The current United States (US) foreign policy on Africa has had a mixed reception by both critics and supporters of President Barack Obama. Overall, Obama’s perceived lack of interest in a historically ‘unimportant’ continent is growing more apparent, especially as facts and figures show that Africa is on a meteoric rise, yet sound diplomacy has not been initiated by the highest office. This discussion paper seeks to examine Obama’s foreign policy in Africa and suggests ways forward for improving relations.

On 4 April 2011, Obama announced his campaign for re-election as his main opposition, the Republican Party, has gained considerable leverage in the last two years, effectively capitalising on Obama’s domestic failures. In analysing this situation, it is possible that Obama will not have as much time to travel abroad in the upcoming months as next year’s US Presidential elections will be more competitive than the previous landslide victory. From an African perspective this is problematic, because Obama might not be able to afford to visit the African continent. This paper explores the developments and setbacks of Obama’s US foreign policy in Africa and ultimately suggests that a visit by Obama to the continent would act as the catalyst for mutual growth and development.

The power of diplomacy

The most worrisome aspect of Obama’s African foreign policy is his personal distance from the continent. Obama’s refusal to visit his father’s homeland Kenya is a protest directed at African Government’s failures in democracy and good governance. A diplomatic visit is intercourse between nations as business thrives and mutual understandings prosper, an example being when Obama’s 2010 visit to India resulted in US$ 15 billion worth of agreements.⁽²⁾ On 23 May 2011, Obama visited the village of Moneygall in Ireland, the birthplace of his great-great-great-grandfather on his mother’s side.⁽³⁾ According to BBC analyst Peter Hunt, “Obama’s visit to Ireland is strategic as it is re-election time and some 40 million Americans say they are Irish-Americans”. In comparing the Moneygall visit to Obama’s only visit to Sub-Saharan Africa as President, when he spent less than 24 hours in Ghana,⁽⁴⁾ it becomes clearer that Obama’s personal relationship with the continent is not well-developed.

Taking into consideration that seven of the world’s 10 fastest-growing economies will be in sub-Saharan Africa during the next decade,⁽⁵⁾ there is serious cause to worry. Goldman Sachs economist Jim O’Neill - renowned for coining the term BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) - predicts that by 2050, the 11 largest African economies will reach US$ 13 trillion, making them larger than Brazil and Russia.⁽⁶⁾ The fruits of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) signed in 2000 are only starting to show nearly 12 years later. Therefore, it is important that the current US President build, initiate and develop the policies for growth for the next ten years.

US foreign policy in Africa

Under Obama, US foreign policy in Africa is based on four objectives - needs, threats, responsibilities and opportunities.⁽⁷⁾ Needs are energy for example, primarily in the form of fossil fuels, while threats are climate change, narcotics and people trafficking, terrorism and disease. Responsibilities are the promotion and protection of human rights, democracy and development and opportunities are in the form of African dynamics, investments and access to markets. These objectives serve both regions and hold the most importance to US national interests concerning Africa. The current US policy priorities in Africa are democracy and governance, conflict mitigation, economic growth and development, health issues, transnational issues, climate change and woman’s rights. The US policy approach is based on partnership and ‘collaborative diplomacy.’⁽⁸⁾

A major problem in the US-Africa forum is the issue of policy constraints. Overarching policies in Africa and the US, due to diversity on the continent results in little space for consistency. Secondly, several African states can still be considered colonial states as the colonial infrastructure such as inept and outdated constitutions, judiciary systems, bureaucratic systems and physical infrastructure still serve communities. This ‘legacy of the past’ has come to summarise several challenges facing the relationship. Somalia for instance, is an amalgamation of a British colony and an Italian colony and in Malawi, many communities are still using colonial era infrastructure A third constraint is that of ‘resources’ and that they are limited when it comes to dealing with Africa. Legislation poses further problems as the US State Department has to follow rules and regulations when determining how to best follow policy. Finally, a major constraint of US-Africa relations is that of sovereignty. Due to the nature of the interconnected world, the US has an unofficial policy on the need for disruptions in the political process. This is a problem because African states hold their sovereignty in high esteem, yet the US feels that it needs to ‘impinge on sovereignty’ when it must.

Critics such as Haskell Ward a senior expert in Afro-US relations, argues that "the US has no coherent Africa policy, just a patchwork of policies and initiatives fractured across different departments and agencies, many of which are embroiled in turf battles”.⁽⁹⁾ Truth be told, the driver of Africa’s recent economic growth has not been the US or Europe, but China, India, Brazil, Russia and the Gulf states. Because the later states have viewed Africa as a trading partner and investment opportunity, progress has been made, unlike American involvement that prefers to hand over money to Government agencies. It is vital that the Obama leadership do more to stimulate investment and trade in sub-Saharan Africa. Ward states “we (the US) need to move away from the aid-based approach, which has served us little, and we need to have a commercial strategy that unites our disconnected approach”.⁽¹⁰⁾

This approach suggested by Ward can be considerably difficult. For example, attempts at economic reform in the so-called “frontier economies” of Botswana, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia have stimulated private consumption.⁽¹¹⁾ An analysis of GDP growth rates in the region since 2000 show that private consumption was the biggest factor in maintaining growth, well ahead of exports and the state payroll. As it is virtually impossible for the US to compete with BRICS for African markets in terms of ‘private consumption’, a change of strategy is needed if US foreign policy in Africa is to grow, and a diplomatic visit is definitely needed.

According to Francis Kornegay Senior Researcher at the Institute of Global Dialogue "regionalisation of US-Africa relations should be the centre of US-African policy and institutions such as ECOWAS, EAC, AU, and SADC need to use their resources, structures, policies and goals to act as platforms”. This results in regional forums becoming more manageable and this in turn creates the environment for East and West or South and Central common positions. Using the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD) for example, we can see how effective use of regional forums would improve situations. NEPAD was created to reduce poverty, increase economic growth, and improve socio-economic development prospects across Africa,⁽¹²⁾ but little has been done by the AU to initiate prosperity as NEPAD is the brainchild of the AU and is too broad and general to work with African diversity.

Forums cannot be underestimated with regards to the US-Afro alliance and dialogue is desperately needed as US investors have a fear of conducting business in Africa because the rule of law does not prevail to the degree required to make Africa an attractive investment destination. This applies to corporate, societal, and criminal law. Graft, gifts and bribery fall under an umbrella labelled corruption; a common practice in Sub-Saharan Africa. If African Governments can assure that the rule of law prevails, an environment conducive to business will develop.⁽¹³⁾ Furthermore, Africa does not offer a sufficiently large middle class of consumers or show consistent economic growth that could promise a future market. Most African countries are small and have poor markets, and there are barriers to regional markets, such as taxes and the freedom of movement of people and goods.⁽¹⁴⁾ Forums of discussion and understanding will help improve policy.

Conclusion

According to Francis Kornegay "new directions of US-Africa policy are needed and Africa is the most non-controversial area of American foreign policy as the Obama administration focuses its efforts in Asia".⁽¹⁵⁾ Additionally, Howard French states that Africa has never long retained the attention of the American foreign policy elite or journalists, yet today is a fast-growing continent. An Africa that can douse its conflicts, build functioning institutions and continue to lay the foundations of democracy stands to become an important player in the next phase of globalisation, as labour costs rise in much of Asia, and capital begins to prospect for productive opportunities elsewhere.⁽¹⁶⁾

There have been considerable economic investments between the US and Africa, yet there is no evidence to suggest that the Afro-US relationship has been taken to a higher level, which is what is needed. This paper suggests that a diplomatic visit by Obama will help stimulate growth, and if Obama can make visits to African powerhouses such as Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda and Angola, then Africa can realise that it can no longer afford to lag behind in serious development.

NOTES:

(1) Contact Anton M. Pillay through Consultancy Africa Intelligence's Africa Watch Unit ( africa.watch@consultancyafrica.com This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ).
(2) ‘Obama visit proves fruitful as US and India sign key agreements’, 2point6billion.com, 9 November 2010, http://www.2point6billion.com.
(3) ‘Obama affirms US-Irish ties in Dublin on Europe Tour’, BBC News, 23 May 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk.
(4) ‘Obama said or brought nothing new to Africans’, The Statesman, 17 July 2009, http://www.thestatesmanonline.com.
(5) ‘A more hopeful continent: The lion kings?’, The Economist, 6 January 2011, http://www.economist.com.
(6) Josh Schonwald, ‘African Investment has Potential to be "California Gold Rush"’, University of Chicago Booth Business School, 2 May 2011, http://www.chicagobooth.edu.
(7) Eric Silla, ‘US Africa Policy under Obama’, Lecture by Dr Eric Silla presented at the Institute of Global Dialogue’s Diplomacy Discussion on 26 January 2011, Pretoria, South Africa.
(8) Ibid.
(9) Josh Schonwald, ‘African Investment has Potential to be "California Gold Rush"’, University of Chicago Booth Business School, 2 May 2011, http://www.chicagobooth.edu.
(10) Ibid.
(11) Carl Mortished, 'Barack Obama Knows that Africa needs to be left alone', Business Times UK, 12 November 2008, http://business.timesonline.co.uk.
(12) Danielle Langton, ‘US Trade and Investment Relationship with Sub-Saharan Africa: The Growth and Opportunity Act and Beyond’, Congressional Research Service, 13 November 2006, http://fpc.state.gov.
(13) ‘Increasing American Investments into Africa- US Study’, Biz Community, 21 May 2009, https://www.bizcommunity.com.
(14) ‘How Corporate America really views Africa’, Africa Business Initiative, US Chamber of Commerce, 2009, http://www.usafricainvestment.com.
(15) Francis Kornegay, ‘US Africa Policy under Obama.’ Lecture by Francis Kornegay presented at the Institute of Global Dialogue’s Diplomacy Discussion on 26 January 2011, Pretoria, South Africa.
(16) Howard W. French, 'Obama and Africa: The Change we have been waiting for?’, Huffington Post, 6 November 2008, http://www.huffingtonpost.com.

Written by Anton M. Pillay ⁽¹⁾