The moral hazard of US policy in Africa

MORAL HAZARD AND MORAL BANKRUPTCY

The concept of ‘moral hazard’ in politics may be used to explain a situation in which a government is insulated and immunised from the consequences of its risky, reckless and incompetent behaviour. For instance, a regime that is heavily dependent on the safety net of foreign aid, sustained infusion of multilateral loans and a perpetual supply of humanitarian assistance will behave differently if it were left to its own devices to deal with the consequences of a mismanaged economy, debilitating corruption and proliferating poverty. Many African regimes today simply avoid the demands of good governance, ignore the rule of law and commit gross violations of human rights in the belief that Western aid, particularly American taxpayer handouts, will always bail them out of their chronic budget deficits and replenish their empty grain silos. Stated simply, Western taxpayer dollars provide the fail-safe insurance policy for the survival and persistence of failed regimes in Africa.

By shifting the risk of economic mismanagement, incompetence and corruption to Western donors, and because these donors impose no penalty or disincentive for poor governance, inefficiency, corruption and repression, African regimes are able to cling to power for decades abusing the human rights of their citizens and stealing elections. Western donors continue to bail out failed African states for two reasons. First, the iron-fisted African dictators make excellent business partners. Recent WikiLeaks cablegrams have documented that the most important objective for Western policy makers in Africa is to support a strongman who can guarantee them stability so that they can continue to do business as usual. Basically, they want a ‘guy they can do business with’. Second, Western donors believe that the few billions of aid dollars given every year to guarantee ‘stability’ in African countries is more cost effective than helping to nurture genuinely democratic societies in Africa. The moral hazard in Western policy comes not just from the fact that they provide fail-safe insurance to repressive regimes, but also from the rewards of increasing amounts of aid and loans to buffer them from a tsunami of democratic popular uprising. As we have recently seen with Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, supporting ‘strongmen’ in Africa will at best produce the illusion of stability, control and permanence for the West. But turning a blind eye to gross human rights violations and complicity in the denial of democratic rights to African peoples is irrefutable evidence of moral bankruptcy.

OBAMA’S FOREIGN POLICY IN AFRICA

In 2008, when then-Senator Obama was campaigning for the presidency, his advisor on Africa, Witney W. Schneidman, laid out the candidate’s fundamental policy objectives for Africa. Schneidman argued that ‘Barack Obama understands Africa and its importance to the United States’ and ‘to strengthen our common security, we must invest in our common humanity’. Unquestionably, Senator Obama was a man of little talk and lots of action. He aggressively promoted human rights and accountability throughout the continent. He co-sponsored major legislation to help end genocide in Darfur (Darfur Peace and Accountability Act of 2006), vigorously advocated for a no-fly zone in Darfur (not so in Libya today), secured funds to facilitate free and fair elections in the Democratic Republic of Congo, helped bring Liberian warlord Charles Taylor to justice and worked to develop a coherent strategy for stabilising Somalia.

Senator Obama was a straight-talker. In 2006, he visited Kenya and ‘spoke truth to power’ ‘about the corrosive impact of corruption’. He visited Kibera, Kenya, a 2.5 square-kilometre tract of urban land, the second-largest slum in Africa and home to an estimated 1.2 million people. He told the proudly delirious mass of poor people, ‘I love all of you, my brothers — all of you, my sisters’. He embraced the wretched of Kibera: ‘Everybody in Kibera needs the same opportunities to go to school, to start businesses, to have enough to eat, to have decent clothes.’ After the 2007 Kenya elections, Senator Obama rolled his sleeves and for ‘18 months worked with the Kenyan leadership to help resolve the post-election crisis in that country’. He called out Robert Mugabe for stealing elections in Zimbabwe and condemned his gross human rights violations. In South Africa, he ‘demanded honesty from the government about HIV/Aids.’ He went into ‘refugee camps in Chad, where he heard first-hand about the experiences of Sudanese women who had been forced from their homes and had their families torn apart, and worse, by Khartoum's genocidal policies’.

In America, Senator Obama made a ‘strong effort to reach out to first, second and third generation Africans who have become American citizens to encourage them to be part of the effort that will elect Barack Obama president of the United States’. He actively sought the support of Ethiopians. His campaign specifically called on the ‘10,000 Ethiopian-Americans in Virginia to help turn that state blue on November 4th.’ On 4 November 2008, Ethiopian-Americans came out by the tens of thousands and helped turn Virginia blue.

When Senator Obama became president, his ‘Africa agenda’ revolved around three basic objectives: 1) ‘accelerate Africa's integration into the global economy’; 2) ‘enhance the peace and security of African states’; and 3) ‘strengthen relationships with those governments, institutions and civil society organizations committed to deepening democracy, accountability and reducing poverty in Africa’. Over the past two years, what we have seen in Africa is a whole lot of deepening repression, human rights violations and corruption. We have seen very little ‘accountability, democracy building, the rule of law, judicial reform’ and the rest of it.

Much to our dismay, upon becoming president Obama morphed from a ‘confrontor’ to an accommodator of Africa’s notorious human rights violators. He began preaching and issuing moral pleas to Africa’s ‘strongmen’ in an effort to redirect them from their evil ways and to become nice, and not nasty, to their peoples. From day one, President Obama began soft-pedalling. In his inaugural speech, his message to those stealing elections and committing crimes on their citizens was a bit disarming: ‘To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.’ We thought promising rewards to practitioners of corruption and deceit was rather odd; but we deciphered the hidden message: If Africa’s dictators unclench their fists and became nice, American taxpayers will lay some cold hard cash on their open palms. In other words, it is possible to pay these dictators to become nice guys.

In April 2009, President Obama told the Turkish parliament that the ‘choices that we make in the coming years will determine whether the future will be shaped by fear or by freedom; by poverty or by prosperity; by strife or by a just, secure and lasting peace.’ He told them that ‘freedom of religion and expression lead to a strong and vibrant civil society’ and ‘an enduring commitment to the rule of law is the only way to achieve the security that comes from justice for all people.’ In July 2009, in Ghana, President Obama went on the rhetorical offensive and told Africa's ‘strongmen’ that they have been driving on the wrong side of history for so long that they are headed straight for history's dustbin. ‘Make no mistake: history is on the side of these brave Africans [citizens and their communities driving change], and not with those who use coups or change Constitutions to stay in power. Africa doesn't need strongmen, it needs strong institutions.’ In the same month, US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, in a major speech at Georgetown University, announced that the Obama Administration's approach to ‘putting our principles into action’ meant demanding accountability in American global human rights policy. She warned the world that ‘we must be wary of the steel vice in which governments around the world are slowly crushing civil society and the human spirit.’

In December 2009, Secretary Clinton offered further enlightenment on US human rights policy: ‘It is crucial that we clarify what we mean when we talk about democracy, because democracy means not only elections to choose leaders, but also active citizens and a free press and an independent judiciary and transparent and responsive institutions that are accountable to all citizens and protect their rights equally and fairly.’ She said the ‘first pillar’ of this policy is ‘accountability’, which means ‘governments [must] take responsibility by putting human rights into law and embedding them in government institutions; by building strong, independent courts, competent and disciplined police and law enforcement.’

In April 2010, US Assistant Secretary of African Affairs Johnnie Carson, speaking at the Second Annual Africa Focus at Harvard University, expanded on the meaning of accountability: ‘A key element in Africa’s transformation is sustained commitment to democracy, rule of law, and constitutional norms… African countries need civilian governments that deliver services to their people, independent judiciaries that respect and enforce the rule of law, professional security forces that respect human rights, strong and effective legislative institutions, a free and responsible press, and a dynamic civil society.’

In May 2010, in a keynote speech at the 35-nation Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris, US Attorney General Eric Holder railed against ‘corruption [which] weakens the rule of law, undermines the promise of democracy, imperils development and stability and faith in our markets.’ In July 2010, Holder and Johnnie Carson announced at the African Summit in Kampala, Uganda, that the US is launching a special Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative to catch and prosecute corrupt foreign individuals and institutions operating in the US.

Egypt proved to be a test case for President Obama’s policy in Africa. In June 2009, in a speech given at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, President Obama told the young people of his unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: ‘[T]he ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose… You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party.’

In February 2011, when Egyptian students took the streets seeking to remove Mubarak after three decades of rule by state of emergency and institute a ‘government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people’, President Obama was visibly hesitant and wavering. He seemed to stand aloof and not with the young people of Egypt making history. He waffled on the issue of Mubarak’s departure from power and could only offer abstract moral exhortations against ‘violence’ while calling for an ‘end to the harassment and detention’ and the need to create a ‘process that is broadly inclusive of the Egyptian opposition’. Only after Mubarak took off for Sharm-el-Sheikh did President Obama step forward to take a stand: ‘For in Egypt it was the moral force of nonviolence, not terrorism, not mindless killing, but nonviolence, moral force that bent the arc of history toward justice once more.’ He was effusive in his praise of Egyptian youth: ‘It's [Egypt’s] young people who've been at the forefront. A new generation, your generation, who want their voices to be heard… America will continue to do everything that we can to support an orderly and genuine transition to democracy in Egypt.’

BACKING UP TALK WITH ACTION

President Obama is a source of great pride for Africans on the continent and others scattered in the diaspora. That pride carries with it extraordinarily high expectations for US policy in Africa. His writings and speeches demonstrate that he is very knowledgeable, well-informed and passionate about Africa, and his African ties are deep, strong and genuine. His involvement with Africa dates back to his student days in the early 1980s at Occidental College in California protesting apartheid. Africans would like to see qualitative changes in US policy towards Africa.

The president’s Africa policy pivots on a strategy of ‘constructive engagement’ of African ‘leaders’. It is impossible to clap with one hand. There is overwhelming evidence to show that most African leaders are only interested in clinging to power cushioned by the financial support of American taxpayers. They are not interested in engaging America on what matters most to Americans – democracy, freedom, human rights, the rule of law, accountability, transparency and the like. President Obama, on the other hand, has partners right here in the US who are willing to engage him on issues of democracy, freedom and human rights in Africa. They are the tens of thousands of Ethiopians who helped turn Virginia blue for him; they are the multitudes of Nigerians in Ohio and Somalis in Minnesota and other Africans throughout the US who opened their wallets, canvassed the precincts and stood in line for hours that cold November morning in 2008 to make Senator Obama President Obama. Democracy, freedom and human rights in Africa cannot be subordinated to the expediency of ‘engaging’ incorrigible African ‘leaders’ whose sole interest is clinging to power to enrich themselves and their cronies. Like charity, we believe, constructive engagement should begin at home.

BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS

* Alemayehu G. Mariam is professor of political science at CSU San Bernardino.
* This article first appeared in [email protected] or comment online at Pambazuka News.