A rchive Date
[ 23-05-2005 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ U.S ]
|
[Bush probably will change his stance on Africa, analysts say
By JOHN MURPHY
Copyright 2001 The Baltimore Sun
JOHANNESBURG, South Africa - Based on President-elect Bush's remarks during his presidential campaign, Africa might expect to win about as much attention from the new U.S. president as Antarctica. "While Africa may be important," Bush said early in the campaign, "it doesn't fit into the national strategic interests, as far as I can see them."
Africa, at other times, was glaringly absent from his discussions of foreign policy, and his choice of Dick Cheney as a running mate seemed to confirm a disregard for Africa, critics say. As a congressman, Cheney voted in 1986 against a resolution calling for the release of Nelson Mandela from prison in South Africa and opposed economic sanctions against the apartheid regime.
However, the outlook for U.S.-Africa relations may be brighter than it first seemed, analysts say. Gone are the days of high-profile visits and the personal touch that became familiar during the Clinton administration, but they may be replaced by a businesslike, if less cozy, relationship.
"The Bush administration will push for opening markets - it will be trade, not aid," says Winston Meso, a researcher at the Africa Institute of South Africa.
In a continent desperate for foreign investment and economic growth, improved trade relations may be just what Africa needs. And the new U.S. administration may decide it has more at stake in Africa than it had assumed.
"I am resistant to the notion that the Bush administration believes we have nothing at stake in Africa and that it is just one long headache," says J. Stephen Morrison, director of the Africa Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
If the Bush team chooses to engage Africa, there is much to occupy its time. By the end of last year, there were more than 25 million Africans living with HIV/AIDS. Violent conflicts embroil Sierra Leone, Sudan, Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo, and political unrest continues in Zimbabwe and Ivory Coast.
Many of the continent's 770 million people survive on less than $1 a day. America's main economic interest in Africa is oil. The United States depends on central and west Africa for about 15 percent of its petroleum needs, and it may increase oil imports from Angola, Nigeria, Chad and Equatorial Guinea as drilling and exploration there expand.
But some analysts warn that the emphasis on energy could spell disaster. "A Bush White House will likely concentrate on helping its oil-industry friends reap maximum profits with minimum constraints, and it will have absolutely no sense of responsibility for past American misadventures, or for global problems like AIDS or refugees," writes Salih Booker, director of the Africa Policy Information Center in Washington, in a statement released by the center.
Other Africa specialists, such as Meso, believe U.S. interests in oil could lead to more involvement in trying to broker peace in places such as oil-rich but war-torn Angola. "They might push for a settlement for no other reason than to exploit the reserves," Meso says.
Nigeria and South Africa, two democratic nations nurtured by the United States and considered sources of stability, could falter if they do not receive more investment from the West, analysts say. In sending congratulations to Bush last month, South African Foreign Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma acknowledged "the substantial relationship that has developed under the current administration."
"We look forward to working with President-elect Mr. George Bush in taking this relationship even further in addressing issues of poverty reduction, security and peace on a global scale," she said.
In South Africa, some local columnists were heartened by Bush's decision to pick two prominent blacks to fill Cabinet seats guiding foreign policy: Gen. Colin L. Powell as secretary of state, and Condoleezza Rice as national security adviser.
An editorial in South Africa's Star concluded that the Rice and Powell team "is likely to mean a greater emphasis on Africa than most Republican presidents have given - but also a tougher, more businesslike approach than that of a Democrat administration."
To the surprise of many foreign-policy pundits, Powell, during a State Department briefing on Africa this month, assured foreign policy-makers that Africa would be part of the administration's agenda.
Topics that caught Powell's interest were AIDS, Angola, Burundi and Nigeria. His unexpected interest was enough to make news in South Africa. "Africa will be a US govt priority - Powell" read the headline in Business Day.
If the Bush administration pursues deeper ties with Africa, Powell may be the driving force, experts say. Powell traveled to Nigeria in 1999 to observe democratic elections there after years of military dictatorship. And while working for Bush's father in 1992, Powell helped make the decision to send ground troops to Somalia. The deaths of 18 U.S. soldiers in the fighting and images of their bodies being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu prompted Clinton to withdraw the troops.
Those events in Somalia still haunt U.S. policy toward the continent and have fueled Washington's reluctance to commit troops to peacekeeping missions there. That policy will most likely continue under Bush, who has already proposed pulling U.S. troops out of the Balkans and said that he would be cautious about sending troops overseas unless a national interest was at stake.
Despite the struggles of peacekeeping missions in Africa, the Clinton administration trumpeted its close ties to the continent. Clinton made two trips to the continent during his presidency, reclassified the HIV-AIDS epidemic as a security issue, pushed through the African Growth and Opportunity Act - which encourages free trade with the United States - and granted millions of dollars in debt relief to African nations.
But some critics say Clinton may be remembered for raising the profile of Africa, but little else. Writing in Business Day, columnist Simon Barber concludes, "It's not at all clear that the Clintonites did Africa many favors." His trips, Barber writes, "were historic merely in the sense of not having happened before."
In a report forecasting world conditions in 2015, written by the Clinton-appointed National Intelligence Council, Africa's future appears no brighter than its present:
"The interplay of demographics and diseases - as well as poor governance - will be the major determinants of Africa's increasing international marginalization in 2015," the report says. "Most African states will miss out on the economic growth engendered elsewhere by globalization and by scientific and technological advances." It continues, "Only a few countries will do better, while a handful of states will have hardly any relevance to the lives of their citizens. "As Sub-Saharan Africa's multiple and interconnected problems are compounded, ethnic and communal tensions will intensify, periodically escalating into open conflict, often spreading across borders and sometimes spawning secessionist states."
Given that grim forecast, says Barber, one wonders how much the Clinton administration truly helped Africa: "It's hard to imagine how the Bush team could do worse."
 World Fact Book (CIA)]
|