---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:55:22 -0500
From: Salih Booker <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Africa Policy Outlook 2004/New Website

Dear Africa Action E-journal Subscriber,

Below is this morning's press release on our just released "Africa Policy Outlook
2004", and announcing the launch of our new website!!  We ask that each of you visit
the new site at www.africaaction.org and give us your reactions in the 'contact
us/feedback' section of the site.

We are enormously grateful to Ann-Louise Colgan, our Assistant Director for Policy
Analysis and Communications, for both of these enormous accomplishments as she
was the hard-working project manager for the website redesign and reconstruction,
and the principal author of the 2004 Policy Outlook.

The full "Afirca Policy Outlook 2004" is included in this posting following the press
release, and it is also available in pdf and easy-to-print formats on our website.

This posting is the first E-Journal of the new year from Africa Action. We are still
discussing what type of E-Journal we intend to produce on a regular basis to replace
the former Africa Policy E-Journal that was discontinued last year.  Stay tuned.

Yours in struggle for peace and justice,

Salih Booker, executive director, Africa Action

********

Africa Action Releases “Africa Policy Outlook 2004", Launches New Website

January 14, 2004

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Ann-Louise Colgan (202) 546-7961

Wednesday, January 14, 2004 (Washington, DC) – Ahead of next week’s State of
the Union address, Africa Action today released its Africa Policy Outlook for the
coming year, published by Foreign Policy in Focus and Africa Action. This annual
publication identifies the key trends that will drive U.S. relations with Africa in the year
ahead, and predicts the priorities likely to emerge in the policies of the Bush
Administration.

Also today, Africa Action launched its new website at http://www.africaaction.org. The
launch of the new site sees the addition of major new features and new original
content on U.S. Africa policy and on the Africa’s Right to Health Campaign. It follows
a three-month period of re-design and re-organization.

Africa Action’s “Africa Policy Outlook 2004" contends: “In 2004... U.S. Africa policy
will continue to be characterized by a duplicity that has emerged as the principal
hallmark of the Bush Administration approach to the continent. On the one hand,
Africa’s priorities are being marginalized and undermined by a U.S. foreign policy
preoccupied with other parts of the world. On the other hand, the Bush White House
is callously manipulating Africa, claiming to champion the continent’s needs with its
compassionate conservative agenda.”

Africa Action’s Executive Director, Salih Booker, said today: “In 2004, despite the fact
that two African Americans occupy both of the major foreign policy posts in the U.S.
government, Washington will not give Africa the attention it deserves and requires.”
He continued, “While the HIV/AIDS crisis remains the most urgent global threat, the
current orientation of the Bush Administration indicates that little progress will be
made here in 2004, absent an increase in AIDS activism concurrent with the
Presidential campaign.”

The full text of the Africa Policy Outlook 2004 is available on the new Africa Action
website, at http://www.africaaction.org.

The new website features resources and policy analysis on a range of key issues
and key countries; Activist Tools on Africa’s HIV/AIDS crisis; and a Newsroom with
Africa Action’s latest media activities and archived press releases & reports.

The new Africa Action website also features an E-Activist Center with options for
electronic advocacy on U.S. Africa policy. Africa Action is working with activists
across the country to put pressure on President Bush to keep the promise made in
last year’s State of the Union address to give $15 billion to fight HIV/AIDS in Africa
and the Caribbean. A set of talking points on Bush’s AIDS policies, entitled “Broken
Promises and Betrayals,” is available on the new website at
http://www.africaaction.org.

####

Africa Policy Outlook 2004

By Salih Booker & Ann-Louise Colgan*

In 2004, despite the fact that two African Americans occupy both of the major foreign
policy posts in the U.S. government, Washington will not give Africa the attention it
deserves and requires. The U.S.’ Africa policy will continue to be characterized by a
duplicity that has emerged as the principal hallmark of the Bush Administration
approach to the continent. On the one hand, Africa’s priorities are being marginalized
and undermined by a U.S. foreign policy preoccupied with other parts of the world.
On the other hand, the Bush White House is callously manipulating Africa, claiming
to champion the continent’s needs with its compassionate conservative agenda.

In the past year, the Bush Administration’s foreign policy priorities have negatively
impacted upon Africa, both directly and indirectly. The U.S. preoccupation with the
“war on terrorism”, alleged weapons of mass destruction, and Washington’s military
misadventure in Iraq, has hurt Africa directly in economic and political terms. The
White House has also turned Africa into geo-strategic real estate, defining the
continent’s value in terms of oil and access to military bases, and describing U.S.-
Africa relations once more in a Cold War era model.

More broadly, to the extent that U.S. actions undermine the very notion of
multilateralism, they are directly at odds with Africa’s interests. Africa’s priorities – the
fight against HIV/AIDS and poverty – are being ignored, as U.S. unilateralism
threatens the principle of international cooperation.

At the same time, in the past year, the Bush Administration has sought to place
Africa at the center of its compassionate conservative agenda. Starting with the 2003
State of the Union promise on AIDS, and continuing with the President’s first trip to
Africa in July, this Administration has misled the people of the U.S., and the people of
Africa. It claims to be taking action on African priorities, while in reality it is
demonstrating the most negative leadership, masking broken promises and harmful
policies with high-sounding rhetoric.

Even the few new initiatives announced by the President, on foreign aid and
HIV/AIDS, are not only under-funded, they are fundamentally flawed in their
approach. The Bush Administration prefers to take a selective approach to Africa
policy, choosing a few African countries as eligible for such initiatives, and thereby
rewarding those whom the U.S. unilaterally deems “worthy”. This strategy risks
neglecting those countries at most need of assistance. Moreover, it blocks the
emergence of a more comprehensive and coherent response to Africa’s challenges
that are rooted in specific regional realities. Such an approach is essential to
addressing crises such as HIV/AIDS and poverty.

These trends will continue to drive U.S. relations with Africa in the year ahead. They
will shape both the priorities that emerge in the policies of the Bush Administration,
and the challenges faced by Africa’s people, and by Africa advocates in this country.
In this election year, it is clear that foreign policy will be a major issue in the public
eye. It remains to be seen to what extent U.S. relations with Africa will feature in the
debate, and whether a new approach to today’s global challenges can emerge.

HIV/AIDS

The HIV/AIDS pandemic remains the greatest challenge facing Africa, and the
greatest global threat to human security of our time. However, despite this reality,
and despite the lip service of the Bush Administration, the lack of U.S. leadership on
this crisis is set to persist in 2004.

January sees the anniversary of the $15 billion promise made by President Bush in
last year’s State of the Union to fight HIV/AIDS in Africa & the Caribbean. This
initiative was already undermined by the President’s own budget request for 2004 –
only $450 million instead of the $3 billion promised. Though Congress ultimately
appropriated more than the President’s request, the Bush Administration’s betrayals
on HIV/AIDS policy are likely to continue in 2004.

The President’s budget request for U.S. funding for HIV/AIDS in Africa for 2005
should include at least the $3 billion he promised per year in January 2003 under the
“President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief”, plus the amount outstanding for the
current year. Such an amount would represent the U.S. fair share contribution toward
the total funding needed in Africa, and would fulfill the President’s own commitment.
This is unlikely to materialize, however. Almost immediately after the promise was
made in January 2003 to provide $15 billion in AIDS funding over 5 years to Africa
and the Caribbean, the White House broke this promise and made it a global
initiative. This marginalization of Africa will continue in 2004 with less than the $3
billion a year promised being stretched to cover more than programs in Africa.

2004 also sees the launch of the new U.S. Global AIDS Initiative, the new
bureaucracy created by the President’s plan. This initiative, to be headed by former
pharmaceutical executive Randall Tobias, will compete with, and may duplicate, the
efforts of other much more important vehicles such as the Global Fund to fight AIDS.
It is likely to pose a challenge in its approach, favoring prevention over treatment,
and its close ties with the pharmaceutical industry raise serious questions about its
commitment to ensuring low cost access to treatment for HIV/AIDS programs in
Africa. Although President Bush has acknowledged that antiretroviral drugs are
necessary, U.S. policies continue to block African countries’ efforts to acquire such
drugs at the lowest cost for their people.

The Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, now almost three years
old, still faces huge financial challenges, due in large part to the inadequate support
of the Bush Administration. The U.S. has promised only $200 million per year over
the next five years – this is less than one-tenth of what would represent the U.S.’ fair
share. The Global Fund hopes to announce its 4th round of grants in the summer of
2004, though its ability to fund effective HIV/AIDS programs in Africa and other poor
regions will depend on its financial stability. The Global Fund has the potential to
increase access to treatment in Africa tenfold in the next several years. But the U.S.
prefers to undermine this crucial vehicle, creating a duplicative bureaucracy of its
own to protect its unilateral bias.

In 2004, the broken promises of the Bush Administration on AIDS will likely continue.
Meanwhile, shocking new statistics on the impact of HIV/AIDS in Africa and globally
reveal how completely inadequate the response is. Popular pressure in this country
succeeded in forcing President Bush and Congress to do more on HIV/AIDS in 2003.
This pressure will increase in 2004, particularly if the Bush White House attempts to
further backtrack on the commitments it has made to fund efforts to fight this crisis.

The Bush Administration has already signaled its opposition to the “3 by 5” plan of
the World Health Organization (WHO). The WHO’s groundbreaking initiation to
increase HIV/AIDS treatment for those requiring it was announced on World AIDS
Day, December 1st, 2003. It seeks to provide medicines to (and save the lives of) 3
million people living with HIV/AIDS who are not currently on treatment by 2005.
Central to this effort will be the distribution of drugs that provide a cheaper and easier
to use combination of three anti-retroviral drugs in one pill, called fixed dose
combinations. So far, Washington has refused to support this approach.

Human Development

Africa faces huge human development challenges, but the U.S. remains unwilling to
make a real commitment to support African efforts in this area. African countries are
striving to meet the Millennium Development Goals – seeking to reduce hunger and
poverty, and promote health and education, in order to achieve the benchmarks set
by the United Nations in 2000. But the U.S.’ failure to provide adequate levels of
development assistance undermines the ability of African countries to meet these
goals and to achieve a better life for future generations.

In 2004, the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) will be launched. This U.S.
initiative, run by the newly created Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), is
intended to increase U.S. foreign aid over the next three years, so that by 2006 an
annual doubling of current levels will be achieved. In 2004, $1 billion has been
appropriated for the MCA, which is slightly less than what the President requested.
Overall, however, this initiative still proposes a far smaller increase in assistance
than the U.S. can and should provide. The U.S. currently ranks at the bottom of all
donor countries, with only 0.1% of GNP, or just over $10 billion, going to foreign aid
worldwide (roughly half or $5 billion for just the 2 countries of Israel and Egypt). Only
1/100th of 1% of the U.S. budget ($1 billion) is spent on aid to sub-Saharan Africa. In
this context, when the U.S. is the wealthiest country in human history, the MCA
increase can only be seen as relatively meager.

Moreover, aid through the MCA will be dealt out in a highly selective manner. Only a
handful of countries meeting certain economic and political criteria, defined by
Washington, will be eligible to receive aid through the MCA, and only three of these
are projected to be in Africa (Uganda, Ghana and Senegal). The eligibility criteria
dictated by the U.S. create relationships with poor countries reminiscent of old-style
imperialism. They also create competition among poor countries for a portion of the
relatively meager MCA funds. This selective approach to development assistance
risks punishing those countries whose people are the worst off and in greatest need
of international support.

The United Nations continues to emphasize that African countries will be unable to
meet the Millennium Development Goals without a significant increase in assistance
from rich countries. In June 2004, the G-8 group of leaders from the world’s
wealthiest countries will hold its annual meeting here in the U.S. At the top of the
agenda should be a renewed commitment to support Africa’s efforts to fight
HIV/AIDS and poverty. But this is unlikely. Instead, the G-8 meeting will focus on the
priorities of the G-8 countries – military security and economic growth – emphasizing
the huge inequalities in access to wealth and power in the world today, and the
continued neglect of the global majority by the rich elites that constitute the ruling
minority in this system of global apartheid.

Economic Relations

Total trade between the U.S. and sub-Saharan Africa dropped considerably in 2002
(the year for which the most recent figures are available), with a decline in both
imports and exports. Two-way trade amounted to about $24 billion, or 15% less than
the previous year. While the 2003 figures are not yet available, it is clear that Africa
has been negatively impacted by the worldwide economic downturn, as well as by
the war in Iraq, and the continent’s economic prospects will remain unstable in 2004.

By 2003, 38 African countries had been declared eligible for the African Growth and
Opportunity Act (AGOA), though only slightly more than half of these had exported
goods under the program by mid-2002. In fact, AGOA benefits are highly
concentrated in a few countries and in the petroleum and mining sector, and U.S.
imports from AGOA have been predominantly energy-related products. This trend
will only increase now that Angola has been added to the eligible countries list at the
end of 2003. While the Bush Administration continues to promote AGOA as the
engine of Africa’s economic growth, this is increasingly contradicted by the reality of
the U.S. - Africa trade profile.

The U.S.-Africa Economic Cooperation Forum, required under the AGOA legislation,
was held twice in 2003 – once in January in Mauritius, after the 2002 Forum there
had been postponed, and once again in December in Washington, DC. In 2003 also,
the U.S. began negotiations on a free trade agreement with the Southern African
Custom Union (SACU). These negotiations will continue in 2004. Despite such high-
level consultations and new trade arrangements, the current framework of U.S.
economic relations with Africa has brought little benefit to a few countries, and has
failed to promote sustainable economic growth. Restrictions on African access to
U.S. markets, and agricultural subsidies to U.S. agribusinesses, continue to
undermine Africa’s competitiveness and constrict the continent’s trade-related
development.

Meanwhile, African countries continue to struggle under the crippling burden of some
$300 billion of unpayable and illegitimate debt. In 2004, the World Bank and IMF will
mark their 60th anniversary, yet no new initiative on debt cancellation is likely, and no
major reform of these institutions is planned. The U.S. is the single largest
shareholder in both the World Bank and IMF, to whom most of Africa’s debts are
owed, and it could use its power to support the call for debt cancellation for Africa.
This is a matter of justice, but also a matter of common sense. At the moment, most
African countries are required to spend more on debt service to these institutions
each year than they can spend on the fight against poverty and HIV/AIDS. As major
mobilizations and protests are planned around the World Bank IMF anniversary this
year, the pressure on the Bush Administration to support debt cancellation for Africa
will be greater than ever. This is particularly true in light of the White House’s
exceptional efforts to gain the cancellation of Iraq’s foreign debts of some $120
billion.

War, Peace & Human Rights

In 2003, the crisis in Liberia provided a clear metaphor for official U.S. disdain for
Africa. Despite unique historic ties and important national interests, President Bush
stalled on this crisis during his visit to Africa, and was ultimately unwilling to make a
commitment to stabilizing Liberia and supporting its people. In 2004, as Liberia
struggles to find its feet, and as West African countries attempt to counteract
insecurity in the broader region, the U.S. can play a crucial role; though a real
commitment appears unlikely. Congress did succeed in appropriating $200 million for
Liberia in a supplemental for 2004. But what is needed most from the U.S. is the
political will to vigorously support West African efforts to stabilize that country and the
larger West Africa region.

Elsewhere in Africa in 2003, the U.S. played a minor role in supporting some of the
peace-making initiatives of African leaders, including in Sudan. But in negotiations in
the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and elsewhere, the U.S. was largely
invisible. The Bush Administration remains unwilling to make a commitment to
provide sustained diplomatic and financial support to African efforts to promote
peace and security. In 2004, this “hands off” approach of U.S. policy is likely to
continue. African-led initiatives to address the continent’s conflicts are making
important progress below the radar. U.S. support could do much to bolster these
crucial efforts.

In 2003, the elections in Nigeria offered a metaphor for the state of democracy
across much of the African continent. While the election was important and in some
measure successful – marking the first democratic transfer of power in Nigeria’s
history – the practice of democracy was far from perfect. Here, as everywhere,
democracy is still a work in progress. Nigeria still faces serious challenges to its
political stability in the form of an economic crisis and internal divisions that threaten
the country’s future.

In Zimbabwe, the political and economic turmoil continued in 2003, as the Mugabe
government came under increasing pressure from the international community. With
Zimbabwe’s withdrawal from the Commonwealth in December 2003, amidst
continuing state violence against government opponents, it seemed clear that the
country’s crisis would continue into 2004, and that the people of Zimbabwe would
continue to suffer as a result. The U.S. and the European Union have imposed
sanctions on the Mugabe regime, but have failed to develop a strategy to address
the roots of Zimbabwe’s political and economic crisis, and to foster a democratic
solution. African states, with South Africa foremost among them, have similarly failed
to create momentum for a peaceful solution.

In 2003, at a summit of the Heads of State of the African Union, African leaders
adopted the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the
Rights of Women in Africa. The adoption of this new instrument strengthened the
main African human rights charter with provisions on women's rights. It was a
significant development, reflecting the growing commitment to address the
discrimination and human rights violations suffered by women in Africa, and
elsewhere.

African women continue to suffer human rights abuses in many parts of the
continent, and in 2003 there were increasing reports of rape being used as a weapon
of war in conflicts in Africa and other parts of the world. In 2004, it is hoped that the
new Protocol on women’s rights in Africa will be ratified quickly by African states. For
its part, the U.S. has yet to ratify the Convention to Eliminate All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). This is a step the U.S. should take
immediately to show its support for women’s rights and gender equality.

Oil & Strategic Military Relations

Under the Bush Administration, the real priorities in U.S. Africa policy are oil and
strategic military relations, and this will continue to be the case in 2004. The Bush
Administration will continue to deal with Africa on its own terms, and its policies will
be driven by its interests in these areas in the context of the “war on terrorism”.

In recent years, the U.S. has become increasingly interested in African oil resources
as an alternative to the Middle East, and the U.S. now defines African oil as a
strategic national interest. The U.S. preoccupation with “energy security” makes
certain African countries – like Nigeria, Angola and Gabon – important sources of oil.
At present, sub-Saharan Africa supplies almost one-fifth of U.S. oil imports. The
National Intelligence Council projects that U.S. oil supplies from West Africa will
increase to 25% by 2015. This would surpass U.S. oil imports from the entire Persian
Gulf. Studies indicate that the greatest increase in oil production globally in the next
decade is likely to come from West Africa, and the U.S. is following this trend closely.
In 2004, U.S. policies will continue to further its plans to secure access to this oil
supply.

Increased U.S. interest in projecting military force into the Persian Gulf has led to a
massive increase in the U.S. military presence in the Horn of Africa, and elsewhere.
The Bush Administration is concerned with the counter-terrorism efforts of African
countries, to the extent that they provide security for U.S. interests. In June 2003,
Bush announced a new $100 million initiative to help East African countries increase
their counter-terrorism efforts. In 2004, U.S. pre-occupation with security in Africa is
sure to continue. While it remains uncertain whether or not the U.S. will establish a
military base on the island of Sao Tome & Principe, as was rumored last year, it is
certain that U.S. relations with Africa will become increasingly militarized, with a
focus on energy security and terrorism concerns.

The trend that has become apparent since 2001, with these two agendas – oil
security and counter-terrorism – forming the backbone of U.S. Africa policy under the
Bush Administration, will be further reinforced in 2004.

Conclusion

While the HIV/AIDS crisis remains the most urgent global threat, the current
orientation of the Bush Administration indicates that little progress will be made here
in 2004. As the U.S. presidential election looms at the end of the year, it remains to
be seen whether an alternative candidate can successfully articulate a different
vision of U.S. global leadership, more responsive to international challenges. Under
the current Administration, U.S. Africa policy is unlikely to address these most
pressing African and global priorities.

* Salih Booker is Executive Director, and Ann-Louise Colgan is Assistant Director for
Policy Analysis & Communications, at Africa Action (http://www.africaaction.org)

************
Salih Booker, Executive Director, Africa Action
1634 Eye Street, NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20006
*Tel: 202-546-7961 * Fax: 202-546-1545
* website: http://www.africaaction.org/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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]

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

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~