In this year of important African elections, two elections have taken place in Africa that have provided hope – both to their people and the international community.
In Guinea, for the first time since independence, voters had a free choice that wasn’t predetermined by political manipulation or military power. The late longtime ruler Lansana Conté died in 2008. The military government that replaced him was led by Captain Moussa Dadis Camara, who badly overplayed his hand while in power. After first pledging to lead a transition to civilian government, he began talking about running for office himself. His rambling television monologues were known to many as “The Dadis Show.”
The straw that broke the camel’s back for Guineans and the international community was last September’s massacre of protesters and the mass rape of women. Although there was evidence that Camara had not given the orders for the brutality, as leader, he was blamed for it and pressed to make accountable those who had given orders in the matter. One officer, fearful that Camara would make him the scapegoat, shot Camara, sending him to medical treatment and exile outside Guinea.
The next leader of the transitional government, General Sékouba Konaté, agreed in the Declaration of Ouagadougou that no member of the military or the transitional government could run in the elections last weekend.
That agreement opened the way for 24 candidates to contend for the presidency. The top three were former Prime Minister Cellou Dalein Diallo, an 11-year holder of that office who is from the main Peul ethnic group; former Prime Minister Sidya Touré, the member of a minor ethnic group who is credited with bringing water to the capital for the first time, and Alpha Condé, a longtime political opponent of the late President Conté who has been in exile in Paris. A runoff election is expected between the top two vote-getters.
Voters widely told the media they felt elated at making a free choice at the polls, many voting for the first time in their lives. Some are skeptical that any one of the contenders could keep their promises of progress. There may be discontent in the future, but for now, the people of Guinea and the international community are optimistic – nine months after a massacre that was Guinea’s low point in recent history.
In Somaliland, voters defied threats and warnings and enthusiastically went to the polls to vote for a new government they hope will result in international recognition. Although Sheikh Muktar Abu Zubeyr, the Ameer or supreme leader of Al-Shebab in Somalia condemned the practice of democracy and elections, voter in Somaliland still turned out reportedly in large numbers. Al-Shebab is the strongest Islamic militant group in Somalia and is believed to have ties to al-Qaeda.
Sheikh Abu Zubeyr said democracy and elections are copies of Christian and Jewish governments and therefore are incompatible with Islam.
“Every individual should fight democracy verbally, (and) if necessary use his hands to fight democracy or leave the area where democracy is practiced,” he said.
His opposition to elections and a democratic form of government are not even promoted in many other Islamic governments. Even Iran has held elections, questionable though they were. Meanwhile, the Transitional Federal Government in Somalia is experiencing a serious split between President Sheikh Sharif Ahmed and Prime Minister Omar Abdirashid Sharma’arke that not even newly elected Speaker Sharif Hassan Sheikh Aden has been able to mediate.
In Somaliland, there is a functioning government, an army, a national flag, and anthem and its own currency. There are five private airlines, several electricity providers and as many as five telecommunications companies. There are thought to be oil deposits in Somaliland’s coastal region. While there are no formal banks, money traders buy and sell the Somaliland shilling. However, foreign investors are inhibited by Somaliland’s lack of recognition, which makes insurance for facilities and equipment all but impossible.
The former British Somaliland seceded from union with the former Italian Somaliland in 1991. The former British territory has more of the attributes of a functioning government than does its renounced partner. Clans still determine the political landscape in Somaliland, but constitutional reforms look to change such a divisive policy. Voters look to the new government to reduce unemployment, fight poverty, strengthen business laws, end corruption and reach out to the grassroots. Most of those questioned seemed more than willing to hope that such changes by a new government are possible. The question is: will the rest of the world find that those changes warrant formal recognition of Somaliland?
In the midst of troubled elections across Africa and the world, it is heartening to see voters embrace their political choice and look to the future with optimism.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Friday, June 25, 2010
From the Gulf of Mexico to the Niger Delta
The United States is blessed with abundant natural resources, including petroleum, as has recently been emphasized by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. That this nation is able to decide that it will not exploit the petroleum deposits onshore and off coastal areas is made possible by the supplies of oil coming from other countries. Americans are justifiably concerned by the environmental dangers of oil spills, such as the estimated 2.5 million U.S. gallons of oil pumped into the waters of the Gulf of Mexico each day for more than two months now. However, supplying oil always poses some risks, and if Americans don’t take such risks, that means someone else is – for example the residents of Nigeria’s Niger Delta.
The Gulf oil spill is the largest in U.S. history and has engendered tremendous worldwide coverage and international offers of help for an incident that could affect countries far beyond the United States, depending on where the ocean currents carry the oil into international waters. Yet the people of the Niger Delta have lived with smaller, but more frequent, oil spills for many years now.
According to reliable estimates, between 1970 and 2000, there were as many as 7,000 oil spills in the Delta area, and some believe that is a serious underestimation of the number of oil spills that actually took place. There are about 2,000 sites in the Delta that leak oil continuously and are considered major spillage sites. Last year alone, there were 132 oil spills. The annual average is 175 oil spills.
But while British Petroleum (BP) has agreed to pay out at least US$20 billion in damages to Americans, Shell has acknowledged spilling 14,000 tons of crude oil into the Delta last year, and there is no record of any kind of payment to those negatively impacted. Unlike the U.S. government, the Nigerian government’s ability and willingness to set and enforce safety and environmental rules and regulations is highly inadequate. We debate here in the United States whether President Barack Obama and his Administration has acted swiftly enough or overreached his authority in pressing BP to create a compensation fund. The residents of the Niger Delta would be thanking their Maker if their government took such strong action to defend their interests.
The seafood and tourism industries in several Gulf states stand to lose billions in business due to the results from the oil spill. Over the past two months, the media has carried stories of watermen who can no longer earn a living from the seafood from contaminated waters. We see restaurants and hotels nearly empty, as tourists avoid what they believe is a contaminated area. Formerly pristine beaches are empty or littered with tar balls and oil-covered animals. The devastations from oil spills is certainly familiar to residents of the Niger Delta.
In 1983, the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation issued a report about the impact of what they saw as negligent operations by oil companies in the Niger Delta:
“We witnessed the slow poisoning of the waters of this country and the destruction of vegetation and agricultural land by oil spills which occur during petroleum operations. But since the inception of the oil industry in Nigeria, more than twenty-five years ago, there has been no concerned and effective effort on the part of the government, let alone the oil operators, to control environmental problems associated with the industry,” the report stated.
The negative impact of oil spills in the Delta includes not only the killing of current marine life, but also the eggs of next season’s sea catch. Oil is stored in coastal soils and released later during floods, damaging the land on which farmers grow crops and on which people live. Rare forms of cancer are seen in the Delta area, believed to be caused by continuous exposure of crude oil. Militancy by groups outraged by uncompensated damage from oil spills has been met by an often violent government response that places residents in the middle of gun battles and subject to reprisals they do not deserve.
In the Niger Delta, as in the Gulf of Mexico, an oil spill prevention and cleanup is the joint responsibility of the oil company involved and the government of the country in which it occurs. Lax or non-existent rules and regulations on oil operations invites problems, as local managers will always look for ways to cut costs, especially when revenues drop due to lower petroleum prices; some authority has to make sure that cost-cutting doesn’t come with increased risk of pollution. Oil companies are corporations with stockholders who expect dividends to be paid if revenue warrants it. If there is no system to require that damages be paid, these companies will be reluctant to offer damage payments on their own. The failure of government to effectively monitor oil operations and put in place in advance a plan to minimize environmental damage cannot be overcome easily in retrospect, as we see with the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
The United States has tremendous technical and financial resources with which to meet environmental disaster, and still we suffer from the ongoing spillage of oil in our coastal waters. How much more then would the Government of Nigeria and its people grapple with how to deal with less dramatic but more frequent oil spills? Even with all our capability, the United States has foreign allies offering help in cleaning up our Gulf oil spills. Where is the international help for the Niger Delta oil spills?
We can decide not to allow oil drilling off our shores because we have the luxury to do so. However, the oil we use comes from somewhere, and that decision on our part merely shifts the burden from us to some other people. As we decide what to do about the Gulf of Mexico spills, let us not forget our responsibility to help address the short-term and long-term impact of oil spills from areas that are the source of our oil. In the case of Nigeria, the United States consumes 40% of Nigeria’s oil output.
The Deepwater Horizon incident should be a reminder that there is often a high price to pay for the gasoline we use, and that can be much higher than the one listed on the gas pump.
The United States is blessed with abundant natural resources, including petroleum, as has recently been emphasized by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. That this nation is able to decide that it will not exploit the petroleum deposits onshore and off coastal areas is made possible by the supplies of oil coming from other countries. Americans are justifiably concerned by the environmental dangers of oil spills, such as the estimated 2.5 million U.S. gallons of oil pumped into the waters of the Gulf of Mexico each day for more than two months now. However, supplying oil always poses some risks, and if Americans don’t take such risks, that means someone else is – for example the residents of Nigeria’s Niger Delta.
The Gulf oil spill is the largest in U.S. history and has engendered tremendous worldwide coverage and international offers of help for an incident that could affect countries far beyond the United States, depending on where the ocean currents carry the oil into international waters. Yet the people of the Niger Delta have lived with smaller, but more frequent, oil spills for many years now.
According to reliable estimates, between 1970 and 2000, there were as many as 7,000 oil spills in the Delta area, and some believe that is a serious underestimation of the number of oil spills that actually took place. There are about 2,000 sites in the Delta that leak oil continuously and are considered major spillage sites. Last year alone, there were 132 oil spills. The annual average is 175 oil spills.
But while British Petroleum (BP) has agreed to pay out at least US$20 billion in damages to Americans, Shell has acknowledged spilling 14,000 tons of crude oil into the Delta last year, and there is no record of any kind of payment to those negatively impacted. Unlike the U.S. government, the Nigerian government’s ability and willingness to set and enforce safety and environmental rules and regulations is highly inadequate. We debate here in the United States whether President Barack Obama and his Administration has acted swiftly enough or overreached his authority in pressing BP to create a compensation fund. The residents of the Niger Delta would be thanking their Maker if their government took such strong action to defend their interests.
The seafood and tourism industries in several Gulf states stand to lose billions in business due to the results from the oil spill. Over the past two months, the media has carried stories of watermen who can no longer earn a living from the seafood from contaminated waters. We see restaurants and hotels nearly empty, as tourists avoid what they believe is a contaminated area. Formerly pristine beaches are empty or littered with tar balls and oil-covered animals. The devastations from oil spills is certainly familiar to residents of the Niger Delta.
In 1983, the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation issued a report about the impact of what they saw as negligent operations by oil companies in the Niger Delta:
“We witnessed the slow poisoning of the waters of this country and the destruction of vegetation and agricultural land by oil spills which occur during petroleum operations. But since the inception of the oil industry in Nigeria, more than twenty-five years ago, there has been no concerned and effective effort on the part of the government, let alone the oil operators, to control environmental problems associated with the industry,” the report stated.
The negative impact of oil spills in the Delta includes not only the killing of current marine life, but also the eggs of next season’s sea catch. Oil is stored in coastal soils and released later during floods, damaging the land on which farmers grow crops and on which people live. Rare forms of cancer are seen in the Delta area, believed to be caused by continuous exposure of crude oil. Militancy by groups outraged by uncompensated damage from oil spills has been met by an often violent government response that places residents in the middle of gun battles and subject to reprisals they do not deserve.
In the Niger Delta, as in the Gulf of Mexico, an oil spill prevention and cleanup is the joint responsibility of the oil company involved and the government of the country in which it occurs. Lax or non-existent rules and regulations on oil operations invites problems, as local managers will always look for ways to cut costs, especially when revenues drop due to lower petroleum prices; some authority has to make sure that cost-cutting doesn’t come with increased risk of pollution. Oil companies are corporations with stockholders who expect dividends to be paid if revenue warrants it. If there is no system to require that damages be paid, these companies will be reluctant to offer damage payments on their own. The failure of government to effectively monitor oil operations and put in place in advance a plan to minimize environmental damage cannot be overcome easily in retrospect, as we see with the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
The United States has tremendous technical and financial resources with which to meet environmental disaster, and still we suffer from the ongoing spillage of oil in our coastal waters. How much more then would the Government of Nigeria and its people grapple with how to deal with less dramatic but more frequent oil spills? Even with all our capability, the United States has foreign allies offering help in cleaning up our Gulf oil spills. Where is the international help for the Niger Delta oil spills?
We can decide not to allow oil drilling off our shores because we have the luxury to do so. However, the oil we use comes from somewhere, and that decision on our part merely shifts the burden from us to some other people. As we decide what to do about the Gulf of Mexico spills, let us not forget our responsibility to help address the short-term and long-term impact of oil spills from areas that are the source of our oil. In the case of Nigeria, the United States consumes 40% of Nigeria’s oil output.
The Deepwater Horizon incident should be a reminder that there is often a high price to pay for the gasoline we use, and that can be much higher than the one listed on the gas pump.
The Gulf oil spill is the largest in U.S. history and has engendered tremendous worldwide coverage and international offers of help for an incident that could affect countries far beyond the United States, depending on where the ocean currents carry the oil into international waters. Yet the people of the Niger Delta have lived with smaller, but more frequent, oil spills for many years now.
According to reliable estimates, between 1970 and 2000, there were as many as 7,000 oil spills in the Delta area, and some believe that is a serious underestimation of the number of oil spills that actually took place. There are about 2,000 sites in the Delta that leak oil continuously and are considered major spillage sites. Last year alone, there were 132 oil spills. The annual average is 175 oil spills.
But while British Petroleum (BP) has agreed to pay out at least US$20 billion in damages to Americans, Shell has acknowledged spilling 14,000 tons of crude oil into the Delta last year, and there is no record of any kind of payment to those negatively impacted. Unlike the U.S. government, the Nigerian government’s ability and willingness to set and enforce safety and environmental rules and regulations is highly inadequate. We debate here in the United States whether President Barack Obama and his Administration has acted swiftly enough or overreached his authority in pressing BP to create a compensation fund. The residents of the Niger Delta would be thanking their Maker if their government took such strong action to defend their interests.
The seafood and tourism industries in several Gulf states stand to lose billions in business due to the results from the oil spill. Over the past two months, the media has carried stories of watermen who can no longer earn a living from the seafood from contaminated waters. We see restaurants and hotels nearly empty, as tourists avoid what they believe is a contaminated area. Formerly pristine beaches are empty or littered with tar balls and oil-covered animals. The devastations from oil spills is certainly familiar to residents of the Niger Delta.
In 1983, the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation issued a report about the impact of what they saw as negligent operations by oil companies in the Niger Delta:
“We witnessed the slow poisoning of the waters of this country and the destruction of vegetation and agricultural land by oil spills which occur during petroleum operations. But since the inception of the oil industry in Nigeria, more than twenty-five years ago, there has been no concerned and effective effort on the part of the government, let alone the oil operators, to control environmental problems associated with the industry,” the report stated.
The negative impact of oil spills in the Delta includes not only the killing of current marine life, but also the eggs of next season’s sea catch. Oil is stored in coastal soils and released later during floods, damaging the land on which farmers grow crops and on which people live. Rare forms of cancer are seen in the Delta area, believed to be caused by continuous exposure of crude oil. Militancy by groups outraged by uncompensated damage from oil spills has been met by an often violent government response that places residents in the middle of gun battles and subject to reprisals they do not deserve.
In the Niger Delta, as in the Gulf of Mexico, an oil spill prevention and cleanup is the joint responsibility of the oil company involved and the government of the country in which it occurs. Lax or non-existent rules and regulations on oil operations invites problems, as local managers will always look for ways to cut costs, especially when revenues drop due to lower petroleum prices; some authority has to make sure that cost-cutting doesn’t come with increased risk of pollution. Oil companies are corporations with stockholders who expect dividends to be paid if revenue warrants it. If there is no system to require that damages be paid, these companies will be reluctant to offer damage payments on their own. The failure of government to effectively monitor oil operations and put in place in advance a plan to minimize environmental damage cannot be overcome easily in retrospect, as we see with the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
The United States has tremendous technical and financial resources with which to meet environmental disaster, and still we suffer from the ongoing spillage of oil in our coastal waters. How much more then would the Government of Nigeria and its people grapple with how to deal with less dramatic but more frequent oil spills? Even with all our capability, the United States has foreign allies offering help in cleaning up our Gulf oil spills. Where is the international help for the Niger Delta oil spills?
We can decide not to allow oil drilling off our shores because we have the luxury to do so. However, the oil we use comes from somewhere, and that decision on our part merely shifts the burden from us to some other people. As we decide what to do about the Gulf of Mexico spills, let us not forget our responsibility to help address the short-term and long-term impact of oil spills from areas that are the source of our oil. In the case of Nigeria, the United States consumes 40% of Nigeria’s oil output.
The Deepwater Horizon incident should be a reminder that there is often a high price to pay for the gasoline we use, and that can be much higher than the one listed on the gas pump.
The United States is blessed with abundant natural resources, including petroleum, as has recently been emphasized by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. That this nation is able to decide that it will not exploit the petroleum deposits onshore and off coastal areas is made possible by the supplies of oil coming from other countries. Americans are justifiably concerned by the environmental dangers of oil spills, such as the estimated 2.5 million U.S. gallons of oil pumped into the waters of the Gulf of Mexico each day for more than two months now. However, supplying oil always poses some risks, and if Americans don’t take such risks, that means someone else is – for example the residents of Nigeria’s Niger Delta.
The Gulf oil spill is the largest in U.S. history and has engendered tremendous worldwide coverage and international offers of help for an incident that could affect countries far beyond the United States, depending on where the ocean currents carry the oil into international waters. Yet the people of the Niger Delta have lived with smaller, but more frequent, oil spills for many years now.
According to reliable estimates, between 1970 and 2000, there were as many as 7,000 oil spills in the Delta area, and some believe that is a serious underestimation of the number of oil spills that actually took place. There are about 2,000 sites in the Delta that leak oil continuously and are considered major spillage sites. Last year alone, there were 132 oil spills. The annual average is 175 oil spills.
But while British Petroleum (BP) has agreed to pay out at least US$20 billion in damages to Americans, Shell has acknowledged spilling 14,000 tons of crude oil into the Delta last year, and there is no record of any kind of payment to those negatively impacted. Unlike the U.S. government, the Nigerian government’s ability and willingness to set and enforce safety and environmental rules and regulations is highly inadequate. We debate here in the United States whether President Barack Obama and his Administration has acted swiftly enough or overreached his authority in pressing BP to create a compensation fund. The residents of the Niger Delta would be thanking their Maker if their government took such strong action to defend their interests.
The seafood and tourism industries in several Gulf states stand to lose billions in business due to the results from the oil spill. Over the past two months, the media has carried stories of watermen who can no longer earn a living from the seafood from contaminated waters. We see restaurants and hotels nearly empty, as tourists avoid what they believe is a contaminated area. Formerly pristine beaches are empty or littered with tar balls and oil-covered animals. The devastations from oil spills is certainly familiar to residents of the Niger Delta.
In 1983, the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation issued a report about the impact of what they saw as negligent operations by oil companies in the Niger Delta:
“We witnessed the slow poisoning of the waters of this country and the destruction of vegetation and agricultural land by oil spills which occur during petroleum operations. But since the inception of the oil industry in Nigeria, more than twenty-five years ago, there has been no concerned and effective effort on the part of the government, let alone the oil operators, to control environmental problems associated with the industry,” the report stated.
The negative impact of oil spills in the Delta includes not only the killing of current marine life, but also the eggs of next season’s sea catch. Oil is stored in coastal soils and released later during floods, damaging the land on which farmers grow crops and on which people live. Rare forms of cancer are seen in the Delta area, believed to be caused by continuous exposure of crude oil. Militancy by groups outraged by uncompensated damage from oil spills has been met by an often violent government response that places residents in the middle of gun battles and subject to reprisals they do not deserve.
In the Niger Delta, as in the Gulf of Mexico, an oil spill prevention and cleanup is the joint responsibility of the oil company involved and the government of the country in which it occurs. Lax or non-existent rules and regulations on oil operations invites problems, as local managers will always look for ways to cut costs, especially when revenues drop due to lower petroleum prices; some authority has to make sure that cost-cutting doesn’t come with increased risk of pollution. Oil companies are corporations with stockholders who expect dividends to be paid if revenue warrants it. If there is no system to require that damages be paid, these companies will be reluctant to offer damage payments on their own. The failure of government to effectively monitor oil operations and put in place in advance a plan to minimize environmental damage cannot be overcome easily in retrospect, as we see with the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
The United States has tremendous technical and financial resources with which to meet environmental disaster, and still we suffer from the ongoing spillage of oil in our coastal waters. How much more then would the Government of Nigeria and its people grapple with how to deal with less dramatic but more frequent oil spills? Even with all our capability, the United States has foreign allies offering help in cleaning up our Gulf oil spills. Where is the international help for the Niger Delta oil spills?
We can decide not to allow oil drilling off our shores because we have the luxury to do so. However, the oil we use comes from somewhere, and that decision on our part merely shifts the burden from us to some other people. As we decide what to do about the Gulf of Mexico spills, let us not forget our responsibility to help address the short-term and long-term impact of oil spills from areas that are the source of our oil. In the case of Nigeria, the United States consumes 40% of Nigeria’s oil output.
The Deepwater Horizon incident should be a reminder that there is often a high price to pay for the gasoline we use, and that can be much higher than the one listed on the gas pump.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Eritrea: The Shining Example Gone Wrong
Eritrea was once the little country who succeeded despite the odds due to hard work and perseverance. When Eritrea pressed for its independence from Ethiopia in the early 1950s, the United States supported Ethiopia’s continued control. During its 30-year war of independence from Ethiopia, first the United States and then the Soviet Union took Ethiopia’s side. Eritrea finally became independent in 1993.
The country was the darling of the United States and other Western nations initially, cooperating in addressing regional issues and promoting self-reliance. There was an active and independent media. Troops active in the long war for independence were demobilized. In 1997, the National Assembly ratified a constitution that enshrined democratic principles and basic human rights. Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki was counted among Africa’s new young leaders who would raise the continent to new heights. When he visited Capitol Hill, his Congressional fan club treated him like a rock star.
But from its early days of independence, Eritrea had hostile relations with all its neighbors: Sudan, Djibouti, Ethiopia and even Yemen across the Red Sea. Hostilities caused by mutual support for rebel movements or territorial disputes led Eritrea to pugnacious relations with everyone it seemed. Initially, this was considered the result of a stiff-necked government that wouldn’t back down before those it considered its adversaries. However, things would take a darker turn in Eritrea by the late 1990s.
In 1998, a border dispute with Ethiopia accelerated into a bloody two-year civil war that cost Eritrea between 70,000 and 100,000 casualties and millions of dollars in property loss according to various news reports. The war began with an Eritrean incursion into Ethiopian-controlled territory and ended with Ethiopia holding all disputed territory and having advanced into Eritrea. Ethiopia deported an estimated 77,000 Eritreans after confiscating their property.
The tensions over the border were supposed to have been resolved by the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission that was a part of the Algiers Agreement ending the war. Eritrea was awarded the highly contested Badme area, but Ethiopia refused to accept the decision of the commission. When the international community broadly failed to take Eritrea’s side and enforce the ruling, Eritrea became increasingly hostile. Some referred to their increasingly combative position on the border dispute as “seizing defeat from the jaws of victory.”
Eritrea became increasingly uncooperative with the United Nations peacekeeping force on the border with Ethiopia. It expanded its support for Ethiopian rebels and supported Islamic extremists in the Somalian conflict. Last December, the UN imposed sanctions on Eritrea for backing Somalian rebels.
U.S. relations with Eritrea, always problematic due to America’s relationship with Ethiopia, deteriorated further after the war. In the previous year, the State Department designated Eritrea a country of particular concern due to allegations of pervasive religious discrimination. A year later, commercial export of defense articles and services to Eritrea was denied. Eritrea’s response was to step up its arrests and detentions of clergy and ordinary church members. Eritrea called for the end of American foreign aid, and the U.S. Agency for International Development mission was closed in 2005.
According to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, Eritrea is broadly persecuting religious institutions – from Sunni Muslims to Pentecostals to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Religious leaders and their followers have not only been jailed without charge, but have been held in poor conditions and even reportedly tortured. I am aware of one case of a woman who fled Eritrea because she was sought by authorities wanting her information about home churches. They made numerous attempts to have her returned to Eritrea, but the Kenyans and the international refugee authorities refused to do so because of concern over what would happen to her.
After the war, Eritrea became increasingly repressive. The constitution was put aide, elections were cancelled, and a new national policy was instituted that required national service. The Warsai Yekalo Development Campaign required statutory national service of 18 months, but that term was extended so that all male and female adults must work at the direction of the state in various capacities until the age of 40, but in practice often until 50 or 55 years of age. The prevailing wage under this program is a survival wage insufficient to meet basic needs of those with families.
Not surprisingly, Eritrea is leaking more refugees per capita than almost anywhere in the world, according to United Nations statistics. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that 100 Eritreans leave the country every day. Over the past few years, hundreds of thousands of Eritreans – out of a population of less than five million – have voted with their feet.
Yesterday’s hero is now today’s villain. It is unclear whether this situation could have been avoided, but we certainly should be much more careful before anointing a leader and his government.
The country was the darling of the United States and other Western nations initially, cooperating in addressing regional issues and promoting self-reliance. There was an active and independent media. Troops active in the long war for independence were demobilized. In 1997, the National Assembly ratified a constitution that enshrined democratic principles and basic human rights. Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki was counted among Africa’s new young leaders who would raise the continent to new heights. When he visited Capitol Hill, his Congressional fan club treated him like a rock star.
But from its early days of independence, Eritrea had hostile relations with all its neighbors: Sudan, Djibouti, Ethiopia and even Yemen across the Red Sea. Hostilities caused by mutual support for rebel movements or territorial disputes led Eritrea to pugnacious relations with everyone it seemed. Initially, this was considered the result of a stiff-necked government that wouldn’t back down before those it considered its adversaries. However, things would take a darker turn in Eritrea by the late 1990s.
In 1998, a border dispute with Ethiopia accelerated into a bloody two-year civil war that cost Eritrea between 70,000 and 100,000 casualties and millions of dollars in property loss according to various news reports. The war began with an Eritrean incursion into Ethiopian-controlled territory and ended with Ethiopia holding all disputed territory and having advanced into Eritrea. Ethiopia deported an estimated 77,000 Eritreans after confiscating their property.
The tensions over the border were supposed to have been resolved by the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission that was a part of the Algiers Agreement ending the war. Eritrea was awarded the highly contested Badme area, but Ethiopia refused to accept the decision of the commission. When the international community broadly failed to take Eritrea’s side and enforce the ruling, Eritrea became increasingly hostile. Some referred to their increasingly combative position on the border dispute as “seizing defeat from the jaws of victory.”
Eritrea became increasingly uncooperative with the United Nations peacekeeping force on the border with Ethiopia. It expanded its support for Ethiopian rebels and supported Islamic extremists in the Somalian conflict. Last December, the UN imposed sanctions on Eritrea for backing Somalian rebels.
U.S. relations with Eritrea, always problematic due to America’s relationship with Ethiopia, deteriorated further after the war. In the previous year, the State Department designated Eritrea a country of particular concern due to allegations of pervasive religious discrimination. A year later, commercial export of defense articles and services to Eritrea was denied. Eritrea’s response was to step up its arrests and detentions of clergy and ordinary church members. Eritrea called for the end of American foreign aid, and the U.S. Agency for International Development mission was closed in 2005.
According to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, Eritrea is broadly persecuting religious institutions – from Sunni Muslims to Pentecostals to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Religious leaders and their followers have not only been jailed without charge, but have been held in poor conditions and even reportedly tortured. I am aware of one case of a woman who fled Eritrea because she was sought by authorities wanting her information about home churches. They made numerous attempts to have her returned to Eritrea, but the Kenyans and the international refugee authorities refused to do so because of concern over what would happen to her.
After the war, Eritrea became increasingly repressive. The constitution was put aide, elections were cancelled, and a new national policy was instituted that required national service. The Warsai Yekalo Development Campaign required statutory national service of 18 months, but that term was extended so that all male and female adults must work at the direction of the state in various capacities until the age of 40, but in practice often until 50 or 55 years of age. The prevailing wage under this program is a survival wage insufficient to meet basic needs of those with families.
Not surprisingly, Eritrea is leaking more refugees per capita than almost anywhere in the world, according to United Nations statistics. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that 100 Eritreans leave the country every day. Over the past few years, hundreds of thousands of Eritreans – out of a population of less than five million – have voted with their feet.
Yesterday’s hero is now today’s villain. It is unclear whether this situation could have been avoided, but we certainly should be much more careful before anointing a leader and his government.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Intra-African Trade Not As Easy As it Seems
In a speech on U.S. policy toward Africa earlier this week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reiterated a point she made at the 2009 African Growth and Opportunity Act Ministerial in Kenya: African countries have not focused sufficiently on expanding intra-African trade and are missing out on an excellent method to grow their combined gross domestic product. Clinton offered American assistance in opening markets. “We stand ready to provide technical assistance, we stand ready to help, but we can’t help if nobody is asking for help or if nobody is accepting help.”
There should be no doubt that Secretary Clinton is sincere in this offer. The U.S. government has devoted hundreds of millions of dollars to trade capacity building in African since AGOA was signed into law in 2000. However, there does not seem to be a full understanding of the complexity of the issue of intra-African trade. Consequently, we are making little or no headway on this because we are not fully taking into account all the factors that have contributed to only 10% of African trade being internal to the continent.
Secretary Clinton mentioned tariffs and customs issues that hamper intra-African trade. She described it accurately as both a corruption problem and a capacity problem. Traders between countries acknowledge that they often are delayed long hours by customs officials, police and soldiers seeking to force them to pay bribes to pass through. Governments without the capacity to control far-flung officials, some of whom aren’t paid regularly, are hard-pressed to end this obstacle to intra-African trade. Until this situation can be reversed, it will continue to plague those who go back and forth between countries buying and selling goods.
The high tariffs Secretary Clinton mentioned also are a disincentive for cross-border trade. Not much progress has been made in eliminating these tariffs as required in the plan to establish the African Economic Community except in parts of a couple of regions. This is in part due to a miscalculation in which African governments used high tariffs to discourage imports and encourage local production. However, structural adjustment as demanded by international financial institutions and World Trade Organization requirements made that policy obsolete even though some governments still cling to this notion of development.Trade reform in Africa has taken hold.
Twenty years ago, the International Monetary Fund classified 75% of sub-Saharan African countries as having restrictive trade policies. A little more than a decade later, only 14% of these countries were considered to have restrictive trade policies. More needs to be done, but certainly African governments have responded and are not refusing to make reforms.
Secretary Clinton mentioned transportation as a major impediment o intra-African trade. Forty percent of African countries are islands or landlocked, so effective transportation links are critical for them to trade with other African countries. Under colonialism, transportation linkages served the needs of the colonial power so that what roads, rail lines and other infrastructure that existed were intended to carry goods to the ports so they could be sent to Europe. Roads that linked countries evidently were seen as promoting independence and therefore not desirable. Today, only 30% of African roads are paved because transportation within rural areas and between countries was not of interest to those who built the roads. Correcting this situation is estimated to cost many billions of dollars African governments don’t have.
The reason it’s easier to get from Lagos to London than from Lagos to Nairobi is that air linkages between the colony and colonial power were arranged that way because Nigeria and Kenya were intended to trade with the United Kingdom and not each other. This situation is slowly but surely being addressed, but old habits die hard, and African regional airlines have not been successful in competition with stronger European airlines.
It isn’t that there are no efforts to trade between African countries, but that trade which exists is plagued by four trends. First, there is a narrow pattern of trade involving unprocessed primary products. What incentive is there for one country to buy fruit from its neighbor that it already produces? Second, Europeans still dominate African trade. Gambia has historically traded almost exclusively with the United Kingdom even though it is surrounded by Senegal, whose major trading partner is France. If the former colonial power buys most of your products, how much do you have left to trade with your neighbors? Third, much of the intra-African trade that exists is done so informally and is untaxed and unregulated, so we really can’t say what the true level of intra-African trade is beyond estimates. Fourth, African payment systems are inefficient and costly. Electronic fund transfers taking minutes facilitate international transactions elsewhere, but checks for payment in Africa can take a month to clear. Given this discrepancy, who would you rather do business with?
One phenomenon that is involved in lower than possible intra-African trade may be the practice of transfer pricing. By over-pricing imports and under-pricing exports, multinational companies transfer profits, revenues or monies out of a country in order to evade taxes. This may seem to be solely a tax issue, but if neighboring countries aren’t in on these deals, wouldn’t they be locked out of trade in the goods in question? The OECD estimates that nearly two-thirds of global trade in goods and services takes place not on the free market, but rather between subsidiaries of the same multinational company. Global Financial Integrity, an organization that tracks illegal fund transfers, estimates that sub-Saharan African countries lost more than US$800 billion through techniques such as abusive transfer pricing between 1970 and 2008.
Incompatible legal systems, different currencies, regional conflicts and other issues add to Africa’s problems in establishing successful intra-African trade. I do not excuse African governments for not correcting this situation because these problems can be fixed, but a better explanation of the challenges they face would provide those who want to help with a more comprehensive understanding of what the problems truly are.
I believe the U.S. government wants to help, so I urge officials to take into consideration all the factors involved in low intra-African trade and provide targeted assistance to both governments and private sectors. When the help provided does not meet the need, it is bound to fail.
There should be no doubt that Secretary Clinton is sincere in this offer. The U.S. government has devoted hundreds of millions of dollars to trade capacity building in African since AGOA was signed into law in 2000. However, there does not seem to be a full understanding of the complexity of the issue of intra-African trade. Consequently, we are making little or no headway on this because we are not fully taking into account all the factors that have contributed to only 10% of African trade being internal to the continent.
Secretary Clinton mentioned tariffs and customs issues that hamper intra-African trade. She described it accurately as both a corruption problem and a capacity problem. Traders between countries acknowledge that they often are delayed long hours by customs officials, police and soldiers seeking to force them to pay bribes to pass through. Governments without the capacity to control far-flung officials, some of whom aren’t paid regularly, are hard-pressed to end this obstacle to intra-African trade. Until this situation can be reversed, it will continue to plague those who go back and forth between countries buying and selling goods.
The high tariffs Secretary Clinton mentioned also are a disincentive for cross-border trade. Not much progress has been made in eliminating these tariffs as required in the plan to establish the African Economic Community except in parts of a couple of regions. This is in part due to a miscalculation in which African governments used high tariffs to discourage imports and encourage local production. However, structural adjustment as demanded by international financial institutions and World Trade Organization requirements made that policy obsolete even though some governments still cling to this notion of development.Trade reform in Africa has taken hold.
Twenty years ago, the International Monetary Fund classified 75% of sub-Saharan African countries as having restrictive trade policies. A little more than a decade later, only 14% of these countries were considered to have restrictive trade policies. More needs to be done, but certainly African governments have responded and are not refusing to make reforms.
Secretary Clinton mentioned transportation as a major impediment o intra-African trade. Forty percent of African countries are islands or landlocked, so effective transportation links are critical for them to trade with other African countries. Under colonialism, transportation linkages served the needs of the colonial power so that what roads, rail lines and other infrastructure that existed were intended to carry goods to the ports so they could be sent to Europe. Roads that linked countries evidently were seen as promoting independence and therefore not desirable. Today, only 30% of African roads are paved because transportation within rural areas and between countries was not of interest to those who built the roads. Correcting this situation is estimated to cost many billions of dollars African governments don’t have.
The reason it’s easier to get from Lagos to London than from Lagos to Nairobi is that air linkages between the colony and colonial power were arranged that way because Nigeria and Kenya were intended to trade with the United Kingdom and not each other. This situation is slowly but surely being addressed, but old habits die hard, and African regional airlines have not been successful in competition with stronger European airlines.
It isn’t that there are no efforts to trade between African countries, but that trade which exists is plagued by four trends. First, there is a narrow pattern of trade involving unprocessed primary products. What incentive is there for one country to buy fruit from its neighbor that it already produces? Second, Europeans still dominate African trade. Gambia has historically traded almost exclusively with the United Kingdom even though it is surrounded by Senegal, whose major trading partner is France. If the former colonial power buys most of your products, how much do you have left to trade with your neighbors? Third, much of the intra-African trade that exists is done so informally and is untaxed and unregulated, so we really can’t say what the true level of intra-African trade is beyond estimates. Fourth, African payment systems are inefficient and costly. Electronic fund transfers taking minutes facilitate international transactions elsewhere, but checks for payment in Africa can take a month to clear. Given this discrepancy, who would you rather do business with?
One phenomenon that is involved in lower than possible intra-African trade may be the practice of transfer pricing. By over-pricing imports and under-pricing exports, multinational companies transfer profits, revenues or monies out of a country in order to evade taxes. This may seem to be solely a tax issue, but if neighboring countries aren’t in on these deals, wouldn’t they be locked out of trade in the goods in question? The OECD estimates that nearly two-thirds of global trade in goods and services takes place not on the free market, but rather between subsidiaries of the same multinational company. Global Financial Integrity, an organization that tracks illegal fund transfers, estimates that sub-Saharan African countries lost more than US$800 billion through techniques such as abusive transfer pricing between 1970 and 2008.
Incompatible legal systems, different currencies, regional conflicts and other issues add to Africa’s problems in establishing successful intra-African trade. I do not excuse African governments for not correcting this situation because these problems can be fixed, but a better explanation of the challenges they face would provide those who want to help with a more comprehensive understanding of what the problems truly are.
I believe the U.S. government wants to help, so I urge officials to take into consideration all the factors involved in low intra-African trade and provide targeted assistance to both governments and private sectors. When the help provided does not meet the need, it is bound to fail.
Monday, June 14, 2010
An African Leadership Vacuum?
For the second consecutive year, billionaire Mo Ibrahim’s foundation has declined to award its Mo Ibrahim Prize to an African leader. Last year, the foundation’s prize committee said it had considered credible candidates, but couldn’t select a winner. This year, the committee said there were no new candidates or developments that would break last year’s deadlock. Does this mean African government leadership is declining? Not necessarily.
The Ibrahim Prize is awarded to a democratically elected former African Head of State or Government who served in office within the limits of his or her country’s constitution and has left office within three years of the awarding of the prize. Past winners were former Mozambique President Joaquim Chissano (2007) and former Botswana President Festus Mogae (2008). Former South African President Nelson Mandela was made Honorary Laureate in 2007.
“The standards set for the Prize winner are high, and the number of potential candidates each year is small. So it is likely there will be years when no Prize is awarded,” said a committee statement.
The committee does not say they feel that African governance is lagging. “Many African countries are making great strides not just economically, but also in terms of their governance,” the committee stated.
So why has there been no winner since 2008? The answer lies in their statement about the number of eligible candidates.
Of the African Heads of State who have left office since 2007, five died in office: Omar Bongo (Gabon), Lansana Conté (Guinea), João Bernardo Viera (Guinea Bissau), Umaru Musa Yar’Adua (Nigeria) and Levy Mwanawasa (Zambia). Of the others, Marc Ravalomanana (Madagascar) was forced from office after he had forced his predecessor out. General Mohammed Ould Abdel Aziz (Mauritania) had seized power before seeking election in tainted balloting. Mamadou Tandja (Niger) tried to illegally extend his term. Ahmed Tejan Kabbah was long suspected of involvement in corruption during his rule. That leaves former Ghanaian President John Kufuor, former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo and former South African President Thabo Mbeki.
The executive face of South Africa’s government from the time of majority rule in 1994, Mbeki caused serious concerns internationally due to his unorthodox views on how HIV-AIDS is transmitted and refused to accept the standard view on this. He was forced from office by his political party, largely due to clashes with his successor Jacob Zuma, even though the economy grew at 4.5% during his term in office.
Despite his role in bringing into government successful reformers, Obasanjo unsuccessfully tried to push a constitutional change to vie for a third term, and the Nigerian parliament indicted him in 2008 for questionable energy deals. Nevertheless, he has had a stellar post-presidency period.
That leaves Kufuor, and what has many puzzled (especially in Ghana) is why he hasn’t made it over the top either last year or this year. When he won election in 2001, it marked the first peaceful, democratic transition in Ghana since its 1957. He was a moving force behind the creation of the New Partnership for African Dev elopement (NEPAD), and Ghana became the first country to undergo assessment by its Peer Review Mechanism. His country’s governance convinced the United States to award Ghana a US$500 Millennium Challenge Account grant.
So why didn’t Kufuor get the Ibrahim Prize? Good question, and one the Ibrahim Foundation has not revealed. There are rumors that his son’s business dealings may have been a problem or that successor John Atta Mills, a political rival, may have influenced the decision to withhold the award. Neither reason should have denied Kufuor this award.
The Ibrahim Prize consists of an award of US$5 million over 10 years and US$200,000 annually for life. With such a significant financial investment in the winner, it is appropriate to be careful and not make an award when there is question about some development unfolding after the award is made. Still, to deny leaders on the basis of rumors can only serve to frustrate those who have assembled an admirable record in office. Not being selected says the rumors must be true and taints an otherwise commendable record.
Losing to another candidate is the cost of competition, but the collateral damage from not winning when you appear to be the logical choice is an unnecessary slap in the face to someone who has followed the rules.
The Ibrahim Prize is awarded to a democratically elected former African Head of State or Government who served in office within the limits of his or her country’s constitution and has left office within three years of the awarding of the prize. Past winners were former Mozambique President Joaquim Chissano (2007) and former Botswana President Festus Mogae (2008). Former South African President Nelson Mandela was made Honorary Laureate in 2007.
“The standards set for the Prize winner are high, and the number of potential candidates each year is small. So it is likely there will be years when no Prize is awarded,” said a committee statement.
The committee does not say they feel that African governance is lagging. “Many African countries are making great strides not just economically, but also in terms of their governance,” the committee stated.
So why has there been no winner since 2008? The answer lies in their statement about the number of eligible candidates.
Of the African Heads of State who have left office since 2007, five died in office: Omar Bongo (Gabon), Lansana Conté (Guinea), João Bernardo Viera (Guinea Bissau), Umaru Musa Yar’Adua (Nigeria) and Levy Mwanawasa (Zambia). Of the others, Marc Ravalomanana (Madagascar) was forced from office after he had forced his predecessor out. General Mohammed Ould Abdel Aziz (Mauritania) had seized power before seeking election in tainted balloting. Mamadou Tandja (Niger) tried to illegally extend his term. Ahmed Tejan Kabbah was long suspected of involvement in corruption during his rule. That leaves former Ghanaian President John Kufuor, former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo and former South African President Thabo Mbeki.
The executive face of South Africa’s government from the time of majority rule in 1994, Mbeki caused serious concerns internationally due to his unorthodox views on how HIV-AIDS is transmitted and refused to accept the standard view on this. He was forced from office by his political party, largely due to clashes with his successor Jacob Zuma, even though the economy grew at 4.5% during his term in office.
Despite his role in bringing into government successful reformers, Obasanjo unsuccessfully tried to push a constitutional change to vie for a third term, and the Nigerian parliament indicted him in 2008 for questionable energy deals. Nevertheless, he has had a stellar post-presidency period.
That leaves Kufuor, and what has many puzzled (especially in Ghana) is why he hasn’t made it over the top either last year or this year. When he won election in 2001, it marked the first peaceful, democratic transition in Ghana since its 1957. He was a moving force behind the creation of the New Partnership for African Dev elopement (NEPAD), and Ghana became the first country to undergo assessment by its Peer Review Mechanism. His country’s governance convinced the United States to award Ghana a US$500 Millennium Challenge Account grant.
So why didn’t Kufuor get the Ibrahim Prize? Good question, and one the Ibrahim Foundation has not revealed. There are rumors that his son’s business dealings may have been a problem or that successor John Atta Mills, a political rival, may have influenced the decision to withhold the award. Neither reason should have denied Kufuor this award.
The Ibrahim Prize consists of an award of US$5 million over 10 years and US$200,000 annually for life. With such a significant financial investment in the winner, it is appropriate to be careful and not make an award when there is question about some development unfolding after the award is made. Still, to deny leaders on the basis of rumors can only serve to frustrate those who have assembled an admirable record in office. Not being selected says the rumors must be true and taints an otherwise commendable record.
Losing to another candidate is the cost of competition, but the collateral damage from not winning when you appear to be the logical choice is an unnecessary slap in the face to someone who has followed the rules.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Aiming Too Low on Africa?
Chatham House, the operating name of the Royal Institute of International Affairs of the United Kingdom, recently issued a report warning that Western nations will lose out to emerging nations, particularly those from Asia, if we don’t change our paradigm for relations with African countries from a primarily humanitarian and crisis mode to one of facilitating long-term partnerships. If you look at the Asian commercial advance on the continent, that view is a valid one.
• In 2007, the China-Africa Development Fund, a US$5 billion initiative to support business partnerships between Chinese and African entrepreneurs, was established. In its first two years, the fund facilitated more than 20 investments in Africa, amounting to nearly US$400 million.
• Indian firm ONGC Mittal Energy Ltd. Agreed to a US$6 billion infrastructure deal in 2007 in Nigeria in exchange for extensive access to some of the best production blocs in the country.
• Japan increased its development assistance to Africa to US$2 billion, up from what had been US$962 million, as well as US$4 billion in soft loans for African infrastructure improvement.
• Two years ago, the Turkish Confederation of Businessmen and Industrialists hosted a Turkey-Africa Foreign Trade Bridge that drew about 1,000 African business leaders from three dozen African countries. Three subsequent agreements will bring US$220 million in Turkish investments to South Africa.
These countries and others recognize and believe that African countries are making significant economic advances. They read the same World Bank and International Monetary Fund reports predicting high growth rates in Africa, including 4% in Cote d’Ivoire, 5.1% in Botswana, 5.8% in Kenya and 7.7% in Ethiopia. All these countries have serious issues, but their Asian partners see past current problems to tomorrow’s promise of profit. Western countries are too fixated on what is wrong now and fail to fully acknowledge what is going right going forward. We recognize that Brazil is becoming an international energy power due to biofuels, but we fail to give full credit to Congo’s advances on biofuels.
Continually, Asian deals that look good to some African leaders becomes a net negative. A South Korean deal to buy nearly a third of Madagascar’s farm land contributed to a revolt that toppled that African nation’s government. African governments that don’t honor human rights, such as Sudan, allow countries like China to freely exploit their resources.
The new scramble for Africa, Asian-style, is abetted by our borderline demeaning view of Africa, which puts Western governments in the role of saving Africa rather than working with Africa for mutual benefit. We say we want to partner with the continent’s countries, but our actions belie our words. The African Growth and Opportunity Act, the main process by which the United States engages Africa economically, was not instituted as a negotiated trade deal that met the expectations of both sides. It is, in fact, more designed along the lines of a gift to those African countries that qualify. If you give someone a gift, it does earn you the right to determine if they deserve it. However, that’s not how partners behave toward one another.
This is why African countries are increasingly turning to Asian partners. The Asians aren’t telling them they have to jump through hoops, no matter how justified those hoops may be. Now Asian countries are mostly taking advantage of African interest in not being told what to do, but their engagement is all too often more beneficial to them than their Africa partners.
Have you ever seen the work crews on many Chinese infrastructure projects in Africa? I have, and they are almost exclusively Chinese. After many projects, Chinese workers are left behind to go into business, pushing out African entrepreneurs. Asian loans are real loans and not destined for forgiveness as so many Soviet arms deals were.
African leaders such as Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe and Sudan Omar Bashir use Asian and other non-Western investment and aid as a lever to back off Western countries from insisting on conditionality on aid and investment. But even generally friendly African leaders such as Senegal President Abdoulaye Wade and Liberia President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf are turning East. This should be a disturbing development that causes us to look inward and reassess how we deal with Africa.
This second scramble for Africa could leave African governments in charge of the apparatus of power but not in control of the reins of their own resources. That would be too bad for the Africans, but also too bad for us.
• In 2007, the China-Africa Development Fund, a US$5 billion initiative to support business partnerships between Chinese and African entrepreneurs, was established. In its first two years, the fund facilitated more than 20 investments in Africa, amounting to nearly US$400 million.
• Indian firm ONGC Mittal Energy Ltd. Agreed to a US$6 billion infrastructure deal in 2007 in Nigeria in exchange for extensive access to some of the best production blocs in the country.
• Japan increased its development assistance to Africa to US$2 billion, up from what had been US$962 million, as well as US$4 billion in soft loans for African infrastructure improvement.
• Two years ago, the Turkish Confederation of Businessmen and Industrialists hosted a Turkey-Africa Foreign Trade Bridge that drew about 1,000 African business leaders from three dozen African countries. Three subsequent agreements will bring US$220 million in Turkish investments to South Africa.
These countries and others recognize and believe that African countries are making significant economic advances. They read the same World Bank and International Monetary Fund reports predicting high growth rates in Africa, including 4% in Cote d’Ivoire, 5.1% in Botswana, 5.8% in Kenya and 7.7% in Ethiopia. All these countries have serious issues, but their Asian partners see past current problems to tomorrow’s promise of profit. Western countries are too fixated on what is wrong now and fail to fully acknowledge what is going right going forward. We recognize that Brazil is becoming an international energy power due to biofuels, but we fail to give full credit to Congo’s advances on biofuels.
Continually, Asian deals that look good to some African leaders becomes a net negative. A South Korean deal to buy nearly a third of Madagascar’s farm land contributed to a revolt that toppled that African nation’s government. African governments that don’t honor human rights, such as Sudan, allow countries like China to freely exploit their resources.
The new scramble for Africa, Asian-style, is abetted by our borderline demeaning view of Africa, which puts Western governments in the role of saving Africa rather than working with Africa for mutual benefit. We say we want to partner with the continent’s countries, but our actions belie our words. The African Growth and Opportunity Act, the main process by which the United States engages Africa economically, was not instituted as a negotiated trade deal that met the expectations of both sides. It is, in fact, more designed along the lines of a gift to those African countries that qualify. If you give someone a gift, it does earn you the right to determine if they deserve it. However, that’s not how partners behave toward one another.
This is why African countries are increasingly turning to Asian partners. The Asians aren’t telling them they have to jump through hoops, no matter how justified those hoops may be. Now Asian countries are mostly taking advantage of African interest in not being told what to do, but their engagement is all too often more beneficial to them than their Africa partners.
Have you ever seen the work crews on many Chinese infrastructure projects in Africa? I have, and they are almost exclusively Chinese. After many projects, Chinese workers are left behind to go into business, pushing out African entrepreneurs. Asian loans are real loans and not destined for forgiveness as so many Soviet arms deals were.
African leaders such as Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe and Sudan Omar Bashir use Asian and other non-Western investment and aid as a lever to back off Western countries from insisting on conditionality on aid and investment. But even generally friendly African leaders such as Senegal President Abdoulaye Wade and Liberia President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf are turning East. This should be a disturbing development that causes us to look inward and reassess how we deal with Africa.
This second scramble for Africa could leave African governments in charge of the apparatus of power but not in control of the reins of their own resources. That would be too bad for the Africans, but also too bad for us.
Monday, June 7, 2010
South Africa Scores with World Cup
When the 2010 World Cup opens later this week, the Republic of South Africa will be center stage in a global tournament that will highlight the progress of Africa’s leading emerging market. Its modern cities and advanced infrastructure will impress those who have never visited the country, or Africa at all, before now. However, what visitors and viewers will not notice is how much South Africa had to overcome in order to host the world’s 19th soccer tournament.
When South Africa beat out Morocco and Egypt in an all-African bidding process in 2004 to become the first African host of the World Cup, its struggles were just beginning. Only two years into preparations, FIFA, the sanctioning body for international soccer, began to become concerned about South Africa’s planning process, and there was talk that the games could be moved to another country.
Even after such talk was dismissed by FIFA, South Africa was faced with the task of building five new stadiums and upgrading five existing venues on time at an estimated cost of US$1.07 billion. Then labor troubles struck as 70,000 construction workers went on strike, claiming they were underpaid at US$313 per month. Although the immediate strike was resolved, some unions have threatened to strike during the World Cup itself. The Congress of South African Trade Unions has said the federation and its affiliates reserve the right to take industrial action at any time despite the blow to the country during its day in the spotlight.
The next challenge came from al Qaeda in the Islamic Mahgreb, which threatened to attack South Africa during the World Cup. The terror organization crowed about the prospect of an attack during the live televised match between the United States and the United Kingdom when the stadium is full of spectators and of the impact “when the sound of an explosion rumbles through the stands, the whole stadium turned upside down and the number of dead bodies are in their dozens and hundreds, Allah willing.” France, Germany and Italy also were announced as al Qaeda targets during the tournament.
Last October, South Africa announced that its security forces had foiled an al Qaeda attempt to mount a World Cup terrorist attack. A joint operation by South Africa’s National Intelligence Agency, senior police forces and American intelligence agents conducted what was called a successful joint operation, arresting suspects linked to al Qaeda in Somalia and Mozambique said to be working on a bomb plot scheduled for the World Cup. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security has been training South African police on anti-terror techniques, and the United States has sent inspection barriers, x-ray machines and other equipment to South Africa.
Although some terrorism experts believe the al Qaeda threats may be a ploy to stir up publicity and cause problems for target nations before and during the tournament, the South African and American governments have taken the threat seriously.
Yet another international concern is the rise of human trafficking during the World Cup. An influx of prostitutes from such countries as China, Pakistan, India, Hong Kong and Venezuela have been noted pouring into the country, although the primary source of incoming sex workers is from Zimbabwe. Contrary to the traditional pattern of cross-border buses from Zimbabwe carrying mostly men, in recent months such traffic is mostly female. However, a significant percentage of the prostitutes aiming to service many of the estimated 373,000 soccer fans will not be arriving on a voluntary basis.
South African President Jacob Zuma has urged parents and care givers to be extra vigilant to ensure the safety of children during the World Cup. In opening Child Protection Week and announcing the launch of the Children’s Act in early April, Zuma warned that school closure for mid-term vacation would leave large numbers of children with limited supervision. As many as half of the reported six to eight hundred thousand trafficked persons worldwide are minors.
FIFA has provided additional police officers from all participating nations, although no connection has been made to the trafficking issue. The International Organization for Migration launched an initiative last month to support anti-trafficking organizations during the World Cup and initiated a nationwide awareness campaign, all paid for by the U.S. Department of State.
Only days before the World Cup is to begin, South African authorities have asked Interpol to alert its members to stop companies worldwide who have been illegally selling tickets for the event. Match Event Services, granted the exclusive right to sell World Cup tickets, has identified 122 companies violating their franchise. South African police are concerned about an influx of people coming into the country with bogus tickets and say they will arrest and prosecute anyone found selling tickets without authorization.
South Africa will justifiably reap the rewards of all its hard work in getting the World Cup and staging these games, but most observers had no idea of how difficult this process has been. Now they do.
Let’s hope the roar of the crowd is for a well-played match and not a tragedy in the stands.
When South Africa beat out Morocco and Egypt in an all-African bidding process in 2004 to become the first African host of the World Cup, its struggles were just beginning. Only two years into preparations, FIFA, the sanctioning body for international soccer, began to become concerned about South Africa’s planning process, and there was talk that the games could be moved to another country.
Even after such talk was dismissed by FIFA, South Africa was faced with the task of building five new stadiums and upgrading five existing venues on time at an estimated cost of US$1.07 billion. Then labor troubles struck as 70,000 construction workers went on strike, claiming they were underpaid at US$313 per month. Although the immediate strike was resolved, some unions have threatened to strike during the World Cup itself. The Congress of South African Trade Unions has said the federation and its affiliates reserve the right to take industrial action at any time despite the blow to the country during its day in the spotlight.
The next challenge came from al Qaeda in the Islamic Mahgreb, which threatened to attack South Africa during the World Cup. The terror organization crowed about the prospect of an attack during the live televised match between the United States and the United Kingdom when the stadium is full of spectators and of the impact “when the sound of an explosion rumbles through the stands, the whole stadium turned upside down and the number of dead bodies are in their dozens and hundreds, Allah willing.” France, Germany and Italy also were announced as al Qaeda targets during the tournament.
Last October, South Africa announced that its security forces had foiled an al Qaeda attempt to mount a World Cup terrorist attack. A joint operation by South Africa’s National Intelligence Agency, senior police forces and American intelligence agents conducted what was called a successful joint operation, arresting suspects linked to al Qaeda in Somalia and Mozambique said to be working on a bomb plot scheduled for the World Cup. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security has been training South African police on anti-terror techniques, and the United States has sent inspection barriers, x-ray machines and other equipment to South Africa.
Although some terrorism experts believe the al Qaeda threats may be a ploy to stir up publicity and cause problems for target nations before and during the tournament, the South African and American governments have taken the threat seriously.
Yet another international concern is the rise of human trafficking during the World Cup. An influx of prostitutes from such countries as China, Pakistan, India, Hong Kong and Venezuela have been noted pouring into the country, although the primary source of incoming sex workers is from Zimbabwe. Contrary to the traditional pattern of cross-border buses from Zimbabwe carrying mostly men, in recent months such traffic is mostly female. However, a significant percentage of the prostitutes aiming to service many of the estimated 373,000 soccer fans will not be arriving on a voluntary basis.
South African President Jacob Zuma has urged parents and care givers to be extra vigilant to ensure the safety of children during the World Cup. In opening Child Protection Week and announcing the launch of the Children’s Act in early April, Zuma warned that school closure for mid-term vacation would leave large numbers of children with limited supervision. As many as half of the reported six to eight hundred thousand trafficked persons worldwide are minors.
FIFA has provided additional police officers from all participating nations, although no connection has been made to the trafficking issue. The International Organization for Migration launched an initiative last month to support anti-trafficking organizations during the World Cup and initiated a nationwide awareness campaign, all paid for by the U.S. Department of State.
Only days before the World Cup is to begin, South African authorities have asked Interpol to alert its members to stop companies worldwide who have been illegally selling tickets for the event. Match Event Services, granted the exclusive right to sell World Cup tickets, has identified 122 companies violating their franchise. South African police are concerned about an influx of people coming into the country with bogus tickets and say they will arrest and prosecute anyone found selling tickets without authorization.
South Africa will justifiably reap the rewards of all its hard work in getting the World Cup and staging these games, but most observers had no idea of how difficult this process has been. Now they do.
Let’s hope the roar of the crowd is for a well-played match and not a tragedy in the stands.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Africa’s Infrastructure Challenge
Sub-Saharan Africa has perhaps the world’s least sufficient infrastructure. In addition to being sparse, it is much more expensive that other regions of the world. However, investment, including that from the continent itself, may change this picture significantly over the next few years.
Less than 30% of African roads are paved. In fact, according to the World Bank, in 1992 approximately 17% of sub-Saharan African roads were paved, but by 1998, the percentage had dropped to 12%. At about that time, Africa below the Sahara desert (with the exception of South Africa) had 18% less paved roads than Poland.
There is great concern over the decline in Africa’s share of world exports, and while World Bank studies cite non-competitive prices as responsible for approximately a quarter of the decline, the rest is due to non-price factors such as poor infrastructure and information services. Those studies also show that a 10% decrease in transportation costs could mean as much as a 25% increase in total African trade.
In her assessment of African infrastructure, World Bank Vice President for Sustainable Development Katherine Sierra told the 4th annual U.S.-Africa Infrastructure Conference in April that:
• Every US$1 of delayed road maintenance costs US$4 to restore the existing road.
• Only 20% of Africa’s population has access to electricity or modern forms of energy, compared to 50% in South Asia and 80% in Latin America.
• The entire capacity for electric power in sub-Saharan Africa’s 48 countries with more than 800 million people is no more than Spain with about 40 million people.
• The cost of infrastructure services in sub-Saharan Africa are at least double those in South Asia and in some areas is five times as high because of a lack of large-scale economies, the high cost of electrical power and a lack of competition.
• Railways in sub-Saharan Africa have declined in significance partly because of poor maintenance and other adverse economic and infrastructural factors.
• The volume of cargo in African ports has tripled in the past decade, normally a hopeful sign of expanding economies, but such hope is frustrated by the low incidence of containerization and weak transportation linkages.
The World Bank assessment of African infrastructure is not all gloom and doom, however. Sierra noted the great progress made in telecommunications. She said only 5% of Africa’s population lived within range of a mobile phone signal in 1999, but today, that percentage is 60% and could rise to 90% soon if there is deregulation and greater competition. Increased access to information about prices and markets already has boosted the prospects of African producers.
More good news is that African countries are responding to the infrastructure challenges they face. In light of statistics indicating that passengers flying in Africa are 75 times more likely to die in a crash than fliers in North America, African countries are joining regionally to establish common aviation regulation bodies, such as the Banjul Accord Group in West Africa. Better coordination of safety efforts should reduce risk and increase efficiency significantly.
The ZIZABONA project, involving Zimbabwe, Zambia, Botswana and Namibia, is creating new power transmission lines to link the four neighboring countries, making it easier for them to trade power with one another. Another regional power project will make Zambia a strategic power linkage between the five nations of the East African Community and the Southern African Development Community.
Given the dearth of international development funding due largely to the current global economic downturn (as well as donor nations failing to fulfill promises of development funding), the key to financing African infrastructure projects will be attracting private funds for infrastructure development. This will include multinational corporate investment, but also local companies and the growing possibilities for remittances. Alhaji Bamanga Tukur, Chairman of the NEPAD Business Group, said the African private sector has tremendous capacity to develop infrastructure “if there is a transparent and supportive policy environment.”
The same is true for non-African investors. The public-private partnerships necessary for this to succeed will only work if there is accountability, transparency and some guarantee for return on investment. This is being accomplished now in some parts of the continent where public-private boards for road development, often including road users, are subject to external audits on the money raised from vehicle licenses and user fees. Jobs are contracted out to private developers rather than parceled out to government cronies or phantom workers.
The African Diaspora can get in on the potential enhancement of African infrastructure and even earn profits from their efforts. Doing well by doing good is more than a motto. It is a reality that can be realized by those willing to take a calculated risk for the greater good. It’s also called putting your money where your mouth is.
Any takers?
Less than 30% of African roads are paved. In fact, according to the World Bank, in 1992 approximately 17% of sub-Saharan African roads were paved, but by 1998, the percentage had dropped to 12%. At about that time, Africa below the Sahara desert (with the exception of South Africa) had 18% less paved roads than Poland.
There is great concern over the decline in Africa’s share of world exports, and while World Bank studies cite non-competitive prices as responsible for approximately a quarter of the decline, the rest is due to non-price factors such as poor infrastructure and information services. Those studies also show that a 10% decrease in transportation costs could mean as much as a 25% increase in total African trade.
In her assessment of African infrastructure, World Bank Vice President for Sustainable Development Katherine Sierra told the 4th annual U.S.-Africa Infrastructure Conference in April that:
• Every US$1 of delayed road maintenance costs US$4 to restore the existing road.
• Only 20% of Africa’s population has access to electricity or modern forms of energy, compared to 50% in South Asia and 80% in Latin America.
• The entire capacity for electric power in sub-Saharan Africa’s 48 countries with more than 800 million people is no more than Spain with about 40 million people.
• The cost of infrastructure services in sub-Saharan Africa are at least double those in South Asia and in some areas is five times as high because of a lack of large-scale economies, the high cost of electrical power and a lack of competition.
• Railways in sub-Saharan Africa have declined in significance partly because of poor maintenance and other adverse economic and infrastructural factors.
• The volume of cargo in African ports has tripled in the past decade, normally a hopeful sign of expanding economies, but such hope is frustrated by the low incidence of containerization and weak transportation linkages.
The World Bank assessment of African infrastructure is not all gloom and doom, however. Sierra noted the great progress made in telecommunications. She said only 5% of Africa’s population lived within range of a mobile phone signal in 1999, but today, that percentage is 60% and could rise to 90% soon if there is deregulation and greater competition. Increased access to information about prices and markets already has boosted the prospects of African producers.
More good news is that African countries are responding to the infrastructure challenges they face. In light of statistics indicating that passengers flying in Africa are 75 times more likely to die in a crash than fliers in North America, African countries are joining regionally to establish common aviation regulation bodies, such as the Banjul Accord Group in West Africa. Better coordination of safety efforts should reduce risk and increase efficiency significantly.
The ZIZABONA project, involving Zimbabwe, Zambia, Botswana and Namibia, is creating new power transmission lines to link the four neighboring countries, making it easier for them to trade power with one another. Another regional power project will make Zambia a strategic power linkage between the five nations of the East African Community and the Southern African Development Community.
Given the dearth of international development funding due largely to the current global economic downturn (as well as donor nations failing to fulfill promises of development funding), the key to financing African infrastructure projects will be attracting private funds for infrastructure development. This will include multinational corporate investment, but also local companies and the growing possibilities for remittances. Alhaji Bamanga Tukur, Chairman of the NEPAD Business Group, said the African private sector has tremendous capacity to develop infrastructure “if there is a transparent and supportive policy environment.”
The same is true for non-African investors. The public-private partnerships necessary for this to succeed will only work if there is accountability, transparency and some guarantee for return on investment. This is being accomplished now in some parts of the continent where public-private boards for road development, often including road users, are subject to external audits on the money raised from vehicle licenses and user fees. Jobs are contracted out to private developers rather than parceled out to government cronies or phantom workers.
The African Diaspora can get in on the potential enhancement of African infrastructure and even earn profits from their efforts. Doing well by doing good is more than a motto. It is a reality that can be realized by those willing to take a calculated risk for the greater good. It’s also called putting your money where your mouth is.
Any takers?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
