Forbes
Richard Miniter – Susan Rice said this Sunday she had “no regrets” about trotting out her flawed Benghazi talking points last year, touching off a predictable storm of controversy. Certainly Rice’s talking points deserved more scrutiny than they got from reporters. There are simple questions that Rice could have been asked: If the Benghazi attack was a protest that went awry, why did it begin at night? Protests are daylight affairs, where broadcast cameramen can see their signs and banners. Attacks begin at night. And where were the signs and banners? Why did the crowd of nearly 100 arrive with rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns? If the “protest” was triggered by an Internet video, where is the evidence that any one in Libya saw that video? Much of Libya lacks 24-hour electricity, Internet access is scarce and costly when half the population earns less than $2 per day, and only a fraction of Libyans speak English (the language of the offensive video). Plus, there is not a single mention of the video on any social media in any language in Libya prior to the attack, a recent study shows. The only mentions in Libya occur after Rice appeared on the Washington Sunday talk shows. How does Rice explain that?
Beyond Benghazi, a bigger and more important question looms: As national security advisor, what has Rice done to reinvent America’s relationship with Africa? In other words, how is Rice doing her job, aside from Benghazi? On the available evidence, not very well. Rice is in charge of developing national-security policies with the rest of the world and she has extensive experience with Africa. She was assistant secretary of state for Africa under President Clinton and her doctoral dissertation is on Zimbabwean politics. During the Bush years, she lectured around the world about changing America’s policies toward Africa and other continents. Her Africa policy should be a smashing success. Obama is the first American president whose father was born in Africa. He mentions Africa in his two books and he was involved with Africa policy as a U.S. senator. He travelled to Africa extensively before seeking higher office and has visited the continent twice as president. Unlike his predecessors, his closest advisors have extensive experience in Africa, including Rice. The new U.S. Trade Representative, Michael Froman, also has years of experience working on African electrification plans and knows the continent well. And yet even friendly scholars, such as Brookings Institution African expert Mwangi S. Kimenyi, regard “U.S. policy on Africa under the Obama Administration as lacking clear focus or creativity.” Kimenyi, and other experts, hope that Obama’s U.S.-Africa summit this coming August in Washington D.C. signals a change. Let’s hope so. So far, the White House is blundering along with outdated or misguided ideas. Here is the official White House strategy on sub-Saharan Africa. Let’s review the classic blunders.
1. Aid, Not Trade. President Obama’s visits to Africa have focused on photo-ops and aid announcements. Meanwhile, China, India and other nations are making profitable and mutually beneficial trade deals. Why ignore money-making opportunities? China isn’t. In 2012, “trade between the United States and Tanzania totaled $360.2 million, compared to $2.47 billion between China and Tanzania,” writes Jendayi Frazier, the Council on Foreign Affairs Africa expert. The pattern is the same with many African countries—China’s trade tops America’s. Obama is doing little to reverse this trend. “By skipping Kenya on his Africa itinerary [during Obama’s recent visit to Africa], Obama missed a prime opportunity to meet with President Uhuru Kenyatta, who just signed a $5 billion deal with China to build a new railway system,” Frazier notes. “The Obama administration should not let another chance to strengthen its ties with the African continent drift away.” Obama and Rice still see Africa as a place for alms, while China sees it as a market. Obama and Rice should learn from one of America’s oldest allies in Africa. One nation sees the past, the other the future. President Obama met in November with Morocco’s king, Mohammad VI. The king has directed a massive series of investments in West Africa—in banking, telecom and fertilizer—that are both profitable and strengthen strategic relationships. Consider an example from this week. During the king’s recent visit to Mali, Terrab Mostafa, the chief executive of the state-run phosphate giant, OCP Group, announced a $600 million investment in a fertilizer factory. The plant will sell some one million tons of fertilizer per year and shipments will be sold exclusively to Africa. This is not a charity project but a for-profit venture that creates jobs in both Morocco and Mali. Why can’t the U.S. embrace a similar model? The king gently took aim at the western myth that Africa is still battling the legacy of colonization—which generally ended a half-century ago—and is mainly in need of aid, in a recent speech in Mali. “Africa is a huge continent, its forces, its resources and its potential [are equally large]. It must take charge, it is no longer a continent colonized… It has less need of assistance, and requires more mutually beneficial [trade] partnerships. More than humanitarian aid projects [Africa needs] human and social development,” through public and private initiatives. America should heed the king’s example and enhance its African Growth and Opportunity Act provisions to boost trade and investment. That law offers freer trade with the U.S. in exchange for African reforms—but it excludes too many categories including sugar and textiles. A broader free trade measure would spur real growth.
2. Tongue-tied on Islam. The War on Terror is partly a war of ideas, yet State department officials seem unwilling to discuss Islam. Many bureaucrats instinctively apply America’s principle of separation of church and state to the Muslim world, where politics and religion are often seen as two sides of the same coin. While the State department should not get directly involved in intra-Islam debates, it could encourage trusted surrogates to do so. Again, Morocco provides a valuable guide. The king has launched a bold initiative offering scholarships to train imams in Mali, Tunisia and elsewhere to encourage a moderate Maliki School of Islam. Since King Mohammad VI is not just monarch but is also the supreme head of Islam in Morocco and a direct descendant of the Prophet Mohammad, he has a unique standing in the Muslim World. He is wisely capitalizing on that to combat radical Islam at home and abroad. America should champion his efforts.
3. More combat boots than wingtips. U.S. military personnel dedicated to Africa outnumber diplomatic personnel focused on Africa. Indeed, the U.S. military’s Africa Command (Africom) is bigger than U.S. AID’s Africa staff. Rice and Obama have repeatedly said that Africa should be seen as more than a scene of counter-terrorism but as a suite of business opportunities. Yet the pattern of federal manpower tells a different story. This gap between words and manpower strikes some as hypocritical. Shifting more diplomats from their expensive digs in Europe to Africa would be a start. Another positive step: Acknowledging that America and Africa will be jointly fighting terrorists for decades to come and admitting that numbers of soldiers, spies, diplomats and consular officers will be increasing over time.
4. More speeches than strategy. Obama’s speeches initially electrified Africa, especially his Cairo talk calling for a new relationship between America and the Arab world. But few deeds followed. The lack of American leadership—which can only emerge from the White House—is felt across the region. “The U.S. and Europe, with all their means, remain spectators,” Ahmed Charai, a Casablanca-based newspaper publisher and radio-network owner, told me. “It is not normal.” I have heard these kinds of observations from business leaders across Africa. They had high hopes for Obama and are puzzled by his aloofness.
5. Leading from Behind. Under Obama, the U.S. follows France and China, when it acts at all. Consider the French military intervention in Mali, in which the U.S. played a reluctant supporting role. Or the “Rabat Declaration”, signed in November, in which France and 17 African nations pledged to share intelligence on al Qaeda and other radical Islamic groups. America did not sign or even participate in the deliberations. The Rabat Declaration laid the group work for a counter-terrorism fusion center—a place to pool intelligence services. America should join this effort. If Rice and Obama are looking for a vision for Africa’s future, they could start with King Mohammed VI’s recent speech in Ivory Coast. “Sustainable development of the African continent requires creativity and dynamism of the private sector focus on growth areas , such as agriculture, industry, science and technology, and infrastructure development. It remains dependent on the release of the potential and capacity of private initiative, which presupposes the existence of an efficient public sector, supportive and knowledgeable… “This means that the institutional capacity of African states is a strategic issue. Better governance, law and the peaceful resolution of conflicts, must be shared priorities. “If the last century was that of the independence of African states, the 21st century should be the victory of the people against the ravages of underdevelopment, poverty and exclusion.” This is a vision of Africa that prospers through free enterprise and honest civil servants, where laws are written and enforced to protect property and not to provide opportunities for graft. It is a new vision that moves beyond concerns of long-vanished colonialism to a self-confident continent, that is freer and richer. In short, a vision that brings hope and change to Africa. Why can’t we hear this message from the White House? Why doesn’t some enterprising reporter ask Susan Rice that question?
