The Bush administration’s foreign policy had its critics, but Peter Chaveas ‘67 argues that it got plenty right in Africa. Now, this former ambassador to Sierra Leone offers some advice on how to build on that success.
I first set foot in Africa as a Peace Corps trainee in 1968. Over the next 40 years, I spent most of my career dealing with Africa and its relationship with the United States–as a Peace Corps volunteer, a foreign service officer, and a Department of Defense official. I served twice as an American ambassador, once during the Clinton administration, and once under George W. Bush during the three years immediately after 9/11. For the vast majority of my career, U.S. involvement was driven principally by two motivations: the priorities of the Cold War and humanitarianism. Then, the events of 9/11 caused us to rethink our global interests and priorities in fundamental ways. While there is much to regret about the opportunities lost during the last eight years, the legacy of the Bush administration in Africa is largely a positive one.
Under President Bush, assistance rose to an unprecedented–albeit still inadequate–level, and innovative programs like the Millennium Challenge Corporation now provide assistance in a more collaborative fashion, offering aid to countries who demonstrate good governance, economic freedom, and investments in their people. The African Growth and Opportunity Act, a Clinton initiative that encourages greater African participation in world trade, was extended and expanded under Bush. U.S. military interaction with Africa was reorganized under the new Africa Command, combining all American military relations with Africa under one authority. Despite an early failure to effectively communicate its intent, the Command holds great promise for enhancing U.S. support for building African capacity and for security sector reform. Under the Bush administration, the Department of Defense Africa Center for Strategic Studies has become a premier focal point for African defense and security issues, and the decision to name a U.S. Ambassador to the Africa Union, and representatives to some of the regional economic communities, sent a message of respect for African leadership.
If we are going to sustain this kind of approach to Africa–an approach that reflects American values and effectively supports our interests–we must do so with a much more sophisticated public understanding of African realities. Too often, Americans are informed by a myopic media–one that shows a homogenous Africa characterized by bad governance, ethnic and religious conflict, and irresolvable poverty. We are bombarded with graphic coverage of horrors in Zimbabwe, Eastern Congo, Somalia, and Darfur. All of these crises are genu-ine, but to focus exclusively on them, or to generalize from them, is dangerous. We heard a great deal about the violence that followed Kenya’s contested elections in late 2007, but little was reported of the more recent national elections in Ghana, where a sitting president stepped aside, allowing an opposition candidate to emerge victorious in a close, but free and fair, process.
Future sound policy will require a better understanding of Africa’s complexities. Corruption, poor governance, economic mismanagement, conflict, violence, and poverty are all part of the African reality and should not be underestimated, but there are other aspects to that reality. Africa is a continent of 53 distinct nationstates. Virtually all are hampered by national borders that do not reflect their own histories, but were drawn in European capitals to reflect the interests of colonial powers. The vast majority of these nation-states have fewer than 50 years of independent history. Recall where we were 50 years after 1776, with most of our population lacking electoral franchise, much of it held in slavery, and the country edging ever closer to civil war.
Still, Africa is making progress. In 1973, Freedom House, a leading independent proponent for democracy since 1941, assessed only two African countries as being “Free” and nine as “Partially Free.” In 2008, those figures had risen to 11 and 24 respectively. The analysis encompassed political rights and civil liberties and the institutions that support them. While ongoing violent conflicts should be a focus of international concern, the last decade has seen a significant decrease in the number of such cases. Liberia, Sierra Leone, Angola, Cote d’Ivoire, and Sudan outside Darfur, have all seen old conflicts significantly mitigated and, in some cases, end. Despite continuing difficulties, South Africa stands out as one of the most extraordinary political transitions of modern times. Only a couple decades ago, most experts predicted that the racism and dominance by a white minority in South Africa could only end in bloodshed. Instead it ended peacefully when Nelson Mandela was sworn in as the president in 1994.
Yet Africa is fragile and will remain susceptible to renewed conflict as long as governments fail to respond to the legitimate demands of their citizens.
Paramount among those demands is pervasive poverty and lack of economic opportunity. The most recent UN Development Program Human Development Index classified 26 countries as “low development;” 25 of those are in Africa. Yet, in 2006, Zimbabwe was the only African country to experience negative economic growth, and in 2007, all of Sub-Saharan Africa grew by 6.8 percent. Indeed, GDP growth in Africa has exceeded the world average every year since 2001. Regrettably, success in translating growth into poverty reduction has been far more elusive and the ongoing global economic crisis threatens Africa’s progress. Africans and their international partners must recognize the overarching threat of poverty. Absent effective action to build and sustain economic growth, most of Africa will remain inherently unstable. At the same time, absent stability, sustained economic growth is highly unlikely.
Future policy must reflect a good grasp of our limited ability to impact the African environment. Serving as an American ambassador in Africa was a wonderful experience, in no small part because the United States is widely admired and respected. But African leaders are tired of being told what to do by outsiders, and the U.S. has had a tendency to preach and not listen, and we are far from being the only source of outside assistance or wisdom. The former colonial countries remain heavily involved in Africa. Other developing powers such as the oil rich Arab States, India, Brazil, and particularly China are increasingly influential.
We must have a clear understanding of American interests in Africa. Humanitarian generosity has been a driving force in American interaction with Africa, but in this time of economic uncertainty, that generosity will be marginalized unless we understand that we have strategic interests that depend on peace in Africa, and on its stability and participation in the world economy.
Probably the most concrete American interest is our dependence on numerous African commodities, none more so than petroleum and natural gas. In October 2008, more than 19 percent of U.S. petroleum imports came from Africa, more than what came from the Persian Gulf. U.S. imports of natural gas from Africa have increased nine-fold since 2000. The United States has a fundamental interest in the stability of international energy markets, and African producers play a growing role in that market. Yet, much of Africa’s production comes from areas marked by instability, including the Niger Delta, the Gulf of Guinea, and Sudan.
There’s also the issue of terrorism. In the wake of 9/11, much attention turned to Africa as an actual or potential venue for terrorist activity. The threat was both real and exaggerated. The reality is that two American embassies in Africa were destroyed by Al Qaeda with substantial loss of life in 1998. Other attacks have occurred in Kenya and North Africa, and Somalia hosts terrorist operatives. Attacks in Europe, notably Madrid in 2004, emanated from Africa. However, the U.S. approach generalized the problem across much of the continent, pressing African governments to assign the same priority to the issue that we did, glossing over the reality that many African countries faced other concerns, like poverty, that posed more immediate threats to their well-being. Our initial efforts overemphasized military tools as a response to terrorism. Future U.S. policy needs to keep the threat in perspective and not lose sight of where the threat is real, in places like the Trans-Sahara and Somalia, or where African resources might be exploited for terrorist purposes, like South African banking and transportation facilities.
Humanitarian generosity has been a driving force in American interaction with Africa, but in this time of economic uncertainty, that generosity will be marginalized unless we understand that we have strategic interests that depend on peace and stability in Africa.
Besides threatening our access to African resources and fostering potential terrorism, African instability will pose other challenges to our interests, including global health, climate change, and criminal activity.
A great deal of attention has been given to the scourge of HIV/AIDS in Africa. The President’s Emergency Program for AIDS Relief stands out as one of the great accomplishments of the Bush administration, as recognized by bipartisan support last year for extension and expansion of the program. Resources for combating malaria and TB also have been increased by U.S. and international efforts, including important private sector contributions. However, Africa’s capacity to provide for the basic health of its citizens remains dismally deficient, and the weakness of African public health monitoring poses a threat to its own citizens and to citizens of the world. In today’s mobile, global society, health threats arising in Africa or other regions, like an influenza pandemic, avian influenza, or SARS, pose a direct threat to Americans abroad and at home. Absent effective public health programs, there is no reliable means to adequately monitor this threat or respond to it.
In addition to world health concerns, Africa poses world climate concerns. Africans make a negligible contribution to the buildup of greenhouse gases and global warming, yet they are inordinately impacted and have few ways to address its consequences. Many African societies practice subsistence agriculture or herding on marginal lands that are highly populated and subject to desert conditions or floods. Africans in these areas are forced to rely on local natural resources for fuel, shelter, and economic opportunity. Conflicts over resources, most notably water, promise to be a growing source of instability over much of the continent. Africa also controls some of the resources that are most vital to mitigate global warming. The Congo Basin–the world’s second largest tropical forest–and Africa’s other dwindling forest resources are under tremendous pressure from the impoverished but, more significantly, from the greed of African elites collaborating with outsiders.
Even if we managed to make great strides in public health and global warming initiatives, we’d still face the threat of criminal activity stemming from, or exploiting, Africa. The early, exaggerated concerns about the terrorist threat in Africa resulted in inadequate attention to a more pervasive threat: the growing menace of diverse, internationally connected criminal activities. Financial crime, drug trade, piracy, arms and human trafficking are all prospering in Africa, exploiting weak to non-existent law enforcement. And rarely is the ultimate target African. Africans have long played a major role in financial crime in the United States. The most recent developments regarding drug trade include the use of West Africa as a transit point for drugs moving from Latin America to Europe. Piracy in the waters off of Somalia has received much media attention of late. Equally dangerous is the growing incidence of piracy in the Gulf of Guinea, the source of most of the energy resources destined for the United States.
As we contemplate the opportunities presented by recent political change in the United States, we should build on recent successes and learn from our mistakes. We must not waste the progress of recent years by failing to financially sustain current levels and programs. Some well-focused increases would serve U.S. and African interests well. Agriculture and education are worthy of attention comparable to that given to HIV/AIDS and other health issues. Tens of millions of Africans continue to live by subsistence agriculture, and emergency food relief is a chronic drain on African governments and international assistance resources. As world food prices spiked in 2008, food riots spread across several African countries. And despite some recent gains, notably for girls, most African educational systems are woefully inadequate in providing the human resources essential to development. The problem is exacerbated by the emigration of significant numbers of trained Africans to more developed areas, including the United States. Without progress in these areas, development and stability will be elusive.
Finally, we must increase the number government agency employees who are charged with diplomacy and development, and we must address the manner in which their efforts are integrated with our other foreign affairs resources, particularly defense and intelligence. The number of trained government workers in the State Department and USAID is woefully deficient. The U.S. military has more uniformed personnel in marching bands than the State Department has foreign service officers. U.S. embassies and USAID missions in Africa are particularly understaffed, and officers posted to Africa are inadequately trained toperform in the complex African environment. It’s telling that the most forceful voice in Washington for more personnel for State and USAID has been Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who recognizes that our military is being asked to do tasks that are more appropriately done by civilians.
Africa is both promising and fraught with challenge, and it is critical that we remember that “Africa is.” It may be threatening or it may be encouraging, but it will not go away because we find it too hard to deal with, or seek to relegate it behind other priorities. For good or for ill, our interests are engaged in Africa, and we ignore that fact at our peril.
Ambassador Peter Chaveas ‘68 served as a foreign service officer in Sierra Leone and Malawi before becoming director of the Africa Center at the National Defense University in 2006. He retired from that post last year.