Obama and Africa - What can we expect

The following piece was an analysis I did for the Amandla show back in early September. With the election just a short time away it remains topical. I did not make any such commentary on the Canadian election, since Canada is such a minor player and none of the parties even dealt with the war in Afghanistan as an issue, let alone relations with the African continent. In other words, the recent history of disinterest and neglect will not change.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Obama and Africa

What are we to think? Change is in the air or is it? Barack Obama is widely and sometimes wildly touted as the saviour, a Son of Africa, the prodigal son. It is reported that in Kenya literally every new day sees another song extolling his virtues and how he has made Kenya great. The excitement is equally euphoric in the USA where many people have jumped on to the bandwagon attracted by his charismatic charm and powerful speeches not to mention his strong and intellectually powerful partner, Michelle. A lot of expectations have been aroused around the issue of change, but what does it really mean for Africa?

Some background:
It is true that Barack Obama is the son of an American woman from Kansas and a father from Kenya, but from all accounts he never knew his father. Rather he grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii where his African connection was quite thin before finally arriving in Chicago. As a child, he often called himself “Barry” to avoid his awkward African surname and later is said to have played to the stereotypes of Africa to his advantage by claiming that his father was a prince and that his name meant “Burning Spear”.
At college, he really began to shine and show some awareness of the continent. During the anti-apartheid movement in the 1980’s there was a very active disinvestment movement to force the colleges and universities to drop any funds in their portfolios that supported the South African regime. He reports in his autobiography about making an impassioned speech in favour of disinvestment when a band of students dressed as soldiers dragged him off the stage in a guerrilla theatre stunt.

His record on Africa:
During his stint in congress, he has shown considerable interest in Darfur and Sudan, the forgotten genocide of the Congo, and pursuing Charles Taylor for war crimes. He also mobilized international pressure for a just government in Zimbabwe, to fight corruption in Kenya, to demand honesty on HIV/AIDS in South Africa, to develop a coherent strategy for stabilizing Somalia, and as a United States senator he made one epic trip across the continent raising awareness about these issues. He has also increased America's focus on the long term challenges of education, poverty reduction, disease, strengthening democratic institutions and spurring sustainable economic development in Africa.
His official campaign website today includes Africa as one of his 8 foreign policy priorities. Therein he lays out 3 priorities:
- the Darfur tragedy and pressure on the Sudanese government to respect its people and its international commitments;
- double foreign aid, cancel the debts of the heavily indebted countries, and contribute to the global fund to fight HIV/AIDS
- reform the World Bank and the IMF and improve trade possibilities for African countries with America.

What is the reality?
As evidence of the change he espouses, Obama is rightly proud of his fundraising for the presidential race with millions of donations from ordinary citizens. However, he still represents the Democratic party with its big business interests. Huge funding has come from large Wall Street firms and even the likes of media baron Rupert Murdoch is quoted as saying, “Politicians are at an all-time low and are despised by 80% of the public, and then you’ve got a candidate trying to put himself above it all. He’s become a rock star. It’s fantastic.” (ISR pg3) Therein lies the rub. Around half of the money supporting his campaign comes from big companies involved in oil, mining and resource exploitation who profit enormously from the chaos and anarchy that reigns in the Congo. For decades they funded Mobutu until the country had decomposed into the mess it faces today. Trying to effect change in a system so entrenched in a status quo representing such wild profits presents enormous challenges to any administration. Murdoch’s fascination would soon turn to hostility if his profit margins were affected.

Three elements have become the cement of American foreign policy during the Bush regime and in many cases well before the advent of George W. Anyone who follows will have a devilish time breaking the mould. First is the American militarization of Africa that has been escalating remarkably since the beginning of the War on Terror. Secondly is the drive to secure resources especially minerals and oil in the face of mounting competition. Finally are the economic policies that perpetuate and “exacerbate inequalities” at the same time as Bush claims to be a compassionate conservative with his unsupported concern for Darfur and his unilateral HIV/AIDS initiative (LeMelle).

On the military front:
Military sales, training and financing have quadrupled since 2001, for the countries of Africa that Bush’s advisors consider strategic. The Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA) has been using Camp Lemonier in Djibouti as its main U.S. base for counter-terrorist activities offshore and in the region since October 2002. In January 2007, the military announced that Camp Lemonier will expand from its current 97 acres to more than 500 acres (LeMelle). Similarly, there are the Trans-Sahara Counter-Terrorism Initiative (TSCTI) and the Africa Contingency Operations Training and Assistance Program (ACOTA) as well as naval patrols up and down the Gulf of Guinea coast, as well as agreements for access to airports, ocean ports and other facilities in a large number of countries on the continent. The trend to deliver military aid through the private sector, given the history of mercenaries on the continent and the record of Haliburton and Blackwater in Iraq is one of the more frightening elements of this militarisation.
Most controversial is the flagrant lie from the Bush spin doctors about the AFRICOM initiative which dresses up the militarization of the continent as a humanitarian and development programme. THE AU and most African countries have denounced the programme as an unwelcome intrusion on African sovereignty and a return to a form of colonialism that is still all too fresh in the African memory. By formalising a command base and upping the military ante in Africa, Bush policy seeks to assure its presence, discourage its competitors and ensure unrestricted access to Africa’s economically important resources.
One telling sign of future direction is Susan Rice, Obama’s top foreign policy advisor, who was Bill Clinton’s Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs from 1997-2001. While she has been very active in calling for increased American support for a joint AU/UN peacekeeping force in Darfur, she has also been known to favour a more activist US military intervention to avoid situations like Rwanda (Ray). On this front she has come out in support of the AFRICOM initiative and should she become a policy maker in an Obama administration has committed herself to pursuing its goals. Obama, himself has declared his support for AFRICOM: “There will be situations that require the United States to work with its partners in Africa to fight terrorism with lethal force. Having a unified command operating in Africa will facilitate this action."

Securing Resources:
Guaranteeing access to Africa’s resources is fundamental to the militarization of American foreign policy in Africa. Oil from the continent has passed beyond 25% of American supplies, and in addition, Africa produces 90% of the world’s cobalt; 64% of its manganese; 50% of gold; 40% of platinum; 30% of uranium; 20% of total petroleum; 70% of cocoa; 60% of coffee; over 80% of coltan and 50% of palm oil (LeMelle). The addition of the hungry, expanding economies of India and China to the traditional European industrial complex means that the competition for African resources will continue to become more intense. Oil is the most obvious source of current insecurity and despite the general decline of productive capacity, American industry and consumer culture has outstripped its ability to supply itself and been extremely dependent on cheap foreign raw materials for a very long time.
The lobbies that represent American agribusiness and industry also include the powerful military manufacturers who want to ensure they stay in business. Weak or corrupt African governments, hard-hearted dictators, and war zones are situations where companies can easily insert themselves and participate in mining endeavours that provide mineral products at minimal cost. Almost without exception, local people find themselves totally left out of any benefit that resource extraction should provide. Foreign corporations and local elites run roughshod over the people’s rights and leave environmental devastation in their wake.

The economic element:
Even the produce of the poor farmers of Africa is either squeezed by the unfair competition of the heavily subsidised American agribusiness or allowed into the USA on extremely unfavourable terms that perpetuate the unfair terms of trade that have kept Africa mired in poverty and underdevelopment since the days of slavery and colonialism. The Bush administration has dragged its feet on debt cancellation, consistently promotes the discredited neoliberal policies of the World Bank and IMF and has steadfastly refused any concessions at the WTO and related talks that would give poor African economies any entry to the world economy.
The corporate forces that direct American foreign policy are as powerful as the military interests. As just one example, agribusiness depends on their bloated subsidies for their lifeblood. This includes the shipping as foreign aid of huge quantities of maize and other grains for free or almost free and always well below the cost of production, much to the detriment of the small peasant farmers in Africa. There is no way that inefficiently grown American cotton, peanuts or corn could compete with the small scale farmers of Senegal, Mali, Malawi and Ghana. Obama laid his cards clearly on the line when he was senator for Illinois. He unconditionally defined his role as defending his constituents and mentioned particularly the farming lobby which opposed a loosening of trade restrictions which protected their privileged production.
It should also be pointed out that with the declining manufacturing capacity of the United States, the one sector that has continued to grow despite the absence of a major Cold War or formal enemy is the military and its related war machine. The famous industrial-military complex that Dwight Eisenhower spoke about after WW2 is measured in the trillions of dollars and depends on unrestrained military growth and enormous foreign sales. As the world’s largest exporter of small arms that fuel local conflicts, it is no accident that the USA has been the most vigorous opponent of a small arms ban treaty. Congressional and Senate careers rise and fall on how much military money and ‘defence’ contracts candidates can sprinkle around their constituencies.

What change is to come?
A progressive set of goals underlie the African priorities on Obama’s campaign website:

Expand Prosperity: Obama will expand prosperity by establishing an Add Value to Agriculture Initiative, creating a fund that will extend seed capital and technical assistance to small and medium enterprises, and reforming the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. He will launch the Global Energy and Environment Initiative to ensure African countries have access to low carbon energy technology and can profitably participate in the new global carbon market so as to ensure solid economic development even while the world dramatically reduces its greenhouse gas emissions. Obama will also strengthen the African Growth and Opportunity Act to ensure that African producers can access the U.S. market and will encourage more American companies to invest on the continent.

It is all very laudable, but like so many other elements of the campaign for change, it really doesn’t address the real underlying fundamental injustices of the neoliberal world trade system behind which the American economy is still the major driving force. The forces that shape the presidency are very powerful and often more capable of influencing policy than the incumbent. As president of a very powerful country and wishing to bring positive change to a continent long exploited and maligned, he must deal with many contradictory demands that are in conflict with the real needs of the people of Africa.

Barack Obama is tapping into a deep vein of unhappiness in America as well as the rest of the world and promoting the idea that change is possible. The American public wants jobs, health care and an end to the war. Africans want a fair shake, a chance to get into the global economy on an equal footing and an end to destructive foreign intervention. In both cases, the desire for change is much greater than the ability to deliver it. Before proceeding with speculation about where an Obama presidency might go with its Africa policy the man must get elected president. His actions in office will tell us how much Africa really means to him. Until then, let’s all take a deep breath and prepare to continue the struggle as usual.

- 30 -