Two recent op-eds in the Washington Times have compelled me to write about something I often discuss with colleagues: the lack of understanding of circumstances in African countries by those determining U.S. Africa policy. This particularly impacts African politics.
Clifford May, Founder and President of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, writing on April 28 about the late Chadian President Idriss Deby, lamented the lack of media coverage and public discussion about the nations and people of Africa, even as there is plenty of consideration for nations such as Cuba and Venezuela.
“Have you seen any television news reports about the more than a million Ethiopians now displaced by civil war, the United Nations peacekeepers who opened fire on protesters in the Democratic Republic of the Congo earlier this month, or the recent terrorist attacks in Mozambique that left ‘beheaded bodies strewn in the streets’?” May wrote.
Two days later, Ugandan Foreign Minister Sam Kutesa, writing about what he considers skewed reporting on Africa in Western nations, especially Uganda, noted that much attention that could be devoted to Africa is focused elsewhere.
“The fact remains that in this new age of rising tensions between the world’s great powers, there is increasing attention focused by the West on nations in the east,” Kutesa wrote. “With resources elsewhere, there are too few knowledgeable Africa-watching policy experts or trained Western media located on the ground to accurately understand and report back.”
When I left the House Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights and International Organizations in January 2018, there were few staff people who really understood or tried to understand African circumstances, and there are fewer now. Several such staff people I knew went into the Biden Administration. A good move for their careers, but not so good for the reservoir of Africanists on the Hill. There remain a core group of experienced Africanists or those diligent in learning and understanding Africa, but with their ranks thinned, it makes legislation to aid Africa more difficult as there are fewer colleagues with whom they can successfully craft Africa policy.
That makes a big difference. On the House Africa Subcommittee, both Chair Karen Bass and Ranking Member Chris Smith care deeply about Africa and have a history of working together for the benefit of Africa. Still, their staffs must be able to convince other members to join them on efforts to improve U.S. policy toward Africa through legislation and encouragement of Executive Branch actions. At least they have informed colleagues they know in the Biden Administration with whom they may collaborate.
Unfortunately, what I found out long ago is that within the Executive Branch, foreign policy is dominated by a State Department that concentrates on relationships with host nations and that many feel sometimes doesn’t press hard enough or use our leverage effectively enough to urge reforms necessary not only for U.S. relations with those nations, but also for the welfare of the citizens of those countries. Meanwhile, the military and intelligence communities, using pragmatic policy lenses, are more concerned about what they see as national security concerns than in good governance and democracy in African nations.
I’m not accusing any of these government agencies of having no concern about the welfare of African people; they would rightly point out that their jobs are to focus on their mandated areas and that it is the job of the National Security Council to weigh all input and devise U.S. policies accordingly. They also would point out that this is why we have a U.S. Agency for International Development, and they would be right. However, pitting the nation’s humanitarian assistance agency against Cabinet-level departments and those who brief the President daily makes this an unfair competition. That means democracy and good governance end up being a lower priority than they might be otherwise.
In the decades since African nations became independent, allowing direct U.S. relations, the U.S. Government has felt compelled to work with African dictators such as the late Mobutu Sese Seko of the Democratic Republic of Congo despite serious human rights issues in his country. The need for a strong Cold War ally led American policymakers to look the other way to maintain relations with a leader who guaranteed he would not only prevent the spread of Marxism in his country, but also help to prevent its spread in his region.
The need for access to natural resources also has influenced U.S. policy toward African nations. Who can deny that Angolan oil didn’t influence U.S. policy toward that country and lead to Angola’s inclusion on the African Growth and Opportunity Act despite serious, ongoing concerns over corruption? Our government levied significant sanctions on Sudan under the Omar al-Bashir regime, except any that would interfere with the trade in gum arabic, perhaps the only strategic agricultural product that is used in products from soft drinks to pharmaceuticals.
When we needed to lean on our alliance with Ethiopia’s government under the late Meles Zenawi, U.S. policymakers would label as naïve criticism any complaints about his government’s human rights issues. In the war on terrorism, Meles was a strong ally. His nation also was a prominent supplier of peacekeepers.
Let me be clear, politics, especially on the international scene, is often complicated, and governments frequently find themselves faced with difficult decisions. Does national security and the protection of American lives take a back seat to humanitarian or good governance concerns in African countries? How do you accommodate all these issues in reasonable proportion in crafting foreign policies? Answers to such questions should not be yes-or-no propositions. In fact, as I and others have long maintained, democracy and good governance are not just feel-good issues; they promote stability and make nations that practice them better and more dependable partners.
That was one of the founding principles of the Prosper Africa initiative from the beginning. Well managed governments that protect the rights of citizens and investors make African countries more attractive investment destinations. What investor wants to conduct significant business in a country where your employees can be arrested and imprisoned on a whim or your contracts could be violated with impunity? The lack of good governance and democracy makes governments or their citizens more likely to succumb to linkages with terrorist or criminal networks. Look at the examples of pre-2012 Mali and Guinea-Bissau today.
It may be necessary to work with dictatorial regimes, but that doesn’t preclude using relationships to encourage democratic and good governance reforms. Such encouragement won’t happen when our government or others lionize those who have human rights issues that we need them to address. In the 1990s, Eritrea’s Isaias Afwerki, Ethiopia’s Meles Zenawi, Rwanda’s Paul Kagame and Uganda’s Yoweri Museveni were declared “Africa’s new leaders.” There were obvious reasons to either work with them or not interfere with their governance, but when it became clear that each had human rights and governance problems that threatened their rule and any alliance with them, it was time to use leverage to push for reforms, however quietly that encouragement was expressed.
The Cold War may be returning, the war on terrorism is in full bloom and the need for resources continues. This is where experienced policymakers are required to understand the nuances in political situations in African countries to enable the crafting of policies that fit each circumstance. There is no one-size-fits-all policy, and it takes the careful consideration of those with experience and the diligent study of other interested parties to understand when to press an ally and how to do so diplomatically.
If you saw a friend about to ride his/her bicycle into a pothole, you’d warn them and try to stop them from falling in, wouldn’t you? Apply that same metaphor in diplomacy, and you see that encouraging democratic and human rights reforms are not just humanitarian issues, but also concerns for the stability of allies.