Dibussi Tande
"In spite of all the rhetoric about change, American foreign policy has been consistent over the years. It has been more of a gardening exercise than an act of bulldozing; a phenomenon described as the "change and changelessness" of US foreign policy."
President Obama's admonishment of those leaders "who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent" during his inaugural address has been widely interpreted in Africa to mean that, unlike previous US administrations, the Obama administration will go after leaders who oppress their people, violate human rights and prevent the growth of genuine democracy. In fact, in the past week, African newspapers, blogs, and internet forums have been replete with gleeful commentary announcing the impending discomfiture of those African dictators who refuse to "unclench their fists".
As I watch the unfolding euphoria, I cannot help but think back to an era long gone when another generation of Africans placed so much hope on another American president who embodied Hope and Change (history really does repeat itself…). That president was Bill Clinton. That generation of Africans who witnessed the end of the cold war and the coming of the "East wind" believed that the Clinton administration would be unrelenting in the establishing democracy, the rule of law and good governance in Africa. Alas! 16 years later, the democracy which many hoped for has been a fleeting reality only in a handful of African countries since then.
Recently, I stumbled across a contribution that I made in a special January 1993 issue of Cameroon Post dedicated to the Clinton Inaugural. It is uncanny how the expectations that Africans have of the Obama administration today are exactly the same ones that they had of the Clinton administration in 1993. Here are excerpts of the 1993 article which we can now read with the benefit of hindsight:
Will US Policy Change After George Bush? Cameroon Post, Special 42nd Inaugural, January 13-20, 1993, p. 15
On November 3, 1992, the American people put an end to the twelve-year Republican control of the American executive by electing Bill Clinton and Al Gore as President and Vice President respectively... Most Africans, particularly those craving for genuine democracy, expect the new administration to launch an uncompromising campaign against those regimes still holding out against political liberalism on the continent...
Can the forces of change on the continent safely rely on the new team in Washington?
[…]In a recently published book on US foreign policy, Michael Clough says that “the Bush administration... failed to provide and leadership on African issues”… Clough says that while middle level officials involved with Africa had a relatively free hand on the continent, they nonetheless had to respect three State Department injunctions: “Don’t spend much money, don’t take stands that might create domestic controversies, don’t let Africa complicate policy towards other more important parts of the world”.
Today, Africans expect a more aggressive policy from Democrats. In fact, their November victory is looked upon with much relish because Democrats are generally credited with a more humane approach to Third World issues, particularly towards human rights issues – one of the most important legacies of the Jimmy Carter era.
Is Drastic Change Possible?
Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger once pointed out that "one of the most unsettling things for foreigners is the impression that our foreign policy can be changed by any new president on the basis of the president's personal preference".This is the reason behind the widespread belief that the "new Kennedy" whose entire campaign was based on the need for "change" will change things for the better. But in spite of all the rhetoric about change, American foreign policy has basically been consistent over the years. It has been more of a gardening exercise than an act of bulldozing; a phenomenon described as the "change and changelessness" of US foreign policy. Clinton seems to have espoused this view when in his first post-election statement on foreign affairs he reminded the world that "... America's administrations change, America’s fundamental interests do not".
As Desler, Gleb and Lanike have underlined in Our worst enemy: Unmaking of American Foreign Policy, "serious nations do not redefine their national interests every few years... Foreign accomplishments generally come about because a nation has been able to sustain a course of action over a long period of time"...
Secretary of Sate John Foster Dulles usually argued that "A consistent and dependable national course must have a base broader than the particular beliefs of the those who from time to time hold office", and the young Turks in the White House will definitely adhere tot this cautious policy, particularly in a continent that is more of a liability than an asset on all counts.
The Likely Scenario
[...]
Thanks to the new team in the White House, there will definitely be renewed lingering interest in African affairs in general, but natural areas of American interest like... Kenya, South Africa...will drain most of America's energy and imagination.In other parts of the continent, particularly in areas within the French sphere of influence, the US, while frowning at the anti-democratic antics of the rulers, will avoid moves that might be interpreted as going against French interests. The radical shift in American policy expected by African masses will rarely take place...
Roger Hilsman in to Move a Nation is of the opinion that "Rather than through grand decisions and grand alternatives, (foreign) policy changes seem to come through a series of slight modifications of existing policy with the policy emerging slowly and haltingly by small and usually tentative steps, a process of trial and error in which policy zigs and zags, reverses itself and then moves forward in a series of incremental steps".
That holds for US policy of the next four years. There will be a lot of high-sounding political rhetoric and grandiose slogans promising new courses of action in Africa, but the changes will affect more the shadow than the substance and will be more symbolic than real. The low cost, low profile, no controversy policy of the Bush years will be maintained, albeit under a new banner.
Fast Foward 2009
A decade after Bill Clinton left office, the predictions in that 1993 article turned out to be generally true. The Biyas, the Bongos, etc., who were around when Clinton became president are still around. And with regards to promoting democracy on the continent, the US promised more than it could deliver. The Clinton administration made the right noises about Africa, but there was no dramatic change in America's Africa policy.
The lesson from all this? It is very difficult, and in some cases virtually impossible, to change American foreign policy significantly, especially in those regions where American interests are marginal. Having an American President with a direct connection to and an apparent heightened interest in Africa will not automatically lead to African strongmen tumbling down like dominoes.
The fact that so many Africans, from all walks of life, are counting heavily on President Obama to "bring" democracy to Africa is a clear signal that we have failed to grasp the real significance of Obama’s political story, and are therefore unable to appropriate and adapt the Obama playbook to African realities. The message from Obama's improbable presidential run and his equally improbable victory is a fairly simple but not very obvious one for Africa; change activists on the continent must start working towards creating inclusive and vibrant grassroots political coalitions that will be able, in the long run, to successfully take on the political establishment. As one observer noted on the eve of the November 2008 presidential elections:
the importance and relevance of a likely Obama election as president of the most powerful state in the world lies in the lessons that could be drawn by the new generation of Africans who aspire for leadership positions on the continent. This is largely with respect to how Obama has been able to build a machinery that took on the establishment and, against all odds, emerged victorious… how he's been able to inspire the youth to have an interest in the electoral process.
There are invaluable lessons of organizational and transformational leadership here, and those who aspire to take on the dinosaurs in Africa will do well to study carefully. Obama's greatest contribution to Africa will be, if his campaign succeeds, in catalysing - like in the late 1980s and early 1990s - a new wave of, but this time a more sustained, democratic reawakening on the continent.
Sure, this is a tall order in a continent replete with authoritarian regimes with little or no democratic traditions and which are only too anxious to crush all forms of dissent. But it is not an impossible task. It is time for Africans to fold up their sleeves and go to work, rather than waiting for the miracle solution from Big Brother Obama. If change is going to come to Africa, it will be primarily, if not solely, due to the efforts of Africans themselves.
One of the most convincing arguments for "Africanizing" the Obama phenomenon rather depending on it to work miracles for Africa and Africans
Posted by: Chukwu | January 28, 2009 at 07:20 PM
I beg to disagree with the thrust of this article, which suggests that Obama can have no real direct impact on changing the governments of Africa except through the people of Africa copying and applying his methods to gain power in their own countries.
There is much more to the reasons why Obama was able to succeed, against all odds, than meets the eye; and almost everyone who writes on this issue merely scrapes the surface without showing real insight into the reasons for his success.
The reasons lie in strategies and tactics as well as the nature of the political environment (which is completely different from the environment of African dictatorships). However, I am not going to go into these.
Obama did not win because he was lucky or because God put him there. He won because he applied winning strategies and tactics, resulting from out-of-the-box thinking. Obama did everything wrong, according to the conventional wisdom of US political experts, YET HE WON!
Now, before heaping praise on Obama for his sublime strategic and tactical skills, just remember that they weren't his ideas... I am not going to go into whose ideas they were.
It is true that Obama can let down the people of Africa by choosing to do nothing about their dictatorships and half-democracies.
If he were to make such a grotesque error then Africa would have no hope in him. And one would therefore question why Africa would ever again want one of its own sons to ascend to the highest gov't position in the world.
On the other hand, if Obama were to choose to do something about Africa's dictators and half-democracies then his powerful position gives him the ammunition to do so... provided he knows how to use it.
It is one thing to gain power but it is another thing to use it. Most people who have power either abuse it or are ignorant of its use. With the thoughtful and smart use of power, Obama can achieve anything he wants in Africa or elsewhere in the world.
For one thing, I know that you cannot produce positive change in a dictatorship or half-democracy without puting great heat on its manipulative leader. These leaders tend to hide behind a so-called 'sovereignty' to take great advantage of their people. This situation cannot be tolerated!
There is no truly sovereign nation in this world. All nations are interdependent, and some nations are more powerful than others and are therefore more influential in dictating world policy.
Obama will have to play 'hard ball,' while also knowing when to play 'soft ball'. It is true that past US Presidents have not always been great examples of the productive and efficient use of power.
Posted by: Dr A A Agbormbai | January 28, 2009 at 10:42 PM
Hi Dr. Agbotrmbai,
By the end of this article, you actually rally to the main thrust of this blog post. You state that "you cannot produce positive change in a dictatorship or half-democracy without puting great heat on its manipulative leader." But that is exactly the point of this article. Obama will not just start "putting heat" on any African leader out of the blue. There must first be action on the ground. In other words, the action of the US can only be complementary to those of activists on the ground. Remember how ambassador Frances Cook worked with pro-democracy activists in Cameroon in the early 1990s?
So the bottom line is that African will be saved by Africans and not by Obama. And it is up to Africans to see how they can adapt that "out of the box" thinking which you refer to in order to begin pulling down the authoritarian systems in Africa.
Obama may be of African descent but in the final analysis, he is the president of the United States and with all the goodwill in the world, he is hemmed in by the institutional limitations and strategic imperatives of that great country's foreign policy.
So while I don't agree entirely with this article, I think it is refreshing in that it has carried out a succint "institutional analysis" of how US foreign policy works. It is not really about the president but about policies and institutions.
Posted by: Michael White | January 29, 2009 at 07:16 AM
what are the institutional and other limitations on an(y) American president in the field of foreign policy. How far can an American president go in terms of effecting regime change in areas that have only a marginal strategic interest to the US and where American involvement will be driven primarily by human rights and democracy concerns.
These are the two most significant questions when discussing what obama or any other US president can do with regards to African regimes, particularly those who are not in what may generally be considered America's sphere of influence.
From this perspective, it is more than likely that the US will continue to cuddle the sanguinary regime in Equatorial Guinea where it has strategic oil interests while hitting hard on the equally brutal dictatorship of Robert Mugabe...
Posted by: Jimmy | January 29, 2009 at 09:44 AM
In the end, Obama's benefit is indirect: inspirational- yes we can! But the doing after the affirmation is ours and ours alone.
That inspiration, that confidence is important, even crucial but does not close the deal. Thank you Obama!
Now, fellows, burn those wish lists.
Posted by: Ma Mary | January 29, 2009 at 12:09 PM
Rightly or wrongly, some have read lots of double entendres in Obama's speech, in that he is not just referring to the enemy without, but to those Americans in the other big party who embraced authoritarian methods. When Obama was senator, he took a trip to his father's home district, and upon being asked for all kinds of help, he reminded people that he was senator from Illinois and that the people of that area have their own capable representatives to the government of Kenya. That way of looking at things will not change. Middle East, especially Israel will still get disproportionate attention from the US. That is in part due to US strategic interests and in part due to the powerful influence of well-healed Jewish Americans. Moral: succeed in the US, and you could influence US foreign policy towards the old country. Africans are the most educated community, immigrant or otherwise in the USA, although at this time it is not reflected in their wealth. http://www.inmotionaame.org/migrations/landing.cfm?migration=13
As that changes over time, internal clout would translate into influence over US policy.
It still amounts to quid pro quo.
Posted by: Ma Mary | January 29, 2009 at 12:44 PM
Personally, I will like to see Obama give an interview to an African TV medium telling Africans where he stands on the continent's issues. We want to know what plans he has for the continent. This would dispel all the speculation.
I don't buy any arguments that suggest that he can do nothing.
Posted by: Dr A A Agbormbai | January 29, 2009 at 08:05 PM
Hi Doc,
Nobody said Obama can do NOTHING. Obama can do something for Africa. In fact, he can and will do a lot for Africa. However, in the final analysis, it will be up to Africans to create an enabling environment for change which the Obama administration may or may not support with America's might and resources. There will be no miracles and the Messiah is not yet here. That's all we're saying. In other words, Africans should reduce their expectations and be more realistic.
Posted by: Jimmy | January 29, 2009 at 08:46 PM
Hillary Clinton Outlines Obama’s Africa Policy
By Charles W. Corey
Staff Writer
Washington — The foreign policy objectives of the Obama administration in Africa are rooted in security, political, economic and humanitarian interests, Secretary of State–designate Hillary Clinton told a U.S. Senate committee January 13.
In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Clinton said the Obama administration’s foreign policy objectives for Africa also include “combating al-Qaida's efforts to seek safe havens in failed states in the Horn of Africa; helping African nations to conserve their natural resources and reap fair benefits from them; stopping war in Congo; [and] ending autocracy in Zimbabwe and human devastation in Darfur.”
Additionally, she said the United States will support African democracies like South Africa and Ghana, which just had its second peaceful change of power following democratic elections.
“We must work hard with our African friends to reach the Millennium Development Goals in health, education and economic opportunities,” she added, referring to a set of goals set out by the United Nations that seek to end poverty and hunger; instill universal education, gender equality, and child and maternal health; combat HIV/AIDS; and promote environmental sustainability and global partnerships.
“The Obama administration recognizes that even when we cannot fully agree with some governments, we share a bond of humanity with their people. By investing in that common humanity, we advance our common security,” she told the committee. That panel will report its recommendation to the full Senate, which then must vote on the nomination.
Clinton underscored the importance of U.S. involvement in the continued global fight against HIV/AIDS. “Now, thanks to a variety of efforts, including President Bush's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief — as well as the work of [nongovernmental organizations] and foundations — the United States enjoys widespread support in public opinion polls in many African countries. Even among Muslim populations in Tanzania and Kenya, America is seen as a leader in the fight against AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis,” she said.
The secretary-designate said the United States has a chance to build on this success by partnering with nongovernmental organizations to expand health clinics in Africa, giving more people access to life-saving drugs and ensuring fewer mothers transmit HIV to their children and fewer lives are lost.
DARFUR, ZIMBABWE, EASTERN CONGO
Hillary Clinton walks with South African President Nelson Mandela during a tour of Robben Island, South Africa, on March 20, 1997.Equally important to the Obama administration, Clinton said, will be a continued focus on Darfur.
“This is an area of great concern to me, as it is to the president-elect. We are putting together the options that we think are available and workable. It is done in conjunction, as you would assume, with the Department of Defense. There is a great need for us to sound the alarm again about Darfur. It is a terrible humanitarian crisis, compounded by a corrupt and very cruel regime in Khartoum, and it's important that the world know that we intend to address this in the most effective way possible once we have completed our review, and that we intend to bring along as many people as we can to fulfill the mission of the U.N.-AU force, which is not yet up to speed and fully deployed. …
“We are going to work to try to effectuate it,” she pledged.
Clinton acknowledged that chaos — such as piracy — flows from failed states like Somalia. Add to that Zimbabwe, she said, where the regime of Robert Mugabe has so mistreated its people, and the anarchy and violence in Eastern Congo, and this chaos continues to pose problems for the continent.
She called those countries “breeding grounds not only for the worst abuses of human beings, from mass murders to rapes to indifference toward disease and other terrible calamities, but they are [also] invitations to terrorists to find refuge amidst the chaos.”
EDUCATION, SOCIAL INVESTMENT
On education and social investment, Clinton said the United States can generate more good will by partnering with international groups and nongovernmental organizations to build schools and train teachers.
“The president-elect supports a global education fund to bolster secular education around the world. I want to emphasize the importance to us of this bottom-up approach. The president-elect and I believe in this so strongly. Investing in our common humanity through social development is not marginal to our foreign policy but essential to the realization of our goals.”
Clinton also stressed the importance of microfinance.
“As a personal aside, I want to mention that President-elect Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, was a pioneer in microfinance in Indonesia. In my own work on microfinance around the world, from Bangladesh to Chile to Vietnam to South Africa and many other countries, I've seen firsthand how small loans given to poor women to start businesses can raise standards of living and transform local economies. The president-elect's mother had planned to attend a microfinance forum at the Beijing Women's Conference in 1995 that I participated in. Unfortunately, she was very ill and couldn't travel, and sadly passed away a few months later.
“But I think it's fair to say that her work in international development, the care and concern she showed for women and for poor people around the world, mattered greatly to her son, our president- elect. And I believe that it has certainly informed his views and his vision. We will be honored to carry on Ann Dunham's work in the years ahead,” Clinton said.
http://www.america.gov/st/peacesec-english/2009/January/20090115150627WCyeroC0.4203455.html?CP.rss=true
Posted by: Edna | February 02, 2009 at 06:44 PM
Try to tell to the world that Obama must be carefull with Kagame and his RPF party. They can involve him in their abuses and crimes.
Posted by: Ciro | May 21, 2009 at 06:22 PM