In Africa, the Hypocrisy of the Obama Administration is Inexcusable

The United States fears Africa is becoming a place of increasing competition from China mostly, but also Brazil, Russia, and the European Union. African countries like Angola or Zimbabwe who were once forced to depend on the patronage of the IMF and World Bank are less dependent on America's hegemonic financial institutions than anytime in the last 20 years. The growing complexity of actors has opened the possibility of greater independence in national economic and social policy-making in African countries from the dictates of Washington D.C. With the threat of increased competition and the level of oil imports from Africa going up as much 20 percent, the U.S. is engaging in its most extensive imperial quests in Africa since the end of the Cold War.Ironically, this assault is advancing under the leadership of one of Africa's own "sons", U.S. President Barack Obama.

Hiding behind the rhetoric of limited government and individual liberties, the United States is protecting some of the most repressive regimes in the world. The Obama administration is intensifying President Bush's plan to militarily support anti-democratic regimes throughout the continent. These regimes are responsible for grave human rights violations and widespread persecution of political and national minorities according to prominent Western human rights organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

The ridiculous level of hypocrisy in U.S. foreign policy proves that the Obama administration is concerned neither with human rights or participatory democracy but stability against any actor that could potentially threaten their perceived political and economic interests. Eritrea, a small East African nation that shares a contentious border with Ethiopia, has refused to support a U.S. war in the Horn of Africa and reportedly rejected a demand from the U.S. military to host a U.S. base in the Red Sea port of Assab off its coast. Eritrea's intransigence earned it a spot on the U.S. terrorist list. The Obama administration froze existing ties with Eritrea and claimed that the "government acted as a principal source and conduit for arms to antigovernment, extremist, and insurgent groups in Somalia." The Eritrean government vehemently denies supporting such groups. Meanwhile, the same Obama administration has increased military funding by more than 300 per cent for African countries that support its foreign policy aims including Chad, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Djibouti, Ethiopia, Equitorial Guinea, Algeria and Nigeria. Each of these governments are infamously known for exceptional corruption and state repression against political opponents.

The hypocrisy of the Obama administration does not end with military intervention. The administration has also teamed up with billionaires Bill and Melinda Gates to extend U.S. influence and guarantee multinational corporate access to African agricultural markets. Their strategy is to maintain leverage in African affairs by creating new systems of aid dependency for U.S. technical and financial support in the area of food production. In this way the administration approaches aid as an issue of national security. The interests of the U.S. military, multinational corporations and aid NGO's intersect as the three groups meet to share talking points and communication strategies. Their latest gimmick is $408 million for a World Bank fund to encourage "good" farming practices in the developing world. However, as Mukoma Wa Ngugi of Pambazuka news points out, the reason why so many African's go hungry in a global economy of abundance is not for a lack of "free" markets or U.S. aid but the existing neo-colonial models of political economy in African countries that maintain unequal social relations.

"Hunger in Africa is mostly a political and economic disparity problem. To end hunger, political stability, proper distribution of food and land within nations, and less emphasis on cash-crop farming and more on food- crop farming will be more effective, friendlier to the environment and less costly than the super-seeds that will require tons of pesticides - and eventually, cost a lot of money."

With Barack Obama as the chief spokesman, the U.S. government is in the midst of a major public relations campaign to re-brand themselves as a partner of African countries rather than an imperial power. This shift is mostly in response to the failures of the World Bank and IMF's unpopular structural adjustment programs that imposed ruthless neo-liberal conditions on the re-payment of loans and led to a backlash in the form of renewed calls for national sovereignty. However, this new American re-branding effort should not be confused with a genuine attempt to re-start U.S.-Africa relations on equal terms. The conditions of U.S. bilateral partnership in the form of technical and financial assistance are not limited to specific development projects but amount to a sophisticated form of blackmail with the U.S. interfering in the way government's run their internal politics and manage their economies.

The most notorious example of this form of blackmail is no where more obvious than through a bilateral development fund known as the Millennium Challenge Account. The completely biased conditions for financial support from the account include "economic freedom" and "civil liberties" as defined by far right-wing think tanks like the U.S. Heritage Foundation. Smaller, cash-strapped African countries like Senegal, are particularly vulnerable to this scheme being forced to 'behave' in a manner that is acceptable to conservatives in the U.S. in exchange for aid.

In the final analysis, U.S. strategists fear that the further waning of their exclusive post-Cold War influence will impinge on long-term economic and political "interests" in Africa, which include unlimited access to natural resources and markets for U.S. goods. Therefore, the Obama administration is determined to put more financial resources into promoting a balance of power more favorable to its interests with proxy military initiatives and Trojan Horse development aid designed to promote dependency on the U.S. At the same time, the administration is deceptively using the rhetoric of partnership and mutuality to provide cover for African elites allied with the interests of the U.S. military, foreign investors and multinational corporations. There is no amount of Kenyan heritage that should absolve Barack Obama and his administration of responsibility for intensifying the scourge of U.S. imperialism in Africa. For a man who is quick to preach personal responsibility in front of large audiences of black Americans and continental Africans, Obama should hold himself accountable for the actions of his administration under his watch.

Neoliberalism on Trial in Zambia

The former president of Zambia, Frederick Chiluba was regrettably acquitted on charges of corruption and stealing public money from the country. The press today has run a series of articles presenting criticism of the decision and the lack of justice for corrupt African heads of state in general. The cruel irony is that the BBC, New York Times and other media outlets conveniently neglect to mention that it was neoliberal policies imposed by western technocrats that facilitated the secrecy and corruption in Zambia during the Chiluba presidency.

I first learned about Frederick Chiluba writing a college research thesis about the development of opposition to privatization amongst civil society organisations, particularly trade unions in Southern Africa from 1991-2001. Chiluba won presidential elections in 1991, unseating socialist president Kenneth Kaunda who had held power since independence from British colonial rule in 1964. Chiluba's victory was heralded as a triumph for multi-party democracy and anti-statism but eventually his administration plunged the country deeper into socio-economic crisis and political corruption.

Like in other African countries, western financial institutions sought to exert their influence on public policy in Zambia by extending liquidity on the grounds that the state adopt anti-social external conditionalities. Chiluba egotistically accepted the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) of the World Bank and IMF cutting price controls, ending public subsidies to various sectors of the economy, and most importantly privatizing public-owned assets like the strategically important mining industry. With the backing of international financial institutions and under the rhetoric of liberal democracy, President Chiluba purposefully ignored the human consequences of his policies on mineworkers, their families and other poor communities---not to mention trampling over basic civil liberties when opposed.

Today, the adverse impacts of neoliberalism in Zambia have made it politically unpopular to ignore the terrible human consequences and economic shortcomings of such policy prescriptions. Despite this fact, other African governments continue to routinely accept unjust external conditionalities on the cash that they receive from foreign investors. Frederick Chiluba may have escaped justice for his crimes against the Zambian people, but the neoliberal prescriptions that facilitated his downfall and ruined the economy should not.

The World Bank is Singing a New Tune in Africa

Brandishing an empathetic new tagline on its main website, "Working for a World Free of Poverty", the World Bank is obviously looking to address the main criticisms of its past performance and recast its formerly tarnished image. Yesterday, World Bank President Robert Zoellick finished a week- long visit to Africa in order to vocalize the Bank's committment to economic development despite the deepening recession. Among other things he emphasized that the Bank is... looking toward a world that is no longer dominated by the United States and other advanced economies?

"We need multiple poles of growth and that will make for a more solid and
balanced international economy and there is absolutely no reason that Africa
can't be one of those multiple poles of growth."

To label the call for a more egalitarian economic world-order by World Bank President Robert Zoellick as ironic, would be a supreme understatement. Zoellick, an appointee of George W. Bush, was one of the key signators of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a neo-conservative document that believed the US "must have a secure foundation on unquestioned U.S. military preeminence" among other imperial objectives for the 21st century. Certainly, the world has changed enormously since the 1990's with agressive calls for reform in the world economy to empower developing countries in the 21st century. Zoellick proclaimed the Bank's support for an"African Century for Development" and the creation of a new asset management unit to work with government-controlled funds to invest in African economies with the highest growth potential to spur private-sector activity.

Like the Obama administration, (which has also been looking to reform the US image around the world and Africa in particular), the World Bank is clearly focusing on delivering a message of partnership rather than paternalism in relations with African governments. Whether or not the new World Bank rhetoric will match actual World Bank policy depends on the character of the conditionalities placed on African countries in order to receive support. Let's hope they can get it right this time and avoid reviving the "Washington Consensus" of privitization, liberalization, and strict political-economic managment that ruined the prospects of genuine poverty eradication and development in recent years.

Why is Obama Recycling Africa's "Good Governance" Myth?

I was originally excited to watch President Obama's first speech in sub-Saharan Africa but after a few sentences of the written transcript I realized any hope of equal partnerships between the administration and African governments on development issues is highly unlikely. In addition to many others, one particular passage caught my eye and I think it summarizes the general attitude and tone of his message. Speaking in regards to his brand of "transformational change" in Africa he commented,

"This progress may lack the drama of 20th century liberation struggles, but make no mistake: It will ultimately be more significant. For just as it is important to emerge from the control of other nations, it is even more important to build one's own nation...This is a new moment of great promise. Only this time, we've learned that it will not be giants like Nkrumah and Kenyatta who will determine Africa's future. Instead, it will be you — the men and women in Ghana's parliament — the people you represent."

Obama's speech to the Ghanaian parliament was clearly designed to counter the growing influence of Chinese investment in Africa via defining America's leadership role in the continent as a mentor for its allied countries around the concept of "good governance". There are several issues surrounding the use of the ambiguous term "good governance", as often thrown around by western governments and NGO's (Tanzanian scholar Issa G. Shivji gives one of the most damaging critiques of the paternalism lying underneath the phrase here) but the elusive definition of the phrase is not the focus of this post.

President Obama's insistence on "good governance" and persistent criticisms of "strongmen" in Africa was sadly misplaced. The reality is sustainable economic growth in the continent is actually stymied by weak leadership, not the inverse. Historical weaknesses of African leadership (and institutions) is one of the lasting legacies of European colonialism in the continent. As discussed in a paper sponsored by the World Bank Commission on Growth and Development, it is the lack of effective, consistent, and visionary leadership in Africa that prevents it from moving beyond its current state in the political economy. Author Benjamin Mkapa laments the political and economic reality that African leaders have often lacked preparation, and financial resources to bring their visions to life, leaving governments weak and incapable of responding to crises.

"I believe that Africa’s trajectory of development would have been very different
and much more positive had the departing colonial powers behaved differently,
including treating Africans with greater respect; helping them to train and build
capacity of independence leaders and administrators; helping to build strong
institutions to deal with the challenges that the new countries faced rather than
trying to perpetuate institutions intended to promote, sustain, and defend
Western economic and political interests; and giving the new governments space
and the wherewithal to realize the vision and dreams they had for their newly
independent countries."

Mkapa also lists 10 issues he believes are essential for leadership in Africa "if the continent is to make greater headway in growth, development, and poverty reduction". There are even some lessons that can be learned from some of Africa's emergent post-colonial leaders like Julius Nyere of Tanzania.

President Obama was quite dismissive of the fact that the colonial legacy in Africa is in fact enduring, as newly independent countries like Ghana inherited the political and economic institutions of their former colonizers. For all of their faults, former leaders like Kwame Nkrumah and Julius Nyere can not be blamed for Africa's lack of growth and poverty reduction today--nor for that matter even corrupt autocrats in 2009.

As in any other continent, democracy is an important goal for every African government to ascribe. However, the rhetoric about democratic governance in Africa overlooks the fact that many of the most authoritarian regimes around the world today post the highest growth- rates and have been more effective in eradicating poverty than so called democratic ones i.e. China. Maybe objective observers should be less concerned about whether they are "good" in some abstract normative sense, so much as they are effective. If the Obama administration's foreign policy resembles anything close to the lecture he gave the government of Ghana you can expect to see more of this.

After the Storm: Why the World Bank and IMF Must Change

"I have concluded that it is the best interests of those whom this institution serves for that mission to be carried forward under new leadership."

- Paul Wolfowitz

The World Bank is no stranger to controversy and stories of corruption. But the recent fire storm surrounding Paul Wolfowitz and his alleged favoritism has invited a larger conversation about the distribution of power with in the World Bank and its sister the International Monetary Fund. The World Bank president has traditionally been appointed by the US government, while the Europeans have chosen the head of the IMF. Developing nations and organizations are calling for a more fair and open process in deciding the leadership of the world’s preeminent financial institutions asking for, "transparency of process, and competence of prospective leadership without regard to national origin".

The calls for a non- U.S. or European dominated structure have resonated for years now as the economic emergence of countries like China and India have challenged the very nature of the current economic world-system. The National Intelligence Council, a U.S. government think tank, predicts that by 2025, China and India will have the world's second- and fourth-largest economies. This growth is opening the way for a multi-polar era in world politics. This tectonic shift will pose a challenge to the U.S.-dominated global institutions that have been firmly in place since the 1940s. Votes in the World Bank are said to reflect the size of a countries economy and not its’ population, however Europe still maintains an over-represented position on the bank’s board as compared to the China and India who are underrepresented.

In light of the Wolfowitz scandal and beyond voices will continue to push for the World Bank and IMF’s leadership to begin reflecting the people and world views of the poor nations they claim to serve. Even more importantly as non-western nations begin to take more substantial roles in the world-system it remains to be seen if the current distribution of world economic authority will remain in the benefit of the global north.