Unfortunately US policy towards Africa have largely translated into holding the door open for U.S. multinationals to do what outsiders have done for centuries: extract the continent’s wealth.
President Obama is definitely “into” Africa. As much
as possible in a world riven by multiple crises, the president has made the
continent a focus of his policymaking. Turning his own Kenyan heritage into a
personal bridge to the region, he has visited Africa three times as president –
in 2009, 2011, and 2013. He has touted his administration’s multi-billion
initiatives such as Power Africa to bring electricity to millions of homes, a
fellowship program for young African leaders, and the continuation of efforts
to fight HIV-AIDS and other infectious diseases.
At a time when criticism is mounting about the way the
president is handling the rest of the world, Africa is shaping up to be Obama’s
major play for a legacy.
This week, to better position this effort, Obama
welcomed delegations from 51 African countries to Washington for an
unprecedented summit. As part of its press blitz, the White House released a fact sheet that detailed all the State
Department’s high-profile programs including support for democracy in Nigeria,
an expansion of civil society activity in Liberia, and an open government
initiative in Sierra Leone. Many of these initiatives are indeed admirable, and
I can imagine State Department staffers grumbling that the media focus on Ebola
and Boko Haram has left no space for these more upbeat stories.
But don’t be fooled by all the talk of Obama’s special
relationship with the continent or all the snazzy new entrepreneurial
initiatives or the commitment to democracy reflected in his statement in Ghana a few years ago that “Africa
doesn’t need strongmen, it needs strong institutions.” Most of U.S. policy
toward Africa, alas, is business as usual. Yes, the President is “into Africa.”
But more often that has translate into facilitating the entry of U.S.
businesses into Africa so that they can do what outsiders have done for
centuries: extract the continent’s wealth.
Strip away all the modern PR and prettified palaver
and it’s an ugly scramble for oil, minerals, and markets for U.S. goods. Everyone
wants a piece of Africa: drooling outsiders, corrupt insiders, cynical middle
men. “We kind of gave Africa to the Europeans first and to the Chinese later,
but today it’s wide open for us,” General Electric chief executive Jeffrey
Immelt said at the summit, inadvertently providing a compact
definition of neo-colonialism. And for all the talk of good governance and
transparency, the political status quo of “guided democracy” with a sprinkling
of genuine dictators provides the presumed stability and secure access to
resources that the U.S. government, the Pentagon’s Africa Command, and
businesses like General Electric value.
First, let’s dispense with the nonsense that China is
the only country that behaves with no scruples when siphoning everything of
value from Africa. The State Department’s Johnnie Carson provided an
unvarnished U.S. perspective in a Wikileaks cable: “China is a very
aggressive and pernicious economic competitor with no morals.” Well, It’s true
that China has developed a reputation for dealing with dictators like Robert
Mugabe in Zimbabwe, failing to hire local workers or purchasing local
materials, and engaging in horrendous labor rights abuses in the mines it runs.
But China’s relationship is evolving. It is Africa’s
leading trade partner, and a million Chinese are living in Africa. “A growing
number of Africans say the Chinese create jobs, transfer skills and spend money
in local economies,” writes the rarely China-friendlyEconomist.
“African democracy has so far not been damaged. China turns a blind eye to
human-rights abuses, but it has not undermined democratic institutions or
conventions.”
The United States, meanwhile, presents itself as
Africa’s ethical friend. It likes to point to the Dodd-Frank
Act to prove that U.S. businesses are scrubbing their supply chains of
unethical purchasing. The Act requires companies to disclose their payments to
governments and contains specific provisions requiring producers to make sure
that they’re not buying “conflict minerals” from armed groups in Congo.
But the first requirement hasn’t been implemented, and
the second provision has produced decidedly mixed results. “The first round of
conflict mineral investigations was due June 2, but only 6 percent of
audited companies satisfied adequate compliance standards,” reports one watchdog organization. “Worst of all,
of the nearly 1,000 enterprises that submitted reports pertaining to conflict
minerals, 94 percent failed to validate their suppliers’ sourcing tactics.”
Dodd-Frank, in any case, affects only a small fraction
of U.S. business dealings with Africa. Let’s look at the larger category of
foreign direct investment (FDI). For all the high-minded talk, the United
States and China have exactly the same record when it comes to FDI and
governance. Both receive a score of -.1 in a Brookings index that puts Japan on top in terms of
directing FDI toward more accountable governments (.5) and France at the bottom
(-.3) for basically not giving a merde. In other words, both the
United States and China basically go where the return on investments is most
promising, regardless of political environment.
Then there’s the question of arms sales. No doubt
China’s deliveries to Sudan and Zimbabwe are unacceptable, and its sales of
small arms definitely fuel conflicts in the region. But according to a Norwegian study of the period 1989 and 2008, the
United States provided more military assistance in dollar value to dictators in
Africa than China did. In the last few years, the United States has made sales to the following unsavory governments in Africa:
Algeria, Cameroon, Chad, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Niger, and Nigeria.
Since 2001, writes Nick Turse this week in China, America, and the New Cold War in Africa, “the United States has steadily increased
its military footprint, its troop levels, and its missions on the
continent — from night raids in Somalia and kidnap operations in
Libya to the construction of a string of bases devoted to
surveillance activities across the northern tier of Africa.” The State
Department alone devoted $15 billion to security
operations in
Africa from 2005 to 2012, while the Pentagon has lavished a larger but unknown
sum on its counter-terrorism operations in Mali, Niger, Nigeria, and elsewhere.
The results have been less than inspiring: coups, collapsed states, and
burgeoning terrorist organizations. China, meanwhile, has built roads, made
friends on all sides of conflicts, and positioned itself for the long game.
The Obama administration wants us to understand that,
like China, it is transforming relations with Africa. “We do believe we bring
something unique to the table,” national security advisor Ben Rhodes said last week. “We are less focused on
resources from Africa and more focused on deepening trade and investment
relationships.”
That sounds nice. But it’s not actually true. The
leading trade partner for the United States in Africa is Nigeria, and the
leading U.S. import is oil. In 2013, the United States imported from Africa $26.3 billion in crude oil, $3.2 billion in
precious stones, and nearly $1 billion in ores like titanium. That represents
77 percent of all imports. The remainder is largely raw materials such as cocoa
beans, rubber, and unroasted coffee beans.
Of course, trade is a two-way relationship. As the U.S.
Trade Representative Michael Froman said at the summit, “The United States has benefitted from
AGOA [the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act] as well, not just from the
stability that comes with increased global prosperity, but also from the market
opportunities that accompany Africa’s rise. Since 2000, U.S. exports to
sub-Saharan Africa have increased fourfold, from $6 billion to $24 billion. Last
year, these exports helped support nearly 120,000 American jobs.” In an ideal
world what’s good for Africa is also good for America. But too often, these
economic deals preserve the same old inequitable relationship.
Consider the new agricultural initiatives. At the
summit, the United States announced billions of dollars more in agricultural
assistance to Africa. Although some of the funds will go to support local
farmers growing food for domestic consumption, like sorghum, most of the money
comes in the form of pledges by corporations like Coca Cola to source from
Africa. Farmers make up two-thirds of the workforce in Africa. The challenge is to make
their farming more sustainable. Tying farmers into volatile market
relationships with immense multinationals is a spin of the roulette wheel, not
a sure way of lifting Africa out of its dependency on the outside world.
Because of its “resource curse,” Africa’s oil and
minerals and coffee beans have profited a narrow elite that has served as the
middlemen to outsiders. This curse has undermined democracy and embedded
corruption into the very circulatory system of the continent. If we were really
“into Africa,” we would work to ensure that these resources benefit the largest
number of Africans possible.
Some of what the Obama administration has done points
in the right direction. But it is overwhelmed by the more powerful plays of the
Pentagon and the multinationals. The president should be reining in these
powerful players rather than opening the door wider for them to get into
Africa. Only if this happens can the resource curse become a resource blessing.
It’s the rare country like Norway that has accomplished this feat. But if Obama
can help make this happen for Africa, his legacy would indeed be secure.
by John Feffer
