INSPITE of the euphoria
that swept across Africa at the re-election of US President, Mr. Barack Obama,
an African-American, Africa in Mr. Obama’s second term, just as in his first
term, will not get any significant engagement or attention
from Washington, except in its universal obsession with counter-terrorism
and other security-related concerns.
Following his re-election last
week, President Barack Obama’s foreign policy priority appears clearly to be
the Asia pacific, even the poorer bit of the extensive region. He has announced
a historic visit to Mymmar, former Burma, where the entrenched military
establishment is cautiously crafting a transition to civil rule.
Mr. Obama will be the
firstUSPresident to visit the country. The strategy seemed a well-laid out
Washington outline to contain China in its backyard in the overall obsession of
the United States to remain the pre-eminent power in the region, an aspiration
contested by the shifting balance of power in the region and even beyond.
The euphoria that gripped
Africa in respect of Mr. Obama’s re-election is obviously and plainly emotional
and Mr. Obama has never expressed such emotions for his far-flung kith and kin,
and if he has haboured any at all, has managed to suppress it.
Mr. Obama might be engaged in
Africa but after his tenure inWashington, like his other predecessors who
believed thatAfricais more worthy of humanitarian than of any policy engagement.
It will not be a surprise that
after his tenure in Washington, Obama and his wonderful family would take to
wandering across Africa, hugging babies with swollen tummies and even set up a
foundation to tackle one of Africa’s numerous malaise.
Like Jimmy Carter, Bill
Clinton and even George W. Bush, Africa would come into Mr. Obama’s focus after
he has left the White House. This is not entirely his fault. The American
President is the most powerful man in the world. But he is also a hostage of a
ruthless and faceless but powerful political machine, aggregating an array of
vicious special interest groups who actually decides in what direction
Washington would go.
Sometimes, the irrational
policy of Washington as to which war to fight next and in what corner of the
world or the next regime to undermine or topple, is not actually the function
of a deficit of commonsense or logic by any sitting President, but due to the
unavoidable pressure of the Washington machine.
President Obama won his recent
re-election by more numerous votes than was predicted by pundits. His finely
crafted rhetoric resonated across America and struck deep to their sentiments
of a fairer society, especially among vulnerable groups: Hispanics, Latinos
Africa-Americans, White women and young people.
In spite of what seemed like a
bitter fight over different visions for the change of America between President
Obama and his Republican challenger, Mr. Mitt Romney, what actually was in
contention was the different strategies or approaches to preserve the status
quo, while containing its harshest excesses. President Obama’s modest signature
legislative triumph in the last four years, the health care insurance, which
barely covered half of all Americans was a target of bitter recrimination by
the Republican contender, who did not also spare the President for the bailout
of Chrysler and General Motors.
Given the dire stress of the
American economy,Washington’s foreign policy would be dominated in the next
four years by the traditional geo-strategic and political concerns but also
increasingly by economic consideration, especially with the flow of capital.
Africa is of less geo-strategic and political concern as far as there are no
competing ideological or political currents that threaten the hegemony or
ideological dominance of Western liberalism.
China’s economic and
commercial penetration to Africa does not offer any slightest hint of
ideological contestation with the Western hegemony. The political ramification
of China’s penetration in Africa would at best provide a bargaining strength,
which the spineless political elite are yet to take up.
So, in spite of Africa’s
obvious marginalization in Washington’s policy engagement, the continent would
remain safely tucked away in America’s sphere of influence.Africa’s rich
mineral resources may matter very little in American economy, currently in
post-industrial stage.
In fact, President Barack
Obama has pledged to seek alternative energy sources that would further
marginalize the modest presence of Africa in America’s economic life. The fact
of Africa’s marginal impact in any US economy recovery plan is the objective
condition of the uncomplimentary economic structure of the two sides.
Therefore Africa, in the next
four years of Obama presidency, would continue as in the past, to evoke
Washington’s moral indignation at the crass and excesses of its venal political
elite, the cyclic misfortunes of its state institutions and the consequent
destitutions and misery of its vulnerable populations.
The modest role of Africa in
any US or the larger Western economic recovery would continue to feature raw
cash flight through the operations of the World Bank and the International
Monetary Fund, exploiting the bankruptcy of the political elite. In this
regard, the Washington and other Western moral outrage at the deepening
socio-economic and political atrophy in Africa would remain a largely
ideological rhetoric without any commitment to substantive reform, a term
currently in serious abuse in most of Africa by the ruling elites and their
Western principles.
In fact, Washington does not
choose regions or countries to engage out of benevolence or other such
considerations. Countries and regions work their way into Washington’s
geo-political and strategic calculations through enabling relevance acquired
through a meticulous growth of national power and influence.
The choice of President Obama
to go to Mymmar after his recent re-election is based on the calculation of the
relevance of the country, straddled between India and China, two major US
strategic competitors in the region.
To balance off Beijing’s
massive economic penetration in the country and marginalize its rising
political influence obviously top Washington’s reasons for a historic
presidential visit.
Africa received its most
serious policy attention from the United States during the period of the cold
war.
According to Henry Kissinger,
the veteran of US foreign and security affairs, the cause of majority rule in
apartheid South Africa was largely of minor concern to voluble liberals in
America, but became something of America’s policy concern after the former
Soviet Union and other Warsaw states of the socialist block has made it a
fundamental policy, which also struck enormous chord to the rest of Africa.
Without the influence of the
former Soviet Union and the socialist block,Washington would certainly have sat
comfortably with the racist regime in South Africa and its rampaging policy of
political exclusion and social ostracization of Africans.
In effect, as now as it was
then, Washington’s moral rhetoric is considerably way off from policy
engagement and both are mutually exclusive in the effect they are supposed to
have.
However, Africa’s relevance in
the today’s world is not necessarily a function of US policy engagement or
otherwise, and even the world itself has grown beyond the mere calculation of
one power, even if it is a ‘hyper power’ as the former French foreign minister,
Mr. Vederine, characterized the United States.
In spite ofAfrica’s phenomenal
lethargy, the continent has immense possibilities and opportunities, providing
it with a vantage and strategic attention, which clearly the rest of the world
is determine to explore.
Despite the emotion that has
welled up in most of Africa on the re-election of president Obama, any
expectations of such reciprocals from Obama’s Washington would be supremely
naïve.
CHARLES ONUNAIJU, a journalist , wrote from Abuja.
No comments:
Post a Comment