Like the world’s oldest profession, the Republican administration of United States President George W Bush has interests, rather than principles. It would be a mistake to take Bush’s “compassionate agenda” seriously. His whistle-stop tour of five African countries, including South Africa, must be seen for what it is — hard-eyed self- service posing as a mercy mission. African leaders should approach it in the same self-interested spirit.
Bush’s primary concerns, as they were before the invasion of Iraq, are domestic security, the advancement of corporate America and the securing of strategic assets, mainly oil.
Anti-Americanism is not yet the force in Africa that it is in Central and South America, the CIA’s traditional playground, but the unilateral belligerence of the US is a source of growing alarm for Africa’s political classes.
Bush would no doubt like to defuse some of this suspicion and hostility. He is looking for closer African cooperation and more explicit support for his “war on terrorism”. There appears to be a reorientation of US military policy, with the hawks who stand behind this war-whore viewing certain African states as potential bases for US “reaction forces”. As the Mail & Guardian reported two weeks ago, analysts believe the US has identified African oil as a national security issue.
There is an emerging scramble for the resource, as high-quality new oilfields open throughout the Gulf of Guinea and Washington begins the search for alternative sources to the Middle East. The US is said to be considering redeploying troops to protect strategic African oil reserves, particularly in Nigeria, which Bush is scheduled to visit. It is preparing to reopen its embassy in Equatorial Guinea — where oil income has raised the domestic product by 60% in two years — despite that country’s atrocious human rights record. As always, US multinationals follow the flag.
Against this backdrop, the African countries seen as “pivot states” by US government strategists — primarily Nigeria and South Africa — may have more leverage than usual. They should use it to resist unreasonable pressure for measures that run counter to their own national interests or violate human rights norms, such as South Africa’s proposed anti- terrorism law. Examples of US “humanitarianism” will be paraded before them, including the Africa Growth and Opportunities Act (Agoa), Bush’s (as yet unrealised) pledge of Aids funding and the Millennium Challenge Account, designed to increase development aid to countries that meet US-imposed standards of political and economic governance.
They should point to the gaping holes in such measures and demand better. In particular, they should point out that only six African countries have benefited from Agoa and urge its extension to a much wider range of exports. They should underscore the double standards in demanding economic liberalisation and free trade when government subsidies effectively exclude African producers from American markets.
Above all, they should raise their voices against glaring US hypocrisy in forcing norms on other countries — increasingly by military means — while regarding itself as above international regulation. Its imperious refusal to recognise any but its own authority was underscored this week when it linked military aid to 19 African states, including South Africa, to support for its boycott of the International Criminal Court.
The cause of multilateralism was dealt a grievous blow by the Iraqi war, waged in the teeth of overwhelming international condemnation. Africa can exert some beneficial influence in bringing the world’s most destructive and irresponsible rogue state back into line.
Defenders of artistic freedom
It was ironic that the recent Sex and Secrecy Conference should have provoked angry demands for a photographic exhibition on a vaguely sexual theme to be kept secret. Now the M&G has hit flak for having run the photographs — of naked gay black men — on its front page.
We make no apology. The row at the conference was a prominent news event that readers could not fully understand and evaluate without seeing the pictures. Besides, none but the most prudish Mother Grundy could describe the pictures as pornographic. They were standalone nudes discreetly shot by a photographer with obvious artistic intent. Their purpose was to counterpoint the theme of the conference, not to titillate.
More puzzling were the racial sensitivities of one conference delegate, who argued that the photographs demeaned black people. It is not the first time culture and ethnicity have been raised as barriers to artistic freedom in South Africa. It was a knee-jerk response of the apartheid censors, usually in defence of conservative Afrikaans or white South African sensibilities. Some years ago, art photographs of young black men at an Eastern Cape initiation school sparked a furore. Muslims wanted to deny Salman Rushdie a platform in South Africa. Traditionalists have demanded the withdrawal of Chris Mann’s Thuthula, currently on stage at the Grahamstown Arts Festival, on grounds that it distorts Xhosa history.
We will not heed such complaints, and nor should the authorities. One of the key victories in the struggle against apartheid was that of free artistic expression over censorship. Free-minded South Africans should defend this victory against the “enemies of the open society”, of whatever stripe.