A New Vision for Africa?
By Dena Montague
Secretary of State Colin Powell's recent visit to Africa is commendable.
Much has been made about the historical significance of the first
African-American Secretary of State's visit to Africa. Regardless of his own
personal ties and feelings toward Africa, Colin Powell is a loyal
representative of the Bush Administration and in President Bush's worldview,
Africa falls outside of U.S. national security interests.
The test for Powell now is to see what he takes from his visit, and what he
conveys to President Bush. Where does he feel U.S. efforts will best
alleviate suffering in Africa? Will he promote an agenda that will take a
fresh look at the complexity of African politics and the severity of the
AIDS pandemic, the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and the vital
subjects of economic development and U.S. military involvement in African
conflicts?
Unfortunately, after seeing first hand the mass scale of devastation left by
the AIDS virus, Powell remains satisfied with the $200 million the U.S. has
given to the World AIDS Fund. The Bush Administration was asked to dedicate
at least $2.5 billion. The Clinton Administration said the U.S. could
afford over a billion dollars. In defending the $200 million to South
Africa, Powell claimed that AIDS is a problem of health care, poverty,
environment and government.
But with African governments burdened by astronomical debt that does not
allow for them to build expanded health care or to relieve the poverty of
millions, how is the U.S. helping the problem by throwing it back on
governments who cannot sustain themselves economically? The Bush
Administration seems blind to the important role the U.S. must take in
combating AIDS.
After a critical meeting with Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, it appears
as if Secretary of State Powell is not willing to implement UN recommended
sanctions against our Ugandan allies to stem the
violence and exploitation of mineral resources from the DRC by Rwanda and
Uganda.
Instead, Powell welcomed the response from Museveni that Uganda will leave
troops in key areas in the Congo of Bunia and Rwenzori Mountains along the
Uganda-Congo border. Bunia acts as the RCD-ML (Ugandan backed rebel group)
capital and site of a growing Hema-Lendu conflict which has been negatively
affected by Ugandan troops who are exacerbating the violence. UN Security
Council Resolution 1304 of June 2000 called on Rwanda and Uganda to withdraw
from the DRC.
The RCD-ML presence in Bunia violates not only the UN Resolution but also
the principles of the Lusaka Accords, which explicitly demand, "the final
withdrawal of all foreign forces from the national territory of the DRC".
On
the one hand, the U.S. encourages African countries to abide by all
agreements and UN resolutions as steps towards peace in the DRC. On the
other, the U.S. condones Uganda's outright violation of both UN resolutions
and The Lusaka Accords.
Additionally, it appears as if Secretary Powell has paid scant attention to
the UN "Report on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other
Forms of Wealth in the Democratic Republic of Congo". The UN report
claims
that Museveni and Rwandan President Paul Kagame, both U.S. allies, are "on
the verge of becoming the godfathers of the illegal exploitation of natural
resources and the continuation of the conflict in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo." Yet Powell expressed satisfaction that Museveni has
appointed a
judiciary commission to look into it the UN report as Museveni's only
concrete action in response to the scathing report.
In terms of the delicate issue of economic development, Powell carries with
him a belief that promoting trade between the West and Africa will help
democratize African countries. Yet two countries with
Significant increase in exports, Rwanda and Uganda are promoting trade by
looting the wealth of the DRC and appear to be continuing the war to their
economic benefit. He places great emphasis on the U.S. role in
promoting economic activity and pays lip service to the development of
strong civil societies and infrastructure. Increased trade and economic
growth is of no use to citizens without strong democratic institutions in
place.
Nigeria and Angola are two countries where the Bush Administration seeks to
increase oil exports to the U.S. Neither have strong democratic
institutions in place and it is reflected by the impoverished and violent
conditions in which people live. Economic development must be carefully
analyzed on a continent with few fledgling democracies but plenty of
resource wars.
Adding U.S. military aid and training to this equation has proven deadly.
In the transition from Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to Secretary of
State, Powell admits to thinking like a soldier, "it is hard to de-program
oneself after thirty-five years of being a soldier."
This soldier mentality seems to drive his vision concerning answers to
Africa's problems. Powell remains steadfast in believing that training
African soldiers is the best solution to creating peace. His belief
holds strong even though it has been documented that soldiers trained by the
U.S. including soldiers from Uganda have gone on to commit egregious human
rights violations while engaged in war.
What will happen if promises of trade and military aid continue to overtly
undemocratic countries such as Chad? Chad is key to strategic oil
interests, and also receives more American money for military training for
FY 2000 than any other country in Sub-Saharan Africa. According to U.S.
Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2000 "The
Government's human rights record remained poor,
and serious problems continued. The Government limited citizens' right to
change their government. State security forces committed extra-judicial
killings, disappearances, and tortured, beat, abused and raped persons."
Perhaps the U.S. could more effectively prevent war by ensuring that stable
and compassionate governments exist rather than training the troops of
repressive governments.
Other policies and international treaties may not outwardly appear to affect
the development of Africa but are crucial to the Continent's survival. For
example, U.S. hostility to the Kyoto agreement may have
devastating effects on Africa. Even though Africa releases less greenhouse
gasses than any other continent, studies have shown that global warming will
disproportionately affect Africa.
The head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said
recently that "with its low per capita fossil energy use, Sub-Saharan
Africa
has the lowest emissions of the greenhouse gases that are the major cause of
climate change. Yet Sub-Saharan Africa is the most vulnerable to climate
change because widespread poverty limits its capabilities to adapt to a
continuing changing climate". Climate change will
"exacerbate problems of pollution, sanitation, waste disposal, water
supply,
public health, infrastructure, and production technologies [in Africa]."
Even if Powell does return from Africa proposing some solid initiatives to
assist Africa, will the Bush Administration listen? The White House
recently rejected Powell's choice to head the population, refugee and
migration bureau at the State Department, in favor of a staunch pro-lifer,
reflecting what Senator Jeffords saw as an increasingly conservative and
closed attitude.
Hopefully, Powell's trip to Africa will open him up to new ideas that don't
necessarily revolve around military training and oil production, but instead
work on building infrastructures so that stable democracies can take root.
Providing more funding for AIDS, demanding that Rwanda and Uganda cease
their involvement in the Congo, taking a critical look at military training, and
fostering a new outlook on sustainable economic and political development
are first steps. The next obstacle would be to get this
conservative administration, that seems willing to ascribe to Cold War
strategies in foreign policy, to develop an open dialogue with Africans
dedicated to seeing the true alleviation of poverty on such a wealthy
continent.