Obama’s Last Chance in Africa

by Francis Njubi Nesbitt

President Obama needs to unveil a new foreign policy initiative on Africa during his trip to Kenya and Ethiopia or risk going down in history as the worst president for Africa in recent memory.

It would be a shame if the first American president of African descent ranks last in meaningful engagement with Africa when compared to other presidents in the recent past. Although both George W. Bush and Bill Clinton came under intense criticism for doing nothing in the face of genocide and war crimes, they were able to recover somewhat by launching signature initiatives during their second terms.

During his first term, Bill Clinton pulled out of Somalia in a spectacular debacle immortalized in the Hollywood movie Black Hawk Down and then refused to intervene in Rwanda, standing by as tens of thousands were slain during one of the worst outbursts of fratricidal violence in the 20th century. During his second term, however, Clinton launched a series of health and development initiatives that partially mitigated his failures in Somalia and Rwanda. His Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) helped double U.S. trade with the region and triple U.S. exports estimated at $22 billion in 2012.

George W. Bush was excoriated for ignoring war crimes in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Darfur. Yet today he’s remembered on the continent for a health initiative known as PEPFAR, which has been credited with saving thousands of lives and transforming the treatment of AIDS in Africa. The Bush administration also played a significant role in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement that ended a brutal 30-year war and led to the relatively peaceful separation of Sudan and South Sudan.

Shrinking Expectations

Africans were elated when Obama was elected president of the United States in 2008. Expectations were understandably high after eight years of the Bush administration’s version of gunboat diplomacy. Obama increased those expectations during his 2009 trip to Ghana and Egypt when he promised to transform U.S. relations with Africa and the Middle East.

The glimmer of hope soon faded into the distance as Obama doubled down on Bush’s policies. Like his predecessor, he saw Africa through a national security prism that focused on terrorism and counterterrorism. He expanded the reach of the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and increased the use of drones to assassinate alleged leaders of terrorist organizations. The continued militarization of U.S. foreign policy on the continent is reflected in a 2014 initiative called the Security Governance Initiative for Africa, which proposes combining economic and military policies to create a secure environment for U.S. investors.

This continued emphasis on military solutions was mostly ineffective and counterproductive. The NATO-led invasion of Libya, for instance, destabilized the region, turning Libya and Mali into terrorist havens and strengthening terrorist organizations such as Ansar al-Sharia and al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. In Somalia, drone strikes and support for regional “peacekeeping” forces degraded the capabilities of al-Shabaab within Somalia but has yet to tackle the task of state- and institution-building. The group continues to export terror in East Africa and exacerbate the region’s refugee problem. Meanwhile, Washington has maintained strong bilateral relations with Egypt despite the brutal tactics deployed against pro-democracy activists by the country’s strongman, president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.

Missed Opportunities

The Obama administration failed to ride the wave of optimism about African economic development in international business circles. While Obama was focused on the terror threat, other countries were forging strong economic ties with Africa.

China overtook the United States in 2009 as Africa’s main trading partner. Brazil, India, and even Turkey expanded their presence on the African scene, filling the space previously occupied by Africa’s traditional trading partners in the United States and Europe. These countries recognized the opportunities represented in Africa’s economic growth over the last two decades. They appreciated that Africa has the fastest growing economies in the world, a burgeoning middle class, and a youthful educated population. They forged partnerships with states and private sector investors that have revitalized Africa’s infrastructure and stimulated exponential growth.

Despite these setbacks, Obama reiterated his pledge to transform U.S. relations with Africa during his 2013 trip to Senegal, South Africa, and Tanzania. His solution seemed to be a shift toward the Clinton administration’s emphasis on entrepreneurship and trade. He touted his administration’s Power Africa initiative to deliver electricity to millions (albeit often via fossil fuels), a scholarship program for young leaders, and continued efforts to combat AIDS and other infectious diseases. He expanded Clinton’s Africa Growth and Opportunity Act and pledged to hold the largest White House summit on Africa ever. Once again this initiative echoes Clinton’s Africa-America summits held periodically during the 1990s.

During the 2014 U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit, the president announced a $7 billion package designed to promote U.S. exports and trade deals and $14 billion in pledges from U.S. corporations. Obama evoked the Africa Rising mantra, praising the assembled heads of state for “embracing economic reforms [and] attracting record levels of investment.” He extolled the continent for its record economic growth, its growing middle class, and youthful population. He promised a new “partnership of equals” focused on African goals and solutions. “Africa’s rise,” he said, means “an opportunity to transform the relationship between the United States and Africa.”

Despite the positive rhetoric, analysts saw the summit as little more than “business as usual.” According to Emira Woods of ThoughtWorks, a technology firm committed to social and economic justice: “If there is business as usual, we will continue to have a situation where people on whose land resources lie will be pushed further and further to the brink, left without health care, housing, education, or any means of benefiting.”

Woods’ caution is confirmed by a comment by a key organizer of the summit, GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt, who let slip the real motivations behind the summit: “We kind of gave Africa to the Europeans first and to the Chinese later, but today it’s wide open for us.” The goal, therefore, is to help U.S. corporations compete effectively in the scramble for African resources. The positive rhetoric about “partnership of equals” and “African goals and solutions” serves as a cover for looting Africa’s resources.

The Legacy Trip

Given these setbacks, the current trip represents a last chance for the president to fulfill his transformative agenda. The president is expected to hold bilateral meetings with leaders in Kenya and Ethiopia, address the 2015 Global Entrepreneurship Summit in Nairobi, and meet with African Union leaders in Addis Ababa. According to a press release from the White House, the trip “will build on the success of the August 2014 U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit” and continue efforts to “accelerate economic growth, strengthen democratic institutions, and improve security.”

Obama has definitely stepped up his engagement with Africa during his second term. He visited three countries in 2013 and announced visits to Kenya and Ethiopia in 2015. He hosted of 40 heads of state and government in 2014 and announced billions of dollars in financing to promote U.S. corporate interests in Africa. He held bilateral talks with Nigeria’s newly elected president Muhammadu Buhari on July 20. He’s also expanded trade and health initiatives started by his predecessors. Channeling predecessors’ achievements, however, does not make for an inspiring foreign policy.

Contrast this record with that of former Chinese premier Hu Jintao, who visited Africa five times — and covered 18 countries — between 2009 and 2012. His successor, Xi Jinping, signified Africa’s importance by visiting the continent on his first trip abroad. During that trip, he pledged $20 billion in loans to African countries over the next three years, in addition to signing deals to build ports in Kenya, Tanzania, and the Republic of the Congo. In 2014, China announced that it was increasing the loan guarantees by an additional $10 billion.

The Chinese president has already hosted dozens of African heads of state during a high-level summit held every three years since 2000. The Sixth Forum on China-Africa Cooperation is scheduled for South Africa this year, where China is expected to announce new loans guarantees and infrastructure projects.

The charm offensive is calculated to garner support for China’s economic interests, which have grown exponentially since the 1990s. China increased its trade and investment in Africa by 1,000 percent between 2000 and 2010. This trade is driven, for the most part, by China’s need for raw materials to feed its industries. In return, China has helped transform many African countries with its infrastructure projects. Chinese firms are building hundreds of roads, bridges, ports, and airports across the continent. Bilateral trade with African countries was an estimated $198 billion last year. U.S. trade lags behind at $100 billion.

Breaking Out

How can Obama break out and make a lasting impression in this competitive environment? Does the United States have a special message for Africa?

Although the United States cannot compete with China in the volume of trade and the scale of infrastructure investments, the president still has some political capital that he can deploy on the continent. To succeed, he’ll have to push back against his image as a shill for security firms and corporate interests.

His Power Africa initiative is to be commended, but it has yet to deliver electricity two years after he announced that the program would double electricity access in Africa over the next five years. The project is still too closely associated with the corporate profit agenda to make a real difference.

There’s nothing wrong with corporations seeking profits: That’s what they do. Private investment for profit, however, cannot form the basis for long-term partnerships for African development. Chinese firms, for instance, are able to invest in long-term infrastructure development projects because they’re financed by the government and are not seeking immediate returns on investments. Transforming U.S. relations with Africa, therefore, requires imagining different means and alternative ends.

Obama has, so far, failed to break out of the mold of security- and corporate-based foreign policy. A truly transformative policy would find a way of engaging the vigorous civil society movements on the continent, including environmental and peace movements.

Kenya, for instance, is the home of the Greenbelt Movement founded by the late Nobel laureate Wangari Maathai. Members are encouraged to replace trees they use for firewood and other domestic needs. Since 1977, the movement has planted over 51 million trees to replace forest cover in Kenya. Greenbelt is an excellent example of a grassroots indigenous movement that mobilizes women’s groups to empower women and girls, promote democracy, and build sustainable lifestyles. The United States could back these efforts by seeking creative financing involving innovative ideas such as carbon exchanges, renewable energy certificates, and other inventive solutions.

The United States could lead the way in crafting international regulations that curb the awful land grabs that are destroying the lives of millions of indigenous people in Ethiopia and other African countries. In Ethiopia, for instance, indigenous people are losing their livelihoods, and in many cases their lives, to multinational agribusiness corporations. It is critical that the international community put pressure on governments to protect the rights of indigenous people. Unfortunately, Obama’s agriculture initiatives continue to emphasize the profit motive at the expense of the environment and the interests of indigenous people.

Increasing U.S. engagement with the burgeoning peace movements on the continent would be commendable. Advocates for peace have long contended that Africa’s myriad conflicts cannot be resolved by military means. Only a political solution that deals with root causes can facilitate dialogue and set the stage for meaningful conflict management. In the case of Somalia, for instance, U.S.-backed government forces and African Union peacekeepers have degraded al-Shabaab but failed to lay the groundwork for the transition to democracy and state-building that are critical for long-term stability.

If even George W. Bush could break out of the mold of U.S. foreign policy and build a unique legacy in U.S. relations with Africa, surely Obama can do the same in his remaining time in office.

Francis Njubi Nesbitt is a professor of Africana Studies at San Diego State University. He is the author of Race for Sanctions and has published numerous book chapters and articles in academic journals. This article is republished from Foreign Policy in Focus

Guest Contributor

Articles by guest writers.



  1. I completely disagree with virtually every argument and premise advanced about President Obama’s Africa policy by Francis Njubi Nesbitt. Indeed, his posting is full of contradictions and misstatements of fact.
    I do not see how President Clinton redeemed himself with new initiatives after ignoring the genocide in Rwanda. Certainly, he reluctantly signed AGOA into law as one of his final acts before the end of his second term. But AGOA does not redeem Clinton for ignoring the genocide. Nesbitt gives credit to AGOA for tripling US exports to Africa. AGOA has nothing to do with US exports. It deals only with African exports to the US, and its impact on creating export industries in Africa has been insignificant.
    Nesbitt says that Obama is just acting as a shill for US corporate interests. How we wish that more US corporations would invest in Africa and take advantage of AGOA. They are not doing so because the risks in most African countries are too high in the absence of the rule of law. This is not Obama’s fault.
    Bush (43) ignored a civil war in the Congo that killed over 5 million people. He could have stopped the illegal Rwandan invasion of the Congo in 1998, but his hatred for Laurent Kabila was so great that he encouraged the invasion by maintaining silence. Sure, Bush was able to bring about South Sudan’s independence, but his administration did nothing to help the transitional government build instituions and infrastructure. Today’s chaos is the result. On the other hand, I give Bush a lot of credit for other things beside PEPFAR. He established the Millennium Challenge Corporation that has provided substantial sums of money to help build strategic infrastructure in over ten African nations. He also helped convert World Bank loans to grants, thereby lifting a great burden on African borrowers.
    So, when Nesbitt says that Obama is doubling down on what Bush did, I say three cheers for that. By the way, AFRICOM under both Bush and Obama have not “militarized” US policy in Africa. I do not think it is bad for US drones and aircraft in Djibouti to be taking out Al-Shebab terrorist leaders. Nesbitt is faulting Obama for not building democracy and institutions in Somalia. Obama has certainly tried. What little democracy exists in Somalia today, with an elected President and parliament, is due to very strong help from US Embassy and USAID personnel. To blame the US administration for the faults of Somali politicians is total hypocrisy on Nesbitt’s part.
    In the fight against Boko Haram, US drones in Niger and Mali are helping Cameroon, Niger and Nigeria to find terrorist hiedouts and to take them out. How else has Boko Haram’s momentum been blunted? US military aircraft helped ferry French troops to northern Mali to stop AQIM terrorists there. What’s wrong with that?
    In terms of productive foreign investments in Africa, the US, France, and the UK still have more investments in sub-Saharan Africa than China and Turkey and others combined. By the way, China does not invest very much. They give soft loans to do infrastructure in return for commodities. They are increasing Africa’s debt burden. Also, the bloom is off the rose for the Chinese in Africa. They bring their own labor and do little to employ Africans. This is changing as African governments put their feet down and limit Chinese labor to small percentages. Also, Chinese employers do not treat African labor any better than they treat their own labor in China. American and European investors train African managers and give promotions. No African gets promoted in Chinese enterprises. Also, the Chinese bring in thousands of retailers who crowd out African store keepers and destroy local industries by bringing in cheap Chinese goods. Some American construction companies are currently making money by repairing shoddy Chinese construction of roads and airport runways. If all that is better policy than Obama’s I do not know what Obama can do.
    Creating a secure environment for US investors has nothing to do with economic and military policy. It has everything to do with African internal policy, especially the sanctity of contracts and the rule of law, and the existence of reliable power, water, roads and ports. Obama’s “Power Africa” project is very innovative in this regard. It is designed to help finance American companies investments in power under long-term power purchase agreements. Since the project was announced, construction on US power investments has begun in Senegal, Rwanda, Mali and Benin and Côte d’Ivoire. Other nationalities have also begun construction. What is important in “Power Africa” is that African governments go out and recruit US companies to invest in power so that US financing can come in. This is starting to work.
    Another important Obama initiative is “Feed the Future” that is designed to modernize African agriculture through higher yields, better storage, farm to market roads, and better access to knowledge about prices. Tens of thousands of African farmers have benefitted so far, and the number is growing.
    Mr. Nesbitt does not like Obama entertaining normal relations with the Egyptian regime that is not democratic. How about Rwanda, Congo, Ethiopia? Are they democratic? Give me a break Nesbitt. If Obama were to boycott every undemocratic regime in Africa, we would have relations with very few. We need Egypt to fight ISIS in Libya. That trumps everything else now. By the way, the Moslem Brotherhood was elected in Egypt, but their first act was to suppress democracy and introduce a Sharia state. Good riddance to them. Egyptian death sentences, on the other hand, are an abomination.
    My one point of agreement with Nesbitt is on Libya. There was no planning for the aftermath of Gaddaffi’s disappearance and that has caused tremendous problems in the Sahel. Obama should be faulted for that.
    Overall, Nesbitt wants to blame the US for all of Africa’s deficiencies. This is nonsense. For example, he wants the US to halt the leasing of large tracts of African land to Saudi, China and others who are growing food industrially for export to themselves and do nothing to enhance Africa’s food security. Indeed, thousands of Africans have been forced from their lands by Saudi and Chinese land deals. Obama cannot stop that. It is up to the African governments to do that. Obama, on the other hand, is helping to enhance African food security through his various projects.
    I doubt very much that African countries have a bitter view of China than they do of the US. In the Chinese summits, by the way, the President of China does “speed dating”: 15 minutes with each African head of state. Obama spent two full days with the Africans during the August 2014 summit.
    The US is still in good shape in Africa. Stop worrying Nesbitt.

  2. I agree with everything Mr. Cohen said but I would just like to add a few things. You portray the Obama administrations attempts to promote security in Africa through Africom as if it is a bad thing. Every student of international affairs knows that establishing rule of law and promoting security is an essential part of attracting foreign investment, promoting commerce and improving the overall quality of life of a population. I also think that Mr Nesbitt substantially downplayed the United States role in containing the Ebola virus last year. He
    only vaguely mentions “continued efforts to combat AIDS and other infectious diseases.”

    Mr Nesbit also blaims the Nato lead invasion for destiblizing Libya, but fails to mention the subsequent events leading up to the air campaign that contributed to the current situation in Libya. I think the Arab spring, the civil war, Gaddafis oppression of his people, patriarchal society, and Libyan tribalism are more to blame for the current power struggles in Libya than NATO is for not commiting ground troops. Obama’s choice to not place US troops in the middle of a civil war is a no brainer.

Comments are closed.