In his first visit to Africa since entering the White House, aside from a 22-hour stopover in Ghana in 2009, President Barack Obama entered into the complex world of sub-Saharan politics. The White House explained the trip saying, “President Obama and the First Lady traveled to Senegal, South Africa, and Tanzania to meet with leaders from government, business, and civil society, and to reinforce U.S. commitment to expanding economic growth, investment, and trade; strengthening democratic institutions; and investing in the next generation of African leaders.” On the trip, President Obama has visited Goree Island in Senegal, mythologized to be the last stop on the African continent for many slaves departing for the New World; and he has paid his respects to the ailing Neslon Mandela.
Reactions to the President’s trip were varied among Africans. Most reacted with indifference, expecting little or nothing to come from the visit. And why should they? First-world countries rarely invest full heartedly in Africa, why should this time be any different?
Others were more optimistic, hoping that maybe this time an American investment would help their countries to become more globally recognized. After all, has America’s influence not helped other countries? America’s focus on sub-Sahara could provoke the much needed investment and trade competition it needs.
There were some, however, who were not happy to see the President of the United States in their country. On Friday, June 28th hundreds of protestors marched outside the U.S. Embassy in South Africa in opposition to Obama’s visit. "Their administration's government is not welcome, and is being received with antagonism," campaign coordinator Mbuyiseni Ndlozi said. "Therefore they'll have to rethink the standards by which they hold their government."
Abdurahaman Khan, another protestor, explained his fears saying, “He's coming here to plunder Africa and South Africa. He's coming for the wealth and resources, for the gold and the diamond mines, while the majority of Africans and South Africans are suffering."
Overall, however, the President received a warm welcome in Africa, and the majority of the Africans appeared to be excited for his visit. In the United States however, is a different story. While there are some who praise Obama’s visit as being excellent foreign policy move and the beginning of smart building blocks for the future, there are still other Americans--particularly conservative Congressmen--who disagree with the President’s trip, and its resulting cost.
Obama’s visit to Africa comes with a hefty price tag ranging upwards $100 million, largely due to the large security force that must travel with the first family. Security for the trip reportedly involved military cargo planes airlifting 56 support vehicles, including 14 limousines, and three trucks to carry bulletproof glass to cover the windows where the president and his family stayed.
With the current national debt nearing $17 trillion, was the trip worth the cost? The sequester budget cuts are taking a toll on many government agencies, while the military is expecting drastic budget cuts to its equipment and personnel. Many Americans believe that $100 million could be better spent elsewhere, with a national debt nearing $17 trillion. Others argue that the effects of budget cuts and the sequester are undercutting such an argument, as reports from the U.S. Treasury Department reported yesterday show that for the month of June the federal budget ran a surplus of $117 billion.
Although opinions of the President’s excursion greatly vary, one thing is certain: this was not a trip that was going to please everybody. In some areas, Obama’s visit to Africa has to be considered a success. International relations need to be fostered and nurtured, but is the cost of promoting such relations still palatable to American citizens?
Photo: Official White House photo by Pete Souza.
a global affairs media network
Photo Friday: Obama's Visit to Africa Strengthens Relations, Raises Concerns
July 12, 2013
In his first visit to Africa since entering the White House, aside from a 22-hour stopover in Ghana in 2009, President Barack Obama entered into the complex world of sub-Saharan politics. The White House explained the trip saying, “President Obama and the First Lady traveled to Senegal, South Africa, and Tanzania to meet with leaders from government, business, and civil society, and to reinforce U.S. commitment to expanding economic growth, investment, and trade; strengthening democratic institutions; and investing in the next generation of African leaders.” On the trip, President Obama has visited Goree Island in Senegal, mythologized to be the last stop on the African continent for many slaves departing for the New World; and he has paid his respects to the ailing Neslon Mandela.
Reactions to the President’s trip were varied among Africans. Most reacted with indifference, expecting little or nothing to come from the visit. And why should they? First-world countries rarely invest full heartedly in Africa, why should this time be any different?
Others were more optimistic, hoping that maybe this time an American investment would help their countries to become more globally recognized. After all, has America’s influence not helped other countries? America’s focus on sub-Sahara could provoke the much needed investment and trade competition it needs.
There were some, however, who were not happy to see the President of the United States in their country. On Friday, June 28th hundreds of protestors marched outside the U.S. Embassy in South Africa in opposition to Obama’s visit. "Their administration's government is not welcome, and is being received with antagonism," campaign coordinator Mbuyiseni Ndlozi said. "Therefore they'll have to rethink the standards by which they hold their government."
Abdurahaman Khan, another protestor, explained his fears saying, “He's coming here to plunder Africa and South Africa. He's coming for the wealth and resources, for the gold and the diamond mines, while the majority of Africans and South Africans are suffering."
Overall, however, the President received a warm welcome in Africa, and the majority of the Africans appeared to be excited for his visit. In the United States however, is a different story. While there are some who praise Obama’s visit as being excellent foreign policy move and the beginning of smart building blocks for the future, there are still other Americans--particularly conservative Congressmen--who disagree with the President’s trip, and its resulting cost.
Obama’s visit to Africa comes with a hefty price tag ranging upwards $100 million, largely due to the large security force that must travel with the first family. Security for the trip reportedly involved military cargo planes airlifting 56 support vehicles, including 14 limousines, and three trucks to carry bulletproof glass to cover the windows where the president and his family stayed.
With the current national debt nearing $17 trillion, was the trip worth the cost? The sequester budget cuts are taking a toll on many government agencies, while the military is expecting drastic budget cuts to its equipment and personnel. Many Americans believe that $100 million could be better spent elsewhere, with a national debt nearing $17 trillion. Others argue that the effects of budget cuts and the sequester are undercutting such an argument, as reports from the U.S. Treasury Department reported yesterday show that for the month of June the federal budget ran a surplus of $117 billion.
Although opinions of the President’s excursion greatly vary, one thing is certain: this was not a trip that was going to please everybody. In some areas, Obama’s visit to Africa has to be considered a success. International relations need to be fostered and nurtured, but is the cost of promoting such relations still palatable to American citizens?
Photo: Official White House photo by Pete Souza.
