Monday, July 14, 2003
Africa's Masses Have Spoken
Bush was in Africa for a first-hand experience of the plight of the continent. The visit gave him the opportunity to see for himself the devastating impact of America's policies on the continent's economic growth and the health of its people.
Did Bush hear the cries of African farmers who lack access to US markets? Did he initiate action to relieve the suffering of the 30 million African HIV/Aids patients who lack access to essential antiretroviral therapy?
Apart from HIV/Aids, Africa also faces the core challenges of gnawing poverty and the growing threat of international terrorism. The latter forced Bush to change his schedule, leaving Kenya out of his itinerary. Hardly anyone feels aggrieved, though, that Bush did not come to Nairobi.
It was not lost on observers that President Bush's visit was not without incident. First, former South African president Nelson Mandela - who has been forthright in his criticism of the Bush administration's insensitivity toward Africa - apparently snubbed him, preferring to be away in Europe.
In East Africa, President Mwai Kibaki did not travel to Kampala to meet the leader of the world's most powerful nation, opting instead to attend the African Union summit in Maputo, Mozambique.
Thousands of anti-Bush demonstrators, especially in Senegal and South Africa, but also to a lesser extent in Uganda, made it clear that the US was increasingly being perceived as an enemy of the African masses.
Anti-Aids activists, among others, were aware of the fact that Bush's tour would yield little for Africa, merely serving as a public-relations platform to prop up the US administration's dented image in geopolitics. Indeed, in South Africa, the campaigners, incensed by America's insensitivity to the plight of HIV/Aids sufferers, were unequivocal in their message to Bush: "You are a weapon of mass destruction."
It was a potent statement - that the African masses will not sit by and wait for their governments do the bidding for them. They are ready to take the bull by the horns in their push for fair trade and agricultural policies.
The demonstrators in South Africa and Senegal were saying that it was hypocritical for Bush to donate $15 billion to fight the Aids pandemic on the continent, but deny African farmers access to the American market through agricultural subsidies. In any case, the money will be used to purchase drugs and equipment from American firms.
American trade and foreign policy makers must go back to the drawing board. The demonstrations and the lack of enthusiasm displayed in Africa over the visit should alert them that the US will soon be forced to deal with the disenfranchised masses - in Africa and throughout the Third World - and not merely the governments that it has been used to arm-twisting to suit its narrow strategic interests.
The threat to American interests in Africa is not to be found in religious fundamentalism. Rather, danger lurks among the masses of people who die for lack of access to affordable anti-retrovirals and the farmers who cannot profitably export to America because their products are crowded out by subsidised goods.
In a nutshell, the reception given to Bush showed him that Africans are not going to sell their sovereignty and dignity, regardless of the discriminatory global policies championed by the US that continue to hurt the continent.
Unfortunately, therefore, the whole visit was reduced to mere diplomatic posturing and a talking shop, with no major pronouncements on the way forward for Africa in the global arena.
In Uganda, which has received international acclaim for its programme to fight HIV/Aids, many suggestions were made, some by victims of the scourge, many of whom felt that much of the proposed funding for the disease should be go towards the provision of anti-retroviral drugs.
As Bush's visit progressed, the misgivings of sceptics were proved right when a key House of Representatives committee in Washington voted to limit spending on Bush's HIV/Aids package. The committee said it would provide only $2 billion in the plan's first year, rather than the proposed $3 billion, an amount that was already too meagre.
No doubt, America's pharmaceutical companies are eyeing the Aids kitty and eagerly waiting to move in for super profits. It is quite likely, therefore, that much of the funds will end up back in the US, as is the trend with many donor-funded projects, with little impact on the ground.
Moreover, it appears that, despite its pretence to be a crusader for democracy and good governance throughout the world - even going to war to "liberate Iraq" - the US is not prepared to assist Africa on these same issues, preferring to offer only lip service and peripheral assistance. In Liberia as in the Democratic Republic of Congo, among other hot spots on the continent, this lack of interest comes out clearly.
To many Ugandans, the rebel war in the north of the country led by Joseph Kony's Lord's Resistance Army is the biggest problem facing the country at present, leading to an enormous wastage of resources and denying the Acholi community the opportunity to live in peace and participate in any gainful activity. Those who expected US assistance to sort out Kony, however, would be well advised to start looking elsewhere. For while Bush's visit may have been a personal boost for President Yoweri Museveni, who has now played host to two American presidents, it did not amount to much in terms of tangible results.
While the US mulls over terrorism and seeks to advance its interests, it must remember that in Africa, the masses are capable of seeing through its facade, hence the spontaneous, forthright reception that Bush found, for US policies have to a large extent harmed the continent.
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
