---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:08:05 -0600
From: Africa Action <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Africa Policy Outlook 2005


Dear Friends,

Africa Action this morning released our new "Africa Policy Outlook
2005".  This annual publication, posted below, forecasts the key issues
and developments in Africa policy in the coming year, and analyzes
trends in U.S. relations with Africa under the current administration.
It is also available at http://www.africaaction.org/  We are also
including below the press release on the Policy Outlook, which was
released this morning.

Africa Action
---


     Africa Action Releases "Africa Policy Outlook 2005"

*Highlights need for action on Debt and Darfur Genocide*

/Wednesday, January 26, 2005 (Washington, DC)/ - Just one week after the
inauguration of President Bush to a second term in office, Africa Action
today released its Africa Policy Outlook 2005, also published by Foreign
Policy in Focus. This annual publication forecasts the key issues and
developments in Africa policy in the coming year, and analyzes trends in
U.S. relations with Africa under the current administration. It is now
available at http://www.africaaction.org/

Africa Action notes that, *"This year's calendar of global events and
negotiations indicates an international focus on three key issues of
importance to Africa - debt, aid, and trade - and some progress is
likely on each in 2005. But while a new international focus on Africa is
warranted, the sad reality is that 2005 risks being another year of
compassionate showmanship rather than a year of sea change." *

Director of Policy Analysis & Communications, Ann-Louise Colgan, said
today, *"Despite their promises to support Africa's priorities, the
failure of the Bush Administration and European governments to join
Africans to stop another unfolding genocide in Africa, this time in
Darfur, may yet be the darkest stain on their record in 2005." *

The debts of impoverished countries will be on the agenda at the G-7
Finance Ministers' meeting in London in early February, but Africa
Action notes, *"While some deal on debt is expected in 2005, campaigners
will continue to push for 100% cancellation, and will not be satisfied
with any new creditor proposals to reduce Africa's debt burden to
so-called 'sustainable' levels, or to merely reduce countries' debt
service payments."*

Africa Action emphasizes that Africa's debt crisis undermines the
continent's efforts to address poverty and HIV/AIDS, and notes that the
UN estimates that African countries are still 150 years away from
meeting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The goals, to be
reviewed in September 2005, comprise a range of development benchmarks
that overall seek to reduce extreme poverty by half by 2015.

Colgan added, *"The massive and rapid resource mobilization for the
tsunami victims stands in stark contrast to the minimal level of global
attention and resources given to crises that are less visible but
equally deadly in Africa, such as HIV/AIDS." *

As President Bush begins his second term, Africa Action's Executive
Director Salih Booker said this morning, *"In measuring the claims
events of 2005, we must not be fooled by compassionate charades. The
real interests of the Bush Administration in Africa are oil and
geo-strategic alliances, and the measure of its commitment to African
priorities must be judged this year by its actions on debt cancellation,
on HIV/AIDS and on genocide in Darfur."*

The "Africa Policy Outlook 2005" is available at
http://www.africaaction.org/

*####
*


     Africa Policy Outlook 2005

January 26, 2005

by Ann-Louise Colgan

*There are some people in the world's wealthy countries who forecast
that 2005 will be a decisive year for Africa.*

In the U.S., President Bush begins his second term in office with
administration officials and pundits claiming that he has done more for
Africa than any previous U.S. President. Britain this year holds the
rotating presidency of both the European Union and Group of 8 (G-8)
wealthy nations, and Prime Minister Blair has declared that addressing
Africa's poverty will be the centerpiece of his agenda.

In 2005, a confluence of major international events will also spotlight
Africa's poverty-related challenges, and will highlight the need for the
world's richest countries to do more in support of Africa's efforts. In
July, Britain will host the G-8 summit in Scotland. In September, a
United Nations (UN) Special Summit will review progress on the
Millennium Development Goals, which aim to reduce by half the number of
people living in extreme poverty by 2015. In December, the World Trade
Organization's (WTO) sixth ministerial conference in Hong Kong will
reveal whether the Doha round of global trade talks have secured new
deals to benefit the world's most impoverished countries.

Civil society campaigns in the U.S. and in Britain are also pushing 2005
as a special opportunity for rich country leaders to address poverty in
Africa and other impoverished regions. They are optimistic about
victories on debt cancellation, aid and trade this year.

It is important to note that these international meetings and campaigns
are Northern-dominated and rarely include African input. Indeed, they
can have the effect of drowning out African voices. Meanwhile, on the
ground, African civil society campaigns, and some African governments,
continue to demand real action on priority issues defined by Africans.

Then how should we measure the outcomes of these opportunities? For,
while a new international focus on Africa is warranted, and while much
more can and must be done to address the continent's challenges, the sad
reality is that 2005 risks being another year of "compassionate
showmanship" rather than a year of sea change. The poor track record of
the U.S. and other rich countries when it comes to Africa requires us to
watch carefully what transpires in 2005 and to be clear on how we will
measure the success of their actions this year and beyond.

As genocide continues to unfold in Darfur, Sudan, the failure of the
Bush Administration and other rich country governments to stop another
such crime against humanity in Africa may yet be the darkest stain on
their record in 2005.


*The Bush Administration: Africa's Friend?*

Over the past four years, George W. Bush has sought to portray himself
as a "compassionate conservative" who cares about Africa, and in some
circles he has succeeded in displacing his predecessor Bill Clinton as
the U.S. President who is considered to have done most for the
continent. As we face a second Bush Administration term, such
high-sounding claims deserve scrutiny, as do our criteria for assessing
the achievements of U.S. Africa policy.

The reality is that there has been a good deal of consistency in U.S.
relations with Africa since decolonization and the Cold War. Successive
U.S. Administrations have been motivated by calculations of Africa's
geo-strategic significance, with the U.S. seeking to foster military and
security relationships which advance its own agenda. U.S. policies have
similarly been driven by the quest for Africa's natural resources, and
have sought to promote greater trade and investment ties with key states
on the continent.

In the 1990s, through successful public relations efforts, President
Bill Clinton became known as a great friend to Africa. He made a
much-publicized trip to the continent, the first substantive trip by a
U.S. President in American history. Clinton proclaimed great concern for
Africa's challenges and a commitment to enabling Africans to reach the
continent's potential by encouraging trade, promoting debt relief, and
supporting democracy throughout the continent. In fact, the symbolism of
Clinton's Africa policy in many ways succeeded in masking the real
damage that was done by his Administration, which ignored the genocide
in Rwanda, failed to address the growing crisis of HIV/AIDS, abandoned
the democracy movement in Nigeria and reconstruction efforts in Somalia,
and neglected peacekeeping efforts in West Africa and elsewhere.

George W. Bush stated clearly in 2000 that Africa was not a priority,
and the past four years have confirmed that while also maintaining a
good deal of continuity with the Africa policy of his predecessor.
Indeed, we have witnessed a similar duplicity, with the White House
promoting its own economic and military agenda but seeking at the same
time to portray itself as a great friend to Africa. The White House
emphasizes that President Bush met with 25 African heads of state in his
first two years in office, announced new initiatives on HIV/AIDS and
aid, and pledged to significantly increase U.S. funding for both. He
traveled to the African continent in 2003 for a five-day five-country
trip. In 2004, his Administration recognized that genocide was taking
place in Darfur, Sudan and claimed to be addressing this crisis.

Again, as under the Clinton Administration, the "compassion spin" has in
some ways succeeded in masking the aggressive pursuit by the Bush White
House of its own economic and military-strategic interests in Africa,
and the consequent marginalization of African priorities. In other
words, the Bush Administration's real interests in Africa are oil and
strategic allies in the "war on terror" (see Africa Policy Outlook 2004
<http://www.africaaction.org/resources/outlook/2004policyoutlook.php>).
Its new initiatives on HIV/AIDS and foreign aid reach very few countries
and remain under-funded, and the U.S. has failed to take real action to
stop the genocide it has acknowledged in Darfur.

Yet while we have seen similar U.S. policies toward Africa pursued over
successive Administrations, what sets the current White House apart, and
harms Africa's interests in important ways, are two key tenets of its
foreign policy philosophy. The first is its rejection of the process and
principle of multilateralism when it comes to addressing urgent global
issues. The second is its embrace of the ideology of the religious
right, and the promotion of this ideology in its policies at home and
abroad. Both of these tendencies undermine Africa's priorities, and
particularly the fight against HIV/AIDS.

So while the Bush Administration will continue to tout what it's doing
for Africa, it is important to look beyond such quantitative benchmarks
as the number of African leaders who visit the White House or even the
number of new initiatives pledged to help impoverished countries. These
measures reveal little about the substance of U.S. policy toward Africa.
Instead, a more sophisticated and qualitative measure is required, which
examines the nature of U.S. initiatives and the reality of their
implementation.


*This Year's "Hot Topics" - Debt, Aid & Trade*

This year's calendar of global events and negotiations indicates an
international focus on three key issues of importance to Africa - debt,
aid, and trade - and some progress is likely on each in 2005.

On debt, activism around the world in recent years has led to a growing
realization on the part of rich countries that something must be done to
address the debt crisis in the world's most impoverished countries.
There has also been an increasing acknowledgment that the current debt
relief framework - the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative
- has failed to resolve this crisis. African countries continue to
struggle under an unsustainable burden of debt, and are still required
to spend some $15 billion in debt service payments to wealthy creditors
each year. Most African countries must spend more on debt service
payments that they can spend on health care and education combined.

Last year, 100% multilateral debt cancellation for impoverished
countries was put on the table for the first time during discussions
among the Group of 8 leaders in June and then among their Finance
Ministers in the fall. While these meetings produced statements in
support of 100% debt cancellation, an agreement was not reached on the
list of eligible countries or on the mechanism through which this would
be financed.

There are still some differences between the U.S. and UK in these
regards. The U.S. has claimed that it supports multilateral debt
cancellation for 42 countries, to be paid for by the World Bank and
International Monetary Fund (IMF), and that it sees a move from loans to
grants at the World Bank as one key to breaking the debt cycle. However,
the U.S. Treasury Department refuses to recognize the illegitimate
nature of these debts, and has indicated that its main concern is really
"debt sustainability". This concept refers to how much debt a country
can carry without inhibiting economic growth, but it fails to
acknowledge that no amount of debt can be sustainable for African
countries at a moment when they face the worst health crisis in human
history.

The UK, on the other hand, supports a less-ambitious debt deal for about
20 impoverished countries, but does not want the World Bank to use its
own resources to cover this. Instead, the UK proposes that G-7 countries
take over debt service payments on behalf of eligible countries for an
initial 10 years, but without canceling their debts. The UK launched
this new plan in January 2004 when Finance Minister Gordon Brown signed
a deal with Tanzania to take over 10% of the debt payments it owes to
the World Bank and the African Development Bank for 10 years.

Despite these disagreements, there are indications that an agreement can
be expected in 2005 on some form of debt relief or cancellation for some
sub-set of deeply impoverished countries. This will next be discussed at
the "Group of 7" Finance Ministers meeting in February, and, if there is
no resolution at this point, it is expected to be on the agenda of the
G-8 summit in July.

Meanwhile, civil society groups and some governments in Africa and
elsewhere in the global South continue to call for outright and
unconditional debt cancellation, emphasizing that these debts are
illegitimate and should not have to be repaid. They urge the Bush
Administration to apply the same standard it has in calling for the
cancellation of Iraq's odious debt to the odious and illegitimate debts
of African countries. Just as some creditor countries have offered to
freeze bilateral debt repayments for the impoverished countries worst
affected by the recent tsunami, campaigners call for Africa's debt to be
written off to enable the continent to spend its own resources on its
own urgent priorities. With some deal on debt expected in 2005,
campaigners will be entitled to claim victory but will continue to push
for 100% cancellation. They will not be satisfied with any new creditor
proposals to merely reduce Africa's debt burden to "sustainable" levels,
or to simply reduce countries' debt payments.

Even after debt cancellation, additional development assistance will
still be required for African countries to be able to address the
challenges of poverty and HIV/AIDS. 2005 is a benchmark year for the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), a set of international development
goals that seek to improve health, education and the environment across
the world, with the overarching aim of reducing by half the number of
people living in extreme poverty by 2015. When the UN meets in September
to review progress toward these goals, it will be clear that while some
regions are on track, Africa remains the exception. In fact, an interim
UN report has revealed that, at current pace, Africa won't reach these
goals until 2169 - and that will still only have reduced poverty there
by half. The United Nations states that meeting the MDGs will require a
doubling of annual development assistance from rich countries to
impoverished countries throughout the world, to $135 billion in 2006,
then rising to $195 billion by 2015. It describes this as "entirely
affordable", particularly when the world's military budget is $900
billion a year.

The Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) proposed by President Bush in
2002 was supposed to increase U.S. foreign aid over 3 years by an
additional $10 billion, so that by 2007 the U.S. would be spending 50%
more ($15 billion per year) on foreign aid than previously. But the MCA
is already running behind schedule, and has yet to disburse any funds.
In 2004, $1 billion was appropriated for this account, and for 2005 this
was only slightly increased to $1.25 billion, which is only half of what
the White House requested. This amount remains far short of what the
U.S. can and should provide, and is only a tiny fraction of what Africa
needs. In addition, the MCA only directs aid to a handful of countries
that meet specific political and economic conditions, so this initiative
actually does little to support poverty reduction in the world's most
impoverished countries because most are ineligible for its funding.

The UK, for its part, has pledged to double its bilateral aid to Africa,
to reach $1.9 billion by 2005. Gordon Brown has also proposed an
International Finance Facility, which would allow countries to
front-load aid by borrowing against future commitments, in order to
support efforts to reach the MDGs. But it is clear that even with small
increases in rich country aid budgets in recent years, far more
resources will be needed to support African efforts to promote development.

Not only are aid flows insufficient, the patterns in which they are
directed increasingly reflect geo-strategic concerns rather than efforts
to reduce poverty. An Oxfam report from December 2004 warns that the
"war on terror" and related geo-strategic calculations are dictating
where aid money is directed in a dynamic reminiscent of the Cold War.
Over the past 3 years, flows of aid from the U.S. to Israel, Egypt,
Jordan, Iraq, Turkey and Afghanistan were equal to aid to the rest of
the world combined. Furthermore, when up to 70% of U.S. foreign aid is
tied to an obligation to use that money to buy goods and services from
the U.S., this immediately undermines development efforts in African
countries.

While to some the MDGs represent a useful political tool to mobilize
international support for development, they have been criticized by many
groups in the global south as being an over-simplified summary of the
development commitments and targets that UN member states have agreed to
at international conferences since the 1990s. Groups such as FEMNET (the
African Women's Development and Communications Network) have critiqued
the failure of the MDGs to make the correlation between achieving these
development goals and the larger structural changes needed to achieve
them. The goals may represent some key benchmarks in development
progress, but they are all different indicators of the same poverty, and
must be addressed at the same time, and at a structural level, to ensure
real and sustainable human development.

Although there will be a lot of discussion of the MDGs this year,
announcements of new money from rich countries appear unlikely. This
despite the acknowledgment that reaching these goals in Africa and other
impoverished regions will remain impossible without vast amounts of
additional resources.

In a very self-serving way, rich countries continue to argue that
integrating developing countries into the global economy through trade
and investment is a more effective and sustainable way of reducing
poverty than is aid or debt relief, so December's WTO meeting will be
seen as significant for Africa. African governments and civil society
organizations claim that developing countries lose more in blocked
access to rich country markets each year than they gain in aid. In this
sense, the WTO meeting in Hong Kong is seen by some as a real test of
whether rich countries are willing to deliver on the promises they made
at the 2001 WTO Ministerial in Doha - to move away from protectionist
policies and reduce tariffs and agricultural subsidies in order to
promote economic opportunities for the world's most impoverished countries.

Despite the commitments made at Doha and subsequent trade meetings, the
U.S. and rich countries have yet to take convincing steps toward
fulfilling their promises to reform the global trade system to promote
equity and development. While the collapse of the Cancun trade meeting
in 2003 indicated a watershed moment in North-South trade negotiations,
when developing countries stood together in defense of their development
priorities, it is unclear whether progress made since then means rich
countries are prepared to take action this year on contentious issues,
such as agricultural subsidies. As a result, some commentators predict
that the outcomes of the WTO meeting in December may in fact bring very
few benefits, if any, to impoverished countries - a result which would
clearly make a lie of previous commitments of rich country governments
in this area, and could also threaten the future of the multilateral
trading system.

While multilateral trade negotiations prove difficult, the U.S. remains
focused on securing bilateral and regional trade agreements that can
promote greater access for U.S. corporations to African markets. It
continues to pursue a free trade agreement with the five-nation Southern
African Custom Union (SACU), which would guarantee preferential access
for U.S. companies to this export market. Last year, the African Growth
and Opportunity Act (AGOA) was extended and the President announced in
December 2004 that 37 countries will be eligible for AGOA in 2005. Since
passing in 2000, this Clinton-era policy has become the centerpiece of
U.S. economic relations with Africa, offering slightly improved access
to U.S. markets to select countries for select products.

The latest U.S. Africa trade profile indicates that two-way trade
between the U.S. and Sub-Saharan remains highly concentrated, both in
terms of partners and in terms of products. A very small number of
African countries account for the lion's share of total imports and
exports. Key U.S. trading partners in Africa are the key oil producers
on the continent, including Nigeria, Angola and Gabon, and the largest
recipients of investment are also the major oil producers. In 2003, 70%
of all U.S. imports from Africa were oil imports, and fully 80% of AGOA
imports were petroleum products.

Oil is likely to remain a key motivator of U.S. Africa policy in the
coming year. The amount of oil the U.S. imports from Africa will
continue to increase, as will the importance of securing that oil supply
through strategic military relations.


*HIV/AIDS & Genocide in Africa - International Failures*

It is not yet clear to what extent African priorities of defeating
HIV/AIDS and promoting peace and security will feature on the agenda of
rich countries in 2005. But what is already quite clear is the abject
failure of these countries to respond to such priorities in Africa with
the urgency they require.

The latest annual AIDS epidemic update released in December 2004 reveals
that Sub-Saharan Africa is still by far the worst affected region in the
world - home to up to 28 million people living with HIV/AIDS, or 64% of
the global total. African women, particularly young African women, are
disproportionately affected by this pandemic. It is estimated that
almost 4 times as many young women as young men now live with HIV in
sub-Saharan Africa.

U.S. policies on HIV/AIDS in Africa remain completely inadequate in the
face of a crisis of this magnitude. The so-called "President's Emergency
Plan for AIDS Relief" (PEPFAR) began disbursing money in 2004, but
focuses on only a dozen African countries. For 2005 Congress has
appropriated $2.9 billion for HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and malaria
programs worldwide, which is a slight increase from the previous year
but still is far less than is needed and very far from Bush's original
promise of $3 billion per year for HIV/AIDS in Africa alone.

Beyond the inadequate funding levels, the approach of U.S. policies on
HIV/AIDS continues to contradict what are some of the most important
ways to address this crisis in Africa. Rather than promoting access to
cheaper, generic versions of essential HIV/AIDS medications, the Bush
Administration places a priority on its ties with the pharmaceutical
lobby, and instead approves only the use of expensive name-brand drugs.
These generally cost 3 times as much as the generic versions, thereby
reaching only one-third of potential beneficiaries.

In addition, the Bush Administration's embrace of the ideology of the
religious right has led it to promote an abstinence-only approach to HIV
prevention strategies at home and abroad. This perspective dangerously
places a premium on ideology over science and flies in the face of what
is known about the most effective ways to stem the spread of this
disease in Africa and elsewhere. And abstinence-only prevention programs
do little to support the needs of women, when many of those contracting
HIV are staying faithful to one partner, and when effective prevention
clearly hinges on women's sexual and reproductive rights.

Meanwhile, the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria,
which has proven to be an effective mechanism for addressing this
pandemic in some 127 countries, remains under-funded by the U.S. and
other rich countries. Despite the demonstrated efficacy of the Global
Fund, the U.S. still favors its own unilateral approach to addressing
HIV/AIDS in Africa and globally.

HIV/AIDS remains the biggest challenge facing the African continent, but
no major new actions are expected from rich country governments in this
area in 2005. Britain intends to promote the more rapid pursuit of an
HIV vaccine as part of its G-8 agenda, but while this is an important
part of the global fight against AIDS, it does little to address the
urgent needs of the nearly 3 million people who will die in Africa this
year without access to essential treatment.

It is also unclear what action can be expected this year from the
international community on the ongoing genocide in Darfur. It is now
estimated that as many as 400,000 people have died in the past two years
as a result of a government-sponsored campaign of genocide in this
western region of Sudan. The U.S. government remains the only country to
have rightfully declared that what is happening in Darfur constitutes
genocide, but its actions in response have been wholly inadequate, even
callous. When declaring a finding of genocide four months ago, Secretary
of State Powell also stated that this required no further action on the
part of the U.S. Similarly, other UN members have revealed their
unwillingness to take action, even as the violence and related
humanitarian crisis in Darfur cost an additional 1,000 lives each day.

The U.S. and other countries recently applauded the signing of a peace
deal in Sudan that brought to an end the decades-long war between North
and South, but they also state that the crisis in Darfur must not be
ignored. Negotiations between the Khartoum government and the Darfur
rebels are set to resume in Nigeria at the end of January. A UN
Commission of Inquiry will report in February 2005 as to whether it
believes genocide is indeed taking place. But no urgent international
action is on the agenda, and the intervention that is necessary to stop
the genocide in Darfur seems unlikely without greater public pressure
(which is growing in the U.S.). The limited African Union force in
Darfur - only 1,000 troops of a promised 4,000 strong force - remains
completely inadequate and overwhelmed, and lacks the troop strength,
logistical support, and, most importantly, the mandate to protect
civilians. The UN and its member nations will continue to discuss
sanctions and embargos in the coming months, but there is no sign of a
willingness on the part of any of the most world's powerful nations to
take action to stop this crime against humanity.


*Democracy & Peace*

The recent signing of the historic North-South peace deal in Sudan
brings to an end the longest-running war in Africa, and brings hope for
the future democratization, political stability and economic prosperity
of that country. Even while the ongoing crisis in Darfur casts a long
shadow, 2005 will see some key steps toward the formation of a new
coalition government in Sudan, and some observers hope that this may
help to resolve the situation in Darfur and Sudan's larger national
political crisis. The U.S. was instrumental in promoting North-South
negotiations in Sudan in recent years, though the African negotiators
were the most important agents in securing the peace that was signed in
January 2005.

In Zimbabwe, elections to be held in March will attract significant
international attention and will have major implications for the region
and for the continent. It is not yet clear whether the opposition
Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) will participate in the elections,
but there are already concerns about whether these elections can truly
be free and in light of government-imposed limitations on campaigning
and restrictions on the media, among other repressive measures. These
elections are a real test for Zimbabwe's political future and for
African leaders' willingness to hold each other accountable.

In West Africa, two key elections are expected in 2005 - in Cote
D'Ivoire and in Liberia - and both are considered very important for the
political stability and economic prospects of that whole sub-region. In
East Africa, there are hopes that this year may see the recently-elected
government of Somalia move out of exile in Kenya and to the Somali
capital, Mogadishu. In the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the first
general elections since independence in 1960 are planned for June 2005,
though they may be postponed until later in the year. There are real
procedural and logistical challenges to holding this election, and the
eastern part of the country remains very unstable. A December 2004
report from the International Rescue Committee reveals that over the
past six years, 3.8 million people have died in DRC as a result of
ongoing conflict, with most deaths the result of preventable disease and
hunger.

Liberia, Somalia and DRC were all key U.S. allies during the Cold War,
and the turmoil they have experienced over the past decade or more is in
large part the result of the previous destabilizing influence of the
U.S. Each country now faces an important moment in 2005, and a new
chance to achieve peace and stability, though a sustained commitment
from the U.S. to supporting these aspirations is unlikely.


*Conclusion*

The year has begun with a natural disaster of unprecedented proportions
in the Indian Ocean, and, as the world struggles to help the countries
of south Asia respond to this crisis, there are fears that this may
divert attention and resources from Africa's needs in the coming year.

What is perhaps more significant is how the rapid and massive resource
mobilization for the tsunami victims stands in stark contrast to the
minimal level of global attention and resources given to crises that are
less visible but equally deadly in Africa. In the first two weeks after
the tsunami, international donors pledged more than $5 billion to
tsunami relief - an amount almost equal to the total amount that the UN
received for all humanitarian relief efforts globally last year. The
global AIDS crisis, which costs about 3 million lives each year,
received pledges of only $3.6 billion from all rich country governments
for the whole of 2004.

If 2005 is to be a decisive year for Africa, the U.S. and other rich
country governments must replace compassionate charades with serious
action in support of Africa's most urgent priorities. They must cancel
Africa's debts, greatly increase their funding to fight HIV/AIDS,
fulfill their previous promises on trade-related reforms, and support
multilateral efforts to promote peace & security in Africa, with the
immediate priority of ending the genocide in Darfur.


* /Ann-Louise Colgan is Director of Policy Analysis and Communications
at Africa Action, the oldest Africa advocacy organization in the U.S.
/(http://www.africaaction.org)



--

Africa Action
1634 Eye Street NW, #810
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: 202-546 7961 * http://www.africaaction.org

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html

To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤