Sub-Saharan Africa

David H. Shinn

Low Foreign Policy Priority for Africa

Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) consistently has been at the bottom of U.S. geographical
foreign policy priorities during conservative and liberal administrations. The fact that
almost 13 percent of Americans trace their origin to Africa has had only a modest impact
on the importance the United States attaches to SSA. In recent years, even the liberal
Black Caucus has not collectively been significantly engaged on African issues. Having
made this point, however, one can legitimately ask from the optic of American interests if
any other region should have a lower priority than SSA. It is highly unlikely that U.S.
interests in other world regions will fall below those of SSA in the foreseeable future.
This section considers the 48 countries of SSA, i.e., the African continent and offshore
islands, excluding the five countries in North Africa that border the Mediterranean. One
factor could change the equation: SSA’s growing importance as a source of American oil
imports. SSA currently provides 15 percent of U.S. oil imports, and this figure is
expected to rise to 25 percent in 10 years.

More Similarities Than Differences in Conservative and Liberal Strategies

Liberals and conservatives both want to engage in Africa. But they want to do so at least
cost. Since the end of World War II conservative and liberal administrations have not
differed dramatically in their approach to Africa. There have been a few exceptions to this
generalization. Conservatives were more willing during the Cold War to support white
minority regimes in southern Africa and to take a more hostile approach toward
left-leaning governments. Liberals had a greater tendency to attack poverty by use of
foreign aid, while conservatives were more comfortable with a focus on trade and private
investment. Some of these differences are addressed in the sections below. Nevertheless,
the fact remains that there are more policy similarities than differences when an
administration changes from conservative to liberal or vice versa. Part of the explanation
for this is the low priority that both groups attach to SSA and the larger role that career
bureaucrats play in the SSA policy process.

Conflict, Security, and Peacekeeping

Conflicts have crippled Africa. Since the 1960s some 30 conflicts have claimed about 7
million lives and cost $250 billion. There are currently six U.N. peacekeeping missions in
SSA—Burundi, Côte d’Ivoire, Liberia, Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Ethiopia/Eritrea, and Sierra Leone. While there is positive movement in Liberia and Sierra
Leone, the others present major challenges. In the meantime, a new crisis in Darfur
threatens to overwhelm the peace process aimed at ending the civil war in Sudan.
Conservatives and liberals acknowledge the problem of conflict. But ever since the 1992
U.S. military intervention in Somalia by a Republican administration and eventual pullout
in 1994 by a Democratic administration, there has been a great reluctance by both liberals
and conservatives to send American troops to Africa to deal with conflict situations. The
1994 genocide in Rwanda cried out for the use of Western, including American, forces.
The Clinton administration refused and later apologized. There was an occasion during
the Bush II administration when many believed U.S. troops should help end conflict in
Liberia, the SSA country with historically the closest ties to the United States. American
forces remained off shore from the capital city except for a brief landing primarily to
secure the American Embassy.

The Clinton administration initiated the African Crisis Response Initiative to train African
soldiers and provide them with equipment for improving their indigenous peacekeeping
capabilities. The Bush administration modified this initiative and renamed it the African
Contingency Operations Training and Assistance program. In both cases, the goal was to
assist African security needs without committing American troops. This continues to be
the goal of liberals and conservatives. Both groups favor the expansion of training
programs for select African armies, particularly if other Western countries are willing to
pay much of the cost. Liberals and conservatives support creation of an African
15,000-strong standby force, a proposal encouraged by the African Union (AU). They
also agree on the need to work closely with the AU and subregional organizations such as
the Economic Community of West African States, the Intergovernmental Authority on
Development, and the Southern African Development Community.

The problems in Liberia have lessened but not gone away. As the principal Western
proponent of the Sudan peace process, the United States will shirk its responsibility if it
does not provide financing and personnel for security during the implementation phase,
which has become more problematic because of the situation in Darfur. Other countries
like France and the United Kingdom have appropriately taken the lead in conflicted
countries such as Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Côte d’Ivoire.
In order to enhance the prospect for success, outside peacekeepers will need to work
closely with African forces. Perhaps the major difference in the agendas of liberals and
conservatives is a somewhat greater willingness by liberals to engage in conflict situations
in SSA because of the catastrophe in Rwanda that occurred on their watch. Liberals are
also more likely to ensure that pledged resources survive the congressional authorization
process. They may be more inclined to commit time and resources to conflict prevention
efforts such as helping to avoid a water war among Nile Basin countries and to work with
the African Union and African regional organizations.

American Aid to SSA

There are notable differences between liberals and conservatives in foreign assistance
strategies toward SSA. In light of disappointing results of past aid, both liberals and
conservatives have been stingy in providing development assistance as opposed to food
aid and occasional special initiatives like HIV/AIDS prevention. The United States spends
about $450 billion per year on the military and only $15 billion worldwide on development
assistance. About $2 billion in development aid goes to SSA annually. Conservatives
believe that trade and private investment are the keys to development and tend to remain
skeptical about aid. Nevertheless, under pressure to respond to the growing public
awareness of the plight of SSA, the Bush administration launched with bipartisan support
the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) on top of the regular USAID development
budget. Conservatives tend to prefer more conditionality. The MCA, which the Bush
administration projects will provide an additional $5 billion annually worldwide by 2006,
sets rigorous country selection criteria for development assistance. It evaluates
governments on the quality of their economic policies, the level of their investments in
education and health, and the legitimacy and functionality of their national institutions.
The Millennium Challenge Corporation, in its first round of selection, identified 16
qualifying countries worldwide in 2004, half of which are in SSA. Most of them, e.g.,
Benin, Cape Verde, Lesotho, and Mali, have small populations and constitute relative
development success stories. As a result, the MCA concept excludes the weak and failed
states in SSA that pose the greatest threat to stability and security, although regular
USAID assistance will be available for some of them. Liberals, by contrast, are more
willing to fund programs that attack poverty with fewer conditions and to funnel more
assistance through international financial institutions such as the World Bank.

Africans have taken some initiatives. The New Partnership for Africa’s Development
(NEPAD) recognizes, like the MCA, that Africa must establish peace, embrace good
governance, and undertake policy reform. African governments that agree to the NEPAD
guidelines undergo peer review to ensure that they comply. Unlike the MCA, which
rewards countries that have already complied with requirements, the NEPAD anticipates
that donors will provide assistance first, followed by compliance and then certification by
peers. Based on the same principle of country selectivity as the MCA, the NEPAD is the
obverse of the MCA in terms of the timing of foreign aid. Conservatives give lip service
to the NEPAD but clearly intend to focus incremental American aid in the MCA. Liberals
are more willing to accept the NEPAD at face value because it reflects a regional initiative
and may permit aid to go to additional needy countries in SSA that have not met the strict
MCA conditions and may never be able to meet them. Neither the MCA nor the NEPAD
is, however, a solution to SSA’s foreign assistance needs. Only eight SSA countries have
qualified so far for the MCA; only 16 have agreed to meet the NEPAD standards.

Trade and Private Investment

Conservatives view increased trade and foreign investment as the key to Africa’s
development. Liberals also support trade and investment but tend to see them as
supplements to grants and loans. The problem is that SSA accounts for only 1 percent of
world economic activity and just over 1 percent of global trade. Many countries are still
dependent on the export of one crop. Except for South Africa and oil- and
mineral-producing countries like Nigeria and Angola, foreign investment, especially from
the United States, has been disappointing. Conflict, poor governance, and corruption
severely restrain trade and investment in many SSA countries. Africa receives only about
7 percent of foreign direct investment going to all developing countries. The concept of
achieving development through trade and investment is a good one, but it has not yet
produced the benefits touted by its proponents. The elimination of American and
European agricultural subsidies could lead to significantly increased imports from SSA.
The United States, for example, is moving toward the reduction of export subsidies on
cotton, while the European Commission has pledged to lower by one-third its guaranteed
price for sugar and reduce its sugar production quotas by 16 percent. U.S. action on
cotton should benefit African cotton producers across the board. EC changes on sugar
will benefit some African sugar producers but may adversely affect countries like Tanzania
and Mauritius that export raw sugar to Europe under the current system.

A bipartisan congressional group initiated and passed the African Growth and Opportunity
Act (AGOA), which is designed to stimulate trade for African businesses by allowing
products from beneficiary countries to enter the United States duty free. The Clinton
administration eventually embraced and signed the legislation in 2000. The Bush
administration made it a centerpiece of its Africa policy and worked hard to extend AGOA
to 2015. Thirty-seven African countries are eligible for AGOA benefits. Although there
has been a modest increase in African exports to the United States attributable to AGOA,
it has not transformed SSA’s foreign exchange situation. A liberal strategy is conflicted
between protecting American jobs and allowing more duty-free imports, especially
textiles, from SSA. A conservative strategy is more supportive of the Doha Round of
trade talks.

HIV/AIDS

Of the world’s 25 most HIV/AIDS-affected countries, 24 are in SSA. Both liberals and
conservatives agree on the need to attack the HIV/AIDS pandemic. The Clinton
administration was the first to increase significantly HIV/AIDS assistance to SSA.
Conservatives do not have a track record for supporting large social programs in SSA.
To the surprise of many, the Bush administration raised ($15 billion over five years) the
assistance level much higher and made this a key part of its Africa policy. Bush also
expanded the campaign to include malaria and tuberculosis. Although both groups are
prepared to devote substantial resources to this issue, there are differences in approach.
Conservatives prefer a focus on abstinence, working with faith-based organizations,
restricting anti-retroviral medication to brand names, and controlling the funding directly.
Liberals are prepared to allow U.S. funding to be used in a wider variety of ways deemed
appropriate by implementing organizations and support the use of cheaper generic
anti-retroviral drugs. They also want to funnel a higher proportion of U.S. aid through the
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria and allow funds to be linked to
family planning programs. Liberal and conservative goals are the same; the ways to
achieve them are quite different.

Counterterrorism

There is a growing realization that SSA, where al-Qaeda destroyed the American
Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, in 1998, is the world’s “soft
underbelly” for global terrorism. Conservatives and liberals agree on the need to confront
this threat. There are, however, nuanced differences in their approach to the problem.
The Clinton administration focused on improving embassy physical security and removing
the terrorist threat from Sudan. After 9/11 the Bush administration established a
counterterrorist base in Djibouti, the only U.S. military installation in SSA. The 1,800
personnel provide training to governments in East Africa, the Horn, and Yemen and
monitor terrorist activity in the region. The Bush administration also cobbled together a
$100 million East African Counterterrorism Initiative and a modest Pan-Sahel Initiative for
countering terrorism. Bush has been reluctant, however, to deal with some of the closely
related factors, especially poverty and social and economic inequality, that provide a
receptive environment for terrorists. Liberal counterterrorist policy in SSA gives greater
attention to improving economic and social conditions in SSA. Liberals may also increase
counterterrorism assistance to SSA and expand outreach to marginalized Islamic
communities there.

Food Security and Famine

Liberals and conservatives are unanimous in their willingness to respond generously to
drought and famine in SSA. There is a long history for this policy, which also has strong
support among American farmers who see the U.S. government as a major buyer of their
surplus grain and vegetable oil. The Bush administration underscored its commitment to
this policy at the last G-8 meeting when it announced three new food security programs.
If not managed carefully, however, these programs can undercut African agriculture.

Debt Relief

SSA remains burdened by about $33 billion in foreign debt, most of it with international
financial institutions, where the United States has considerable influence. Conservative
and liberal strategies understand the need to lessen SSA debt. Both groups support the
Heavily Indebted Poor Countries initiative that helps countries achieve sustainable
development and debt levels. Liberal and conservative administrations have worked hard
to reduce and even forgive debt for the poorest countries. Both also agree on the need to
provide new assistance in the form of grants rather than loans to especially poor countries.
Liberals are inclined to make somewhat more SSA countries eligible for debt relief and
may be prepared to take a stronger stand in the World Bank and IMF on decreasing debt.

Democratization and Human Rights

There are two policy considerations here—rhetorical support for the development of
democratic societies and tangible assistance to achieve this goal. Conservatives and
liberals are equally strong in their rhetorical desire to see democracy thrive in SSA. Both
also claim to offer strong tangible support to help SSA societies establish democracies.
The National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute have modest
programs, but neither liberals nor conservatives have provided significant assistance.
Liberal strategies tend to be more forthcoming than conservative ones. Current policy
statements by liberals suggest assistance may increase for encouraging democracy. Both
liberals and conservatives also profess strong support for good human rights practices in
SSA. At the same time, both are quick to look the other way when oil, counterterrorism,
and other important U.S. interests loom larger. Historically, liberals have taken the issue
more seriously than conservatives, but the actual differences occur only on the margins.

Petroleum

Oil has become an increasingly important part of the relationship, especially as an

alternative to imports from the Middle East. SSA is expected to add 2.5 to 3 million
barrels a day to world markets in the next seven to 10 years. Nigeria, Angola, and Gabon
are especially important sources of American imports. The Bush administration is also
focusing attention on Congo-Brazzaville, Chad, and Equatorial Guinea as sources of
supply. As in other parts of the world, oil has been a mixed blessing. It has led to
significant corruption in countries like Nigeria and Angola and contributed to the fueling
of civil wars in Sudan and Angola. A conservative strategy attaches greater security
significance to SSA as a source for oil. A liberal strategy is being forced to do so in spite
of the fact that most of the oil-producing states have poor records on transparency, human
rights, and democracy.

Environment

Liberals and conservatives give lip service to aiding the environment in SSA, and there is
growing congressional interest in supporting African conservation. Inevitably, however,
limited American resources and higher priorities limit the U.S. contribution to relatively
small programs. The two key environmental programs during the Bush administration are
modest—the Congo Basin Forest Partnership and the West Africa Water Initiative. The
liberal strategy suggests it is more willing to support environmental projects, especially
efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. As in the past, major environmental initiatives in SSA
will encounter the reality of limited resources and higher priorities.

Latin America
Cynthia McClintock

Latin America is not at the forefront of the war against terrorism, and the challenges for
the next administration in Latin America are not as pressing as in the regional theaters of
this war. However, Latin America does present challenges to the United States.
Especially because of the proximity of the region, it is vital that Latin America remain a
region where fundamentalist terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda are inactive. As elsewhere,
the challenges of promoting democracy and fostering economic development are
important both toward this security objective and in their own right. Further, largely
because of its proximity to the United States, Latin America poses other important