Historical Context of American Policy towards Africa

by San Kwadjovie

The main objective of the organizers of the recent National Summit on Africa in Washington D.C. was to raise the profile of a continent that has been suffering from neglect from American policy makers. This is a tall order considering all the negative images and perceptions the continent has earned-- in some cases wrongfully--over the years.

The U.S. policy towards Africa has been characterized by neglect. The U.S. stood on the sidelines at the Berlin Conference in 1884 when several European nations carved up the continent. This conference later referred to as the " Big Scramble" did not take into account African ethnic entities as well as political and natural boundaries in its zest to partition the continent into several colonies for the enrichment of Europe. In January 1919, the Paris Conference was held in Versailles in order to put an end to World War I. Represented at the conference were Great Britain, France, Italy, and the United States. The German Republic which took over from the defeated imperial government was not invited to the conference. The treaty was signed June 1919. Of interest to the African Continent was the inclusion of the Covenant of the League of Nations which was then given the responsibility for executing the terms of the treaty. Concerned Africans and African Americans drafted petitions for the self-determination of the continent to no avail. The existence of the League of Nations did not prevent Europe from going to war two decades later and from dragging the whole world with it into another inferno.

During World War II, Africa received some attention from American policy makers. President Franklin Roosevelt even paid a visit to Liberia to secure Robertsfield Airport as a major staging area for American engagement in North Africa. At the end of World War II, the world convened in San Francisco for the creation of the United Nations. In San Francisco, Africa's post-war needs such as self-determination received as usual little attention. The creation of the United Nations did not prevent the onset of the Cold War. The Eisenhower administration maintained a distance with the nationalist independence movements on the continent. It essentially shared the view that independence for the colonies was dangerous, retrogressive, and destructive.

John F. Kennedy brought some light to American policy towards the continent. By the time John F. Kennedy was elected president of United States, an impressive number of African countries had redeemed their independence from the colonial powers. The Kennedy administration opted a "strong, free, and friendly Africa." President Kennedy's policy was appreciated by the newly independent countries. Unfortunately it did not last due to his assassination.

President Johnson tried his best to follow Kennedy's footsteps but was largely preempted by concerns of the Vietnam War.

Nixon's administration renewed a policy of disengagement with the tacit acquiescence of European hegemony in Africa. For this reason, the Nixon administration supported Portuguese rule in Africa. The demise of this administration following the self-inflicted wounds in the Watergate scandal was a cause for celebration in Africa and poetic justice for many Africans.

President Carter's administration had a sympathetic disposition towards the continent's problems. The ambassador to the United Nations, Andrew Young and his deputy Donald Henry were instrumental in the Lancaster House conference which prepared Zimbabwe's independence. The hostage crisis in Iran would undermine Carter's administration and prevent further engagement on the continent.

Reagan's administration embraced the same disdain preceding Republican presidents exhibited towards the continent. The vaunted "constructive engagement" policy was, in disguise, a diplomatic scheme to privilege South Africa's view in Southern Africa. There was a huge disconnect between this policy and the perception of the public at large of events in the southern region of the continent. As a result the Free South Africa Movement was launched to alter American policy towards Southern Africa. This powerful, national and grass roots movement succeeded in forcing the hands of the administration to join the rest of humanity in pressuring South Africa to abandon the repugnant policy of apartheid.

George Bush essentially continued the policy of his predecessor and viewed Africa as Europe's turf.

Bill Clinton, elected twice with a huge African American support decided early in his administration to engage Africa on diverse issues such as environmental degradation, peacekeeping, conflict resolution, democracy, and economic revival. To the credit of the Clinton administration there has been a clear indication from the start that American policy toward the continent would no longer be dictated by the positions of the former colonial powers. However, Clinton's diplomatic successes on the continent have been relatively modest. Peace is still elusive in the Great Lakes region. In the Horn region, Ethiopia and Eritrea have not resolved their border conflict in spite of the intense shuttle diplomacy of Anthony Lake, Clinton's special envoy in the region. Clinton has pushed a substantial debt reduction for the world's poorest nations. In the economic arena, the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) is a step in the right direction although much needs to be done to reconcile the House Bill and the Senate version.

What Does the Future Hold for American Policy towards Africa? The Clinton administration is experiencing its last months in power. In November 2000, the American electorate will choose a new president. Two men are vying for the supreme investiture: Texas Governor George W. Bush and Vice-President Al Gore.

The Burden of George W. Bush George W. Bush gives so far the impression of an accidental candidate. Is he really a good fit for the job? So far he proved an average debater. The fact that he is contesting the supreme investiture is an indication of some endemic imperfections in American democracy. A privileged son of a former president, George W. Bush never had to work for much in life. He proved an average student at Yale University. His early business ventures floundered. Is he there on his own merit, or is he driven by powerful forces intent to make him the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth? As the campaign inches forward he seems to be making some progress in foreign policy.

His father, George Bush, was no friend to Africa. By all accounts, the son if elected would go back to a policy of dereliction towards the continent, just as preceding Republican presidents including the father.

Al Gore Bodes Well for the Continent An administration led by Al Gore portends well for the continent. He is a man of good intellect, and he knows the potentials of the continent. He is current with global issues and is in tune with the new economy. He certainly did not invent the Internet as he once said but was instrumental when he was in the Senate in the implementation of legislation on the Internet. If he win the presidential elections, we can expect his administration to continue the policy of the Clinton administration or even to transcend it. His recent intervention at the United Nations on the issue of AIDS heralds a genuine concern for the ills of the continent.

The African Diaspora Must Do Its Share The African Diaspora in the US has become a pivotal force in American elections. A mobilization of this political force in the legislative elections of 1998 eased the political tide against President Clinton in his historic duel with Independent Counsel Ken Starr and the forces of reaction. The African American community was instrumental in allowing Clinton to finish his term in office. It is time once again to mobilize this political force to make Gore's presidency a reality.