webmaster@africanidea.org

United States Foreign Policy and Why Africa Matters Now!

Ghelawdewos Araia

December 18, 2008

In the highly complex and intricate global international relations, the United States has played a major role (for good or for bad) in shaping bilateral and multilateral relations among nations. The preponderance of Realist thinking in the corpus of US foreign policy may have compelled this nation to gravitate toward implementing coercion and hegemony over perceived and/or real enemies of sovereign nations or groups in one form or another associated with the target countries. In its extreme version, realist politics, in fact, engendered unnecessary bloodshed as in Vietnam and Iraq. Paradoxically, however, the United States has also initiated peace-oriented policies and promoted humanitarian assistance around the globe. The image of the US internationally, thus, would reflect the dual face of the same coin.

In fact, historically, the two schools of thought, namely Realism or Real Politick and Liberalism or Idealism, had been the main component parts of US foreign policy and, in turn, shaped several doctrines (e.g. the Monroe & Truman doctrines) as the last expressions of American body politic. Though essential differences between the two schools served as benchmarks in the formulation of US foreign policy, the swinging pendulum, by and large, has been maintained at the Center for the most part.

While Liberals view human nature as essentially good, Realists cynically consider human beings as inherently selfish, depraved, and flawed. While liberals heavily depend on the paradigm of reason and universal ethics in international relations, Realists emphasize national survival and hence national interest predicated on a relatively hostile and chaotic global order. Based on these rival theoretical doctrines (perceptions rather), thus, American foreign policy was reconfigured and reformed many times, but was unable to absorb or adopt the European legacy of social democracy or the Kantian concept of universal brotherhood.

America also seems to have completely forgotten homegrown transcendental views that evolved in the 1830s in New England under the leadership of Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau, the early harbingers of idealism. The country was stuck in the two schools of thought of Realism and Liberalism, with propensity toward the former for the most part. Logically, thus, an alternative and a third ideological movement, the Global Humanist perspective was unable to gain currency in the United States. The Global Humanist perspective is people-centered, community-oriented, and upholds the significance and necessity of international peace and global cooperation. By contrast, Realism and corporate globalism underscores individualism, competition, and materialism. There is nothing wrong in celebrating individual success and promoting competition in wealth making, but material obsession at the expense of spiritual values and collective or communal interest can ultimately lead any nation or society to go down the drain and make it crumble ignominiously. It is in light of the latter grim scenario that a Global Humanist steps in to alleviate the ever-prevailing miserable human condition in poor regions of the world, including Africa.

While the Global Humanist is concerned with the oneness of humanity and the common destiny of man, corporate globalism still maintains the old adage of ‘survival of the fittest’ in the fierce competition of global market economy. Again, corporate globalism underplays the material and spiritual needs of people in the periphery at the expense of egregious profit making. In the humanist tradition, Martin Luther King, jr. once said, “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an escapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly.”

Paradoxically, the Martin Luther King mantra, though said in a different context, is now most fitting to the global capitalist crisis that has affected virtually every corner of the globe. American hiccup is contagious indeed and we may witness the end of capitalism, as we know it unless a thorough reexamination of the crisis is made and a radical departure from monetarist market economy is seriously considered. The capitalist system will collapse unless a new financial system replaces the old bank-dominated system, and investment projects are undertaken in social sectors such as education, health, labor and other related areas, and most importantly the prominence of capital (as opposed to financial institutions) is revitalized. The myth that the market regulates and revitalizes itself (the Invisible Hand ála Adam Smith) is clearly the main culprit for the current global economic crisis, and unless major restructuring is made and permanent regulatory agencies are installed, liquidity alone will not save the system from crumbling.

The new Obama administration will now shoulder a mammoth responsibility of overseeing the global economic crisis and revitalizing American image worldwide.

The new Obama administration will also encounter major foreign policy considerations in putting Africa at the top of the agenda. Obama must take a bold initiative to circumvent the old policies of the World Bank and the IMF and their development programs that had crippling effects on the African continent. Obama, of course, need not necessarily favor Africa because he is African American or his father happened to be from Kenya. He should do it based on principle and on liberal-cum-humanitarian philosophy that I believe could humanize and strengthen the new American foreign policy.

From the onset, however, it should be crystal clear why Africa matters. Africa is an expansive continent connected to Europe by the Strait of Gibraltar and to Asia by the Suez and Strait of Bab el Mandeb, only separated by a body of water of 9 and 12 miles respectively. The continent is the cradle of humanity, ancient civilizations, and home to the first nation (Kemet or Egypt); its diversity in fauna and flora is breathtaking and its potential in strategic minerals is unmatched by any other region in the world. Ironically, however, Africa remains to be the poorest due to complex historical circumstances superimposed upon it and that seemingly bewitches it to this day.

One obvious historical factor that contributed to the backwardness and impoverishment of Africa is the Holocaust of Enslavement that abducted at least 20 million of its skilled manpower to the Americas. As a result of this historical subterfuge, the so-called ‘Triangular Trade’ was formed, whereby African [free] labor became the foundation for American plantation, and the latter, in turn, became the base for European Industry. What that means in plain terms is American plantation could not have been contemplated without African slave labor and European industry would not have been possible without African labor and American agriculture. Many industrial urban towns, including Amsterdam, Netherlands and Liverpool, England directly emerged from the twin economies of African labor and American plantation.

The second factor that contributed to Africa’s stifled economic development is European imperial colonial hegemony that exploited the natural resources and raw materials beyond all measure. Europeans have extracted Africa’s raw materials for their industries and yet they left the continent (with the exception of the urban centers) a rural and peasant society. If at all, Africa became the market for the finished European merchandize that originated from its locale. Europeans had free lunch in Africa for at least eight decades and yet the Continent is indebted to them in the 21^st century.

The third factor that contributed to the Continent’s underdevelopment emanates from Africa’s own womb. With the exception of some selfless leaders at independence in the early 1960s, the majority of African leaders are corrupt, dictatorial, and outright thieves who steal from the public purse. In this context, therefore, Africans cannot blame Europeans only for Africa’s problems. Intriguingly, however, these wicked African leaders who oppress their people and govern with impunity are rewarded by Europe and America. This kind of reward was extended to pletokrats such as Mobutu Sese Seko who openly was telling his own ministers ‘to steal with moderation and not overdue their theft in order to systematically avoid state prosecution.’ These kind of African leaders were rewarded not purely out of cynical policy but also due to the Realist/Gloablist nexus that I have alluded to earlier.

It is about time to rethink American foreign policy in Africa. It would have been appropriate and just to extend reparation to Africans for the irreparable damage of slavery and subsequent colonialism, but that courtesy is long overdue now. In lieu of reparation, the United States, under the Obama leadership, can at least consider the following proposals:

America must abandon the old-fashioned maxim, ‘permanent interests but not permanent friends,’ and refrain altogether from rewarding and/or supporting dictatorial African regimes that committed injustice against their people.
The US, on the contrary, must bolster permanent friends in Africa that are committed to their respective national interests while at the same time ensure American vital interests. The cynical notion that only weak and wicked regimes can be cooperative and obedient is a racist interpretation of international relations. Regimes who govern with justice and integrity can in fact meaningfully reciprocate in bilateral or multilateral relations.
The United States should upgrade its humanitarian programs that are sponsored by government agencies such as USAID; the Peace Corps; American Red Cross; Quakers’ missions; President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), and the multitude other American NGOs that have projects in Africa. This American humanitarian gesture is not new, but it was eclipsed by US policy of embracing bad regimes in Africa. America, thus, does not need a face lift; it can simply regenerate its other face and this time encourage African leaders who are looking forward, energized, and poised to undertake meaningful development projects.
The United States must heavily invest in African development in exchange for resources and strategic minerals based on equal partnership as well as contractual and mutual benefit. Africa’s potential is enormous and there is virtually everything below the ground in Africa. Oil is not just in Libya, Algeria, and Nigeria. From the Gulf of Guinea to Angola, it is all oil and recently it has been explored on the shores of Ghana, which in fact is estimated to bring at least $3 billion dollars in revenue by the year 2010 for that country. Through good relations, thus, America can get its oil supply from the friendly countries of Africa without any problem.
The United States should utilize its diplomatic leverage to bring lasting peace in Africa’s destabilized pockets such as Darfur, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Somalia. The US alone, of course, cannot fulfill this mission but the good offices of the United Nations can be used to promote peace and stability in the continent. A destabilized Africa may have benefited a few and far in between greedy profiteering corporations around the globe and leaders of low self-esteem in Africa itself. But a peaceful, developed, and prosperous Africa will benefit all humanity.
The United States must promote and encourage a multicentered core as opposed to the zero-sum regime of the Cold War in an effort to benefit Africa’s trading partnership with the rest of the world. WTO policies and protectionist polices of Europe, America, and Japan, have negatively impacted on Africa’s trade initiatives and it is about time Africans have a voice with respect to their interests.
The United States must also abandon its camera obscura through which it had envisioned the negative image of Africa. It is about time to change the image and perception Americans have about Africa – from the Dark Continent to Tarzan to The Gods Must Be Crazy and to the famine-stricken people in Ethiopia. While some aspects of the above attributes are true, the majority of such portrayals and the bulk of their contents are unfounded and fictitious.

How about Africans? Are they going to be passive actors in major global interventions and continue to preside over beggar and indebted nations or become proactive leaders in the transformation of their respective nations?

Commitment and vision, of course, are sine qua non to proactive political leadership. However, the dearth of such leadership is apparent in present-day Africa, although from time to time we had very few selfless leaders who tried to implement genuine development programs. Such one leader was Julius K. Nyerere of Tanzania. Now, Africa is infested with notoriously selfish leaders except in few places like Botswana, Seychelles, and Mauritius. Along the continuum of bad and good leadership, toward the good vectors can be placed countries like Ghana that are now undertaking promising political and economic reforms. South Africa, though troubled by corruption and nation-wide crime after the indigenous Africans controlled the reins of power, can still be considered a promising country for its industrial potential and its functioning political institutions. By African standard, South Africa has managed to evolve a healthy political culture and develop a strong legislature and independent judiciary. That this was true was clearly testified by the recent resignation of Thabo Mbeka before the parliament. Mbeka will go down history with his merits and demerits although he was unable to implement the policies and intents of Nelson Mandela. South Africa is not only the richest country in Africa, but it has also a vibrant economy and a GDP equal to 1/3 of all Sub-Saharan African countries put together.

At the other extreme of the continuum are the bleeding nations of the Congo and the Sudan; the Somali nation that committed political suicide and opted to obliterate its very existence; the failed state of Guinea Bissau which has now become the drug traffic locus for Colombia Medien Cartel who are now using this tiny West African nation as ‘no man’s land’ venue and stepping stone for shipping their drugs to Europe. The government of Guinea Bissau is almost non-existent; the country has no military to defend itself and has only about twenty police all in all. It has virtually no navy to guard its coasts and that is why the Colombia drug traffickers have chosen Guinea Bissau as conduit to European markets.

A new addition to the failed states category is Zimbabwe, a country potentially rich but that artificially made itself one of the poorest in the continent. Thanks to Mugabe’s misadministration and mismanagement of the economy, Zimbabwe has now sunk into the abyss of untold misery. Some observers argue that Robert Mugabe turned from initially a good leader to a political monster. We at IDEA, Inc. have maintained that Mugabe from the outset, that is, since he came to power have squandered the struggle, promise, and pride of the Zimbabwean people. For further reading on the current political crisis in Mugabe, we suggest readers to view Zimbabwe: From Party-Mobilizing to Monopolistic-Hegemonic Regime by linking to www.africanidea.org/zimbabwe.html

Some countries in Africa, including Libya, Ethiopia, and Eritrea have lost opportunities in democratizing their respective nations. The leaders in these countries espoused populist ideals that apparently incorporated a people’s agenda, but they were never realized. All leaders were unwilling to tolerate opposition. Muammar el Gadaffi came to power in 1969 and he is now only one year short to hit the record of the longest reigning dictator of Togo, Etienne Eyadema, who ruled his country for 38 years until he died in 2005. If Gadaffi continues to hold to the rein of power, he may surpass Emperor Haile Selassie’s record of 44 years in power. But Gadaffi is not a rabid dictator like Eyadema; he is a benevolent despot. In fact, he has benefited the Libyan people at least in terms of goods and services by effectively utilizing the $75 billion GDP generated from oil and out of which 75% of government revenue is allocated. Our advise to Gadaffi is that he must tolerate opposition including the National Conference for the Libyan People and the National Front for the Salvation of Libya to share power with his own ruling party, the Arab Socialist Union.

The leaders of Ethiopia and Eritrea, namely Meles Zenawi and Isayas Afeworki must understand that they have come to power through the long and arduous struggle of the people and the sacrifice of thousands of their citizens. They could not and should not be oblivious to the sacrifices the people have made and must consider a smooth transition for other leaders or facilitate the formation of a coalition government; and if these options are deemed not palatable to them, then at least they should tolerate opposition. By that, we mean they should allow legally operating parties, a working constitution, and a relatively robust legislature coupled by an independent judiciary. If the rudiments of democracy are not permitted in these Horn of Africa countries, it is highly likely that they would altogether miss the golden opportunity of catching up in the 21^st century.

In the final analysis, Africa’s resurgence, redemption, and development must come from Africa itself. Earlier, I have mentioned Botswana and Mauritius as success stories and here is why they have become successful:

When Botswana gained independence in 1966 from Great Britain, it was a poor country of cattle breeders. From the outset, however, Botswana was blessed with visionary and committed leaders and it has been one of the shining stars in the Continent, largely due to the efforts of the three parties, the Botswana People’s Party (BPP), the Botswana National Front (BNF), and the Botswana Democratic Party (BDP). The three parties have shared power many times by forming successive coalition governments and more importantly government policy was enshrined by transparency and dedication to fulfilling the needs of the people. The governments also wisely invested in education and allocated a huge portion of the national budget to primary healthcare, mass education, and appropriate technology for development. Through the Financial Assistance Policy (FAP), Botswana managed to diversify its economy successfully. Because Botswana was one of the successful countries in Africa, the World Bank classified it as “upper middle income” country.

Mauritius is not endowed with diamonds like Botswana, but its leaders understood the ABC of globalization and development and gave priority to manufacturing industry based on exports. To facilitate its economic objectives, Mauritius initiated Export Processing Zone in which tariff was slashed to 0.03% and became a major attraction to even global conglomerates like AT&T, Pepsi Cola, and Bowman International. At Jose Poncini export processing zone, the government makes sure that 90% of any bidding company’s sale must be exported; otherwise the company would not qualify. The government of Mauritius has successfully diversified the economy and transcended the old commodity cash crop of sugar and made the little island a bustling venue for tourism, textile and banking. Moreover, at Port Louis, the capital, the government initiated a computer consulting company known as State Informatics Ltd and became very successful. This company digitized Botswana’s electric grid and tax system.

From the above analysis one can easily understand that Africa is highly diversified in both the economic and political realms. Some African leaders are patriotic and democratic; others are brutal dictators; some are benevolent, and yet others have opted to govern their people by den of spies and enjoy presiding over a police state. So, ultimately Africa’s fate will be decided in Africa, but since the Continent, like other regions of the world, is interlocked with the rest of the world and since it is in pretty bad shape in spite of its potential, it is going to need help from the developed world, especially the United States.