Although little discussed in the current election campaign, the next president of the United States will have to confront a number of critical issues in Africa. In an ongoing series, AllAfrica is exploring what U.S. Africa policy might look like in the next administration, whoever wins in November. In this interchange with AllAfrica, Rep. Charles Rangel (Democrat- New York) outlines what he regards as the major priorities for the United States in Africa, how he hopes John Kerry would shift from current policies, and several fundamentals that he believes should guide relations with the continent regardless of who is president.
Rangel, who is now serving his 17th term representing the 15th Congressional district that includes east and central Harlem, the Upper West Side and Washington Heights/Inwood in New York City, is the ranking Democrat on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee. He is a founding member and former chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus and dean of the New York State Congressional Delegation.
How do you expect the 2004 Presidential election to impact the relationship between the United States and Africa?
Well, the outcome of the November election will almost certainly determine the nature of those relations, and U.S. policy towards solving Africa's overwhelming problems.
The Bush administration has focused our foreign policy on the war in Iraq, imposed a new doctrine of preemptive strike, and alienated our allies in Africa and elsewhere with his arrogant 'go-it-alone' mentality. President Bush has planned initiatives without consulting African civic and political leaders and he has tried to impose his agenda whether appropriate or not. The election will determine whether the U.S. will continue down this road or whether we'll change directions and re-engage with Africa.
What do you see as key differences in approach to African policy between President Bush and Senator John Kerry?
On the one hand, we have the disappointing policies of the Bush administration; on the other, the yet-to-be formed policies of the Kerry-Edwards team.
See, in the late 1990s President Clinton used his office to keep Africa on the American radar screen, despite the 'Afro-pessimism' of Republican members of Congress like Jesse Helms, members who consider Africa a 'black hole' in which there is no hope for development. President Clinton and members of his Cabinet frequently traveled to Africa and established a rapport with African political, business, and civic leaders unprecedented in previous administrations.
And the U.S.'s momentum toward Africa would have continued had it not been for the elections of 2000 that brought President Bush into office. Unlike Clinton, Bush seems to view the world as a hostile place from which the U.S. should disengage. He once said, "The US had no vital interests in Africa," and views Africa as a fearful place - but still a place with strategic resources, principally oil.
What has this view of Africa done to U.S./Africa relations?
Well, it has certainly made the relationship less amiable, and more complicated. You see, the Bush foreign policy doctrine divides the world into two camps - 'friends' and 'foes.' If you're a country that submits to this world-view, you're rewarded. If you exercise a sovereign view of the world, you're likely to be viewed as hostile to U.S. interests.
And the humanitarian strategy of the Bush administration propounds this same sort of divisive unilateralism. It's focused on 'performers,' countries that meet the administration's narrowly defined set of criteria. That includes the HIV/AIDS funding for the so-called 'focus countries' selected by the administration, and the development-focused Millennium Challenge Account that rewards 'performers' on a set of non-negotiable criteria.
So even though the rhetoric is there, the administration's actions are fundamentally unilateral. They haven't embraced the Africa Union, and they've made very little effort to engage Nepad [the New Economic Partnership for Africa]. And even though the U.S. has pressed Africa to open its markets to free trade, under this administration we've been slow to embrace a meaningful framework for Africa's agricultural exports.
The Kerry camp has not articulated an Africa strategy. If John Kerry wins, what would you like to see as priorities in Africa?
If John Kerry wins in November, it's absolutely critical that his administration respects Africa and implements a policy based not solely on U.S. security interests but also on the economic and political security of African nations. I would say that a Kerry Presidency should embrace the concept of 'African solutions' but not use that as an excuse to abandon African countries, countries struggling with HIV/AIDS, debilitating debt, and the burden of rescuing failed and failing states.
And unlike George Bush, John Kerry must be sure to not pick winners and losers in Africa, dividing African nations from one another. A Kerry administration should be prepared to respond to the needs and desires of all of Africa as expressed by its people.
A Kerry Presidency should promote fair trade as a tool of economic development, and make food security a priority at the household and national levels by making agricultural production a main concern. And a Kerry presidency should open trade to Africa's vast agricultural potential.
Finally, if John Kerry wins the presidency he should see Africa's security from terrorism as part and parcel of America's security. We can't go it alone or unilaterally impose our will on African nations. We must go down this road together, securing a safe future for ourselves and all of our children, including the children of Africa.
What would you like to see President Bush doing now regarding Africa that he is not doing?
First and foremost, the President should declare the situation in Sudan a 'genocide' and do whatever it takes to get a multinational force on the ground and enough aid in the region to feed the hundreds of thousands at risk of starving. I am of the mind that no issue in Africa - or in the world for that matter - is as important right now as the genocide in Sudan. So the President must address that crisis immediately, and take decisive action. Along with my fellow Congressional Black Caucus members I have been pleading with the administration to take specific steps to stop the genocide, and our efforts have seen some results. But more needs to be done, and it needs to be done now.
Beyond Sudan, President Bush has another major opportunity before the elections, and that's the October annual meetings of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund where he can call for complete debt cancellation for poor countries. As you know, the administration didn't make much progress on the issue of debt cancellation at the May G8 meetings, so we're hoping that progress is made in October.
Debt is literally choking Africa. You have many countries spending more on debt than they spend on health and education combined. And while this administration goes around the world asking for cancellation of over $120 billion in Iraqi debt, we can't get a commitment to cancel the less than $100 billion owed by the entire continent of Africa. It's a shame - but it's a preventable shame. And fortunately, the administration and the Department of Treasury have made some encouraging statements about debt cancellation, so hopefully we'll get something done in October. I'll soon be sending a bipartisan letter to President Bush asking for just this.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
What are the broad policy stances that should be advocated by the United States, regardless of who is in office?
Well, there are certainly some fundamental things that need to be done in Africa no matter who the President is. We need to cancel 100% of the debts owed by poor countries. We need to live up to our promises of funding the fight against AIDS, the most important fight of our times. I'm very proud of Agoa [the African Growth and Opportunity Act, which opened U.S. markets to African textile exports. Congressman Rangel has been a leading sponsor of African trade and economic development bills, recently pushing through AGOA III, the latest AGOA extension], but we need to do more to open our markets and support trade with Africa. We need to embrace NEPAD, and we should encourage the African Union in whatever ways we can.
In general, the United States should enter the next stage in U.S./Africa relations with a posture of embracing African countries as brothers instead of subordinates, as equal partners who, with proper encouragement and sustained effort on their parts, can fulfill their end of the bargain in mutually beneficial relationships.
I'm hopeful about Africa, very hopeful. I can sense a new dawn rising, despite the enormous problems faced across the continent. And I'm also hopeful that the U.S. will engage with Africans at all levels, seriously devoting attention to helping Africa solve its most pressing problems.
