Africa in Transition

President Donald Trump’s January 11 comments denigrating African countries has produced a fierce, continent-wide reaction. The concern must be that Africans will take the president’s comments as reflecting the views of most Americans, rather than merely his own and that of his small political base. In the aftermath of the president’s comments, the Department of State’s Africa bureau tweeted that “the United States will continue to robustly, enthusiastically and forcefully engage” with Africa, a weak response to African anger that reflects the reality that it is a part of the Trump administration, not independent of it. It becomes imperative that Americans who do not share the president’s views and are independent of the administration make explicitly clear the value of Africa to the United States. To that end, seventy-eight former U.S. ambassadors to African countries (including me) have signed a public letter to the president. (There were an additional seven signatures after the letter was delivered to the White House on January 16.) The letter affirms the importance of the multidimensional partnerships the United States has with most African states, which range from business to security to conservation. It makes the point that a close partnership with Africa is a matter of U.S. national security. The letter calls on the president to reassess his views of Africa and to acknowledge the importance of African contributions, and those of the African diaspora. As of January 18, there has been no substantive White House response. Those who signed the letter represent much of the Africa expertise once found at the U.S. Department of State. The letter is already being carried by some American and African media outlets, and it is to be hoped that more will do so in the coming days, especially those with an African audience. The letter has been distributed to the relevant majority (Republican) and minority (Democratic) congressional members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle had strongly criticized the president’s comments.  

This is a guest blog post by Anthony Carroll. Anthony is founding director of Acorus Capital, a private equity fund investing in Africa, and a vice president of Manchester Trade Limited, an international business advisory firm. He has over forty years of experience working with Africa and is an adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. House Foreign Affairs Chairman Ed Royce’s unexpected announcement of his plans to retire from Congress has given us pause to reflect upon his African legacy.  In my thirty-two years in Washington, I cannot think of any House member that has had such a broad and deep impact on Africa as Royce.  There were many House members who championed discreet issues in Africa whether apartheid (Howard Wolpe), hunger (Mikey Leland), Sudan (Frank Wolfe), trade (Charlie Rangel, Jim McDermott, and Phil Crane) and human rights (Don Payne and Chris Smith) but none has had such broad impact . Ed arrived in Congress in 1993 following a meteoric rise to political prominence representing his native Orange County in the California House. Among his initial committee assignments was to the prestigious House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFAC) where Chairman Ben Gilman asked him to chair the Africa subcommittee. In that post, Royce recognized the opportunity to bring focus to the oft-neglected continent and hired Tom Sheehy, an experienced Africanist (today Tom is staff director for HFAC). Among Royce’s African accomplishments was as an original sponsor of the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). Congressmen Royce and Payne built an iron clad bipartisan coalition along with their Ways and Means Committee colleagues and pushed a reluctant Clinton Administration to eventually support the bill’s passage in 2000.  Payne and Royce, while of very different political stripes, also co-chaired the House United Nations Caucus. In 1998 Royce joined Speaker Newt Gingrich in awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to Nelson Mandela. The following year, Royce co-led an International Republican Institute (IRI) election observer team to Nigeria where he and Colin Powell cautioned the country’s powerful military to remain in the barracks and respect the results. Imperfect as it might be, Nigeria now enjoys a thriving democracy. While the House once again shifted to Democratic control and Royce moved from the Africa subcommittee chairmanship, he rallied skeptical Republicans to pass and fund the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), which embodies Royce’s deep commitment to promoting the rule of law in Africa.  Royce was willing to travel to dangerous and obscure African destinations. Witnessing the carnage caused in Liberia and Sierra Leone by Charles Taylor, Royce joined with Ambassador Susan Rice in hounding Taylor until his arrest in 2006. Royce elevated attention on both Taylor’s misdeeds and our special relationship with Liberia, which next week will celebrate its first transition to a newly elected president. His work in clearing up the civil wars in Sierra Leone and Liberia gave momentum to the Kimberly Process, which helped lead to the demise of the blood diamond trade.  When he assumed the HFAC chair five years ago, Royce crafted a deep bipartisan leadership model with the Committee’s ranking member Eliot Engel. Not since Lee Hamilton have we seen a Chairman exhibit such leadership.  Royce maintained support for the agencies to which he provided oversight including Peace Corps, USAID, and OPIC, and he pushed the State Department to establish an effective inspector general. Certainly, Iran, Russia, and North Korea commanded the headlines but Royce never left Africa behind. He led the renewal of AGOA, sponsored legislation expanding U.S. assistance to develop Africa’s power supply, and thwarted the poaching of African wildlife and the illicit trade of its bounty. Royce has always been driven by a desire to do the right thing and not let partisan politics or special interests get in the way. Indeed, there were few votes in Orange County that were swayed by African issues. He has been relentless in explaining the importance of Africa to his fellow members of Congress. Royce’s departure will not only be a loss for Africa’s presence in Washington but also for the long cherished notion that partisan politics ends at the American shoreline. Safari njema Mzee Royce.

Far from dissipating, African anger is building over President Donald Trump’s negative characterization of Africa on January 11. African leaders are rejecting President Trump’s denials that he used gutter language, and a media review shows there is an emerging consensus among African opinion leaders that he is a flat-out racist. There is indignation among Africans when Americans seem to tip-toe around what they regard as the overwhelming evidence of his racism. Over the Martin Luther King holiday weekend, Botswana, Ghana, Haiti, Namibia, Senegal, and the African Union have made formal diplomatic protests. Botswana, with among the best social and economic statistics on the continent, has asked the administration “to clarify if Botswana is regarded as a ‘shithole country.’” Cyril Ramaphosa, the new president of South Africa’s governing African National Congress, has characterized the president’s remarks as “really, really derogatory, and highly offensive.” Nigeria’s foreign minister has called in American diplomats to explain the president’s remarks, characterizing them as “deeply hurtful, offensive and unacceptable.” Over the coming days, there are likely to be more official African responses. Nigeria and South Africa are the continent’s economic and political powerhouses. With Botswana, Ghana, Namibia, and Senegal, the five are on a democratic trajectory, albeit at different stages. U.S. cooperation with Nigeria in the fight against terrorism had been growing. While the bilateral relationship with South Africa is no more than “correct,” relations among the other four with Washington have been close—up to now.  According to the New York Times, the State Department has instructed its missions not to deny that the president made the remarks attributed to him, but merely to listen. Given African fury, that approach is wise. In Africa as in the United States, there is skepticism that the president tells the truth, and his denials are discounted. The president’s comments have damaged the interests of the United States in the world’s second largest continent with more than one billion people. The political and security consequences are likely to be negative, especially in multilateral fora such as the United Nations or the World Trade Organization. Alienation of Africans can have consequences on issues where the administration is seeking to rally world opinion, like North Korea, for example. Further, this racist and anti-African rhetoric is likely to strengthen the hand of those in Africa that would see their countries turn away from the West and towards more authoritarian governments, like those of Russia and China. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was expected to travel to Africa sometime in the near future, even though there is still no assistant secretary of state for Africa in place. If he does make the trip soon, his reception is likely to be frosty.