We’re not only a powerful nation. We’re also a compassionate nation… We cry for the orphan. We care for the mom who is alone.¹ – George W. Bush in Africa/July 2003

Where else can they demonstrate that Bush is more than just a cowboy than to come to the continent most in need of assistance?² – Jakkie Cilliers/Institute for Security Studies in Pretoria

For decades, Africa has been a hotbed of massive civil conflict, a land of brutal dictatorships, unequaled poverty, and tremendous human suffering. Despite years of African affairs being relegated to the global background, President Bush brought continental affairs to the limelight when he surprised the world with a five-day sweep through Senegal, South Africa, Botswana, Uganda and Nigeria. Analysts suggest that Bush’s African strategy revolves around building stability in key pivotal states, hoping that this would eventually “spillover” into other war-torn areas in the continent. Hence the choice of South Africa, a key to continental peace and security; Nigeria, the top player in West Africa; and Senegal, West Africa’s oldest democracy. In addition, Botswana was selected to showcase its economic accomplishments and Uganda was chosen to highlight its achievements in fighting AIDS.

While avoiding the poorer countries of Africa and supporting nations that are already “success stories,” the administration is also going on the offensive against what it views as rogue African leaders, such as Charles Taylor of Liberia and Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. More importantly, renewed US interest in Africa masks a competition for influence on the continent with the French and the British.³

The US president pledged that his country would play a leading role in fighting AIDS by going all out to receive Congressional approval for a five-year $15 billion program to attack the disease. In addition, he promised to reward those nations that commit to human rights and free trade and provide more than $1 billion for education, food aid, counterterrorism and famine relief. African leaders expressed their gratitude for the money rich nations send them, but suggested that what they really needed was more access to American markets for textiles and other products, and for the US to stop subsidizing its farmers – a practice that prices major African agricultural products like cotton out of world markets and has the effect of impoverishing some 10 million rural poor people in West and Central Africa.⁴ Another issue was the president’s promise that the US would play a role in resolving the conflict in Liberia, entertaining the possibility of sending US troops to police a cease-fire in the war-torn West African state.

What was more interesting to note, was that before leaving to Africa, President Bush failed to consult the Congressional Black Caucus, the 38-strong body of black legislators, and then left Nelson Mandela off his itinerary.⁵ Mandela – Africa’s symbol of social justice – previously called Bush a “President who has no foresight, who cannot think properly,” and accused him of “wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust.” Mandela had also accused the US of ignoring the UN because it was led by a black man, and has repeatedly called the US a “threat to world peace.”⁶ Despite Bush’s depiction of slavery as “one of the greatest crimes of history,” he refused to offer an apology even as he visited the infamous “Door of No Return” on the Senegalese island of Gorée – part of a slave prison complex which functioned as a 19th-century processing center for slaves heading to the US.

It is hard at this stage to precisely assess the depth of Bush’s commitment and the degree of his willingness and determination to fulfill his many promises. However, the swiftness of his visit, its official leader-to-leader character, and the fact that he did not personally visit a single rural village or an urban slum, raises skepticism with regards to the president’s seemingly benevolent humanitarian intentions. More importantly, as the presidential elections approach, Bush faces a credibility problem both at home and abroad, which made it imperative that he convinces both domestic and international audiences that the US is not a global bully, but rather a benevolent nation.

In many ways, Bush’s visit to Africa was a symbolic exercise in “soft power” intended to ameliorate the militaristic outlook of the US. As a prominent Republican advisor to the White House commented on Bush’s trip to Africa: “It shows the softer side of Bush… This trip will prove that he isn’t just a warmonger.”⁷ In addition to the much needed symbolism embedded in his visit, President Bush sought to address two main issues of strategic importance to his administration: oil and terrorism.

Why Africa, Why Now? – The Quest for Lost Legitimacy

A pattern of illegitimate behavior can erode a superpower’s claim to global dominance.

Despite the fact that “legitimacy” is an intangible factor in foreign policy, it bears a great deal of practical significance and moral weight in both domestic and international affairs. A perceived pattern of illegitimate behavior can have serious domestic consequences for a president seeking re-election. It could internationally limit the cooperation other countries are willing to offer and erode even a superpower’s claim to global dominance.⁸

Domestically, President Bush is facing a political firestorm. He spent the past few weeks defending the “darn good” intelligence he receives, as the White House came under increasing scrutiny over why Bush told the Congress and the American people in January 2003 that Iraq was attempting to purchase uranium from the African nation of Niger to rebuild its nuclear program. Bush’s position is at odds even with his own assistants, who acknowledged that the CIA raised doubts about his claim more than four months before the speech. On the other hand, the Democrats are calling for a public enquiry as a new CBS poll reveals that 56% of the public say that Bush administration officials were hiding important elements of what they knew concerning Iraqi weapons of mass destruction or were lying.⁹

A visit to Africa was an appeal to African-American voters.

Given the domestic odds the president is facing, a visit to Africa was intended to appeal to African-American voters and to moderate white voters, especially suburbanites and professional women, given the “message of compassion” the president was so keen to reiterate on every stop along his short African trip. Despite Colin Powell’s constant denials that Bush’s trip targeted a domestic audience, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice told Black Entertainment Television that the Gorée visit was a salute to the descendents of slaves, “an opportunity for [Bush] to praise the heritage they have brought to American life.”¹⁰ In addition, Bush’s African visit sends a message to the Democrats who would now be more reluctant to criticize Bush after they have witnessed his softer, more humanitarian side.

It was intended to cover up for US failures in the Middle East.

Internationally, the United States realizes that it faces a very difficult task in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Military intervention in both Muslim countries vividly illustrated that while the US committed major resources to the military aspects of the conflict, it chronically underestimated the complexities of non-military aspects of foreign interventions. It wildly inflated non-military goals without committing the resources required to achieve them.¹¹ Moreover, the Iraqi case in particular demonstrated that US decision makers largely ignored the political/cultural landscape in the country, the region’s bitter colonial experience, and the Arab-Israeli conflict that was already overshadowing relations between the Islamic world and the West. Another interrelated issue where President Bush faces a credibility problem is the related to the so-called “roadmap” for Arab-Israeli peace. The plan is itself very vague with the “provisional” Palestinian state is as unclear as the promised final state, and the phases for implementation are very uncertain.

In this regard, a visit to Africa, the world’s poorest continent, was intended to cover up for US foreign policy failures in the Middle East, enhance America’s international image and combat anti-American sentiment, given Bush’s demonstration of sensitivity to development issues such as HIV-AIDS, poverty, and trade. The many promises Bush made to the continent were supposedly intended to add to his credibility as a global leader committed to solving longstanding continental problems. Earlier, Bush’s decision to attack Iraq was roundly criticized in Africa, partly because of large Muslim populations in some countries, but also because the US was seen as thumbing its nose at the UN. In many poor African countries, the UN is seen as the only stage for the continent to exercise some form of international influence.¹²

Back to Basics – Oil & “Terrorism”

And reflected a US intention to establish military bases in North and West Africa.

A renewed US interest in Africa is intended to address two key strategic issues that have been of prime importance for the current US administration in recent years: oil and “terrorism.” The US administration realizes that West Africa, just like East Africa, could become a potential launching pad for more anti-US attacks from al-Qaeda and its Islamist sympathizers. In this regard, Muslim-dominated areas in West Africa could pose a potential threat for US planners. It is worthy to note that half the Nigerian population is Muslim, antagonistic to government corruption and enraged by the US invasion of Iraq. Islamists in Nigeria are gaining new ground as provincial governments have already instituted what the US has dubbed “Taliban-style Sharia law.”¹³

Many have also pointed out that the US seeks to expand its military presence in Africa as the administration is already discussing the creation of military bases in North and West Africa to complement the Marine facility at Djibouti and expand US capacity for rapid reaction to crises. Just as the British had sent troops to their former colony in Sierra Leone, and France did the same in Ivory Coast, the US is now contemplating a similar role in Liberia.

As the US seeks to prevent al-Qaeda from gaining a foothold in West Africa, it also seeks to protect its oil interests there as West Africa is projected to become an important supplier of US energy needs. Reports indicate that the African share of the US oil market is expected to almost double over the next two decades as US companies move to exploit high-quality offshore deposits in the Guinea basin.¹⁴ As the Middle East continues to be a hotbed of instability and conflict, the US is looking for a more stable Africa that would be in a position to provide it with more reliable oil resources and decrease its dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

Conclusions

Unless Africa poses a serious threat to US interests in the coming months, it will be relegated to the global background.

The seemingly well-intentioned visit that Bush paid to Africa masks a great deal of political symbolism and hardcore realist concerns. In many ways, it could be regarded as a political counterattack undertaken by President Bush against his domestic and international critics – at a time of declining approval rates, increasing US casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a major international “image” problem.

Despite rhetoric, it seems unlikely that Bush would fulfill the many promises he made to African leaders. Critics argue that Bush is not pushing Congress hard enough to fund the full $15 billion AIDS initiative and that his $1 billion for food aid is not sufficient. Bush was also faulted for doing relatively little to solve the ongoing war in the Congo – the world’s largest failed state – or address human rights abuses elsewhere in Africa.¹⁵

Some have pointed out that Bush’s pledges concerning increased access to the American textile market will run into opposition from lawmakers representing southern textile-producing states, which have already seen many of their jobs migrate to lower-cost nations.¹⁶ Cutting agricultural subsidies would also be opposed by powerful farm-state lawmakers in Congress. As Bush starts his re-election campaign, it is highly unlikely that he would be in a position to oppose those constituencies just to fulfill the humanitarian pledges he made to Africa. Given that President Bush’s main priority has always been national security, one can only predict that unless Africa poses a serious security problem to US interests in the coming months, it will again be relegated to the global background.

Kareem M. Kamel is an Egyptian freelance writer based in Cairo, Egypt. He has an MA in International Relations and is specialized in security studies, decision-making, nuclear politics, Middle East politics and the politics of Islam. He is currently assistant to the Political Science Department at the American University in Cairo.

---

1- Richard W. Stevenson, “Bush Says He’ll Help Botswana Fight Aids,” New York Times July 11^th, 2003

2- Terry Leonard, “Africa Sees Bush Trip as Image Strategy,” Newsday July 7^th, 2003

3- Ibid.

4- Richard W. Stevenson, “News Analysis: An Africa Agenda Put to the Test,” New York Times July 14^th, 2003. Also see, Amadou Toumani Toure and Blaise Compaore, “Africa Needs a Level Playing Field for Trade,” International Herald Tribune July 12^th, 2003

5- Gary Younge, “Foreign Trip, Domestic Gamble,” The Guardian July 12^th, 2003

6- Tony Karon and James Carney, “Can We Still Be Friends?” Time July 7^th, 2003 : 18

7- Kenneth T. Walsh, “Into a Land of Endless Torment,” U.S. News & World Report July 14^th, 2003: 24

8- Robert Kagan, “Looking for Legitimacy in All the Wrong Places,” Foreign Policy (August/September 2003)

9- “Lies, lies, and More Lies,” Democracy Now July 15^th, 2003

10- John F. Dickerson, et al. “The African Bush,” Time.com July 14^th, 2003

11- Jessica Tuchman Mathews, “Now for the Hard Part,” Foreign Policy August/September 2003

12- Terry Leonard, “Africa Sees Bush Trip As Image Strategy,” Newsday July 7^th, 2003

13- Tony Karon, “Why Africa Has Become a Bush Priority,” Time.com July 7^th, 2003

14- Ibid.

15- Kenneth T. Walsh, “Into a Land of Endless Torment,” U.S. News & World Report July 14^th, 2003: 24

16- Richard W. Stevenson, “News Analysis: An Africa Agenda Put to the Test,” New York Times July 14^th, 2003

The articles posted on this page reflect solely the opinions of the authors. Views Archive Advanced Search Views & Analyses

 

Related Links

• Bush in South Africa? My, What Fools We’ve Become!

• Human Development Remains an African Dream