Greg Mills
‘We have almost 35-million and one citizens of African descent. Last year
the total US-African trade approached $30-billion, and America is Africa’s largest single market. The United States is the leading foreign investor in Africa. More than 30000 Africans are studying in the US today. Our pasts, our
presents and our futures are closely intertwined, and as America’s 65th secretary of state and her only African-American secretary of state so far, I
will enthusiastically engage with Africa on behalf of the American people.”
So said Secretary of State Colin Powell in his address to a joint South Africa
Institute of International Affairs and Wits University gathering last week. The
former four-star general and chairperson of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff was in
South Africa for two days as the second stop, after Mali, of a four-leg Africa
tour, which also took him to Kenya and Uganda.
But what can Africans interpret from the trip? Does this symbolise a new engagement with the continent’s challenges and its leadership?
Powell’s speech, his first (and thus far only) major policy statement on Africa,
highlighted three issues central to US concerns: Aids, democracy, and the linkage between trade, economic growth and stability.
With regard to the former he noted jarringly, given President Thabo Mbeki’s controversial stance on the issue: “Let us be clear, our enemy is the HIV virus
that causes Aids.” The disease is “not just a health crisis” but “an economic
crisis, a crisis for democracy, a threat to stability, a threat to the very future of Africa”. Recently the US announced a $200-million contribution to a
new global trust fund to fight the epidemic.
Second, taking his lead from United States President George W Bush’s stated commitment to free trade, in support of the US Africa Growth and Opportunity Act
permitting duty free access for virtually all exports from “reforming” African
states, the secretary said: “Free trade is a powerful instrument of freedom. A
vibrant and dynamic market is the most powerful force for economic growth and
sustainable development. Money [that produces wealth],” he stressed, “loves security, transparency, legality and stability.”
But it was his comments on democracy and good governance that were most strongly
put. Arguing that “the most successful countries are those where militaries understand their subordinate role under civilians in a democratic society” and
“where governments do not oppose peaceful opposition with force but instead engage them with ideas”, he said the “true test of democracy is not the first
election or the second or the third; democracy takes root when leaders step down
peacefully, when they are voted out of office or when their terms expire.”
In a clear signal to Southern African Development Community leadership, he said
the US applauded President Frederick Chiluba’s recent decision to step down at
the end of his term. This was reiterated during his stopover in Kenya with regard to President Daniel Arap Moi’s future political intentions.
And, inevitably, Zimbabwe surfaced in this regard. Noting that “there are many
who seem reluctant to submit to the rule of law and the will of the people”,
Powell pointed out that “after more than 20 years in office, Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe seems determined to remain in power”.
Following his meeting with Minister of Foreign Affairs Dr Nkosazana Dlamini- Zuma, Powell emphasised this issue, saying: “Action has to be taken both on the
economic front and on the political front to stabilise the situation and to persuade Mugabe to move in a more democratic fashion toward a resolution of the
problems within Zimbabwe.”
Yet Zuma’s response at their joint press conference appears to suggest that Powell’s hosts don’t see the problem in quite the same way. She countered by
saying that while “all of us can help, at the end of the day it is the Zimbabweans that have to really take the decisive steps in getting themselves
out of a critical situation”.
What happens in (and what Pretoria does over) Zimbabwe has been linked by US
analysts to the type of reception accorded both to the Millennium Africa Recovery Plan proposals and Mbeki’s upcoming trip to the US on June 26.
Powell noted in his speech that the US is “encouraged” by the Millennium Africa
Recovery Plan, which “emphasises fundamental issues of governance, economic management and infrastructure”.
With an increased US interest in the Congo peace process and given Washington’s
clout in neighbouring Angola (from where it gets 8% of its oil imports), the
Southern African region is looming larger on the US policy radar. And there is
clearly a policy emerging from Washington with more focus, less Clintonesque
schmooze and, most controversially, greater conditionality on African states. As Bush has argued: “We will work for free markets, free trade and freedom from
oppression. Nations making progress towards freedom will find that America is
their friend.” Or as Powell put it: “America will be a friend of all Africans
who seek peace.”
If more focus, there is now no greater likelihood, however, of US troops ending
Africa’s wars, or a harder line towards governments in areas such as Angola where strategic US oil interests will continue to shape the nature of engagement. Instead, easier targets came into Powell’s sights, making note of
the US intentions to “redouble” its efforts to “curb trade that fuels violence,
such as trafficking in conflict diamonds and weapons”.
Symbolically, this was just the secretary’s third foray out of the US since assuming office. This may help to poo-poo the supposed conventional wisdom that
Republicans are less well inclined towards Africa than their Democrat rivals.
But as one US official put it, the visit should perhaps be seen less in symbolic
terms than as an opportunity for more pragmatic “spadework” in “finding the key
players and developing relationships”. And it’s clear that, for all the concerns
about Zimbabwe and the pointed comments on Aids, the US regards South Africa and
Mbeki as such a key player, and the visit offered a meaningful chance to engage
not yet extended to many others.
More importantly, perhaps, the question should be inverted: what value is there
for South Africa in a close relationship with the US? There is clearly danger in being seen as an American lackey or a proxy in Africa; though as Washington’s
positive role in the Congo peace process (not to say its superpower status) attests, there is much also to be gained in material terms and leverage from
partnership. The key question is thus: how can Pretoria strike a balance, keeping Africa in the lead but the Western powers on-side and engaged?
Dr Greg Mills is the National Director of the SA Institute of International Affairs and co-author of a recent book, The Reality behind the Rhetoric: The
United States, South Africa and Africa