US Election: What it means to Tanzania, Africa

By Mobhare Matinyi, Washington DC. The Citizen, Tanzania. As Americans go to polling stations today big questions linger in the minds of those who contend, reluctantly or willingly, that their president is the most powerful person on earth capable of harming or helping it and its inhabitants. Those questions are: What does this United States presidential election mean to Africa in general and Tanzania in particular? What happens if President Barack Obama fails to be re-elected? What kind of a president will Mitt Romney be to Africa? Last but not least, what will an Obama victory mean after what some people refer to as four years of disappointing Obama-Africa relations? While some Africans find the energy to ponder over such questions from what Obama once boasted as “the African blood within me”, some may actually look at the same questions from another reality regardless of what blood flows in Obama’s veins and arteries. That reality is America’s hegemony over the globe. It is undisputable that the US is the only remaining global superpower, in terms of everything from economic clout to military might, from social influence to cultural domination and from political control to just everything. This includes academic leadership, scientific and technological advancement, and even the mass media. Despite many challenges at home and abroad, America still rules the world in many ways. Consequently, its presidential election is not a small matter. Sometimes it is easier to forget about America’s power because of so many negative things happening around. But a quick snapshot shows that currently at $15 trillion the US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) commands almost a quarter of the $62 trillion global economy, with the second nation, China, trailing behind at slightly less than a half the US economy. Moreover, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the current US annual military spending of about $711 billion is 41 per cent of the global military spending at $1,735 billion, effectively half of Africa’s GDP at $1,476 billion . The story of the American power does not end there: It goes to pop and rap music, Hollywood films, jeans, Nike wear, McDonald’s fast food, Coca Cola, Boeing jetliners, Dell computers, CNN, advanced medical technology and the emerging nanotechnology. On top of all that, America exports its democracy and free market economy more than any other nation and actually more than any of its products. This immense American power attracts friends and foes alike. But some Africans having witnessed the ascendance of an “African” to the helm of power in the US were cajoled into believing that somehow that would translate into material and financial gains for them or at least brotherly tours. Not so easy! But, how did it happen that the “son of Africa” only made a single overnight stop in the land of his forefathers, actually on his way back home from summits in Russia and Italy in July 2009? Indeed, President Obama only visited one Sub-Saharan African country, Ghana, skipping Kenya where his father was born. But while in Accra he assured Africans: “We believe in Africa’s potential and promise. We remain committed to Africa’s future. We will be strong partners with the African people.” He wasn’t understood, perhaps. Earlier when he visited Cairo in June 2009 Obama didn’t run away from American geopolitical thinking, referring to Egypt as a key player in the Middle Eastern affairs. He also noted that Egypt represents the heart of the Arab world. He went on to insist that he wanted to speak to Muslims from a Muslim capital. Undoubtedly, the word “Africa” was not on his mind during this trip. Historically, the American nation has managed to have only two permanent friends, the United Kingdom and Israel. The rest are strategic allies based on American national interests at specific periods, the reason why African leaders like Julius Nyerere of Tanzania, played their cards with the US so carefully. At one time Nyerere warned a Tanzanian diplomat posted to Washington DC: “Don’t bring us a strange relationship with America; that’s a big nation, it has no friends but interests.” If interests are all that matter, then, what interests does America have in Africa? If one listens to American scholars, not diplomats and politicians who have to calibrate every word and punctuation, the answer is not difficult to find. The importance of Africa comes in one aspect: American national strategic interests in the areas of security and the economy. That’s it. It’s about facing American challenges. So what does that entail? According to the 2008 analysis by the Washington-based think tank, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment (CSBA), the challenges to the US national security are three: “First, defeating violent Islamist radicalism; second, hedging against a hostile China both economically and militarily; and finally, preparing for a nuclear-proliferated world.” Africa is not likely to possess nuclear weapons any time soon, but speaking of the first two challenges, Africa is extremely important to the US, a recognition started by George W. Bush. During his era, especially after the attacks of September 11, 2001, Bush and his aides concluded that the best way to handle terrorism globally was by stabilising weak states and helping them combat poverty. The African continent scored highest points as far as instability and poverty are concerned. Within no time a series of assistance programmes started flowing to Africa, culminating with the formation of the Africa Command (AFRICOM) in 2007. This was a national strategy meant to last for a long time; it was the beginning of retrieving Africa from the backwaters of US foreign policy. When he came into office in January 2009, President Obama had no choice but to carry on with this grand strategy after refining it a little bit. Typical of American presidents, they don’t overhaul the national strategy, but only refine it here and there. So, Obama decided that, rather than working for Africans as Bush started, his administration would work with Africans. That is where Obama and some Africans parted ways because this meant Washington would not become an arbitrary Santa Claus, but a ‘mere’ calculating friend. Speaking to the subcommittee of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on Africa and Global Health in March 2010, the US Assistant Secretary of State for Africa, himself an African American, Ambassador Johnnie Carson, said: “The Obama Administration is committed to a positive and forward-looking policy on Africa, but we know that additional assistance will not automatically produce success across the continent.” In effect, he insisted that partnership is the way to go, and after achieving the goal to build Africa’s capacity, assistance will be history. He said further that Africa’s future was up to Africans themselves. Apart from being the top American diplomat dealing with day-to-day issues of the continent, Ambassador Carson’s credentials add a lot of weight to whatever he says about Africa. After working in Tanzania from 1965 to 1968 as a Peace Corps volunteer, he was assigned as a diplomat to Nigeria, Mozambique and Botswana. Thereafter he was the ambassador in Uganda, Zimbabwe and Kenya. Also having worked as a deputy assistant secretary in the same African Affairs Bureau under Bill Clinton’s presidency, he has a good grasp of African issues. Hence, according to current US foreign policy on Africa, there are four priority areas on which the Obama administration’s focus lies: First is to provide security assistance programmes critical to the objective of a peaceful Africa that does not have the likes of Darfur, Somalia, or post-election Kenya of 2008. In that aspect Obama has poured millions of dollars, equipment and training. Though it is still adding more, one must not forget that Washington is now buried in a $16 trillion debt and a huge budget deficit amounting to $1.1 trillion. Second is to promote democratic systems and practices based on the assumption that ending wars alone is not enough, but transformation to consolidate democracies is important. This is the reason why Bush’s idea of the Millennium Challenge Account is crucial as it promotes these kinds of values and good governance as a precondition for lucrative grants. Third is to promote a sustainable and broad-based free market economic growth as one way of tackling poverty in a rich but impoverished continent. This strategy explains why the US Agency for International Aid (USAID) and the MCA officials are crisscrossing Africa day and night while Clinton’s initiative known as Africa Growth Opportunity Act (AGOA) still hangs on to counter China’s growth in international trade.  So far African countries have pocketed close to $5 billion in MCA deals of which Tanzania received $698 million. Fourth is to promote health and social development, another area where again Bush’s helping hand came in. The list of projects includes the President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief, tuberculosis and malaria where $48 billion has been re-authorised so far under Ocala’s administration. Bush also came up with the President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI) in 2005 starting with $1.2 billion. Millions of Africans, including Tanzanians, have benefited from a cocktail of these assistances and frankly, the list of programmes is much longer. This bears in mind that the American nation is a big machine that includes civic organisations like Freedom House, private individuals like billionaire Bill Gates and private companies like Symbion Power and Pike Electric which operate in Tanzania. Thus, in his first term Obama has done one big thing: Maintaining funding programmes that his predecessor came up with in respect of a grand American strategic plan, not just a package of handouts from Santa Claus. To put his signature on American programmes, Obama added Feed the Future programme and the Global Climate Initiative, a good gesture to the now “important” continent.  In general around the world Obama has presented America as a less-aggressive superpower. This is unless required to assist her allies in missions like the removal of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. Obama has been hesitant to impose American will on others unless needed so much, like in the case of sanctions against Iran. Now the US is willing to accept a multiplication of regional powers like Brazil and India. In that aspect Obama has not been bad for Africa compared to Republican presidents except Bush. Also, he has not completely eroded the trust that Africans have on Democratic presidents. From that perspective, if Obama loses today’s election none of the above programmes will disappear, but adding more will depend on how Romney gets briefed by his strategists. Unlike Bush, who at least identified Africa as a ‘troubled country’ back in 2000 when he was running for presidency, Romney has no business with Africa. On his website, just to make sure that he doesn’t get criticised, Romney put up a few paragraphs to blame Obama for disappointing US partners in Africa and promised to promote investments as well as deal with security and human rights issues. These are three things that any informed person on American streets would say. Romney thinks decades back when it comes to foreign policy and the fact that he wants to face the world in a more militaristic approach, Africa should expect nothing tangible from him. If Obama wins, perhaps his quest for legacy would drive him towards thinking more about Africa than he did in his sensitive first term. Some observers think that Obama feared being labeled an “African president” and chose to remain modest hoping that if he gets a second term then he can act benevolently. Will he? That’s a million dollar question but Africans ought to remember two things: One, Obama is not an African leader; and two, Africans need to work for their own destiny.