President Bush In Africa

Jayati Ghosh

THE recent tour of president Bush in Africa was presented as a move towards increasing humanitarian aid for HIV-AIDS patients in that troubled continent. But it turned in practice, to be yet another expression of imperialist over-extension, and blatant exercise of US unilateralism.

At one level, of course, the tour was simply rather embarrassing for president Bush. Even though all the events in which he participated were carefully stage-managed and crowds who could have opposed him were kept tidily away, in each country that he visited, he spent most of his time answering questions about the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and the false claims used to justify the war.

But much of the public pronouncements were about his supposed new initiative against AIDS, which is supposed to amount to $15 billion. The US president used photo-opportunities to embrace AIDS orphans while his wife wept into the cameras, all to indicate the caring nature of the US administration. But the reality behind the new strategy is very different.

STRENGTHENING THE US POSITION

It is now typical for the US that these extravagant claims of money to be given, end up in very little actual aid for the countries concerned, but in this case the difference is particularly appalling, because it is really almost the complete opposite of what is being promised.

Even as he posed for photographs, the US Congress (which is controlled by his Republican Party) cut back funding for the initiative from $3 billion to $2 billion a year. Even if spent over five years, which is not certain, the amount is negligible given the scale of Africa’s AIDS problem.

But even more significant is what this money will be used for. This much-publicised AIDS initiative is really about strengthening the US position in Africa at the expense of imperialist rivals such as France and other cheaper drug providers such as India, and boosting the position of American-based corporations. The purpose is to benefit US corporations into Africa, oust foreign competitors and stamp out domestic enterprises.

According to this scheme, US aid will increasingly be implemented by US-based organisations, rather than through long-established NGOs (non-governmental organisations), campaign groups and charities. United Nations bodies will be ignored. Instead of backing the UN Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria, the Bush administration is attempting to set up its own alternative organisation that will be entirely subordinate to US interests.

The choice of the director of this scheme gives a clear indication of the real purpose. The head of Bush’s AIDS initiative will be Randall Tobias, a man with no experience in the field of public health or humanitarian operations. Rather, his qualification is that he was head of the multinational drug company Eli Lilly. His appointment indicates that the US pharmaceutical giants will be the ones to benefit the most from Bush’s initiative, rather than AIDS sufferers in Africa. It is a clear signal that more affordable generic anti-AIDS drugs will not be financed. Instead, US pharmaceutical companies will be subsidised and their patents will be enforced  in Africa.

NEW US TRADE INITIATIVE

Similarly, the new US trade initiative, the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which was touted by Bush throughout his visit, is part of the same unilateralist corporate agenda. Even as the US continues to protect its own farmers, costing African exporters billions of dollars, it insists on more opening up of markets in African economies.

AGOA deals are already conditional on African countries opening up their markets to US investors and exports and supporting free-market principles. But the US now wants to impose even more conditions through a new round of bilateral trade deals.

Even in South Africa, which is the strongest economy of the region, there is opposition to signing the new agreements because they entail opening up government procurement to US firms, stronger patent protection for American companies, including over-the-counter drugs, making the public sector privatisation programme more accessible to US investors, and allowing American firms to sue the government directly.

If these are the concerns in South Africa, imagine the situation in other African countries which are much less able to withstand such pressure.

GREATER MILITARY ROLE

In addition to the economic pressure, the Bush administration is also seeking a much greater military role in Africa, under the guise of the “war on terror”, but really to protect its oil interests. The US government has been working through local proxies, especially Nigeria, where the US has trained five battalions of troops. There is already a $100 million commitment to “strengthen the security arrangements” in East African countries.

Nigeria is of vital strategic interest to Washington. African oil, mainly Nigerian, grew to 17 per cent of America’s total imports and is expected to rise to 25 per cent. This may be why Bush heaped praise on the dictatorial regime of president Obasanjo of Nigeria, especially for his “commitment to regional peace.” US-trained Nigerian troops are expected to play a major role in policing the oil-rich West African region.

Nigeria is also likely to provide the bulk of the forces for a US-backed intervention in Liberia. The Pentagon plans to move between 5,000 and 6,500 troops from bases in Germany to various countries in Africa with the express purpose of protecting US oil interests in Nigeria, which in the future could account for as much as 25 per cent of all US oil imports. 

In addition to all this, the US is seeking to expand its presence in Africa “through new basing agreements and training exercises.” Long-standing military ties with “allies” like Morocco and Tunisia are to be enhanced, access to long-term bases in countries like Algeria and Mali will be sought, and aircraft refuelling agreements such as those with Senegal and Uganda will be built upon.

The picture this presents, of imperialist greed and over-extension, is quite alarming. It appears as if this involvement will only worsen the plight of the hapless residents of Africa.