The
Coming US-Africa Summit
In the
coming week, America’s president Barrack Obama will be hosting African heads of
state and leaders in Washington, DC. Obama is the first African-American to be
elected president of the United States. This is his second and final term in
office and he has been able to visit only about four countries in Africa since
becoming president. Thus, the US-Africa Summit this week will afford him the
opportunity to interact with as many African leaders from as many countries as
possible. In this regard, America is copying Japan, China, India and other
emerging powers who have since institutionalized their engagements with Africa
as a whole periodically.
Africa
has played key roles throughout history. African resources helped to build most
European countries through the outright theft of these resources during
colonialism. African slaves helped to build the new world, the Americas. Today,
Africa is the last frontier where all established and emerging powers are
running to for development. Over 60 per cent of the total arable land in the
world is in Africa. African mineral resources are helping to keep the
industries of the world moving. But Africa, the richest continent, is
paradoxically also the poorest.
For
Africa, this US Summit is coming against the background of mass poverty, proliferation
of small arms and light weapons, ethnic and religious hostilities as well as
leadership crisis in the three major African countries – Nigeria, South Africa
and Egypt – among others. For the US, the summit is coming against the
background of US failure to stabilize Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, among
others, which has discredited American leadership, has shattered the concept of
an expanding Europe as a major global player, and has reignited Russian
geopolitical aspirations in especially central Europe.
Complicating
official perceptions and tempering public expectations at the end of the Cold
War was the fact that the world America inherited as its ward on the eve of the
21st century was neither historically at ease nor truly at peace. Since then,
experiences have taught us that even the world’s paramount superpower can go
badly astray and endanger its own primacy if its strategy is misguided and its
understanding of the world is faulty, as discerned by many careful analysts.
In
reality, historical speculation cannot be the basis for specific policy
recommendations given changed circumstances, unexpected events and novel
challenges. And the Bush II administration, just before Obama, had chosen to
propagate an atmosphere of national and even global fear in the face of an
inherently unclear and unpredictable threat. America embarked upon what it
called war against terrorism even though terrorism is not an enemy but a
technique of warfare – political intimidation through the killing of unarmed
non-combatants.
The
a-historical character of America’s misadventure in Iraq further highlighted
the limitations of a strategy primarily dependent on force. Compounding the
dilemmas of a war waged by an administration lacking historical perspective is
the psychological and even visual identification of American conduct with
Israeli practices. The American actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria
and around the world have so far divided its allies, united its enemies and
created opportunities for its rivals and ill- wishers as many discerning
analysts have concluded.
Moreover,
America has turned democracy into a subversive tool for destabilizing the
status quo. It has subscribed to the wrong notion that electoral democracy
could be imposed from outside. The American policymakers have failed to
understand that American political tutelage is not only unwelcome to most but
bitterly resented by many. Greater coherence in national policy calls for
correcting this widespread bad impression. America must remember that loss of
soft power reduces “hard power”. As a result of this misunderstanding and
misreading of many global events by the US, America is losing friends and
losing credibility all over the world.
The
foundation of the US power is the dollar. That was why former American
president Richard Nixon said “The dollar is our currency and your problem”,
because of the primacy of the dollar in international trade. Consequently, the
developing countries in general and Africa in particular are exporting capital
to the developed countries. Thus, if Africa is to develop, the Lucas paradox —
“capital flow from South to North” — has to be arrested and discouraged. In the
other words, capital flight has to stop and all African resources should remain
in Africa to help develop the continent with its own resources and not grants
and aid.
The IMF
and World Bank have pushed for deregulation, for free market economies, for
free movement of capital or what is collectively called the Washington
consensus. We now know that these are the reasons for the global financial
crisis and for it affecting the world economy. The impact has been enormous and
has contributed to the de-industrialization of Africa. In any case, the
Washington consensus is not applied in Washington. And, in a global economy,
there is need for institutions to help manage the process of globalization
because, after all, markets do not regulate themselves.
The
financial, environmental, food and energy crisis require new institutional
mechanism or framework to manage. This is a crisis we cannot get out of by
leaving it to market forces. Intervention by governments is necessary because
there is need for political decisions. Nowadays, there is a consensus that
government has to play a more strategic role in economic management, because
markets are not only imperfect but require regulation to function well
regardless of how powerful the invisible hands of the market may be.
We, as
Africans, must not shy away from arriving at the obvious conclusion that,
regardless of his African roots, Obama has an American mandate. Thus, we must
not expect much from the US because of Obama, if we are to be realistic. And if
the US under Obama is to really help, the best way is to help Africa recover
its resources looted over the years by corrupt leaders and their external
collaborators and repatriate these to Africa for development. If these
resources were repatriated to this continent, Africa would not need any help
from outside.
In fact,
most of the aid from the developed world to Africa is targeted at the social
sector, not production. Similarly, growth is not mentioned in the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs); only social issues. Thus, the MDG is not a
comprehensive development agenda as there is no mention of technology transfer,
employment generation, investments and value addition. These are what will spur
growth and development which are the issues the ordinary people of Africa want
addressed during the Africa-US Summit in Washington next week if Obama is
serious about African peace, prosperity and sustainable development. History is
on the side of the oppressed.
Comments
Post a Comment