Panel of Experts implicated three major US companies for fueling war in DRC by collaborating with rebel groups trafficking coltan. United States assistance to Rwanda continues today largely due to Kagame’s willingness to be engaged in the US War on Terror; and again, the people of DRC lose.

Though he publicly denies any direct involvement, most officials agree that President Kagame funds renegade General Laurent Nkunda’s militia in DRC – a militia whose primary purpose appears to be keeping Hutu rebels away from the Rwandan border. A UN report accuses Nkunda’s Tutsi faction of some of the worst human rights abuses of any rebel group currently operating in the eastern region. Though Kagame has undoubtedly brought strong economic development to the small great lakes nation, he has failed to adequately deal with the legacy of the 1994 genocide – the strained relationship between Hutus and Tutsis.

Bush knows that Rwanda’s involvement in the armed conflict in DRC delays peace in eastern Congo, but he continues to authorize military aid to Rwanda. In 2007, the United States armed and trained Rwandan soldiers with $7.2 million from the US defense program Africa Contingent Operations Training Assistance (ACOTA) and $260,000 from the International Military and Education (IMET) program. At the same time, the US is involved in facilitating peace talks between Rwanda and DRC and the various rebel groups operating in eastern Congo. Not only does arming Rwanda contradict the peace process, but it also delays the recovery of Rwanda from its 1994 genocide.

During the Cold War, the US provided military aid to African countries to counter communism. Many of those countries – Somalia, Sudan, Liberia, and DRC – have now become hotspots of violence and economic failure in Africa. It is no surprise that lending arms and financial support to corrupt dictators and human rights abusers contributes to destabilization, but still the US government has yet to learn its lesson. Today, the rationale for providing military aid to countries like Rwanda is to counter terrorism; likely, the methods and outcomes will be largely the same as they were in the 1980’s.

The Department of Defense argues that by training and equipping African military forces, it will bring greater stability and legitimacy to African governments. The case for professionalizing militaries was also made during the Cold War and it was a policy that ultimately failed. It should not be used again today to justify the self-interests of the United States.

This week, President Bush has the opportunity to encourage African governments to engage peacefully and democratically with their people and with each other, but only if the Administration’s actions are seen as legitimate by African nations. Most countries have voiced a vehement ‘no’ to the creation and implementation of a new US military command for Africa (AFRICOM) and other US military activities on the continent. For the sake of countries like DRC, Mr. Bush should begin with a drawing back of his own defense policy in Africa.


*Bahati Ntama Jacques is the Policy Analyst at Africa Faith and Justice Network (AFJN) in Washington, DC. He is Congolese.

**Beth Tuckey is the Associate Director of Program Development and Policy at Africa Faith and Justice Network (AFJN) in Washington, DC.

***Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

The PEPFAR ‘Record’ – Bush’s Out of Tune AIDS Plan

Michael Swigert and Sena Tsikata

2008-02-19

http://pambazuka.org/en/category/features/46215

Michael Swigert and Sena Tsikata argue that Bush's Africa AIDS plan is a painful clash of inconsistent and inefficient policy tunes which will have little chance of making it on any charts tracking true leadership in the fight against global HIV/AIDS.

President George W. Bush is already grabbing headlines with his latest self-congratulatory album, PEPFAR: True Leadership, and his accompanying farewell promotional tour across Africa. Between February 15 and 21, he will travel to the countries of Benin, Tanzania, Rwanda, Ghana, and Liberia to promote this musical swan song – a concept piece that highlights his supposedly groundbreaking leadership in the fight against global HIV/AIDS. As with Bush’s previous productions, this latest record will frustrate music lovers with serious lyrical flaws that illustrate the ineffectiveness of the U.S. response to the HIV/AIDS pandemic in Africa.

In his plucky first single, My Plan, President Bush reminds listeners of how he chose in 2003 to create his own unilateral program, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), rather than pledge full U.S. support to the already established and internationally acclaimed multilateral initiative known as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Bush’s catchy lyrics fail to mention how PEPFAR created a duplicative bureaucracy grounded in an emergency response mentality that challenges its sustainable effectiveness. Equally absent from the liner notes is any acknowledgement of the low levels of PEPFAR’s overall funding relative to the scope of the global HIV/AIDS crisis, of which Africa remains the epicenter.

President Bush touts his favored abstinence-until-marriage HIV prevention strategy on the album’s second single, “A.U.M”. The melody here is simply out of tune. As a result of an earmark in the PEPFAR legislation that privileges abstinence-until-marriage programs, the distribution of U.S. global HIV/AIDS funds has undermined access to life-saving condoms. African community organizations that implement PEPFAR funded prevention and treatment programs have been frustrated by this ideological limitation, which restricts them from responding to the distinct needs of their communities. Uganda, held up as an African success story because of its success in reducing HIV rates over the past decade, achieved progress through a comprehensive national prevention campaign that promoted abstinence, being faithful and condom usage (the ‘ABC’ approach). Uganda currently risks reversing this progress because of the Bush-driven shift away from education on condom use.

In the upbeat Profits Versus Lives, Bush attempts to lift the tempo as he defends his administration against claims that they prioritize corporate profits over African lives. While the chorus declares that PEPFAR uses the most cost-effective medications available to treat HIV-affected individuals, Bush’s pithy lyrics don’t stand up to the facts. In 2006, brand name manufacturers produced 73% of the lifesaving anti-retroviral drugs purchased with PEPFAR funds, totaling 20% of all PEPFAR funding that year. While PEPFAR does not explicitly forbid money from being spent on generic anti-retroviral (ARV) drugs, the Bush administration refuses to accept World Health Organization (WHO) evaluations of drug purity, safety and efficacy, instead relying solely on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s screening process to choose which drugs are PEPFAR eligible. This unnecessary procedural bias means that few of the cheaper, internationally produced generic drugs can be purchased for PEPFAR treatment programs, reducing the efficiency of U.S. taxpayer dollars and placing fewer Africans on life-saving ARV-treatment.

Doubling the Dollar, a mid-album track, stands out only for its lack of creativity and disingenuousness. Bush repeats like a broken record the claim that his proposed $30 billion over the next 5 years represents a doubling of funding for the second version of PEPFAR. This simply isn’t true. In fiscal year 2008, the United States is spending around $6 billion on global HIV/AIDS programs. Do the math, and $30 billion over 5 years equals flat funding – an approach that fails to keep up with the expanding demand for treatment.

In short, “PEPFAR: True Leadership” is a painful clash of inconsistent and inefficient policy tunes which will have little chance of making it on any charts tracking true leadership in the fight against global HIV/AIDS. As with any lousy record, however, a chance for redemption remains. If the next U.S. president and Congressional leaders currently debating the legislative sequel to PEPFAR want to strike a more pleasant chord that resonates with the history books, they’d do well to follow the following recipe for success:

First, support the full U.S share of the Global Fund and increase overall funding to the levels public health experts agree are necessary: at least $50 billion by 2013 for HIV/AIDS programs alone. Use generic drugs approved by the WHO to maximize the impact of each dollar spent. Eliminate the unscientific abstinence-until-marriage earmark to give African partners the flexibility to address the HIV/AIDS pandemic based on the actual needs of their communities. Integrate programs that address gender-based violence into PEPFAR, and make sure that the program reaches the most-affected populations. Finally, cancel Africa’s illegitimate debt so that African countries can direct their own funds to build sustainable health infrastructure, train health workers and research affordable prevention technologies.


*Michael Swigert is a Program Associate at Africa Action in Washington, DC. Among the issues he researches are trade, the recent elections in Nigeria and the DRC, and the 2008 U.S. presidential elections. Michael served as a volunteer teacher in Ho, Ghana.

**Sena Tsikata is a Development Associate at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, DC. A Ghanaian native, Sena has worked as a youth reproductive health educator using theater and media with Advantage Productions in Ghana.

***Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

President Bush and Africa’s Debt: Who Owes Whom?

Neil Watkins

2008-02-19

http://pambazuka.org/en/category/features/46219

Neil Watkins tackles the unfinished agenda on debt, calls for an audit of past lending in Africa by the United States and international financial institutions including the IMF and World Ban in order to look at which debts are odious, onerous, or illegal.

President Bush in Africa is looking to secure his legacy in part through the lens of his administration’s development initiatives on the continent. One of those initiatives is the administration’s support for expanded debt relief for the continent.

To take a closer look at this Administration’s record on debt, let us start with a question that Africa-based civil society groups often start with when describing the debt issue: Who Owes Whom?

Take the case of the Democratic Republic of Congo. The United States, the World Bank and IMF, and other creditors lent former President Mobutu Sese Seko billions of dollars in the 1970s and 1980s, knowing full well that the funds would not benefit the people. This was a price they were willing to pay in the context of the Cold War to win then Zaire’s allegiance to the West. But this clearly odious and illegitimate debt remains on the books today – over $9 billion worth in fact, and the people of the DRC are still paying for the sins of a leader they didn’t want.

But the Bush administration has supported debt cancellation in Africa. Does Africa owe President Bush a debt of gratitude? Let’s look at the Bush administration’s record on Africa’s debt. In 2005, the Bush administration, together with the UK, took strong leadership at the G-8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland that year, and agreed to provide the possibility of 100% debt stock cancellation of eligible debts to eligible countries. This was important because up until this point, only debt relief – reduction of payments – rather than outright cancellation, was possible.

The initiative championed by the Bush Administration has since become known as the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative (MDRI). Under this program, 23 countries have received 100% cancellation of eligible debts, 19 of them in Africa. Another 20 countries are potentially eligible for the program but have not yet seen their debts cancelled. Added together with previous rounds of debt cancellation, this has meant that eligible nations are saving about $2 billion in debt payments each year

The money saved from debt relief has been put to good use. Of the five countries President Bush will visit on his trip, four -- Benin, Tanzania, Rwanda, and Ghana – have received debt cancellation under the MDRI. In Tanzania, debt relief led to a 50% increase in primary school enrollment. In Ghana, freed up funds supported the rehabilitation of essential major highways and feeder roads in the main agricultural areas, and to support education and health initiatives. In Benin, relief bolstered investment in health and education and funded small-holder projects in agriculture.

The other country President Bush will visit on his trip – Liberia – just recently moved towards eligibility for the official IMF/World Bank debt relief program with the strong support of the administration. But Liberia has not yet seen its more than $3.5 billion debt – much of it run up by the odious regimes of Samuel Doe and Charles Taylor – cancelled outright yet.

It is clear that the Bush Administration has provided leadership on debt relief that has benefited a number of African countries. But President Bush could do even more. He could return from Africa - - inspired by seeing first-hand the impacts of relief to date – and address the unfinished agenda on debt, in turn cementing his legacy in this area.

He should support the expansion of debt cancellation to all countries that need it to reach global poverty-reducing goals, including countries devastated by HIV/AIDS—such as Lesotho -- that have not been included in agreements for debt cancellation to date.

Second, Bush should put an end to unconscionable practices of so-called “vulture funds.” Vulture funds are private creditors that buy up distressed developing country debt on the secondary markets, then refuse to join other creditors in the debt relief process and instead sue poor country governments for a big mark-up. Last year, Zambia had to pay $15 million to Donegal International, a vulture fund that paid $3 million for the debt originally. The President should support changes to US law that would make profiteering by vulture funds illegal. While that work is underway, he could immediately reach out to non-Paris Club creditors in the US’s sphere of influence and urge them to sign onto a new Paris Club agreement that commits creditors not to on-sell claims on the secondary market.

Another problem facing Africa now is a rapid re-accumulation of debts, including massive new lending from China. The administration’s plan to address this problem has focused on an IMF/World Bank framework which punishes debtors by hardening the terms of soft loans they get from the World Bank if they borrow too much. But this approach is likely to only worsen the problem and punishes poor countries without addressing creditor co-responsibility for the problem. Only a strong, binding international system for responsible lending and sovereign debt restructuring which holds creditors and debtors responsible can ensure debt sustainability in the future.

Finally, to finally answer the question of who owes whom, there should be an audit of past lending in Africa by the United States and international financial institutions including the IMF and World Bank. Such an audit should look at which debts are odious, onerous, or illegal. Having this information will help us to learn lessons from the past and avoid the same mistakes in the future.

To enhance his legacy in this area, President Bush could announce his support for the bi-partisan Jubilee Act for Responsible Lending (S. 2166 / H. 2634) which addresses many of the aforementioned elements of the unfinished agenda on debt and is currently pending in Congress.

*Neil Watkins is National Coordinator of Jubilee USA Network, an alliance of religious organizations, development agencies, and human rights groups working for debt cancellation and responsible lending for impoverished nations.

**Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Beyond AFRICOM: Toward a New Concept of Security in Africa

Beth Tuckey

2008-02-19

http://pambazuka.org/en/category/features/46218

Beth Tuckey argues that in the end, it is not the militarization of Africa that will guarantee security for the US but rather justice and equitable trade.

As President Bush visits Africa this week, it is important to reflect on the Administration’s global foreign policy strategy and how it is emerging in the African context. Since 9/11, the United States has ramped up its military capacity to fight a Global War on Terror – a war that instills fear in the American people and according to the Bush administration, a war that justifies a vast network of defense and security operations worldwide.

Though this war is being fought as a means of achieving national security, it is in fact likely to decrease global stability if it is not accompanied by a more equitable and diplomatic foreign policy. In the end, generating long-term security has less to do with fighting rogue terrorist groups than with bolstering the power of communities, increasing access to education, and forging a trade policy that is in the global interest.

Perhaps the most disturbing element of Bush’s national security strategy is the mission of the new US military command for Africa (AFRICOM). The current administration sees Africa as a possible threat both because of its geopolitical location near the Middle East and its substantial Muslim population. The American government also recognizes the natural resource wealth of the continent as a foundation for replenishing the world’s depleting oil supplies, allowing the US to maintain its dependence on foreign fuel.

To the public, AFRICOM is presented as a benign presence that will bring stability, peace, and prosperity to the African continent. Looking deeper, it is a military command that has been structured to bring security only to the US and to bolster the interests of the elite few, not the interests of Africans. Furthermore, AFRICOM gives the Department of Defense (DoD) a dangerous level of jurisdiction over the State Department, USAID, and other non-military agencies. Ambassadors, who have traditionally been the point-persons for US foreign operations, may now be overshadowed by General William E. Ward, Commander of AFRICOM.

Developments like AFRICOM reveal that the Bush Administration’s national security strategy relies on putting soldiers at the front of nearly all foreign operations. Unsurprisingly then, African civil society and many African governments have voiced a resounding ‘no’ to AFRICOM that only confirms the need for the US to re-evaluate its War on Terror and hunt for oil. The security concerns of the US government are in some ways legitimate, but the strategy has been such that Africans now feel endangered and harassed by the flawed agenda of the Bush Administration.

If indeed the new command is intended to bring security to the African people, the mandate must change. Ultimately, the US government must recognize the power of a just and fair foreign policy in Africa and must listen to the voices arising on the continent. By investing in other aspects of security beyond those of the DoD, the US could go a long way toward achieving stability and democracy in Africa.

What the people of Africa need is not increased military presence but debt relief, fair trade policies, jobs, expansion of education, and improvements upon existing US policies such as the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and the Millennium Challenge Account. If the US were willing to boost the budgets of the State Department and USAID toward those ends, we may find precisely the results the Bush Administration is seeking in terms of stability. Long-term security is not generated through armed soldiers but rather through teachers, women, youth, microfinance, and an overall fair and equitable foreign policy.

Ultimately, peace and democracy in Africa are elements that can be attained if America is willing to work in concert with Africans to determine their needs and desires. Pushing a military strategy that serves merely to benefit special interest groups like private military sub-contractors and the oil industry will only provoke opposition, as it has already done in many countries around the world. Advancing a diplomatic strategy that relies on true partnership with African governments, the African Union, and African civil society is the only approach that is in the mutual, long-term interests of the American people and the citizens of Africa’s many nations.

Oil and terrorism – and the corporations who benefit – preclude the US government from setting its sights on a more practical, just, and beneficial foreign policy strategy. The war in Iraq, AFRICOM, and the restructuring of the executive branch are merely pieces of an overall shift – a shift that must be opposed, not least because of its capacity to damage the lives of foreign citizens for the sake of America’s immediate special interests.

If President Bush truly wishes to offer a message of success in Africa this week, his best bet is to provide significant boosts to development without involvement from the Department of Defense.


*Beth Tuckey is the Associate Director of the Africa Faith and Justice Network

**Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

US Africa Foreign Policy Outlook 2008

Gerald LeMell

2008-02-19

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4949

Gerald LeMell, the executive director of Africa Action forecasts US Africa policy and argues that In this election year, the U.S. government will pursue a mixed approach to elections in Africa, upholding democratic ideals or looking the other way, depend- ing on military, economic and political alliances. Climate change will be a hot topic in U.S. electoral debates, but it is unlikely that the devastating environmental prospects for Africa will be featured, much less addressed, in U.S.-Africa policy this year.

The Bush Administration's fixation on security and the "war on terror" is already escalating the militarization of U.S. policy in Africa in 2008. In his last year in office, President George W. Bush will no doubt duplicitously continue to promote economic policies that exacerbate inequalities while seeking to salvage his legacy as a compassionate conservative with rhetorical support for addressing human rights challenges including conflict in Sudan and continued promotion of his unilateral HIV/AIDS initiative. The third prong of U.S.-Africa policy in 2008 will be the contin- ued and relentless pursuit of African resources, especially oil, with clear implications for U.S. mili- tary and economic policy.

Private Sector Role

Deepening U.S. military ties to the African continent are visible in both the official and private sectors. Since 2002, the U.S. International Military and Training Program (IMET) has invested approximate- ly $10 million a year to train African military person- nel, and the FY 2008 budget request increased this sum to $13.7 million. At the same time, under State Department oversight, commercial sales by U.S. manufacturers delivered $281 million worth of weapons and equipment from FY 2006-2007 to Algeria alone. Such licensed commercial sales to sub- Saharan Africa were just $900,000 in 2000, but for FY 2008 they are estimated to reach $92 million, an 80% increase from FY 2006. At present, the U.S. has Cooperative Security Location (CSL) agreements with five African countries, which are now opera- tional in Entebbe, Uganda; Libreville, Gabon; Accra, Ghana; Dakar, Senegal; and Lusaka, Zambia. There is also a new joint U.S.-Ugandan intelligence fusion center, just outside of Kampala in Uganda.

This escalation has not gone unnoticed. Concerned civil society groups in the U.S. and across the conti- nent of Africa have expressed persistent apprehension over the potential dangers of this change and the absence of any accountability in the process. Democratic governance, sustainable development and human rights are serious challenges in many coun- tries in Africa, but considerable progress has been made by activists, advocates, and civil society organi- zations over the last few decades. The militarization of aid to Africa could dramatically sharpen the slope of this already uphill battle for social, political and economic justice on the continent.

The militarization of Africa comes at a time when the continent can least afford it. An Oxfam report on armed conflict in Africa released in October estimates that the cost of conflict at the expense of the conti- nent's development over a 15-year period was nearly $300 billion. According to this study, between 1990 and 2005, 23 African nations were involved in con- flict, and on average this cost African economies $18 billion a year. By these figures, the cost of conflict was equal to the amount of money received in aid during the same period.

The fundamental question for many is whether the U.S. will utilize this increased military presence to support freedom, self determination, growth, pros- perity, and accountability on behalf of the majority of the nearly one billion people in Africa or if this new initiative will instead serve to oversee surrogate nations whose leadership is accountable first to U.S. security and economic interests.

AFRICOM's Inspiration

This growing militarization of U.S.-Africa policy is certain to escalate sharply in 2008 as the United States hurtles full speed ahead with the launch of Bush's still ill-defined Africa Command (AFRICOM). While AFRICOM appears to be a done deal, with a budget request of $389 for FY 2009, the public explanations and justifications for it can only be described as seriously confusing if not downright evasive.

In October 2003, James Jay Carafano and Nile Gardiner, both from the Heritage Foundation, a con- servative think tank, proposed to the Bush Administration the creation of a centralized Africa command for the U.S. military. The Carafano/Gardiner proposal makes clear that the objective is to preserve U.S. access to African oil and other natural resources on the continent. Africa pro- duces 90% of the world's cobalt; 64% of its man- ganese; 50% of gold; 40% of platinum; 30% of ura- nium; 20% of total petroleum; 70% of cocoa; 60% of coffee; over 80% of coltan and 50% of palm oil. The Heritage report also points to the strategic importance of Africa in the global "war on terror." This proposal resonated with the Bush administration.

Altruistic Motives?

AFRICOM began initial operations in October 2007 with temporary headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany. But much like 150 years ago when Western countries argued that their real goals in Africa were to bring liberty and democratic ideals to the continent, the Bush Administration has been trying to convince skeptical audiences in Africa and elsewhere that AFRICOM is ultimately driven by altruistic motives. AFRICOM's projected structure would place human- itarian work previously done by the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) under the directive of Department of Defense (DOD). To U.S. and African civil society groups, and even to AFRICOM's critics in Congress, the Bush administration has argued that the State Department will remain responsible for diplomacy and development while AFRICOM will "support" USAID and other humanitarian organiza- tions in the delivery of humanitarian aid and assis- tance. The Bush administration suggests there will be more civilian oversight of AFRICOM than any other military command. Yet it remains hard to see how African policy will not be driven by military engage- ment as opposed to a genuine partnership if the State Department and USAID are positioned under the Defense Department in AFRICOM. Military commands are simply not designed to do humanitar- ian work. For commissioned officers and the Defense Department, humanitarian work will never trump military objectives. This reality was clearly illustrated in Iraq when the State Department and humanitarian groups were simply cut out of planning discussions around the build up to the inva- sion and its aftermath. AFRICOM appears likely to follow a similar trajectory.

The United States is telling African governments that AFRICOM is simply a restructuring of African pro- grams currently split among the existing U.S. global military units of the U.S. European Command (EUCOM), U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), and U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM). General William Ward, AFRICOM's designated commander, made the case for his new command at a meeting with African Union (AU) leaders in Addis Ababa in early November, arguing that the United States has a national interest in helping to "stabilize" Africa. "We come and do things to assist our African partners in increasing their capacity, their capability to provide a stable environment here in Africa, " he said. When asked whether AFRICOM was "simply a militariza- tion of the continent" he replied, "Absolutely false; not the case." His answer is, of course, contradicted by the very reality of the increasing militarization of U.S. foreign policy in Africa over the last five years.

Soldier of Fortune

AFRICOM is being touted in Soldier of Fortune and other private military contractor industry publica- tions as ushering in a bountiful new job market. In Iraq, contractors hired by the U.S. government were accountable to no one, resulting in unacceptable human rights violations. It is reasonable to be con- cerned that mercenaries and other contractors hired for AFRICOM's work will follow a similar pattern. African voices from civil society and from democrati- cally elected African governments should be heard and heeded in decisions relating to the location of AFRICOM and its role in Africa. Thus far, only Liberia has given any public support for this initiative. Other nations and regional bodies including the Southern African Development Community (SADC) have expressed deep concern about a deepened U.S. mili- tary footprint on African soil.

It's important for Africa advocates in the United States to stand in solidarity with African civil society voices on the continent by challenging not only the existence of AFRICOM but seeking several impor- tant changes to the proposed program. AFRICOM should decouple the U.S. Department of State and USAID from the Defense Department to ensure that U.S.-Africa policy will be driven by diplomacy, devel- opment and genuine partnership, not military engagement. Clear lines of accountability and mecha- nisms for transparency must be established not only for AFRICOM but also for any private military con- tractors employed by the United States in Africa to ensure the protection of the rule of law, democracy and human rights on the continent. Funding for AFRICOM and the increasing militarization of aid and engagement in Africa should be reallocated to serve a comprehensive agenda that promotes just security by supporting sustainable development, deeper debt cancellation for impoverished countries in Africa, and fully funding the fight against HIV/AIDS and other health challenges on the continent.

AFRICOM raises more questions then the Bush administration is able to answer at this point. Who does the United States intend to stabilize by intro- ducing more military equipment and approving more arms sales into the region? How does the United States decide when to use force in "stabilizing" a con- flict? If people are protesting unfair corporate prac- tices near the grounds of an oil company, will the United States use force, or encourage the use of force by African military units, to protect these corporate assets? Will U.S. soldiers be accountable in any way to African governments or their citizens? To what degree will the United States employ mercenaries and other contractors in Africa? Will U.S. economic interests trump the rule of law, democracy and accountability in Africa? The answers to the questions above will go a long way to determine whether AFRICOM constitutes a solution to a bureaucratic challenge of a region divided between other global military commands or is actually likely to encourage future conflicts.

Kenya

It's only February, but the recent turbulence in heretofore-stable Kenya brings U.S. policy toward Africa in 2008 into focus. U.S. interests in Kenya are well documented. Kenya's role as a manufacturing and financial hub for East Africa makes it an appeal- ing partner for Western investments. The country's geographic location, bordering on Somalia, a col- lapsed state, also appeals to U.S. security interests, particularly given President Mwai Kibaki's history of unswerving support for the Bush Administration's "war on terror." It is therefore not surprising that the United States initially responded to the dubious offi- cial election outcome and immediate swearing in of Kibaki for a second term by calling on the Kenyan people to "accept the results…calmly."

Once it became apparent that the elections were clearly tarnished, various U.S. officials backtracked and engaged in a clumsy game of semantics regarding what was actually said. But all of Africa saw the U.S. rally around Meles Zenawi when he also claimed to win the Ethiopian election in 2005, despite over- whelming evidence that he and his Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) had lost badly. Zenawi immediately cracked down on the opposition and at least 200 people were killed and 700 were injured. The EPRDF never relin- quished control of power and two years later, Zenawi's U.S.-backed troops invaded Somalia.

U.S. support of favored illegitimate regimes like Zenawi's in Ethiopia and the unhelpful, contradicto- ry U.S. diplomatic response to the botched elections in Kenya risk encouraging leadership around the con- tinent to ignore the will of their citizens when they have international backing. Do these two instances foreshadow the standard AFRICOM response to con- tested elections in Africa?

Other Elections

In 2002, Kenya appeared to be a shining example of the possibilities of democracy and the genuine emer- gence of freedom and real stability, after frequent government critic Kibaki was elected in a contest regarded as free and fair. The spectacle of Kenya in turmoil is certainly distressing to other democratic movements across the continent in a year that will see several other important African elections that may expe- rience unhealthy influence from U.S. militarization. Longtime U.S. foe, but now a new oil friend and military partner, Angola, will have its first legislative elections in September. Half of the country has regis- tered to vote in the long-awaited polls as citizens hope to usher in a new era of multiparty democracy after Angola's 27-year civil war ended in 2002. The legislative elections were initially scheduled to be held in 1997. A presidential election will follow next year. The Angola opposition group, the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA), has accused the government of deliberately delaying the elections. U.S. military operations in Angola have been growing by leaps and bounds since 2002, with arms sales up over of 1000% and ongoing International Military and Training Program trainings and security agreements with the U.S. Navy.

Divided Ivory Coast leaders aim to hold long-delayed elections in the first half of 2008. Rebels have con- trolled the northern half of the West African state and world's top cocoa producer since a 2002-2003 civil war, but President Laurent Gbagbo and former rebel leader Guillaume Soro, who became prime min- ister in April 2007, agreed in March 2007 on a process of disarmament, reunification and organiza- tion of elections. Many observers inside and outside the country are concerned by the slow pace of progress on practical aspects of this agreement and fear that the elections will be postponed again. Despite the fact that the United States has so clearly supported undemocratic regimes when it has served a military, economic or other political interest, the United States claims to be aggressively working for "democracy" in Zimbabwe. Although some in the Bush Administration seem to be realizing that overt U.S. engagement in Zimbabwe has been counter-pro- ductive, the United States has been intensifying sanc- tions and increased funding of opposition groups. This economic pressure for regime change not only strengthens Robert Mugabe's hand when blaming outside forces for the current economic crisis but it has the potential to undermine the opposition's legit- imacy both now and if they were to gain power.

The United States ought to cease and desist from this antagonistic unilateral engagement and instead step back to work with other elements of the international community to develop a multilateral engagement. U.S. policies should facilitate bringing together regional actors like Southern African Development Community and the African Union with internation- al agencies in order to promote the democratic process, a national and popular constitutional reform process, economic justice and human rights. A major shift in South Africa's political landscape occurred at the end of 2007, when the African National Congress (ANC) announced that its inten- tion to back Jacob Zuma in the 2009 presidential elections. Given the ANC's overwhelming strength, Zuma will be the heavy favorite to win. Still, 2008 will be an important year in the lead up to elections South Africa.

Sudan's Multiple Conflicts

Perhaps the most interesting upcoming African elec- tion from the U.S. perspective will be in the Sudan. The U.S.-brokered and Kenya-hosted Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) of 2005 ended the civil war between North and South, and declared that the year 2009 will witness an unprecedented and internation- ally monitored general election in the Sudan. In 2008 it will be determined whether these elections are a realistic possibility. As deadly violence against civil- ians raged on in Darfur in 2007, serious fractures emerged in the North-South peace agreement. The complete implementation of all the provisions of the CPA, including a nationwide census to prepare for the 2009 elections is critical to the process of democ- ratizing Sudan and achieving peace and development for its entire population.

There is little indication, however, that President Omar Al-Bashir's National Congress Party (NCP) regime in Khartoum has any intention of jeopardiz- ing its hold on power, and it will attempt to delay the election process as long as possible unless it faces credible pressure from the international community. If a legitimate census is not carried out and a national electoral commission is not successfully established and operating in 2008, a serious blow will be struck both to the CPA and the ability of Southerners to wait for the 2011 referendum that will determine if the South will stay united with the North of Sudan or opt for separation.

This election will be of particular interest because the United States has taken a strong rhetorical stance against the Sudanese government regarding Darfur while simultaneously maintaining strong intelligence and military ties with Khartoum, including arms sales and official military trainings. On December 31, Bush signed divestment legislation into law and pledged to uphold sanctions against the Sudanese government. For the first time, the Bush administra- tion seems to be becoming more comprehensive, at least in its public statements, in its approach to Sudan.

New Envoy

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice swore in Richard Williamson as the new U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan on January 7 and the following day Bush made a statement committing the U.S. to supporting the implementation of the CPA, the deployment of an effective peacekeeping force in Darfur and the diplo- matic engagement necessary to support serious politi- cal dialogue between the region's stakeholders. Unfortunately, in the past several years, we have seen the Bush administration use powerful rhetoric that in reality meant nothing on the ground and masked insufficient or contradictory U.S. diplomatic action. Bush's statement says that the CPA, "laid the groundwork for lasting peace and unity for all of Sudan," a sentiment that is popularly promoted by policymakers and advocates alike. Africa Action's dia- logue with Sudanese in each region of the country reveals that the CPA - while a critical agreement that must be implemented - should not be held up as an exact model for all other agreements. Circumstances are different in every region and all new peace processes must both address these unique regional characteristics and avoid repeating some of the mis- takes of the CPA by being more inclusive, more par- ticipatory, and more transparent to the general Sudanese population.

The United States must also follow through with diplomatic engagement once peace agreements have been signed to ensure timely implementation. The real process of peace and justice happens after the political negotiations have been concluded when the agreements are put into practice.

If the Bush Administration is serious in its commit- ment to a comprehensive and productive Sudan poli- cy, it must prioritize these areas over the "war on ter- ror." It must use its influence on Sudan to ensure the prompt and comprehensive implementation of the CPA. In Darfur, it must use its leverage in the inter- national community to resolve the outstanding issues of UN command and control of the African Union/UN hybrid peacekeeping force known as UNAMID and to ensure that this peacekeeping force is fully resourced and deployed. The United States and the international community must not allow Khartoum to veto troop contributions from nations around the world. Tensions with Chad are heating up on the western border of Darfur, and the United States must begin to adopt a regional perspective when addressing this conflict.

There are over 8,000 helicopters among NATO countries, many of them that could pass the "hot and high" test needed to work in Darfur's extreme heat and high levels of dust. Darfur needs at least 70 of these, but contributing countries are resisting, argu- ing that they don't have the helicopters or that they are anxious about the command and control issues of UNAMID. The U.S. has the opportunity to finance the provision of helicopters by other NATO coun- tries as well as leverage the necessary international leadership to ensure UN command and control of the force. For myriad reasons, U.S. troops in Darfur are neither politically possible not practically desir- able. However, there might be ways for the U.S. to loan the United Nations the helicopters and other support vehicles that are essential for UNAMID. The deployment and support of UNAMID must go hand-in-hand with renewed efforts to build an inclu- sive and participatory peace process for the Darfur region and for the North of Sudan where new conflict is emerging. The International Criminal Court must get full international support to do the important work of accountability in Sudan's many conflicts.

Horn of Africa

The primacy of U.S. security interests and militariza- tion in the Horn of Africa has gone a long way towards further destabilizing an already volatile area. As part of Operation Enduring Freedom's Trans- Sahara Counter-Terrorism Initiative, U.S. naval ves- sels have engaged in several military strikes in Somalia. Over a thousand people have died since U.S. war planes bombed towns in southern Somalia and up to half a million people have fled the erup- tion of violence in Mogadishu to live in camps. The United States has allied with unpopular and repres- sive Ethiopian President Meles Zenawi and orches- trated the invasion of Somalia by Ethiopian troops. This appears to have accomplished little more than another human rights and humanitari- an crisis with hundreds of thousands of internally dis- placed people, untold num- bers of refugees in neighbor- ing countries, and regular reports noting the brutality of rape, beatings, shooting and indiscriminate shelling by all parties to the conflict in and around Mogadishu.

The exercise has weakened Ethiopia considerably in its still-unresolved border dispute with Eritrea (despite an Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission decision in 2002 which the Ethiopian government refuses to abide by even after both countries' repeated pledges that the decision of the commission would be binding and final). Ethiopia's actions have also angered and inspired ethnic Somalis in Ethiopia's Ogaden region. Given the increasingly complicated and tense reality on the Horn today, it would be interesting to see if American officials believe that U.S. policy in the region actually achieved any count- er-terrorism goals. Ironically, it is only in the interna- tionally unrecognized but clearly democratic state of Somaliland (known as northwest Somalia), that there is peace.

*For the full article, please visit the Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF), a project of the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS, online at www.ips-dc.org). Established in 1996, Foreign Policy In Focus is a network of policy analysts, advocates, and activists committed to “making the United States a more responsible global leader and global partner.” For more information, visit www.fpif.org

**Gerald LeMelle is the Executive Director of Africa Action and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus. Michael Swigert, Africa Action's Department of Policy Analysis and Communication Program Associate provided research support.

***Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

The full article is available at http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4949

African Policy Experts in U.S. and Africa available to comment on US Africa Policy

2008-02-19

http://pambazuka.org/en/category/features/46222

Leaders from African advocacy organizations in the U.S and in Africa are available for interviews on President Bush’s trip to Africa scheduled for February 15-21.  The leadership can review the key policy areas that will be addressed by Mr. Bush on his final trip to the continent as president. They will also express their concerns about Mr. Bush’s presidential legacy as it relates to Africa.  A transcript from today’s audio press conference is available upon request. 
Suggested topics for discussion:
- HIV/AIDS (PEPFAR)
- U.S. Militarism in Africa
- Chinese influence in Africa
- U.S. Africa trade
- Africa Growth and Opportunity Act
- Debt cancellation
- Impact of the Bush presidency on Africa
- Recommendations for the next U.S. President
 
Experts in AFRICA

GHANA
Yao Graham, Executive Director, Third World Networks-Africa
(+233-21) 503669/503816 
Charles Abugre, Director of Policy and Advocacy, Christian Aid
+44207523107 

“The ‘Global War on Terror’ has dominated the foreign policy of the Bush Administration. It has promoted military engagements at the literal and strategic expense of development or diplomacy.  This is leading to greater instability and uncertainty throughout the African world, creating tensions within and between African countries and turning away from the paramount development priorities.” 

RWANDA
Bahati Ntama Jacques, Policy Analyst, Africa Faith and Justice Network
bahati@afjn.org, cell: (847) 334-3614 
 
"The United States lends its support to President Paul Kagame due in large part to his complicity in the US "War on Terror." Yet, President Kagame has twice invaded DRC in the past and is likely supporting General Nkunda's rebel force in eastern DRC as a means of deflecting the Hutu army from Rwanda's border.”

TANZANIA

Sakina Datoo 
Chairperson – Editors Forum of Tanzania 
Forum for all Managing Editors in the country 
+255 754 317 632
sakina@thecitizen.co.tz
 
“We value the aid we get from the US, but President Bush should know that Tanzanians care about much more than just aid. Our Father of the Nation, Mwalimu Nyerere stood for liberation of all oppressed people in the world. Bush’s oppressive foreign policy especially the War on Iraq, unequivocal support for Israel, a nation that is responsible for great torture of Palestinians, and threats against Iran, in addition to other harsh US foreign missions, deeply concern Tanzanians.” 
 
Additional Tanzania Contacts: Chamba Max Kajege – Coordinator, Tanzania Coalition on Debt and Development
+255 713608854

Julius Kapwepwe, Uganda Debt Network
jkapwepwe@udn.or.ug,
+256-41- 533840/543974

LIBERIA

Ezekiel Pajibo, Center for Democratic Empowerment, Liberia
+27 11 728 1817 or + 27 826 997 616 

“The persistent difficulty in Africa is widespread poverty.  To deal with this, serious investment must be made in the development of Africa's human resources. This means that more Africans must have access to education, health and adequate nutrition.  No doubt, the militarization of Africa relations with the United States would not address these core issues.  This is why some of us, perhaps the majority of us, in Africa oppose AFRICOM.  President Bush's visit to Africa must not compel our leaders to accept AFRICOM in order to benefit from U.S. Foreign Assistance.” 
 
Additional Liberia Contacts:
Alfred Brownell, Director, Green Advocates
+2314790951cell
alfredbrownell@yahoo.com    http://www.greenadvocates.org 

Green Advocates, The Association of Environmental Lawyers of Liberia, is Liberia’s first and only public interest environmental law organization 
Silas Sukor, Director, Sustainable Development Institute (SDI), Liberia
The SDI focuses on natural resources management and governance issues
+23177727596   director@sdiliberia.org 

Robert, Director, Save Our Future (Liberia)
+2316561955 

Austin Nantee, President Firestone Agricultural Workers of Liberia (FAWUL)
-+2316691718 

AFRICAN POLICY EXPERTS IN THE US

Emira Woods, Co-Director, Foreign Policy In Focus; Institute for Policy Studies
Cell 301 523-2979 

“President Bush heads to Africa under a veneer of compassion, yet many throughout the continent are skeptical of a foreign policy that curtails development and diplomacy while expanding the U.S. military footprint in and around Africa.”

AFRICOM
Nunu Kidane,
Network Coordinator of Priority Africa Network.
Cell 510 517 4641 

“President Bush’s last trip to Africa, if in fact related to the launch of AFRICOM in Liberia, presents the greatest threat to African peace and stability in recent history.  The continent does not need further militarization. If we have learned lessons from Iraq, it is that conflict perpetuates poverty and do not secure peace, it is never the solution.” 
Beth Tuckey, Associate Director - Program Development and Policy, Africa Faith and Justice Network bethtuckey@afjn.org, cell: (828) 713-8753 
 
"AFRICOM reveals that the Bush Administration's foreign policy strategy relies on putting soldiers at the front of global operations. It is a command designed to fulfill a shortsighted vision of US national security that benefits only special interest groups like oil companies and private military contractors.”

DEBT
Neil Watkins, National Coordinator, Jubilee USA Network.
202-421-1023  

“Nearly all the countries the President will visit on his trip to Africa have benefited from debt cancellation which his administration strongly supported in 2005. As President Bush sees firsthand the life-saving impacts of debt cancellation he should take the next step by announcing strong measures to stop ‘vulture funds’ and other rogue lenders from eroding gains of debt relief.” 

HIV/AIDS
Dr. Paul Zeitz, Executive Director, Global AIDS Alliance
 Cell phone:  202-365-6786
 
"President Bush has had important successes in expanding access to HIV/AIDS treatment, but his latest actions tell another story.  Bush is proposing flat-lining AIDS, TB and malaria spending for FY 2009 and proposing a massive 40% cut in the US contribution to the Global Fund, despite his claim to be 'doubling the US commitment' to these programs.”   
 

Rejecting Paternalism in Africa?

Tim Newman

2008-02-19

http://pambazuka.org/en/category/comment/46225

Tim Newman asks whether Bushs' view of trade and investment is really not paternalistic.

A central aspect of President Bush’s trip to Africa is the promotion of neoliberal trade policies and foreign direct investment as a path to “empowerment” and a “culture of self-reliance and opportunity.” The president has explicitly rejected “the paternalistic notion that treats African countries as charity cases, or a model of exploitation that seeks only to buy up their resources.”

But will the impact of his view of trade and investment on workers in Africa truly end this paternalism?

In Liberia

Bush will end his trip by spending a few hours in Liberia. There he will try to cast himself in the role of the compassionate conservative who successfully intervened in Liberia’s long civil war, thus heralding in a shining new democracy led by Africa’s first democratically-elected female president. In his February 14 press conference, Bush celebrated increasing private capital flows to sub-Saharan Africa. But the workers supposedly benefiting from foreign private investment in Liberia might have a different perspective.
For example, Liberia’s largest investor and employer, Firestone, has been exploiting workers on its rubber plantation for over 80 years. The company has been the focus of an international campaign and a lawsuit in U.S. courts because of its use of child labor and abuse of workers’ rights. Affidavits collected from child laborers on the plantation recently filed in the lawsuit show clearly how foreign direct investment and trade often do not benefit workers.
Sixteen-year-old James Roe IV is a typical example of a Firestone worker. He began working at the age of nine on the plantation, cleaning cups of latex and cutting grass with a machete. At the age of 11, he began collecting latex and applying toxic chemicals to trees without any protective gear. When he was nine, James was injured at work when he cut his foot with a machete. But he could not get proper health care because he lacked an ID card required by the company to access the Firestone Hospital. Since he works from 4 a.m. to 3 p.m., he has been unable to attend school and has only achieved a second-grade education. James was forced to work to help his father meet his daily production quota because if he failed to meet the quota, his family would not be able to afford food.
Firestone workers have seen few benefits from their labor and are stuck in a generational cycle of poverty. On the other hand, Firestone has built a multi-million dollar tire business using Liberia’s rubber. Firestone’s investment in Liberia is a textbook case of “exploitation that seeks only to buy up [Africa’s] resources.”

AGOA

Bush will also be stopping in Ghana to meet with entrepreneurs who benefit from the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). Since 2001, international monitoring organizations have scrutinized Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire for the widespread use of abusive child labor, including forced labor and trafficking, on cocoa farms that supply the main ingredient for the chocolate bars sold by major U.S. corporations like Mars, Hershey, and Nestle. These chocolate companies have dragged their feet for years and refuse to acknowledge that the low prices they pay West African farmers for their cocoa beans create a downward pressure on wages and labor standards. A recent Global Witness report also found that the cocoa industry has helped to finance conflict in Cote d’Ivoire. Instead of using some of his time in Ghana to highlight the injustice facing cocoa farmers, Bush will be using his platform to further promote trade and investment policies that do not adequately protect labor rights.

AGOA provides clear benefits, however, for corporate investors. For example, a textile factory owned by the company Ramatex chose to take advantage of AGOA by locating in an Export Processing Zone (EPZ) in Namibia. Incentives offered to Ramatex for setting up shop in the EPZ include: an exemption from import duties, an exemption from sales tax, a guarantee of free repatriation of capital and profits, access to streamlined regulatory services, a refund of up to 75% of costs of pre-approved training of Namibian citizens, provision of dirt-cheap factory facilities, and of course, weak labor regulations. Ramatex is then able to export its products duty free to the United States through AGOA.
Meanwhile, AGOA has led to an increase in the low-skilled garment sector in Africa where workers are often abused. For example, a recent report by SOMO titled Footloose Investors found that in Swaziland, “violations documented at Asian-owned factories in the last 6 years include forced overtime, verbal abuse, sexual intimidation, unhealthy and unsafe conditions, unreasonable production targets and anti-union repression.” These violations of workers’ rights do not represent the commitment to fair trade that Bush promoted at his February 14 press conference.

Bush’s talk about “a new era of development” looks like more of the same – abuse of workers and extraction of Africa’s resources for the benefit of wealthy corporations. While the Bush administration clearly embraces both paternalism and the exploitation of Africa’s workers and resources, there is another option. We can stand in solidarity with African workers by actively supporting their organizing efforts – from the Firestone rubber plantation to Group 4 Securicor workers in Malawi to cut-flower workers in Kenya. U.S.-based corporations should be publicly accountable for their abuses in Africa, and U.S. trade policies should provide strong protections for workers. U.S. citizens, meanwhile, should participate in corporate campaigns and scrutinize their own investments and purchasing decisions.

* Tim Newman is a Campaigns Assistant at the International Labor Rights Forum and a member of the Stop Firestone Coalition.

**Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Tajudeen Welcomes Bush to Africa

Tajudeen Abdul Raheem

2008-02-19

http://pambazuka.org/en/category/panafrican/46220

Someone very important is visiting Africa, specifically 5 countries including Tanzania, Rwanda, Benin, Ghana and Liberia. He is the President of the United States of America. The hassles of hosting a U.S. president are bad enough. His people take over your whole country and make our normally inefficient states go into over drive and our egregious First Ladies and their husbands go into overkill to show their hospitality. We never knew many of them could bend their knees until they were leading cleaning troops across the capitals in preparation for Clinton’s visit in 1998 from Kampala to Accra!

I could not forget seeing resident Museveni being a perfect gentleman with a spread umbrella for Mrs Clinton! In Accra, Jerry Rawlings and Mrs Rawlings went out of their ways for a few hours of stop over. But with Bush it is not just the ridiculous security and obsequious protocol laid on by our Presidents that concerns me. African hospitality knows no bounds. Remember some of our chiefs and Kings were so friendly that they parted with ancestral lands and carted away able bodied young men and women for as little as mirrors, umbrellas and walking sticks! Whatever our rational concerns though, the officials in the five ‘chosen’ countries will be beside themselves to give him a reception he will never forget. To them, it is a major diplomatic and political coup for the President of the U.S. to be visiting their countries. It shows their “ungrateful” citizens how very important these leaders are.

I can easily explain why four of the countries were on the itinerary. Tanzania remains one of the most peaceful countries in Africa and saves for the mess in Zanzibar and reactionary victimisation of dissenting citizens under the previous regime, it remains a decent state with a government that everyone wants to befriend. With Uganda now becoming less fashionable and Kenya inflicting enormous self injury on itself Dar es Salaam is indeed living up to its name as a rendezvous of peace! Rwanda is probably the best governed and effective state in Africa today (I don’t mean most democratic!).

Kagame has won the grudging respect of reluctant neighbours and admiration of outsiders as a place where you see real value for Aid money and other ‘investments’. It also enjoys the political and diplomatic dividends of guilt-tripping westerners for their actions and inactions prior to, during and after genocide in 1994. Ghana, mother Africa, I wonder how Nkrumah like Nyerere in Tanzania is turning in his grave that the country he built on radical nationalism has become a desirable Executive tourist destination for western Presidents. Ghana has had a prolonged 50th anniversary magic effect only punctuated by the unfortunate defeat by Cameroon in the Africa cup. You cannot go wrong with Ghana as a steady gentleman country. As for Liberia, its historic links to the U.S. is flaunted by its elite without any sense of irony. Post Taylor it has regained fashionability in the U.S. establishment. Bush is therefore bound to receive the warmest of receptions in Monrovia, a city created for freed slaves from the U.S. but whose elite had no qualms in recreating plantation power relations against fellow Africans and continue to behave as the missing state of the U.S. on the West coast of Africa!. But Benin, I do not know why Bush is going there. Maybe to balance up the Anglo-French divisions and remind a waning Paris that there are no no go areas anymore. But maybe he wants to go close enough to Africa’s sleeping giant, Nigeria but without entering it given the uncertainties surrounding the federal administration consequent to rigged elections.

Unlike in Kenya where the protagonists are trying to dialogue even if there does not seem to be much good will in Nigeria they are all in court. And so far the courts have been overturning some of the ‘topped up’ victories for the ruling party. What is the point in going to dine with a president who may not be there by the time you arrive or the week after you leave? The visit is obviously packaged to showcase ‘America working with Africa’ hence the concentration on HIV/Aids programmes supported by the U.S. government through bilateral grants and NGOs. There is no doubt that the Bush administration has given more money, several times, more than that of the Clinton administration, so loved by both African – Americans and Africans. However this generosity is dampened by the insistence on giving money to their own religiously inclined and anti-condom groups. But HIV and Aids is not the only threat that Africa faces in which a globally responsive U.S. President could be of help but to which Bush has turned deaf ears for the past 7 years. He is ideologically opposed to the Millennium Development Goals. He has remained more belligerent than his predecessors on global Climate Change.

In spite of all evidence to the contrary he still believes he can bomb countries into democracy which has strengthened the hands of many dictators and legitimized further militarization and regime change politics especially in the Great Lakes region. He may want to be remembered by the few good ones but the consequences of his bad policies are just too many and will outlast him and some of them irreparable due to the collateral evil they have spurned. In spite of my reservations what kind of African would I be to say a visitor is not welcome? And a visitor as important as George Bush. He is welcome to enjoy his stay and our hospitality. We are also hoping that the next President of the U.S. will not behave like a settler landlord of the world and treat the rest of us as illegal tenants in our shared earth. It is a shared world and the US must learn to inhabit it with the rest of us in peace, solidarity, and respect for all big or small. It needs us as much as we need it. Therefore the next President need not be asking why the rest of the World hates America rather he or she needs to be more introvertic by asking if America loves the world enough to live in it peacefully and in justice with the rest of us.

*FPIF Analyst Tajudeen Abdulraheem was formerly the General Secretary of the Pan-African Movement. He is based in Nairobi, Kenya.

**Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Articles on Kenya

Nancy

2008-02-19

http://pambazuka.org/en/category/letters/46206

I have been reading your articles on the current situation in Kenya and it was very informative. I come from Kenya from the kikuyu tribe and I have had a hard time reconciling with the fact that these two potential presidents have turned our country into what it is today.

It was an incredible and informative article.

Bush visit to Africa: The real culprits

Ken Simmon

2008-02-19

http://pambazuka.org/en/category/letters/46210

The real culprits in the Bush visit to Africa are the black leaders who allow him to get away with this. A criminal is going to do what a criminal does. It is the leaders of the African people that are selling us out. They must be called to task. We cannot continue to allow our so-call leaders to rob us. It is the sins of our leaders that is killing us most. And we continue to let them get away with it.

Developed countries' leverage on Africa

Kiprotich Arap-Ruto

2008-02-19

http://pambazuka.org/en/category/letters/46205

It is with much interest that, I read the article "Developed countries' leverage on Africa"- http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/comment/45898 It is true that Africa is also rich in mineral and natural resources, yet these resources have caused more harm than good. Our leaders are greedy, corrupt, and mere puppets. My question is, in your opinion where do we go from here and what is the future of Africa?

Maina Kiai's article on the political crisis in Kenya

Nancy Echessa

2008-02-19

http://pambazuka.org/en/category/letters/46207

As a Kenyan residing abroad I have been searching for an objective view and analysis of what could have transpired in my beloved country Kenya and what could be a positive way forward. I have now found this honest, neutral and objective analysis in Maina Kiai's article.

I sincerely congratulate Maina Kiai for maintaining his objectivity and from his standpoint attempting to convey a professional and thoroughly researched position of what transpired. I would like to urge him to forge ahead without fear or favor and history will record his great deeds! Kudos my brother! The Kenya we want is minus tribalism, nepotism, cultism, political complacency and manipulation of the masses...

Finally as much as we look up to the international community to provide solutions we Kenyans must look inwards as well and clean up our house and our hearts!

May Peace, fairness and sanity prevail in our beloved country Kenya!

Fahamu