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 or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

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 or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

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 or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

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 or comment online at www.pambazuka.org