|
No-Holds-Barred
By Peter G. Mwesige |
Bush visit: Is it for real or it’s tourism?
July 10, 2003
|
BLOOMINGTON, INDIANA—It’s hot and humid out here. Very hot and humid! “Dubya” could not have chosen a better time to get out and enjoy some nice tropical weather. Since I got back here last week, all the headlines have been on President George W. Bush’s visit to Africa. Any American president visiting Africa is understandably big news, but Bush visiting the continent is even bigger news. You will recall that this is the man who said in his 2000 presidential campaign that “while Africa may be important, it does not fit into the national strategic interests, as far as I can see them.” And of course back then he did not even know that Africa was a whole continent. He once called it a country! Recall also that this is a conservative president who won only one out of every 10 black votes in the controversial 2000 election, and has put his foot down to limit social welfare spending in the United States. So what has changed to bring Africa onto this Republican president’s agenda? Here is what the newspapers here are saying. “His trip comes at a time when Africa is looming larger in calculations of American interests,” the influential New York Times wrote on July 6. “In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the United States is eager to keep poor nations with shaky governments from becoming breeding grounds and safe harbours for terrorists. It sees Africa as the world’s last largely untapped market. It holds out hope that Africa’s substantial oil reserves could play a larger role in fueling the American economy and perhaps serving as a counterweight to the influence of OPEC.” The paper also quoted administration officials as saying the president was determined to show another face of his foreign policy at “a time when Mr Bush is widely viewed, at home and abroad, as focused primarily on projecting American power and defending its interests by military means.” The mass circulating USA Today also cited the September 11 terrorist attacks as the primary reason for Bush’s change of approach to Africa, but added that both Democratic and Republican strategists “believe support for Africa and anti-poverty programmes in general is good politics.” According to the Boston Globe, the Bush tour is “designed to show another side to his administration’s foreign policy: that of a caring America ready to help the neediest continent,” while the Atlanta Journal-Constitution said the trip “is partly aimed at softening [Bush’s] warrior image at home and abroad.” So, should Africans dance and jump for joy? According to the American newspapers, there is still significant skepticism both here and in Africa about the depth of Bush’s commitment to the continent. “Is this for real or is this tourism?” USA Today quoted Chester Crocker, a former assistant secretary of state for African Affairs, as saying. According to the New York Times, “There is concern among some Africa hands that Bush’s interest will wane after he makes the point to the world that he is more than the unilateralist gunslinger he is often, fairly or unfairly, made out to be. With presidential politics increasingly coming to the fore at the White House, there is also grumbling among advocacy groups that the trip is little more than a way for Bush to flesh out his ‘compassionate conservative’ platform for his re-election race.” For its part, the Baltimore Sun said, “Many Africa specialists remain cynical about Bush’s trip, dismissing it as a week of photo opportunities to publicise the administration’s compassion and generosity on issues such as AIDS and economic development after a year marked by displays of American military might in Iraq.” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution for its part quoted, among others, Salih Booker, executive director of the Washington think tank, Africa Action, who took shots at the Bush administration for not taking Africa “on its own terms.” He called the Bush Africa policy, “incomplete,” and “inadequate.” But the newspapers have also quoted others who are hailing Bush’s visit, particularly for bringing the policy discussion of the AIDS epidemic into the multi-billion dollar range that experts say is needed to counter a plague that has decimated sub-Saharan and the rest of the developing world, killing an estimated 20 million people worldwide. “He is rapidly moving his agenda out of Washington, DC, to where the problem is,” the San Francisco Chronicle quoted Dr Eric Goosby, the president of the Pangaea Global AIDS Foundation. “The Africa trip is a very visible gesture to show the importance the administration is placing on this problem.” For the Ugandan opposition, and those who care for the complete picture (read truth), it should be disheartening that the American media have painted Uganda as a success story in Africa (at least as far as combating the spread of AIDS is concerned), and they have remained largely silent about government corruption, the continued armed rebellion in the north and now north east of the country, and the shaky political landscape. But President Yoweri Museveni surely cannot be comforted by that fact that while all the other countries that Bush has visited have been cited for progress on the democratic and economic fronts, Uganda has only been mentioned for its record on AIDS. In fact, MSNBC, the CNN rival cable network here, said last week that only four countries that Bush would be visiting (excluding Uganda) had elected leaders. Then, while hailing Museveni for destigmatising AIDS, the New York Times said in its editorial on July 7 that his leadership “would be far more impressive if he permitted opposition parties and free elections, a point Mr Bush should insist on.” But ultimately, my own sense is that we should not put all our hopes of turning Africa around in the US, Europe or other foreign powers. This was somewhat captured by an editorial in the Houston Chronicle, although part of the analysis was offensive, if not outright racist. Wrestling with the depressing statistics on Africa and the paucity of “bright spots” or “fountains of hope” on the continent, the paper wrote: “Part of the blame rests with tribal cultures that cannot utilise the benefits of modernity and cannot defend against its destructive power. But primary responsibility must rest with Africa’s leaders, whether military dictators or presidents elected for life.” It added: “Foreign aid can feed many of those without food and treat some of those infected with disease. However, real peace and progress will elude Africa until its troubled countries and impoverished residents can choose and elevate leaders who reject personal gain from war, tyranny and corruption and use Africa’s resources for the common good.” While we cannot completely absolve the West from responsibility for the predicament that Africa finds itself in, the Chronicle is onto something here. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
© 2003 The Monitor Publications
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
