Reflections on the .U.S-Africa Leaders Summit and what it could mean for human rights
During the first week of August, leaders from 50 African states met in Washington for the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit. Realizing the potential profitability of investment and multilateral trade relationships with Africa, countries outside of the continent, including and especially China, are increasingly competing for a piece of the pie.
Late to the table, and eager to compete for a place in Africa’s potentially prosperous future, the United States hosted the first U.S.-Africa Summit to help jump-start its engagement with the continent. However, the Summit was criticized for largely failing to address some of Africa’s biggest challenges, including and especially human rights and corruption. Is the U.S. taking the right approach in Africa?
To gain insight into this question, it is important to understand how China—America’s biggest competition in Africa—approaches its engagement with the continent. China is currently investing billions into investment projects and is also the Africa’s biggest trading partner. In 2012, total trade with Africa was estimated at around $200 billion, while the United States, by comparison, sat at about $108 billion. China favors an approach that maximizes its access to Africa’s wealth of resources and encourages the development of African markets predisposed to purchasing Chinese goods. However, China’s policies are especially unique compared to most Western approaches to foreign aid and investment in that they do not seek to intervene in the political affairs of host countries. This noninterventionist stance allows China to be essentially blind to corruption and human rights violations within African countries.
The United States has vowed to take a more positive approach to its engagement in Africa, hoping to create a long-term economic relationship that can benefit Americans and Africans alike. However, the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit, particularly within the context of America’s rush to catch up to and compete with China, begs the question of whether the U.S. is doing enough to ensure that American investment will really motivate change on the continent. Many of the heads of state in attendance at the summit play a major role in perpetuating Africa’s struggle with poor governance and human rights issues. Although the inclusion of those leaders in the summit raised concerns among human rights groups, the U.S. could have potentially used the summit as an opportunity to address some of these problems. However, the discourse of the summit largely glazed over most of these pressing issues, focusing the agenda almost exclusively on security and trade issues.
Of course, confronting African leaders about corruption and human rights violations while simultaneously encouraging them to do business with you is easier said than done. The fact that China is willing to ignore these problems is likely a big part of why many African leaders have been so receptive to Chinese investments, and the U.S. recognizes the need for its investments and engagement to be able to compete. That said, finding a way to walk that line will be essential, as security and trade issues do not exist in a vacuum. It will be impossible to develop a sustainable economic ecosystem, both within Africa and among its external business partners, if corruption and instability continue to plague the continent.
The outlook for America’s engagement in Africa still holds a lot of potential, but there are still a number of challenges that must be overcome. At the very least, the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit is likely a step in the right direction for U.S.-Africa relations, and hopefully the discourse can become more substantive and better focused in future summits. However, the United States will need to be wary of the direction its engagement takes in the near future. Even if it helps secure greater investment opportunities in Africa, a noninterventionist approach to human rights and corruption on the continent could merely serve as a recipe for greater problems in the long run.
a global affairs media network
Is the U.S. Taking the Right Approach in Africa?
August 27, 2014
Reflections on the .U.S-Africa Leaders Summit and what it could mean for human rights
During the first week of August, leaders from 50 African states met in Washington for the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit. Realizing the potential profitability of investment and multilateral trade relationships with Africa, countries outside of the continent, including and especially China, are increasingly competing for a piece of the pie.
Late to the table, and eager to compete for a place in Africa’s potentially prosperous future, the United States hosted the first U.S.-Africa Summit to help jump-start its engagement with the continent. However, the Summit was criticized for largely failing to address some of Africa’s biggest challenges, including and especially human rights and corruption. Is the U.S. taking the right approach in Africa?
To gain insight into this question, it is important to understand how China—America’s biggest competition in Africa—approaches its engagement with the continent. China is currently investing billions into investment projects and is also the Africa’s biggest trading partner. In 2012, total trade with Africa was estimated at around $200 billion, while the United States, by comparison, sat at about $108 billion. China favors an approach that maximizes its access to Africa’s wealth of resources and encourages the development of African markets predisposed to purchasing Chinese goods. However, China’s policies are especially unique compared to most Western approaches to foreign aid and investment in that they do not seek to intervene in the political affairs of host countries. This noninterventionist stance allows China to be essentially blind to corruption and human rights violations within African countries.
The United States has vowed to take a more positive approach to its engagement in Africa, hoping to create a long-term economic relationship that can benefit Americans and Africans alike. However, the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit, particularly within the context of America’s rush to catch up to and compete with China, begs the question of whether the U.S. is doing enough to ensure that American investment will really motivate change on the continent. Many of the heads of state in attendance at the summit play a major role in perpetuating Africa’s struggle with poor governance and human rights issues. Although the inclusion of those leaders in the summit raised concerns among human rights groups, the U.S. could have potentially used the summit as an opportunity to address some of these problems. However, the discourse of the summit largely glazed over most of these pressing issues, focusing the agenda almost exclusively on security and trade issues.
Of course, confronting African leaders about corruption and human rights violations while simultaneously encouraging them to do business with you is easier said than done. The fact that China is willing to ignore these problems is likely a big part of why many African leaders have been so receptive to Chinese investments, and the U.S. recognizes the need for its investments and engagement to be able to compete. That said, finding a way to walk that line will be essential, as security and trade issues do not exist in a vacuum. It will be impossible to develop a sustainable economic ecosystem, both within Africa and among its external business partners, if corruption and instability continue to plague the continent.
The outlook for America’s engagement in Africa still holds a lot of potential, but there are still a number of challenges that must be overcome. At the very least, the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit is likely a step in the right direction for U.S.-Africa relations, and hopefully the discourse can become more substantive and better focused in future summits. However, the United States will need to be wary of the direction its engagement takes in the near future. Even if it helps secure greater investment opportunities in Africa, a noninterventionist approach to human rights and corruption on the continent could merely serve as a recipe for greater problems in the long run.
