I have been writing these “Outlooks for Africa” for the last few years, and up until now, it has seemed fairly clear to me what the outlook was and what I needed to say. Not so today, as I look toward 2004. The Christmas message is one of hope, and I would like to be hopeful for Africa and for U.S. relations with Africa in 2004. But, frankly, it could go either way.

Sudan

Under no heading is that more true than for efforts toward peace and conflict resolution. Negotiations for peace in the Sudan seem more and more promising. The two key parties to the conflict—the Khartoum government and the SPLM/A—have reached agreement on security arrangements, a critical step toward peace. Power-sharing and wealth-sharing issues remain, but negotiators are still at the table working on them. I know I said much the same last year, but we may well see a peace agreement in 2004. That is the hope. But any perceived threat to the unity of the Sudan will likely drive the Sudanese government away from the table, and there are others who have never been at the table in the first place. The deteriorating situation in Darfur is especially ominous. Even so, momentum in the negotiations still leaves one more hopeful than not.

The Congo

Nearby in the Congo (DRC), there is now a transitional national government, and the international community is pressing for an effective national disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) program. Refugees are returning, always a hopeful sign. There is talk of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. But here, too, there is a long way to go.

The U.N.-imposed arms embargo needs rigorous enforcement, and the illegal exploitation of the DRC’s natural resources and continued use of child soldiers must end. While most observers explain this five-year war as a regional war (a struggle for power at national and international levels), local ethnic tensions remain a disturbing legacy that could undermine the entire transition. As our friends at Human Rights Watch have commented: “Agreements between governments don’t do much good when the government armies are just passing their guns on to local militias. The crisis in Congo won’t be resolved without addressing all levels of this conflict.”

Conflict Waning

Liberia’s future remains precarious, but Charles Taylor is gone. Sierra Leone is increasingly stable, but the legacy of the war remains staggering. Angola’s oil may promise hope for reconstruction, but the absence of transparency and accountability leaves any sane person skeptical. “Publish what you pay”—a campaign for openness between oil companies and African governments—deserves far more of our attention than it has thus far, and nowhere is that more true than in Angola.

And yet, in all of these cases, Africa seems to be moving out of conflict, not into war. U.S. policy needs to focus upon a just peace, but priorities may be shifting toward a substantial U.S. contribution to programs that address the legacy of war; not simply reconstruction (roads, services, etc.) but also de-mining, rehabilitation of child soldiers, and the trauma faced by refugees and internally-displaced persons.

Development Aid and Funds for HIV/AIDS

What is the outlook, in 2004, for the United States to help confront these needs? The hope is that the promises President Bush made back in 2002, to increase U.S. development assistance by $5 billion over the next three budget years (i.e., by 2006), will begin to be implemented. The prognosis for this initiative—known as the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) —isn’t hopeful. The Bush Administration sought $1.6 billion for fiscal year 2004 (and cut it to $1.3 billion as the debate continued), and Congress is now poised to appropriate only $1 billion. The $5 billion increase pledge seems a long way off. And in any case, only three African countries are likely to be eligible for MCA funding in its first year.

The central HIV/AIDS issue these days is a development assistance issue: money. A year ago, President Bush turned in his State of the Union address to the global AIDS pandemic and pledged $15 billion over five years. Then, in May 2003, he signed the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Act into law, seemingly honoring that pledge, for the law authorizes $15 billion over the next five years to fight HIV/AIDS and other health crises in developing countries, with $3 billion for each fiscal year from 2004 to 2008. It calls, specifically, for $1 billion in 2004 in support of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. But despite the obvious urgency demanded by the AIDS crisis, President Bush asked for less than $2 billion for 2004 and considerably less than $3 billion for 2005.

The Republican-controlled Congress, yet to pass appropriations legislation for the fiscal year 2004 that began in October 2003, plans to defy the President’s call for lower figures, and allocate around $2.4 billion for global AIDS. What they will agree to in 2004 for 2005 is anyone’s guess.

In any case, the figures are far short of the defined need for 2004 of $3.5 billion, the U.S. fair share of global contributions. As for the effective multilateral initiative, the Global Fund, President Bush only requested $200 million for 2004, down from $350 million in 2003. It looks as if Congress will go over his request, but the final figure is unclear though it is sure to be less than the $1 billion called for in the U.S. Leadership legislation. Meanwhile, only 50,000 Africans living with AIDS are receiving anti-retroviral drugs, out of an estimated need of 4,100,000.

On the development assistance front, then, the 2004 outlook is grim. The stunning costs of Iraq and the burgeoning federal deficit suggest that finding increased funds for Africa will be difficult. The United States remains the least generous donor nation in the world, as seen in the widely-accepted standard of assistance as a percentage of gross national product (GNP). With U.S. appropriations hovering at less than one-tenth of one per- cent, and with dramatic “compassionate” pledges dishonored, we’ve got a long way to go. The hope lies, ultimately, in us. The 0.7 percent initiative and the U.N. Millennium Development Goals offer a vision of what right human relationships can embrace, and who better than the faith communities to advance this message?

U.S.-Africa trade issues will loom large in 2004, there is no doubt. Congress will consider an expansion of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (to be known as AGOA III), broadening some textile benefits and extending by some years the benefits of the original legislation. Meanwhile, trade negotiations with the Southern Africa Customs Union (SACU) countries continue, likely to be concluded in 2004 if not presented for ratification. Water privatization is a growing issue, as is the protection of African smallholder farmer rights to their seeds and traditional agricultural practices, a right threatened by multinational corporate patents.

The U.S. government tends to be on the wrong side of many of these issues, “wrong” as seen from the standpoint of trade relations that are mutually-beneficial and respect for an African right to define Africa’s agenda. If recent trade negotiations elsewhere in the world are any indication, for example, SACU is likely to include provisions that will make African access to affordable medicines less likely.

What is hopeful, again, is us. In cooperation with the Ecumenical Advocacy Alliance, various faith communities in the United States are launching a U.S. Fair Trade Campaign. It is well past time for churches to be a strong voice for trade justice. Complicated? Perhaps. But the fundamental principles belong to us.

Dr. Mvume Dandala, the new general secretary of the All Africa Conference of Churches, spoke at their recent General Assembly of the African church’s “revolutionary and prophetic edge,” one that would challenge African leadership “to make good on their social, political and economic promises.” As we look toward 2004, that is both our agenda and theirs.

Written by the Rev. Leon Spencer of the Washington Office on Africa.