EDITORIAL COMMENT: George W. Bush’s re-election to the White House is bad for the world and bad for Africa. It’s not that the election of Democratic senator John Kerry would have resulted in a groundswell of change. But Bush took his country into a war that, as revealed by research conducted by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and published this week in the Lancet, has resulted in the death of 100 000 Iraqi civilians – half of them women and children. Had the US electorate voted for Kerry, at least they would have sent a message to their leadership that bloodletting would not be tolerated in their name. Yes, Kerry might not have withdrawn from Iraq, but at least he would have been forced to think about the wisdom of an illegitimate foreign invasion if he knew that his second term in office was threatened.

As it is, Bush has a mandate from the US electorate to pursue a right wing agenda and the iron heel will now attempt to further stamp its authority on the world. For Africa, expect this agenda and the death of multilaterism to mean the securing of lucrative oil contracts even if it translates into supporting corrupt regimes, support for countries who back the ‘war on terrorism’ even while suppressing human rights domestically, the undermining of reproductive rights to the detriment of women’s rights and a fight against HIV/AIDS that has the best interests of the pharmaceutical industry at heart. Now that military intervention for 'regime change' has been legitimised as a political strategy with the collusion of Tony Blair (the chair of the 'Commission on Africa'), Africa will not be immune to the use of that strategy, only this time to the applaud of the majority of US citizens.

Q&A ON AFRICA AND THE US ELECTIONS

Last week, Pambazuka News sent a list of questions about the US elections to Ann-Louise Colgan, Director for Policy Analysis & Communications at Africa Action (http://www.africaaction.org). Answered before the results became known, the responses provide a useful insight into how Africa is seen by the US administration and what can be expected for the next four years.

PZ: Much of the news coming out of the US election race was focused on either the war in Iraq or domestic policy related to the economy. Where, if at all, did Africa feature on the radar screen and what were the main issues related to the continent that were mentioned?

ALC: This 2004 election season has had by far a greater focus than usual on foreign policy issues, but Africa has unfortunately been largely absent from the national debate. This only highlights once more the degree to which Africa is marginalized in the US policy discourse and in the public consciousness. Despite historical ties and important current interests, Africa is still largely considered to fall outside the scope of US policymakers’ concerns.

That being said, two issues related to Africa have featured on the radar screen to some extent this election season: Sudan & HIV/AIDS.

The genocide in Darfur, western Sudan, which has prompted a great deal of political activism and media attention in the US. in recent months, was featured in the first Presidential debate. This first debate took place just 4 weeks after the Bush Administration finally acknowledged that genocide was taking place in Darfur, and the moderator of the debate asked the candidates why they were not talking about sending in troops when they both agreed that this was a case of genocide. Both Presidential candidates emphasized the role and responsibility of the African Union in this regard, and neither stated that the US should take a leadership role. John Kerry did finish by saying that if it took US troops to coalesce the African Union, he would be prepared to do that in order to avoid “another Rwanda.” President Bush said he would not agree with committing troops to this area, just as, four years before, he had said in a Presidential debate that he would not send troops to the African continent to stop another Rwanda.

The issue of HIV/AIDS has also gained some attention this election season. The Bush Administration has sought to place the so-called President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) at the heart of its compassionate conservative agenda, and the Kerry campaign pledged to double this funding level for HIV/AIDS efforts in Africa and globally. Unfortunately, when a question on HIV/AIDS in the US was put to the vice-presidential candidates in the second debate, both revealed their ignorance about its disproportionate impact among African-American women in this country, which highlights their disinterest in the African-American community and their ignorance of the factors that continue to fuel the spread of HIV/AIDS at home and abroad. They instead sought to answer the question by focusing on their plans to fight HIV/AIDS in Africa, which are, of course, similarly inadequate.

But even in these two cases, where African priorities force themselves onto the agenda of candidates and policymakers, the urgent leadership required (and purported) by the US is absent. The measure of Africa’s importance is revealed by the reality of US policies, and not the rhetoric of election debates.

PZ: The problems with US policy towards Africa seem obvious - debt relief, HIV/AIDS, market access etc etc. How wide an understanding is there amongst the US electorate of these issues?

ALC: There is a deep understanding and interest in these issues among the various sectors of the US electorate that form Africa’s constituencies here in the US. These include a wide range of Africa-focused civil society groups and their supporters, academics, religious and labour communities, African-American & African neo-diaspora communities, activist student groups, and many others. Not all of these groups engage at the policy level, but they do care about US relations with Africa in a broad sense.

Across the US electorate as a whole, there is a narrow understanding of US foreign policy interests, particularly post-September 11th. Often, this translates to a lack of awareness of key global issues – such as poverty, civil conflict and HIV/AIDS – and the role of the US in responding to these challenges. While a broader understanding does exist on the issues of HIV/AIDS in Africa and genocide in Darfur, the US public is often misled to believe that the US is doing more than it is on these critical issues.

PZ: It seems as if there is a general acknowledgement that the re-election of Bush is bad for Africa. But would Kerry have offered anything substantively different?

ALC: The priorities and approach of the Bush Administration have certainly hurt Africa over the past four years. The US preoccupation with the “war on terrorism”, alleged weapons of mass destruction, and Washington’s military misadventure in Iraq, has hurt Africa directly in economic and political terms. The Bush Administration’s focus on oil and military security has also turned Africa into geo-strategic real estate, defining the continent’s value once more in a Cold War era model. More broadly, to the extent that US actions under the Bush Administration have undermined the very notion of multilateralism, they have been directly at odds with Africa’s interests. Despite rhetorical efforts to place Africa at the center of the Bush Administration’s “compassionate conservative” agenda, Africa’s priorities – the fight against HIV/AIDS and poverty – have been ignored, as US approaches have instead been characterized by broken promises and harmful policies.

Should Kerry have been elected, it is unlikely there would have been a dramatic shift in US Africa policy, or in US priorities in relation to Africa. In fact, despite being married to a woman born in Mozambique, John Kerry has never even been to Africa! The “Kerry-Edwards Plan for Africa” pledged to double funding for HIV/AIDS programs globally, and to support debt cancellation and the fight against poverty, but it offered little by way of new approaches to these challenges. On the positive side, Kerry would likely have supported the elimination of the global “gag rule”, which undermines family planning programs and women’s reproductive health in developing countries. Kerry has also issued stronger statements on the crisis in Darfur and what the US role should be in addressing this crisis. But on issues such as trade, military relations and oil, a Kerry administration would likely have pursued a similar track to the Bush White House. Kerry was also unlikely to dismantle the Millennium Challenge Account or the conditionalities integral to that program, as well as to the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and to debt relief programs.

PZ: There is an annual net drain of more than $12 billion dollars out of Sub-Saharan Africa, one of the highest such transfers from South to North in the world and it is mostly debt service. As Africa Action points out on their website, Africa's debt burden is an enormous obstacle to development of the continent. What progress is there likely to be on this issue over the next four years?

ALC: The past few months have seen important progress on the debt issue. During discussions among the “Group of 8” leaders at their annual summit in June, 100% multilateral debt cancellation was on the table for the first time in history. While there is still work to be done on this issue, both by campaigners and in negotiations between the G-8 governments, there are indications that an agreement can be expected in 2005 on some form of debt cancellation for some sub-set of deeply impoverished countries that need it.

Of course, since the invasion of Iraq, the Bush Administration has been actively promoting the cancellation of Iraq’s “odious debts”. At the same time, it has practiced a double standard by ignoring the illegitimate and odious nature of African countries’ debts. Recently, the Bush Administration indicated that it now supports 100% multilateral debt cancellation for 33 of the most impoverished and indebted countries, and that the resources to realize this should come from the World Bank and IMF themselves. The Bush Administration also supports a shift from loans to grants in future assistance.

While it is clear that rich countries and international financial institutions must address the illegitimate and unsustainable debts of African countries and other countries in the Global South, only continued public activism will ensure that result. Two key dates next year where debt will be on the agenda will be the “Group of 7” Finance Ministers meeting in February, and the annual G-8 summit, which the UK will host in July 2005.

PZ: What are some of the key motivators of US policy towards Africa and how are these likely to play themselves out over the next four years in terms of the war on terrorism, access to oil, and securing access to African raw materials and markets for American companies?

ALC: Under the Bush Administration, the “war on terrorism” and US interests in oil and strategic military relations have largely motivated US policy toward Africa. These perceived interests will continue to shape the course of US Africa policy over the next several years. Washington will continue to focus on African countries’ oil resources as an alternative to the Middle East. In fact, the National Intelligence Council projects that US oil supplies from West Africa will increase to 25% by 2015, which would exceed US oil imports from the entire Persian Gulf. The US pre-occupation with “energy security” will continue, and will make increasingly important those African countries that are large producers of oil, such as Nigeria, Angola, Gabon.

In terms of strategic military relations, increased US interest in projecting military force into the Persian Gulf has led to a massive increase in the US military presence in the Horn of Africa, and elsewhere in recent years. This trend is also likely to continue in the coming years as the US seeks to secure access to military bases across Africa, including in regions where oil is to be found. At the same time, there will continue to be a US concern with the counter-terrorism efforts of African countries, to the extent that they provide security for US interests in East Africa and other sub-regions.

The trend that has become apparent since 2001, when these two agendas – oil security and counter-terrorism – came to form the backbone of US Africa policy under the Bush Administration, will likely be further reinforced in coming years.

PZ:. Say one thing and do another, seems to be the juggling act of the Bush administration as it attempts to make commitments on the HIV/AIDS issue in Africa while at the same time protecting the interests of pharmaceutical companies. Any policy predictions on this issue for the next four years?

ALC: The HIV/AIDS pandemic in Africa and globally will remain the most urgent global threat, and will require a far more committed and effective response than has been the case until now.

Over the last four years, the Bush Administration’s ties with the pharmaceutical lobby in the US have led the US to pursue policies that protect the interests of these wealthy companies at the expense of the lives of people living with HIV/AIDS in poor countries, who are dying without access to essential medicines. It is clear that activism around the issue of access to affordable medications will continue, and that both rich country governments and pharmaceutical companies will face increasing pressure to give the growing numbers of people living with HIV/AIDS in impoverished countries the right and the ability to receive care and treatment.

The pharmaceutical industry is closely allied with the Bush Administration, and is one of the largest contributors to the Republican Party. The US Global AIDS Coordinator, appointed by Bush, is himself a former pharmaceutical executive! A comprehensive and effective response to HIV/AIDS in African and globally in the next several years will require strong international support for initiatives such as the World Health Organization’s “3 by 5” plan and the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis & Malaria. This means challenging the power and the profits of the pharmaceutical companies and their influence over US policy on HIV/AIDS in the US and globally.
While a Kerry Administration may initially have been less beholden to the pharmaceutical companies, these companies would have done everything in their power to change this as quickly as possible.

* What do you think about the re-election of George W. Bush? What is your view on the relationship between Africa and the US? Send your comments to [email protected]