"Many Thing Begin for Change"

Adaora Lily Ulasi, the Nigerian author, wrote a short novel in the early 1970s entitled (in pidgin English) "Many Thing Begin for Change." I like that title, for in five brief words it captures the ambiguities and nuances of much of life. It certainly captures the outlook for Africa, and for U.S. relations with Africa in 2002.

Is it true that everything changed on September 11th? Of course not. Certainly it was a tragic and transforming moment, but as we anticipate the African agenda for 2002, there is much that is the same-persistent debates and issues and needs-and some that merely "begin for change."

AIDS

Take, for example, the AIDS pandemic in Africa. The Global AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Fund should be up and running early in 2002. It offers the prospect for a strong and thoughtful multilateral initiative that could make an appreciable difference in the lives of millions of Africans. But the old issues persist: What is to be the role of civil society, of NGOs, of African governments themselves, in the face of the power of donor nations?

Even now, with 2002 upon us, financial commitments from all donor nations only reach $1.5 billion out of an estimated need of $7-10 billion.

"I am amazed," a government minister from the Cameroon said recently, "by the magnitude and rapidity with which the global coalition was set up to combat terrorism after the sad September 11 events. If," he went on, "the international community can mobilize the same effort and solidarity, we can win the war against HIV/AIDS."

Will we? The debate in Congress and within the Bush administration will continue to confront appropriations for global AIDS in 2002. President Bush received a Thanksgiving appeal from some 100 Senators and Representatives, calling for an emergency appropriation of $1 billion to the Global Fund, but there are few indications that the administration will encourage such generosity.

It could be just the opposite, if Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill's comments about development aid are any indication. At the Ottawa meetings of the IMF and World Bank in November, Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer called for a dramatic increase in development assistance to the poorer nations of the world - a $50 billion increase in annual aid to support the international effort to cut poverty in half by 2015. But Secretary O'Neill's response was largely negative. "Over the last 50 years the world has spent an awful large amount of money in the name of development without a great degree of success," he commented. The proper course, he suggested, was "by increasing real economic development and not just more giving."

Never mind that the evidence shows clearly the accomplishments as well as the failures. As the Washington Post editorialized recently, life expectancy in poor countries has risen from 45 in 1960 to 64 today. Illiteracy had dropped from 47 percent in 1970 to 25 percent today. Poverty in Uganda has dropped by 40 percent during the 1990s. Aid is surely a key component of this.

Never mind, too, that we are getting good rhetoric from the administration. President Bush rightly declared that "a world where some live in comfort and plenty while half of the human race lives on less than $2 a day is neither just nor stable." He has called including the world's poor in development "a great moral challenge" and "a priority" of U.S. foreign policy. "We do recognize our responsibilities," he said.

Appropriations that give substance to such pronouncements are, however, another matter. The thoughtful "0.7% Initiative" of the Worldwide Ministries Division of the Presbyterian Church (USA) will have tough going in 2002, for it remains clear that development assistance is a low priority within the Bush administration and in Congress. (The 0.7 percent comes from the international aid target set by the UN General Assembly in 1970, seeking 0.7 percent of donor nations' gross national product. The U.S. contribution is less than 0.1 percent, the lowest of all donor nations.)

Debt Relief

How else might the U.S. demonstrate its concern for Africa? It seems very likely that the U.S. will continue to meet its financial commitments under the Cologne Initiative to relieve the debt burden of the world's poorest nations, most of which are in Africa, but the Bush administration has not warmed to the idea of pressing for multilateral debt cancellation by the World Bank and IMF. Those institutions have relieved less than half of their debts, leaving the poorest nations of the world paying more than $700 million each year in debt service.

Advocates have called for the U.S. to use its voice and vote in the World Bank and IMF to secure 100 percent debt cancellation to the heavily-indebted poor countries (which can be done from those financial institutions' own resources), without additional taxpayer funds and without harming the capability of these institutions to function.

That's not all on the debt agenda. There remain nagging questions about linkage of debt relief to structural adjustment programs, the need to include additional nations on the list of those eligible for debt relief; and the call to confront issues of odious debt and stolen wealth. Despite the strengths of the worldwide Jubilee movement, the burden of debt continues to undermine the capacity of African nations to address poverty and development. Many thing only begin for change.

Trade Related Property Rights

Seemingly we've made progress on the issue of affordable medicines for AIDS. At the WTO meetings in Qatar, member nations declared that the agreement on intellectual property rights, or patents (TRIPS), "does not and should not prevent... measures to protect public health." This is progress, but the U.S. effectively prevented the legally-binding language African nations had sought. Thus as we enter 2002, we are left with a general statement of principle that can be variously interpreted, and that leaves key questions unanswered, such as whether an African nation lacking the capacity to produce generic drugs may import generics from other nations. This debate is far from over.

Conflict Diamonds

Tragically, the Bush administration undermined a remarkable diamond industry-justice advocacy agreement on conflict diamonds, which have fuelled wars in Sierra Leone, Angola and the Congo (DRC). At administration insistence, the Clean Diamond Trade Act before the House gave the President discretion to take no action at all on prohibiting conflict diamonds - or diamonds that were not certified to be "clean" - from entry into the United States. Even more disturbing, the bill (at the time of writing) seems to prevent action unless it is in the U.S.'s "essential security interest" to prohibit the diamonds from entering. Despite having a presidential waiver in the original bill, the Bush demand for absolute discretionary authority has won the day. Whether the long-sought legislation will remain as meaningless as it now is will largely depend upon the outcome of the international Kimberley Process of certification, which may come back to Congress for implementing legislation in 2002.

Mine Ban Treaty

Prospects for U.S. action on the Mine Ban Treaty are equally discouraging. Back in 1997 the U.S. declined to become a signatory, on the one hand saying landmines were still needed, especially in Korea, and on the other, promising to develop alternatives and enter into the treaty by 2006. The Department of Defense recently completed its part of the Bush administration's review, and it appears they are recommending abandonment of U.S. plans to comply with the Treaty by 2006, the end of a search for alternatives to antipersonnel mines, and the claim of an indefinite need for landmines. A final decision is expected in 2002.

Sudan

President Bush has directed attention to the Sudan, naming former Senator John Danforth as special envoy. He returns to the Sudan for a second visit early in 2002, to evaluate progress on key proposals the US advanced during his first visit, and to decide if further US initiatives are warranted.

Meanwhile, the Sudan Peace Act has been passed by both Houses, and awaits conference committee reconciliation. The Bush administration has opposed a key provision, namely the denial of access to US capital markets by foreign oil companies operating in the Sudan.

Both the Presbyterians and Episcopalians have initiated divestment campaigns against Talisman, the Canadian oil company working in the Sudan, on the grounds that oil revenues are fueling the war, and that our church partners in the Sudan have called for a cessation of oil production until peace prevails. Given the strong bi-partisan interest in the Sudan, this African conflict, far more than others, (such as the Congo and Zimbabwe), is destined to receive the greatest attention in Washington in 2002.

In 2001 we speculated about whether or not Africa would be on the Bush Administration agenda. Now we know that it is. But the agenda is strong on compassionate rhetoric, and weak on action that would give the rhetoric meaning. Some policies, such as landmines, are simply wrong. Some, such as affordable medicines, appear to be mere gestures. There are many that place corporate interests, such as foreign oil, over peace and justice. Even the more supportive policies will be starved for funding. Sadly, it is not a hopeful outlook for policy toward Africa in 2002. Many thing begin for change, and there is no clear answer to the question - toward what.

Written by the Rev. Leon Spencer, Executive Director of the Washington Office on Africa (WOA).