ANB-BIA SUPPLEMENT

ISSUE/EDITION Nr 326 - 15/06/1997

The United States and Africa

An ANB-BIA dossier

Compiled by ANB-BIA, May 1997

THEME = DOSSIER

INTRODUCTION

Since the start of the rebellion in Zaire, (now the Democratic Republic of Congo) questions have arisen about the role of the United States. Moreover, last April, the Clinton administration put forward a new economic programme for sub- Saharan Africa.
What interest does the United States have in Africa? This article provides some answers.

Africa and Americans

In general, it should be remembered that Africa is not very popular with Americans, firstly for internal reasons and also because of the appalling picture painted of it by the media. Within the US, anything which bears on the race problem is still a delicate issue. Although the American public applauded the end of apartheid in South Africa, and sympathized over the Rwandan catastrophe, these events faded very quickly from memory. On the other hand, the picture of an American soldier being dragged through the streets by a Somali mob is ever-present. In the mind of the average American, Africa is a place of uncontrollable chaos and corruption. As for development aid (1% of the budget), this has to overcome the long-standing American idea that any aid given to an individual or to a nation, should be temporary, since everyone should, first and foremost, be able to stand on their own feet.

Pressure groups

However, more than other countries, perhaps, American policy is affected by pressure groups and lobbies from a variety of sources. Almost since the beginning of the century, therefore, a movement has been active among American Blacks (the Afro- Americans), to improve the lot of black people, both in Africa and in the diaspora. At the present time, the "Congressional Black Caucus" regularly intervenes in Congress in favour of sub-Saharan Africa. Other organizations form the backbone of the African-American lobby, such as "Transafrica", formed in 1976, and controlled by Randall Robinson; and "Constituency for Africa", formed in 1990, and chaired by Andrew Young. Several NGOs are active in Africa itself, in the development field, one of the most important of these being "Africare". The "Corporate Council on Africa" claims to have 135 member companies.

Political support in Africa

Throughout the cold war, the United States selected their friends in the African continent on the basis, first of all, of their inclination to align with America in its crusade against the Soviet Union. This is why it supported President Mobutu in Zaire for such a long time. The US also helped rebel movements in so-called Marxist countries, such as Angola and Mozambique. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, American policy in Africa seemed to be content with seeking a stable continent, above all, which did not cause too much of a stir. They therefore attacked anything which could be considered dangerous at an international level, such as centres of Muslim fundamentalism, and sought to gain support from people or governments which were considered strong and reliable. The United States has principally confronted Colonel Gaddafi in Libya; and Sudan. Libya, which is accused of supporting terrorist groups, and having itself funded some spectacular terrorist operations, has been subject to a complete aerial blockade since 1992. The American Congress strengthened its sanctions in 1996, by passing the Amato-Kennedy Law, which threatened retaliation against any foreign company investing more than 40 million dollars a year in the Libyan oil industry. The United States has supported Eritrea, Ethiopa and Uganda against Sudan, which has been accused of armed proselytizing, and of supporting Islamic groups in several countries. It has given significant aid packages (20 million dollars) to the National Democratic Alliance, which includes the Sudanese opposition in exile, and the Southern rebel groups. The United States prefers to rely on strong countries or governments. Among such, the leader is South Africa the "economic giant of the African continent", even though Mandela sometimes sets himself against the arrogance of American interventionism, notably at the beginning of this year, in the "arms sales to Syria" affair. By contrast, relations with Nigeria, another African giant, have seriously deteriorated under the Abacha régime. The United States has now joined in with international sanctions, and has even imposed an embargo on flights to this country, in retaliation against the traffic in narcotics. The history of the rebellion in Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo) demonstrates that close links still exist between Washington and Museveni's Uganda, and between Washington and the present Rwandan government, whose policies the United States has consistently upheld. However, before Mobutu's regime was overthrown, initial American sympathy for Laurent Kabila, the leader of the rebellion, faded considerably, as his less-than-democratic views became more obvious. This did not prevent the US from playing a leading diplomatic role, together with South Africa, in trying to resolve the crisis in Zaire.

"Inter-Africain Crisis Response Force"

In September 1996, the Americans initiated the concept of an "Inter-African Crisis Response Force", consisting of about ten thousand African troops, equipped, trained and transported by the United States, who would be used, primarily for humanitarian purposes. The plan initially lacked clarity on, for example, matters of finance, mandate and command of the force, and was received with annoyance by France and with caution and some reservations by the African countries. This was one of the matters discussed by the Secretary of State at that time, Warren Christopher, on a tour of sub-Saharan Africa between 7 and 13 October 1996, stopping over in Mali, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Angola and South Africa. Commentators noted that this was his first trip to this part of the world since his appointment three and a half years ago, highlighting the lack of importance given to Africa in American diplomatic circles. According to American officials, the purpose of the trip was principally to demonstrate the main lines of American policy towards Africa, namely: United States support for democracy, the need for African solutions to African problems, and the need for greater trade, not aid.

Aid or trade?

Since the Republicans won their Congressional majority in December 1994, the struggle between them and the Clinton administration has been almost continual, over finance of foreign policy, and particular aid to the Third World, including Africa. Some statements made by the main Republican representatives, when they were appointed, make their views clear. Senator McConnell, chair of the Budget Commission, declared: "We must stop financing failure". Jesse Helms, chair of the Foreign Affairs Commission, said: "The foreign aid programme has cost nearly 2000 billion dollars paid by the contributors, most of which has disappeared down a bottomless pit dug by countries who consistently oppose the United States within the United Nations system". And he added: "The source of the catastrophes in Third World countries is the lack of capitalism, the lack of political reforms which would set up a system of private enterprise".

Development aid to Africa

The annual total for American development aid was 12.3 billion dollars, or 1% of the budget and 0.15% of Gross National Product. A third of this aid went to three countries, Israel, Egypt and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CEI). Between 1985 and 1990, aid from the United States to Africa totalled 24 billion dollars. The Republicans declared war against this "waste". Congress reduced the overall 1996 aid budget to Africa, setting it at 1.5 billion dollars. This total included the "Development Fund for Africa" (a reserve fund), which was cut from 802 to 529.5 million. A presidential veto was needed to reach a compromise. During this time, the Clinton administration increased its efforts to encourage trade with Africa. The main promoter of this was the Trade Secretary, Ron Brown (an Afro-American), killed in a plane crash in 1996). He increased his trips to Africa, where he stated, for example: "My country is committed to investing human and economic resources in the renaissance of this continent. We are forced to realise that for too long, we have practically ignored Africa, and we must consider that the African market has a potential similar to that of Latin America ten years ago, or Asia fifteen years ago". Through him, the American government supported the idea of substantial aid to developing countries, convinced that this policy would also allow the United States to diversify its own markets. Compromise had to be sought with Congress. In the meantime, there is a gradual rise in the number of American investors in Africa, including mining concerns and other companies. In the Democratic Republic of Congo (ex-Zaire), for example, the last report from UNCTAD (the United Nations Committee for Trade and Development), notes that American investment rose from 8 million dollars in 1994 to 21 million in 1995. American interests increased to 80 million dollars in 1995, compared to 39 million in 1991. More recently, America Mineral Fields signed a billion-dollar contract for exploitation of copper and cobalt reserves in southern Democratic Republic of Congo, and construction of a zinc production plant. Another American group is involved in creating a bank in Goma.

A new economic programme

At the end of April 1997, the Clinton administration put forward its new economic recovery programme for Africa, subject to Congress approval. This programme has the support both of the administration and of the president of the Chamber of Representatives, Mr. Gingrich, as well as several members of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, and many business people. In the opinion of The Economist and the Financial Times, the general aim is to push American policy towards trade and investment in Africa, and to give African countries greater access to the American market. The draft law - the African Growth and Opportunity Act - envisages an extension of the range of tax-free imports, even in the controversial area of textiles. A United States/Africa Economic Forum would be created, to which the more developed African countries would belong, with an annual meeting of African ministers and senior American officials. Its intention would be to produce a long term plan for trade and investment. Private investment would be backed by an equity fund of 150 million dollars and an infrastructure fund of 500 million. Financed by private companies, these funds would be at least partially guaranteed by the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. The United States would also try to cancel bilateral debt, at least for countries adopting a policy of economic growth, and would encourage the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to reduce the debts of these countries as far as possible. Moreover, some American aid programmes would concentrate more on aid for trade and investment, while food aid would be focused on the poorest countries. All these measures are still fairly modest and painless for America. Exports from sub-Saharan Africa to the United States total only 1.9% of American imports. There is no risk of the American market being swamped by African products. Bilateral debt, as a whole, is also relatively modest. This African initiative is quite an attractive proposition for the Clinton administration. Relations with China are at a difficult stage, and this is a good moment to launch a cheap initiative, with good publicity value, in Africa. Many see this continent as holding the last great development challenge. They hope that industrialized countries will join forces and that Africa will dominate the agenda for the Seven Nations Summit in Denver next June. "Trade, rather than aid". Let's hope that Africa will feel better for it.

END

CONTENTS | ANB-BIA HOMEPAGE

PeaceLink 1997 - Reproduction authorised, with usual acknowledgement