According to the latest polling data from Gallup, released this week through the Brookings Institution, President Barack Obama enjoys an unprecedented level of support in sub-Saharan Africa. In nearly every country where the polling took place, Obama was viewed positively. The sole exception was Djibouti (the only African country where U.S troops are based, lending credence to the notion that Americans are easily cast, fairly or not, as occupiers). Obama and his team are flying high"”a feeling of good tidings that, during her trip to the continent this week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is about to waste.
President George W. Bush's administration, for all its flaws, truly brought to change to Africa through its PEPFAR program, which injected billions of dollars of money into nearly every aspect of the fight against HIV/AIDS, from prevention to critical antiretroviral (ARV) treatment programs. Outside of the war on terrorism, Bush made it the centerpiece of his foreign policy, and it animated a great deal of time and attention from the executive branch. Projects like PEPFAR take years to show results and a steady influx of billions to maintain. But they pay off. Last month, South Africa began clinical trials in the first-ever AIDS vaccine on the continent. That never would have been possible without PEPFAR. Admittedly, it's early, but for now it's clear that Bush was better than Obama for Africa.
What has Obama offered? So far, not much. It's true that never before have a president and secretary of state have visited the continent so early in the first term. And Obama's Africa team has only been online for two months. But Obama used the occasion of his speech in Accra, Ghana, last month to convey that what Africa needs most is to take care of its own house"”stomping out corruption, attracting foreign investment, and respecting democracy and human rights. Clinton's own seven-nation tour is meant to drive home the message that America will support and nurture those African countries that, in a stable and self-sustaining fashion, are doing their part to entrench democracy from the inside out.
Nothing wrong with that. But those are messages that African leaders have heard again and again. (Bill Clinton, for instance, called for "renewed" U.S. engagement in Africa, but his administration was on watch for the Rwandan genocide, the diamond wars in West Africa, and the total collapse of Somalia.) Conspicuously missing, at least so far, are the kinds of bold initiatives that defined Obama's campaign, or the decisive steps he has taken elsewhere in the world, such as disarmament with Russia and possible talks with Iran. Without them, the Bush administration, famous for its inwardness and stinginess with development aid will have proved much more ambitious than Obama's.
Even Obama's promise to continue PEPFAR is not particularly daring. Some scientists and HIV researchers say more"”and more of something different"”is what's really required. "New leaders want new issues, and that's a tragedy for parts of Africa," says Alan Whiteside, director of the HIV research division at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, in Durban. "If Obama wants to do something innovative, he needs to have some strategic thinking around HIV/AIDS, and at the moment he's not headed in that direction." (Great as PEPFAR is, it's not enough: for every two South Africans receiving treatment, five more are infected; 18 percent of Swaziland is HIV positive. In America, that would mean 57 million cases of HIV. The epidemic is growing, not shrinking, so the defense against it has to keep pace.)
But HIV isn't the only issue where Obama could make a mark in Africa. Whiteside argues that Africa is ground zero for some of the world's most critical "long wave" problems. He says the world's top three long-wave events"”global trends that will affect humanity as a whole"”are going to be most acutely felt in Africa: global climate change, population growth and movement, and new and emerging diseases. These are areas that cry for either multilateral or hugely expensive approaches, and they are where Obama could make his mark.
When I was young, we lived the high life. Then it all went up in smoke.
The real story behind the former president's mission to North Korea
Is Nigeria the next front in the war on terror?
New season will tackle the chaos of 1963
I believe that EVERY nation with a conscience should be assisting in the HIV/AIDS fight in Africa, including the US. That being said, the last place America or her representatives should be now or in the forseeable future is Somalia. It is being supported very well by the ransom-payers, thank you very much. When ship owners decide they've had enough, and will not go, will not pay, THEN reasonable people and countries can consider ways to confront the terrorists. But it should never again be America's fight.
James chapter 1 verse 19 says "Understand this, my dear brothers and sisters! Let every person be quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger." Scott Johnson, I think you spoke too early and quickly. President Obama has served a little over 6 months as compared to former President George Bush who served eight years. Your view point expresses more of partisan.
Taking such an early decision on who is better for Africa is from my own point of view an irresponsible thoughts! Obama doing more for Africa will only inflame another political battle among his supporters and detractors. It is very simple to proclaim him injecting money into Africa while U.S economy is suffering.President Obama is only few months in the office; therefore has many other important agenda on his table. However, being an African myself, President Obama's approach - during his visit in Ghana - that Africa needs to handle its own situation by eliminating corruption activities among the politicians; that Africa must begin to implement ideas in order to encourage or rather recruit foreign investors and professionals; and that Africa must begin to appreciate the essentiality of democracy so that gender equality and human rights will be part of quotidian performances is absolutely correct. Throughout my life, I have till yet experienced Africa only as a continent based on alms and charity. What else do Africa need to hear? Helping Africa with money is just as pouring water into basket- due to the fact that numerous African politicians are out there hanging around financial nozzles ready to suck whatever comes out of it. It is really the time to stop all these humanitarian help; it is actually a disaster for the continent! What Africa need is not money for corrupted regimes; Africa need initiatives and approaches that suits the current century. Approach that will guarantee a sustainable socioeconomic development.
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
Read Full Article »