.
With President Obama's exit from the White House approaching, analysts are rushing in to examine and assess his terms in office. Seven long years after the hope and change that swept the young Illinois senator to power, how do his promises line up with the policy outcomes the administration has delivered in Africa? The world expected Obama to get involved in Africa like no U.S. President ever had before.
In his recent tour of Africa, Obama has continued to excel in making the right kind of noise, or at least the kind of noise that may have been considered 'right' when he began his presidential career nearly eight years ago. Unfortunately, pumping out the same old rhetoric has done little to convince anyone that any progress has been made on any of the more salient of Africa's issues.
Powerful statements such as those made on democratization in Africa and support for strong institutions and not for “strong men” may have hit the spot at an earlier point in his career but for many will seem little more than blind-eye-turning hypocrisy. While denouncing the autocrats in Zimbabwe and Burundi, Obama failed at a speech before the African Union to bring to task a number of other nations who are guilty of similar offenses, such as Algeria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Congo, Djibouti, Rwanda, Uganda. And the fact that many of these omitted nations are also long-term security partners of the U.S. is sure to raise further eyebrows.
An especially egregious case is that of Djibouti, a nation that seems to have largely skipped under the media's radar despite committing an ever increasing number of human rights offenses—from denial of fair trials and use of excessive force right through the broader spectrum of institutionalized atrocities such as genital mutilation and human trafficking. Its president, Ismail Omar Guelleh, is now on track to get a fourth consecutive presidential term and solidify his ‘big man’ status. In an unusual turn of events, he was recently splattered across the media after a last minute backing down from appearing in front of the British High Court to defend himself against charges of fabricating evidence that led to the conviction of a political opponent on terrorism charges. However, such transgressions are easily balanced out by Djibouti’s strategic importance—the U.S. maintains its only official military installation in the country. Not even Djibouti’s closer cooperation with China (who is slated to open a military base of its own a stone’s throw away from Washington’s) managed to elicit a reaction from the American establishment.
And right there is another kick in the teeth for the U.S.'s President: the fact that he has not just been outperformed, but wholly undermined, by Beijing and its efforts to bring Africa into their own particular fold. China's tendency to encourage autocracies, that the African continent as a whole seems so much more inclined to adopt than its American counterpart, can be seen as an ever-increasing source of embarrassment for the Obama administration. Much of this is undoubtedly, and unfairly in some respects, down to a route of persuasion that is neither available nor agreeable to the U.S., i.e. that of emphasizing discipline over democracy—an approach that seems to have struck a chord with many African nations. In this region especially, Washington’s policy has often been characterized by vagueness and a lack of overall strategy whereas the Chinese have kept their approach simple, single-minded, and devastatingly effective. “Put money in their pockets” is China's philosophy, and in building a number of mega-projects on the continent they have done just that. Obama's Africa policy, on the other hand, seems to consist of a three-prong approach that involves wagging a finger at some nations, patting others on the head, and altogether ignoring those that remain. And in the war between cold hard cash and empty rhetoric, there is only one winner.
Maybe the world did expect a little too much of Obama, precisely because of his African ancestry. Doing his little dance and speaking a few words of Swahili might endear him to the naïve and easily pleased few, but his anachronistic and largely outdated obsession with corruption in Africa, for example, will have done little to mark him out as a man to do serious business with.
And yet, it would be churlish to disparage his efforts in their entirety. Obama responded well, for example, to the Ebola crisis and showed true leadership in providing speedy logistical support, financial aid and manpower to those places most in need. His administration has also done a fine job of continuing the U.S.'s commitment to the AIDS program that was initiated by George W. Bush back in 2003. Significantly, however, the only initiative that has had its origins lie solely within the confines of Obama's own strategic think tank, and not a continuation of another administration's policy or a response to an emergency situation, is the 'Power Africa' initiative. Ostensibly a sensible on-the-ground project to deal with power shortage in the poorer parts of Africa and shed light upon the forgotten corners of the continent in all sense of the phrase, the initiative has, two years on from its inception, consisted of little more than the odd perfunctory discussion and an occasional vague memo.
The word 'vague', a frequently occurring one in this context, appears to define the Obama administration's whole approach to maintaining an Africa policy. For this reason, it is difficult to assess how successful that policy has been. He has failed, for instance, to implement any kind of a cohesive policy regarding Africa's future, as we have repeatedly seen above. He has failed to tackle the issue of prohibition on homosexuality, even though given the perfect forum to do so in Kenya recently. He has, in fact, repeatedly skirted a number of offenses on human rights in favor of currying up to regimes to protect military and economic interests in the offending states. Obama himself has probably realized, at the end of his time in office, that the question of Africa's table and what the U.S. could bring to it was a far more complicated one than he could ever have realized. His heart may well have been in the right place, and few would argue that his words have been anything other than entirely heartfelt when it comes to this very personal subject, but the necessary actions to back them up, the backbone to take on the continent's most salient and pressing issues, have been noticeably and unfailingly absent throughout.
Photo: U.S. President Barack Obama delivers remarks at the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit Session Three on “Governing the Next Generation," at the U.S. Department of State in Washington, D.C., on August 6, 2014. [State Department photo/ Public Domain]its'
The views presented in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of any other organization.
a global affairs media network
Obama’s Fading Footprint in Africa
November 2, 2015
With President Obama's exit from the White House approaching, analysts are rushing in to examine and assess his terms in office. Seven long years after the hope and change that swept the young Illinois senator to power, how do his promises line up with the policy outcomes the administration has delivered in Africa? The world expected Obama to get involved in Africa like no U.S. President ever had before.
In his recent tour of Africa, Obama has continued to excel in making the right kind of noise, or at least the kind of noise that may have been considered 'right' when he began his presidential career nearly eight years ago. Unfortunately, pumping out the same old rhetoric has done little to convince anyone that any progress has been made on any of the more salient of Africa's issues.
Powerful statements such as those made on democratization in Africa and support for strong institutions and not for “strong men” may have hit the spot at an earlier point in his career but for many will seem little more than blind-eye-turning hypocrisy. While denouncing the autocrats in Zimbabwe and Burundi, Obama failed at a speech before the African Union to bring to task a number of other nations who are guilty of similar offenses, such as Algeria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Congo, Djibouti, Rwanda, Uganda. And the fact that many of these omitted nations are also long-term security partners of the U.S. is sure to raise further eyebrows.
An especially egregious case is that of Djibouti, a nation that seems to have largely skipped under the media's radar despite committing an ever increasing number of human rights offenses—from denial of fair trials and use of excessive force right through the broader spectrum of institutionalized atrocities such as genital mutilation and human trafficking. Its president, Ismail Omar Guelleh, is now on track to get a fourth consecutive presidential term and solidify his ‘big man’ status. In an unusual turn of events, he was recently splattered across the media after a last minute backing down from appearing in front of the British High Court to defend himself against charges of fabricating evidence that led to the conviction of a political opponent on terrorism charges. However, such transgressions are easily balanced out by Djibouti’s strategic importance—the U.S. maintains its only official military installation in the country. Not even Djibouti’s closer cooperation with China (who is slated to open a military base of its own a stone’s throw away from Washington’s) managed to elicit a reaction from the American establishment.
And right there is another kick in the teeth for the U.S.'s President: the fact that he has not just been outperformed, but wholly undermined, by Beijing and its efforts to bring Africa into their own particular fold. China's tendency to encourage autocracies, that the African continent as a whole seems so much more inclined to adopt than its American counterpart, can be seen as an ever-increasing source of embarrassment for the Obama administration. Much of this is undoubtedly, and unfairly in some respects, down to a route of persuasion that is neither available nor agreeable to the U.S., i.e. that of emphasizing discipline over democracy—an approach that seems to have struck a chord with many African nations. In this region especially, Washington’s policy has often been characterized by vagueness and a lack of overall strategy whereas the Chinese have kept their approach simple, single-minded, and devastatingly effective. “Put money in their pockets” is China's philosophy, and in building a number of mega-projects on the continent they have done just that. Obama's Africa policy, on the other hand, seems to consist of a three-prong approach that involves wagging a finger at some nations, patting others on the head, and altogether ignoring those that remain. And in the war between cold hard cash and empty rhetoric, there is only one winner.
Maybe the world did expect a little too much of Obama, precisely because of his African ancestry. Doing his little dance and speaking a few words of Swahili might endear him to the naïve and easily pleased few, but his anachronistic and largely outdated obsession with corruption in Africa, for example, will have done little to mark him out as a man to do serious business with.
And yet, it would be churlish to disparage his efforts in their entirety. Obama responded well, for example, to the Ebola crisis and showed true leadership in providing speedy logistical support, financial aid and manpower to those places most in need. His administration has also done a fine job of continuing the U.S.'s commitment to the AIDS program that was initiated by George W. Bush back in 2003. Significantly, however, the only initiative that has had its origins lie solely within the confines of Obama's own strategic think tank, and not a continuation of another administration's policy or a response to an emergency situation, is the 'Power Africa' initiative. Ostensibly a sensible on-the-ground project to deal with power shortage in the poorer parts of Africa and shed light upon the forgotten corners of the continent in all sense of the phrase, the initiative has, two years on from its inception, consisted of little more than the odd perfunctory discussion and an occasional vague memo.
The word 'vague', a frequently occurring one in this context, appears to define the Obama administration's whole approach to maintaining an Africa policy. For this reason, it is difficult to assess how successful that policy has been. He has failed, for instance, to implement any kind of a cohesive policy regarding Africa's future, as we have repeatedly seen above. He has failed to tackle the issue of prohibition on homosexuality, even though given the perfect forum to do so in Kenya recently. He has, in fact, repeatedly skirted a number of offenses on human rights in favor of currying up to regimes to protect military and economic interests in the offending states. Obama himself has probably realized, at the end of his time in office, that the question of Africa's table and what the U.S. could bring to it was a far more complicated one than he could ever have realized. His heart may well have been in the right place, and few would argue that his words have been anything other than entirely heartfelt when it comes to this very personal subject, but the necessary actions to back them up, the backbone to take on the continent's most salient and pressing issues, have been noticeably and unfailingly absent throughout.
Photo: U.S. President Barack Obama delivers remarks at the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit Session Three on “Governing the Next Generation," at the U.S. Department of State in Washington, D.C., on August 6, 2014. [State Department photo/ Public Domain]its'
The views presented in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of any other organization.
