Between tomorrow and Wednesday, US President
Barack Obama will welcome leaders from across Africa for a three day
US-Africa Leaders’ Summit...............................................................
The guest list is long and
impressive. In total, invitations have been extended to 50 countries,
including Angola, Kenya, Libya, Nigeria, Senegal, and Zambia. The chair
of the African Union, Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz, is also expected to be in
attendance. But what will it mean for US-Africa relations and US-Kenya
relations in particular?
The Summit is quite a
statement. The meeting is the first of its kind, and the largest event
that any American president has held with African heads of state.
African
leaders will not just meet President Obama, but will also have an
opportunity to engage with Cabinet members, business executives, members
of Congress and representatives of civil society. The schedule is
frantic. Between Monday and Wednesday there will be 25 different
sessions on everything from wildlife trafficking to food security.
According
to the US government, the main aim of the event is to “strengthen ties
between the United States and one of the world’s most dynamic and
fastest growing regions”. For his part, President Obama has said that “I
do not see the countries and peoples of Africa as a world apart; I see
Africa as a fundamental part of our interconnected world — partners with
America on behalf of the future we want for all of our children. That
partnership must be grounded in mutual responsibility and mutual
respect”.
But what do these fine words mean in
practice? The summit is scheduled to cover security, democracy and
development, but the main theme is “Investing in the Next Generation”.
As a result, there will be targeted sessions on issues such as improving
economic opportunities for women and strengthening health
infrastructure.
In private sessions behind closed
doors, pressing issues such as the expansion of terrorist activities in
Kenya and Nigeria and the Ebola outbreak in West Africa will no doubt be
high on the agenda — although President Ernest Koroma of Sierra Leone
cancelled his trip due to the mounting health crisis in his country.
AMERICA, CHINA AND AFRICA
The event is about far more than trade and investment, however. The meeting is also about shoring up American influence in Africa. Although the US remains a major player in most African countries, American policy makers are painfully aware that they have lost ground to China. Last year, the total value of annual trade between America and Africa was $85 billion, less than half of the value of the $200 billion traded between the continent and China.
The event is about far more than trade and investment, however. The meeting is also about shoring up American influence in Africa. Although the US remains a major player in most African countries, American policy makers are painfully aware that they have lost ground to China. Last year, the total value of annual trade between America and Africa was $85 billion, less than half of the value of the $200 billion traded between the continent and China.
President Obama has tried to
avoid direct criticism of China, but is clearly keen to encourage the
continent to think twice signing up to the Chinese economic model. In an
interview with the Economist, he put it this way: ‘So my advice to
African leaders is to make sure that if, in fact, China is putting in
roads and bridges, number one, that they’re hiring African workers;
number two, that the roads don’t just lead from the mine, to the port,
to Shanghai.”
America has not just fallen behind in
terms of trade — it has also fallen behind in terms of diplomacy. There
was once a time when few governments could compete with the breadth and
depth of American influence in Africa, but those days are now a distant
memory.
China now leads the way, and America has a
very long way to go to catch up. Part of the problem for President Obama
is that much of the damage has already been done. It is telling that
the US-Africa Leaders Summit is the first time that America has held an
event on this scale.
The first Ministerial Conference
under the aegis of the Forum on China-Africa Co-operation (FOCAC) was
held in Beijing in 2000. Since then, there have been four subsequent
conferences, and countless visits by senior Chinese leaders to Africa to
reinforce the message of partnership.
If America was
serious about checking the expansion of Chinese power, the US-Africa
Leaders Summit should have been held a decade ago.
REPOSITIONING AMERICA
To
reposition America as a dynamic and forward thinking force in Africa,
Obama must overcome widespread disappointment with his engagement with
the continent since taking office in 2009.
There are
four main reasons for this. The first is personal. Throughout his
election campaign, Obama was the subject of ridiculous accusations from
Republic hardliners that he was not really American. In the blogs and
Twitter feeds of the extreme right, he was portrayed as a radical Kenyan
socialist, and a Muslim to boot.
Heading to the
continent too quickly, and demonstrating any favouritism towards Kenya,
would have given easy ammunition to his detractors.
The
second is domestic. President Obama has struggled to manage the
politics of Capitol Hill. He was forced to expend vast amount of time
and political capital securing the passage of the healthcare package now
known as “Obamacare”, which was beset by problems at each stage of its
development.
At the same time, he has presided over a
difficult economic period in which disagreements between his Democratic
administration and the Republicans who control the House of
Representatives led to a prolonged crisis in 2013 over government
spending and the amount of debt that the government could incur.
The
third factor is international. Not since the darkest days of the Cold
War has the world faced so many international challenges simultaneously.
Amidst all of the upheaval and instability, African issues have taken a
backseat.
The final reason that Obama has ceded the
initiative in Africa to China is that he operates under far greater
constraints than Chinese leaders. America’s commitment to the World Bank
and the IMF means that it is both unable and unwilling to adopt the
more flexible approach that has made China such a popular development
partner for African governments.
FUTURE OF AFRICAN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
But
all is not lost for the US. Most African countries are well aware that
they don’t actually need to choose between China and America at all.
Rather, they can have their cake and eat it.
Chinese
trade and loans are extremely valuable, but they cannot replace the
trade and aid that African states have traditionally secured from North
America and Europe. Moreover, when it comes to some of the most pressing
challenges facing the continent today, such as terrorism, America can
offer superior know-how and technology. By combining the best deals from
the two countries, African leaders can secure the funds they need to
grow their economies.
In the future, we may look back
on the US-Africa Leaders Summit as a significant turning point in
Africa’s international relations. It is too early to say, but it seems
likely that a resurgent America would be able to take advantage of the
inevitable backlash against China that, in many states, has already
begun. In countries such as Zambia, criticism of Chinese working
practices and complaints about a (perceived) influx of Chinese migrants
has combined into considerably public suspicion of China’s motives and
intentions.
Whether or not America will be able to take
advantage of this will depend on President Obama being able to back up
his promises. He is proud of the Power Africa initiative that was
launched last year, through which he pledged to double access to
electricity in sub-Saharan Africa. This is a grand idea that, if
implemented, would transform the economic landscape.
But
so far the project only covers six countries, and some African leaders
have complained that its focus on green energy is not the quickest or
cheapest way to meet their needs. The president will have to do more if
he really wants to reassert American leadership in Africa.
According
to US Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker, new deals worth around $900
million will be announced at the summit. One high profile project that
has been flagged ahead of the event is a further $498 million for power
projects in Ghana. But the Ghana proposal speaks to America’s weakness
as well as its strengths.
President Obama wishes to
give deals to “well governed” states in order to reward them and
encourage other investors to follow suit. The problem with this is that,
with the exception of South Africa, the biggest players on the
continent – whether we are talking in political or economic terms – are
not full democracies. In terms of GDP, Ghana does not make it into the
top 10, and comes below Angola, Ethiopia, and Nigeria.
US-KENYA RELATIONS
What does this all mean for Kenya? The inclusion of President Uhuru Kenyatta represents another stage in his international rehabilitation following the controversy surrounding his election. This reflects a broader trend in which the American government has been willing to compromise on governance issues where its security is at stake.
What does this all mean for Kenya? The inclusion of President Uhuru Kenyatta represents another stage in his international rehabilitation following the controversy surrounding his election. This reflects a broader trend in which the American government has been willing to compromise on governance issues where its security is at stake.
One
of the highest recipients of American aid is Ethiopia, hardly a shining
example of democracy. As far as Kenya is concerned, proximity to
Somalia, combined with the increase in terrorist activity within Kenya
itself, means that America can ill afford to break off relations, no
matter how unpalatable it may find Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto.
If
the president and his deputy both emerge from The Hague unscathed, as
seems increasingly likely, it will create a fresh opportunity for
US-Kenyan engagement. But this will require willingness on both sides.
One of the main reasons that relations between the two countries have
deteriorated recently has been the intransigent attitude adopted by the
Jubilee Alliance.
For example, Mr Francis Kimemia’s
claim that the United States Agency for International Development was
funding protestors to topple the Kenyan government caused great anger in
US circles. Just a few months later, President Kenyatta’s statement
that terrorist attacks in Mpeketoni were not the work of al Shabaab but
of “local political networks”, undermined his credibility in the eyes of
many international policy makers.
So long as the
Kenyan government maintains this combative approach, we are unlikely to
see the announcement of American financial assistance on the scale of
the project soon to be announced in Ghana. But this is unlikely to worry
President Kenyatta. After all, what is $498 million when you plan to
raise billions in order to finance major construction projects?
And
why worry about one or two deals with America, when, in a meeting with
the Chinese Prime Minister Li Kegiang last May, you were able to sign a
record 15 agreements in three days, including two infrastructure deals
reportedly worth over $4.5 billion?
Dr Nic Cheeseman is the Director, African Studies Centre, Oxford University
No comments:
Post a Comment