At the time of this writing—the midst of the Advent season—the dominant scriptural message is: Be alert. Stay awake. Be vigilant. There is a warning in those passages of Scripture, but there is a hopefulness as well.

That feeling is characteristic of U.S. policy toward Africa as we enter 2003. There is much to be wary about, but there are possibilities as well.

Take, for example, development assistance. Long a modest part of the U.S. budget, it may dramatically move in a new direction. In March 2002 President Bush announced that the United States would increase its core development assistance by “$5 billion over the next three budget cycles” (i.e., by 2006).

Calling them the Millennium Challenge Account, the President indicated that these funds are to be in addition to existing development assistance. The Account is to focus upon selected countries that meet the criteria of good governance, investment in the health and education of their people, and “sound economic policies.”

This may well be promising. There is certainly much to criticize in development aid history, and if a process emerges that renders assistance more effective, that is something to celebrate.

But there are aspects of the Account about which we need to be vigilant. First and foremost, eligible countries globally may number only 8-12, and within Africa, perhaps only 2-4. Assistance may be especially meaningful for a few, but with some 40-plus sub-Saharan African countries, the stunning health, education and social services needs of the rest of the continent will not be addressed.

We are also wary of what the Bush Administration means by “sound economic policies.” Obviously there is a need to confront corruption and inequities in the provision of services. But how they define “sound” may well be questioned. The U.S. economic agenda for the world and Africa’s economic priorities are often quite different. Moreover, the U.S. government’s increasingly aggressive campaign to privatize essential services (health, education and water) is widely seen not only as an assault upon sovereignty and democracy, but also unlikely to address the needs of those living in extreme poverty. If the Bush Administration only chooses countries that are playing the economic game the way the U.S. wants—and this point applies to security concerns as well—then the Millennium Challenge Account will be mis- directed.

Finally, it is clear that the federal budget will be under immense strain in 2003. A less-than-vigorous economy, tax cuts, national security costs, and a possible war, all threaten development aid. Reportedly the administration has already cut its proposal for the Account to $1.3 billion in 2004 (its first fiscal year). Despite the President’s pledge that the Account would be “above and beyond existing aid,” it is easy to suspect that the U.S. will not meet this commitment, and indeed will remain the most miserly of donor nations (a position we have held for some time with relation to GNP).

As our friends at Catholic Relief Services remind us, the purpose of development assistance, “is to promote equitable human development and enable the world’s most vulnerable to achieve a secure and dignified life.” That vision may or may not be affirmed by the new development assistance agenda. Be alert, our Advent readings remind us.

Vigilance is demanded, too, in the continuing tragedy of the HIV/AIDS pandemic in Africa. The year 2002 was a disappointing year in terms of appropriations to confront global AIDS. Money, which so often remains at the center of debate, was not forthcoming at anything remotely approaching the levels required. The Bush Administration has had a lot to say about its generosity, but the figures don’t add up. Yes, the U.S. contributed more than any other nation in terms of totals (though not as a percentage of GNP), but that is a condemnation of both the U.S. and the international community, not something to celebrate.

The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria, the key multilateral initiative, is now up and running, has made grants to a number of African countries, and… has already exhausted its funds. Donor nations had quickly pledged $2.1 billion (over a period of years) after U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan proposed creating the Global Fund in 2001. U.S. appropriations eventually totalled $500 million. Decisions on a second round of proposals, which seek $5.2 billion, will be made in January, and the funds just aren’t there.

Faith-based groups have urged President Bush, on his—now postponed—trip to Africa, to announce a bold new U.S. initiative that would include at least $2.5 billion to combat the disease, with at least $1.2 billion of that for the Global Fund. Apparently, on one of his stops, Mr. Bush’s focus was to have been on HIV/AIDS, but whether there would have been substance to any U.S. commitment remains to be seen. Be alert. Be vigilant.

Vigilance is more difficult in the realm of trade policy, which is where the debate over access to affordable medicines takes place; for both the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the office of the U.S. Trade Representative lack transparency. True, there were encouraging developments last year, when the WTO agreed that public health should take precedence over pharmaceutical patents. But what was left unresolved was how African nations that lack the capacity to manufacture their own “generic” drugs—for AIDS, technically the compulsory licensing of drugs still under patent—could obtain them from others more cheaply.

This required further negotiations, and in mid-December the United States remained alone in blocking a Mexican-brokered deal that the rest of the world was ready to endorse. The administration’s trade policy, still partial to pharmaceutical companies, wants to restrict the diseases that the Doha policy applies to, so as to limit the cases where public health considerations could claim precedence over patents. Here, especially, is a place for vigilance in 2003.

Debt cancellation bears watching as well. Disturbing reports in 2002 have demonstrated that even for those nations which secured debt relief under the HIPC initiative, debt levels are still not “sustainable.” The Bush Administration has not made this a priority.

Elsewhere, perhaps the promise of Advent takes precedence over warnings. Happily, the Senate ratified the child soldiers protocol in 2002, and President Bush is expected to sign it soon. Similarly, the Kimberley Process—to prohibit the marketing of “conflict diamonds” whose sale fueled tragic conflicts in Sierra Leone and Angola—has come into force, though without the careful monitoring provisions we have long sought. Further legislation on the subject is anticipated in the new Congress.

We may see a peaceful end to two of the most harrowing wars in Africa in 2003. The Sudan peace talks in the small town of Machakos, Kenya, though in recess at the end of the year, continue to show promise.
Dominant in 2003 will be negotiations over power sharing (How do the parties to this long civil war share governance during the six-year interim before a self-determination referendum?), and revenue sharing (How can profits, from oil especially, be directed to all regions of the country to reduce poverty?).

Nearby, in the Congo (DRC), all parties to that regional war signed an agreement in Pretoria as 2002 ended. They too confronted power sharing issues, agreeing that President Joseph Kabila will remain at his post until general elections are held in two years. Meanwhile, leaders from the rebel groups will gain positions in the government.
Neither agreement may hold, and 2003 promises difficult negotiations and decisions. But ceasefires seem to be in place, humanitarian relief may become more readily provided, and we may be seeing a will on the part of leaders to resolve tragedies that, together, have taken more than four million lives.

That, perhaps, is the promise of 2003. Africans may experience an end to violent conflict for the first time in a long time. True peace—defined in terms of human relationships, reconciliation, just economic systems, a sense of the common good—well, that is where we need to stay alert, to be awake. For there is much in our U.S. policy that cries out for faithful voices.

By Leon Spencer