BODY: President Bush is about to attend a Canadian
summit of industrialized nations where development in Africa will be a central
issue. Next year, he plans to visit the continent he once called a country to
further demonstrate his interest in Africa and to burnish his image with U.S.
black voters. While both are laudable goals, neither will be easily obtained.
During the 2000 presidential campaign, Bush
said Africa "doesn't fit into the national strategic interests" of the United
States. His words deepened the divide between him and African-Americans and set
off alarm bells in African capitals.
Since
taking office, Bush has pulled back from the geopolitical edge. His
administration has increased U.S. assistance to sub-Saharan African countries,
mostly to combat AIDS. Last week, Bush said he would make available $ 200
million during five years to improve basic education and
teacher training in Africa.
The money Bush
is putting into sub-Saharan Africa is just pocket change compared to the
region's needs. His "largess" is a classic example of his compassionate
conservatism.
Sadly, Africa is in such
dire straits that it probably would benefit from even a small dose of the
president's compassionate conservatism.
But Africa is plagued by another popular elixir of conservatives:
neo-liberalism, which holds that the role of private enterprise in ensuring a
nation's wealth is greater than that of government.
"This administration is rabidly neo-liberal," Bill Fletcher, the
president of the advocacy group TransAfrica Forum, said of the Bush economic
policy.
If it's good enough for the USA .
. .
Some people believe that neo-liberalism has brought
economic and political instability to sub-Saharan Africa. Its advocates have
urged African countries to privatize and denationalize a wide swath of
government services and industries traditionally run by the state. Opponents
argue that while such a market economy might work well here and in Europe, it is
far from a "one size fits all" solution to Africa's deeply rooted economic,
social and political woes.
Bush shouldn't
arrive in Africa next year intent on persuading some of the world's most
impoverished countries that widespread privatization and deregulation are the
only medicines for what ails them. If what he sees isn't obstructed by his
conservative views, Bush might reap some political benefit from his trip.
Already, his evolving perception of Africa has won him some surprising
support.
"We've been talking to the guy
for two years, and I think our advocacy effort has helped," said Melvin Foote,
the president of Constituency for Africa, a group that is chaired by Ronald
Dellums, a liberal Democrat. "I think he has been educated about Africa and the
value of African oil to the U.S., given the problems in the Middle East. If this
gets him a few more black votes, then so be it."
Listen rather than lecture
If the goal of his
African policy is to curry the support of black voters in the United States,
then Bush should listen more than he talks when he meets African leaders during
his visit to the continent. Before he urges sub-Saharan countries to make the
kind of economic changes that have traumatized Argentina, the president should
carefully assess and understand what impact they might have on Africa.
The "experts" at the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund are not the right sources for that sort of
cost-benefit analysis. Instead, it should come from Bush's own up-close look at
life in sub-Saharan Africa. Bush should visit African tribal villages as well as
the continent's bustling cities. He should talk to people who know nothing about
Keynesian economic theories as well as those who are Western-trained
economists.
Most importantly, Bush should
be open to the possibility that Africans know best what it will take to make
their lives better.
Document 70 of 298. 