It is the holiday season. Most of us don’t read anything serious over the holidays. Much less something serious about Africa. Defying tradition, then, I want to comment on the US relationship with the 54 countries in Africa. They are led to believe they received a holiday gift from the Biden administration last week. Probably a false hope.
I have a long interest in things African. In the spring of 1964 I helped organize a meeting between graduate students from Nigeria, Zimbabwe and the US and the leadership of Chase Manhattan Bank. We intended to persuade the Bank to withdraw from a revolving loan fund subsidizing the apartheid regime in South Africa. David Rockefeller politely and quietly told the five of us that Chase did not make foreign policy for the government. That was that. Seeing the original artwork on the penthouse walls was our consolation prize.
At the time, African colonies were throwing off the colonial regimes that had persisted, for eighty years, in South Africa’s case even longer. These regimes were uniformly exploitative, racist, and cruel, more brutal, even, than understood then. My academic work focused on Europe, but I decided to do my thesis on the economic assistance programs the European Economic Community provided for its African “associates,” all former French and Belgian colonies.
My research introduced me to neo-colonialism, which persists today, even in the recent Africa conference. The EEC provided assistance to former French and Belgian colonies not to assist economic development for the benefit of the peoples of those newly independent countries, but to perpetuate and reenforce the colonial economic system, for the benefit of French investors.
These private companies, organized as the Patronat d’Outre-Mer (overseas corporate leaders) had been profiting from commodity-based economies (palm oil, wood, minerals, etc.) for many decades. They did not intend for independence to change this economic reality. With the support of locally based French civil servants, the Patronat d’Outre-Mer worked to maintain their fiscal and monetary control over French West and Central Africa. The EEC policy was no more than an extension of French Neo-colonialism, adding German, Italian, Dutch and Belgian funds to what the French government was already doing.
Although my career focus changed to European and American defense issues, I could never let Africa go. In 1994, working on budgets in the White House, I had a chance to help organize the first US development assistance package ever granted to the newly black-led Republic of South Africa, supporting the new president, Nelson Mandela.
By the early 2000s, however, it was clear that American policy in Africa had begun to change dramatically, shifting away from economic assistance to what was called “security assistance.” US funding and programs were and are today designed to train, equip, and support the military forces of selected African nations. Africa had become a playground in the war on terror. It has continued to be a playground for counter-terror operations and military support ever since. The theory was: “security first.” Development and good governance would only be possible, policy folks argued, once the recipient country was safe.
US security assistance programs proliferated at the State Department. More ominously they surged in the Defense Department, as well, becoming an integral part of the Global War on Terror (GWOT). Gradually, the Defense Department took over leadership of the American relationship with Africa. The establishment of a new US regional military command for Africa (AFRICOM) in 2008 cemented this central DoD role.
The theory is dead wrong. “Security first” has led to a decline in African democracy and the rise of the military. Military coups and societal instability have followed in country after country. The more we have poured funds and forces into wars in Somalia, the Sahel, Nigeria, Niger, Chad, Mali, and Burkina Faso, the worse the security situation has become. Making the military the leading institution has set back both development and government.
Guerilla and terrorist organizations have grown in numbers and expanded their areas of operation. The Somalia battle continues to this day. Mali has fallen into the hands of authoritarian rulers and the guerilla struggle continues. Overthrowing the Khaddaffi regime in Libya unleashed terrorist fighters and proliferated arms into the Sahel region, at the cost of African security. Boko Haram continues its struggle in Nigeria, despite years of counter-terror operations.
In two words, “security first” is a policy failure. It has weakened the effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability of many African regimes. It has incentivized corruption and authoritarian rule. It has drained resources from development and social investment, so much so that a World Bank report in 2016 decided to include the security sector in their reviews of how aid-receiving countries were doing. (I consulted on that study).
Security assistance programs and operations are by now so bureaucratically entrenched that they cannot be stopped. Like in the story of the Sorcerer’s Apprentice, the buckets of security funding, training, equipping, advising, and operations just keep coming, fulfilling Einstein’s description of insanity: “doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.“
Whether through economic assistance programs which perpetuate commodity dependence or security programs that foster greater insecurity, US assistance to Africa has not helped change the economic or security landscapes. This is neo-colonialism with a more pleasant face.
What’s missing is a focus on strengthening the ability of African governments to actually govern. To establish a political space that can resolve indigenous grievances and enhance locally owned development. Neither American nor EU, nor other international assistance programs put strengthening governance at the center of policy.
Perhaps because doing so would make enemies in those African regimes now in the hands of corrupt authoritarians or an externally-supported military. Perhaps, too, because strengthening governance is the toughest challenge. We have little credibility for such a priority, having tried to force good governance and democracy on Iraq and Afghanistan, and having made a shambles of our own governance. Good governance cannot be created at the point of a gun.
The promises made last week are pretty; the rhetoric ties a bow around them for holiday season. But they are also hollow, at least until the administration starts to dismantle the security architecture we have built. It was noticeable that the Africa summit downplayed the continuing priority give security in US policy toward Africa. Sadly, the balance of funding remains unchanged, despite the rhetoric.
What’s worse is the attention given to Africa at the summit was clearly embedded in concerns over US, not African security: the Russians and the Chinese are intruding into Africa and the US had better keep up or the Africans will turn against us, the argument went. That motivation is a clear recipe for more chaos, conflict, and economic challenges.
The holiday present may turn into a josh gift, after all.
Among the tens of thousands of African asylum seekers here, I listen to testimonies of experiences that drove them to flee homelands only to be hunted along their treacherous journeys involving human traffickers, ransom, rape, and landing where we natives call them cancer on society. And "still they rise" paraphrasing Maya Angelou. Beautiful, brilliant, gentle people. Thank you for your informed opinion.
Beautifully done, sadly. My single brief trip to two countries in Africa taught me how embedded China has become. But at least most of what I saw was economic rather than military. I'm certain I have a positivity bias in my old age, but I am hopeful that the Biden administration's overtures will help counter some of the Chinese influence and at least keep African countries neutral.