|
|
President Bush’s Africa Safari
George B.N. Ayittey, PhD
Ghanadot, February 16, 2008
President Bush’s tour of 5 African countries (Benin, Tanzania,
Rwanda,
Ghana and Liberia) this week is intended to achieve three
objectives. First, there are growing
fears among administration officials that the
next president may not continue with Bush aid policies
toward Africa. Bush has spent $1.2
billion the past 5 years to fight malaria and $15
billion to fight HIV/AIDS, which Bush wants to double
over the next 5 years.
There are also worries that his debt relief efforts and the
Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) may
be ditched. MCA requires recipient countries
to invest in people, curb corruption, promote economic
freedom, and establish rule of law. A
third but undeclared objective is to check
China’s forays into Africa, which have been muscling out
US companies and influence.
It is most likely the next president, a Democrat, might keep
most of Bush’s Africa policies because
of a strong African-American political
(Congressional) constituency and support for fighting
malaria, HIV/AIDS and granting debt
relief. But the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA)
might become a copse. Though it is based on sound
logic and premise, MCA with a $5.5
billion budget was slow to start and can point to few
success stories in Africa. Its web site lists 19
recipients of MCA grants as
“successful performers.” But in several cases, such as that of
Kenya, Lesotho and Uganda, such designation is dubious.
The MCA “performance-based” yardstick was sound and represented
a paradigm shift from the old way of
giving foreign aid. In the 40 years,
US Africa aid policies have gone through 3 phases. In the First
Phase (1960s to 1970s), much of US aid
was bilateral or
“government-to-government.” It was largely shaped by the
imperatives of the Cold War, during
which a lot of U.S. aid was funneled to Cold War
allies such as Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire. But much of
this aid ended up
in private pockets and Swiss bank accounts.
The 1970s to the 1980s marked the Second Phase when
multi-lateral institutions such as the
World Ban became important sources of foreign
assistance. Loans during this period, however, were
project-specific – to build schools,
roads, hydro-electric dams, etc. But the results were
negligible. The World Bank itself admitted that over half
of the agricultural projects it
financed in Africa during this period failed
miserably.
In the Third Phase (1980s to the new millennium), aid was made
“conditional.” African governments received aid on
condition that they implement certain
types of economic and political reforms. Most however
took the aid money and did the “Babangida boogie” – one
step forward, three steps back, a flip
and a side kick to land on a fat Swiss bank
account. For example, aid to several African countries
was suspended until they established
multi-party democracy. But incumbent presidents
empanelled a fawning coterie of sycophants to write new
Constitutions,
insert phony term-limits, pack the Electoral Commission with
their cronies, toss opposition leaders
into jail and hold “coconut elections”
to return themselves to power. As a result of this vexatious
chicanery, willful deception and
vaunted acrobatics, the democratization process
has stalled in Africa. Only 16 out of the 54 African
countries are democratic, fewer than 8
are “economic success stories,” only 8 have a
free and independent media.
Enter the Millennium Challenge Account in 2003. Foreign aid
would be given to only those countries
that “show results” in:
a. Ruling justly
b. Promoting economic freedom, and
c. Investing in people.
Each of the three broad category areas has sub-categories that
must be satisfied for a country to be
deemed eligible. For example, “Ruling
Justly” specifies the following 6 benchmarks or indicators:
civil liberties; political rights;
voice and accountability; government
effectiveness; rule of law; and control of corruption.
“Encouraging Economic Freedom” also
has 6 benchmarks and “Investing in People” has 4,
bringing the overall total to 16.
Unfortunately, these benchmarks were so stringent that few
African countries could meet them. So
“the Millennium Challenge Corporation
approved an $11 million grant to Tanzania to combat corruption
and qualify for a bigger aid package”
(The New York Times, Feb 2, 2006;
p.A13). In other words, Tanzania which did not meet the
benchmarks, secured an $11 million
grant to help it meet them! As a result of this
help, Tanzania is receiving $698 million in MCA grant. But how
really
successful has Tanzania been in fighting corruption?
Alas, when President Bush lands in Tanzania on Monday, Feb 18,
he will find that the country has no
cabinet. The entire Cabinet has been
dissolved over a corruption scandal, involving the award
of $172.5 million contract to supply
100 megawatts of emergency power to a Texas
based company that does not exist. Even the
anti-corruption czar, Dr. Edward
Hosea, is implicated!
Far more difficult to achieve is the third objective of bucking
China’s inroads into Africa. Hungry
for resources to feed its voracious economic
expansion at a dizzying 8-9 percent clip, China is all
over Africa, signing deals and
gobbling up resources. China’s trade with Africa has
increased 60-fold since 1990 and in 2006, China invested
$11.7 billion in Africa – up 40
percent the previous year, according to the African
Development Bank. To the delight of African governments,
China’s aid and
investments come with no strings attached.
However, China aid, wrapped up in anti-colonialist verbiage,
will meet its own peril in Africa. The
influx of cheap Chinese goods has destroyed
textile industries from Nigeria to Lesotho. So
fever-pitched were anti-Chinese
sentiments in Zambia that a 2006 presidential candidate,
Michael Sata, vowed to throw
them out of the country if elected. He
wasn’t. And China’s secret plans to re-settle 12.5 million
Chinese in
Africa have so rankled some African commentators to dismiss its
into Africa as “chopsticks
mercantilism.”
Fact is, the foreign aid resources Africa desperately needs can
be found in Africa itself. The problem
is its begging bowl leaks horribly. In
August 2004, an African Union report claimed that Africa loses
an estimated $148 billion annually to
corrupt practices, a figure which
represents 25 percent of the continent's Gross Domestic Product
(GDP).
Civil wars continue to wreak devastation on African economies,
costing at least $15 billion annually
in lost output, wreckage of
infrastructure, and refugee crises. The wars, as well as
misguided policies of price controls
and marketing boards took a heavy toll on
Africa’s agriculture, making it difficult for Africa to
feed itself. By
2000, Africa’s food imports had reached $18.7 billion, slightly
more than donor assistance of $18.6
billion to Africa.
A quick tally shows that Africa can easily find $200 billion
within itself for investment if the
leadership were willing to curb corruption,
end senseless wars, and relinquish or share political
power. But they are not interested,
period. Witness Kenya, Sudan or Zimbabwe. What can
the U.S. do? President Bush’s MCA doesn’t cut it.
Smart aid is that which empowers African civil society and
community-based groups to monitor how the aid money is
being spent and to instigate reform
from within. Empowerment requires arming them with
information, the freedom and the institutional means to
unchain themselves from the vicious
grip of repression and poverty.
Africa already has its own Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights
(the 1981 Banjul Charter), which
recognizes the right to liberty and to the
security of his person (Article 6); to receive
information, to express and
disseminate his opinions (Article 9); to free association
(Article 10); to assemble freely with
others (Article 11); and to participate
freely in the government of his country, either directly
or through
freely chosen representatives in accordance with the provisions
of the law (Article 13). Though the
Charter enjoins African states to recognize
these rights, few do so.
The institutional tools Africans need are a free and independent
media (to ensure free flow of
information), an independent judiciary (for the
rule of law), an independent Electoral Commission, an
independent central bank (to assure
monetary stability and stanch capital flight),
an efficient and professional civil service, and a
neutral and professional armed and
security forces. Recent events in Ukraine
(November), Ghana (December), Zimbabwe (March), Lebanon
(April), and
Togo (April) unerringly underscore the critical importance of
these institutions. Democracies are
not built in a vacuum but in a “political
space” in which the people can air their opinion,
petition their government without
being fired on by security forces and can choose who
should rule them in elections that are rigged by
electoral commissions packed with
government supporters.
Effective foreign aid programs are those that are
“institution-based” and, as such,
empower civil society. Give Africa the above 6 critical
institutions and the people will do the rest of the job.
Africa is poor because it is not free.
__________________________
The writer, a Ghanaian, is the President of the Free Africa
Foundation
and a Distinguished Economist at American University, both in
Washington, DC. He is the author of Africa In Chaos and Africa
Unchained.
|
