Obama doesn't have an Africa problem

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/08/obama-africa-problem-human-rights-economic-ties

Version 0 of 1.

Politicians can only do so much to boost business ties between nations, but they certainly have the power to screw things up both diplomatically and economically. President Obama has faced harsh criticism for what some perceived as a minimalist approach to Africa, despite the fact that six of the world’s fastest-growing economies of the past decade are African nations. The US president is now trying to make amends.

The first-ever US-Africa summit, which ended Thursday, was attended by nearly every African head-of-state, along with numerous business delegations. During the summit, President Obama announced a total of $33bn in US investment commitments, including $7bn in financing to promote US exports and investments in Africa, $12bn to boost power supply with help from private-sector partners and $14bn pledged by American businesses for investments in energy, aviation, banking and construction.

“The United States is determined to be a partner in Africa’s success,” Obama said, adding that America doesn’t look to Africa “simply for its natural resources”. The latter was an obvious swipe at China, which has forged close economic ties with Africa (last year, Chinese-African trade reached $200bn – more than double the amount of business the US did with Africa) but which is sometimes accused of exploiting the continent’s natural resources in a colonialist fashion.

Some observers say that Chinese leaders are more effective than Americans at doing business with Africa’s leaders because they are respectful and don’t “lecture” Africans on human rights. It’s true that the Chinese don’t give a damn whether an African president is a gross violator of human rights, as long as there is a deal to be made – hey, why spoil the mood in the room?

But if President Obama, a much admired figure in Africa, stops talking to its leaders about human rights in order to secure better business deals, then just who will press the issue? I have no doubt that human rights violators prefer dealing with politicians and business leaders who never question their actions, but then it becomes difficult to understand who, other than those violators and their favored friends, stands to benefit from any profits such deals can bring.

If Obama held African leaders to lower human rights standards than other countries – like China, for instance – it would imply an acceptance of the inevitability of Africans having to live under often repressive regimes.

But it’s not as though there is zero existing framework for forging economic ties between America and African nations while holding countries to certain standards for human rights. The American Growth and Opportunity Act (Agoa), which is due for renewal in September 2015, offers duty-free access to America’s market for roughly 96% of African product lines – as long as the countries utilizing it show that they are making progress toward democracy, the rule of law, improved human rights and market-based economies.

Thirty-nine African countries currently qualify, and Agoa helped boost US-Africa trade from roughly $26bn in 1999 to $85bn last year. But the renewal could be held hostage by House Republicans, if they decide to block its extension because Obama supports it.

However, even if it is renewed, Agoa is just a trade agreement. African nations’ most pressing need is capital investment: overall, they face a capital funding shortfall of roughly $50bn a year for much-needed improvements to their energy and transport infrastructures, according to the World Bank.

Obama’s announcement of coming investments notwithstanding, the US has not been very active on this front – but China invested $13bn in African infrastructure in 2012 alone. Without improvements to the infrastructure in these sectors, further economic development is going to proceed at much slower than its potential pace.

It’s not helpful that some Republican lawmakers are now threatening to eliminate the Export-Import Bank, which provides credit to foreign buyers of US products and whose charter expires this September. For example, Nigeria – Africa’s biggest economy – is receiving this credit as part of its deal with General Electric to increase its electrical power supply in the country. That and other similar deals would be in jeopardy if Exim’s critics make good on their threats, creating lost opportunities for both Africa and the US.

But for now, the Obama administration and American businesses seem to be serious about growing economic ties with Africa – and that is more important than potential squabbles in Congress. As long as the momentum for more investment lasts, significant progress is possible on all fronts.

Most Africans, catchy headlines to the contrary, are not disillusioned with President Obama: Pew opinion polls show clear majorities in at least six countries believe that he’ll “do the right thing in world affairs”. Their other research shows the US in general is viewed favourably by 72% of South Africans and 69% of Nigerians – and in Ghana, Senegal and Tanzania, America’s favorability ratings are even higher.

Supporting human rights in Africa and boosting economic ties with the continent do not have to be mutually exclusive. But, if the US wants to be regarded as a country that is sincerely committed to defending the fundamental rights of all people to freedom and dignity, then it cannot copy the Chinese model of “business first and only” in its dealings with Africa’s leaders.