"Fair is foul, and foul is fair” - By Dr. Gary K. Busch

"Fair is foul, and foul is fair”

Dr. Gary K. Busch

It looks as if U.S. foreign policy, especially towards Africa, is in the process of change. The Three Witches of the U.S. foreign policy establishment have been thwarted or restrained by the winds that have blown in to the new Obama administration. Hillary Clinton has retired; Susan Rice has been humiliated and reproached; and Samantha Power has been isolated by the new array of Executive Cabinet appointees. The Weird Sisters can bury their fiery cauldron at Foggy Bottom; put away the eyes of newt and toes of frog; and quietly move back into the shadows where the fog of mist and darkness can mute their bloodthirsty calls for ‘humanitarian intervention’; this humanitarian intervention which left thousands of innocent Africans dead or displaced in the Ivory Coast, Libya and the Eastern Congo. It was the direct intervention of these three ‘policy makers’ that allowed a U.S. African policy in which the bloody and indiscriminate attacks on civilians by the French, the UN, Rwanda and Uganda were aided and abetted by a benighted U.S. foreign policy of military intervention in the name of humanitarianism.

The new Secretary of State is to be John Kerry. Kerry has had extensive ‘real-world’ experience in addition to his political roles. Kerry served two tours of duty in Vietnam. On his second tour, he volunteered to serve on a Swift Boat in the river deltas, one of the most dangerous assignments of the war. He was decorated with a Silver Star, a Bronze Star with Combat V, and three Purple Hearts. After running for the U.S. Presidency he served as the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; a post where he took an active and concerned interest in Africa. He is fortunate in that his wife Theresa (born Maria Teresa Thierstein Simões Ferreira) was born in Mozambique (in Laurenco Marques – now Maputo) to a Portuguese family. Her father was a medical doctor and she often went with him to the ‘bush’ and saw first-hand the needs of the African populations. She was educated at ‘Wits’ (University of the Witwatersrand) in South Africa where she took two degrees. Later she went to the University of Geneva for further study. As a former soldier, Kerry has not been shy about his opposition to the unthinking use of military might for narrow political purposes. This bodes well for a realignment of U.S. foreign policy in Africa.

He will, in all likelihood, be joined in the Cabinet as Secretary of Defense by Chuck Hagel the former United States Senator from Nebraska (Republican). He served as a Sergeant and Squad leader in the 2nd Battalion, 47th Infantry Regiment, 9th Infantry Division in Vietnam. He was awarded the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, two Purple Hearts, the Army Commendation Medal, and the Combat Infantryman Badge. He served as a United States Senator from Nebraska from 1997 to 2009. He, too, saw the horrors of war personally and this has shaped his policies since.

Hagel was one of three Republican Senators who supported Democratic-proposed legislation requiring a troop withdrawal from Iraq to begin within 120 days. In 2008 along with then-Senator Barack Obama, and Senator Jack Reed (D-RI), Hagel visited Iraq in a congressional delegation trip, meeting with U.S. service members, General David Petraeus, and the Prime Minister of Iraq Nouri al-Maliki. He was unhappy with the situation there and was not afraid to speak out about the increasing violence and the escalation of troop numbers.

Hegel also served on the Committee on Foreign Relations, including the Subcommittee on African Affairs and was the ranking member of the Subcommittee on International Development and Foreign Assistance, Economic Affairs, and International Environmental Protection. Most observers believe that, despite the rantings of the remaining ‘neocons’ Hegel will be confirmed in office. This apparent shift in political direction by these appointments (and those in the CIA and the National Security Agency) from the previous confrontational U.S. foreign policy of the Bush-era ‘neocons’ and the use of military power for narrow political ends will mark out a new direction for U.S. policy around the globe. It seems unlikely that there will be interventionist foreign and defence postures with the new team.

This is important, not only in developing a peaceful approach to the wars in the Eastern Congo, Somaliland, Mali, Chad and the other ‘hot spots’ of Africa, but also looking to resolve some of the gross injustices of a foreign policy rooted in thoughts of ‘revenge’ or ‘punishment’. Perhaps one of the most glaring of these policies is the continuation of U.S. and European sanctions against Zimbabwe. These were imposed because of the violence and disorder of the last election and the unilateral indigenisation of land and farms. They apply sanctions to a list of key leaders of Zimbabwe and some businesses. However, they have entirely missed their target and are creating more damage to the poor and vulnerable of Zimbabwe than to its political leadership.  

Despite denials by the State Department, Zimbabwe’s economic woes are the direct result of a concerted and systematic campaign to effect regime change through an economic implosion. The US introduced economic sanctions on Zimbabwe through the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, 2001. (ZIDERA). These policies blocked Zimbabwe’s access to finance and credit facilities. For the past ten years, Zimbabwe has been unable to obtain finance or credit facilities from international lenders to inject into the economy.

ZIDERA empowers the US to use its voting rights and influence (as the main donor) in multilateral lending agencies, such as the IMF, World Bank, and the African Development Bank to veto any applications by Zimbabwe for finance, credit facilities, loan rescheduling, and international debt cancellation. The US cites Zimbabwe’s human rights record, political intolerance and absence of rule of law as the main reasons for the imposition of sanctions.  Because of the US vote and introduction of sanctions, neither the IMF, World Bank nor the African Development Bank will lend to Zimbabwe, or offer it credit facilities.

What this has meant is that the Zimbabwe currency spectacularly collapsed. That has meant that there is no credit, or very little, available in the country. The farmers cannot buy seed; they cannot access fertiliser, their capital equipment budgets are non-existent. One of the most agriculturally-productive countries in Africa has been pushed back to subsistence farming and fostered the rise of almost 40% unemployment. Some critics say that the lack of agricultural productivity resulted from the fact that the Rhodesian farmers were pushed off their farms. This fatuous and racist view totally distorts the real picture of African agriculture. Does anyone seriously believe that the white farmers were actually out toiling in the hot sun and busy planting crops? That work was done by Africans and is still being done by Africans. The difference between a white farmer and an African farmer is that white farmers could get credit from the banks – the Africans couldn’t. This imposition of sanctions by the U.S. and Europe made this an international policy. This is not only unfair but self-destructive. As the West seeks to find a way to feed the displaced and hungry in the continent they simultaneously impede one of the most important sources of food production in Africa by restricting credit.

It doesn’t punish the ones it targets. In a situation of sanctions people are forced to deal with “things” which they can trade in an extended system of barter. Instead of having money to invest in long-term projects like irrigation, farming, school and health improvements the leaders move into the control of resources like gold, diamonds, copper and other “things” they can trade. They are OK but the population has to give up its land and turn to artisanal mining to get “things” they can trade to stay alive. The policy of sanctions fosters the worst kind of behaviour among the sanctioned as they use their power to acquire “things” to barter. It is the poor and the marginal who suffer from these sanctions. This is even more ridiculous when one considers that the median age of the population in Zimbabwe is 18.4 years. Over 44% of the population is under 14 years of age. What could this 44% of the population under 14 years of age have done to the U.S. or Europe that they are willing to deprive them of a livelihood, education, health care and a future?

These are the kinds of choices the U.S. is going to have to face in the new Obama administration. Perhaps the removal of the three witches and the retirement of Johnnie Carson from the Africa Bureau will lead to a different direction is U.S. policy towards Africa. The application of military might is a gross irrelevance to the majority of the African population. If there is one principle which stands out in any analysis of the U.S. policy towards Africa it is that it is not the U.S.’s job to punish anyone. America is best served by providing a good example and opening opportunities for international interaction.

The U.S. has already started on such a program, the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) which was signed into law on May 18, 2000 as Title 1 of The Trade and Development Act of 2000. The Act offers tangible incentives for African countries to continue their efforts to open their economies and build free markets. It is hoped by many that this route will be seen as more productive than using helicopters to kill thousands of Ivoirians or destroying Libya in order to ‘save it.’ The new Obama team seems receptive to this approach. It would make a promising change in direction.