 |
|
 |
|||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Africa Policy E-Journalgiven the difficulty in maintaining up-to-date links in old files. However, we hope they may still provide leads for your research. USA: Questions for Candidates, 2 Date Distributed (ymd): 961016 Note: This two-part article is being distributed to e-mail addresses on the list with U.S. domains only. A short announcement is going to addresses with other domains. The full article is also available at: http://www.igc.org/apic/woa/quest96.html. Putting Africa on the Agenda: Questions for Candidates and Policymakers (part 2) Democratization & Human Rights Support for democratization and human rights in Africa is in principle one of the cornerstones of US policy in Africa. Public pressure against abusive regimes, support for elections, aid to a wide variety of groups in African civil society--all are on the standard list of policy instruments. Despite the relative consensus on this general policy framework, however, there are substantive concerns about US policy in practice. Probably the most predictable as well as the most disturbing issue is the pervasive inertial tendency towards business as usual. Human rights are almost always given lip service, but far too often in practice are shoved to the side in favor of more "realistic" preoccupations with economic ties or other pragmatic considerations, including conflict resolution. High-profile criticism and, at the extreme, sanctions, are not appropriate in all cases, of course. However, in many cases the US response has been far too weak. With respect to Nigeria, Kenya, Zaire, Ethiopia, and many other cases, the response to repression, human rights abuses, or political exclusion of opponents has typically been to speak softly and carry a small stick, or none at all. The US has been more consistently willing to exert meaningful pressure to gain concessions on economic issues than to use effective leverage in support of the cause of human rights and democracy. To the extent that the US has become engaged, through USAID and other bilateral agencies, in support of civil society and pro-democracy forces, there remain substantive issues of both quantity and quality. With strong Congressional pressure to cut back on funds available for almost all international involvement, many promising initiatives--including US support for multilateral initiatives--are ruled out for budgetary reasons. To give only one set of examples, programs for international human rights monitors in conflict situations, as well as the international genocide tribunal, have been crippled by lack of timely funding and personnel. There is also the issue of the content of support that is given. Critics maintain that in many cases US programs inappropriately promote the uncritical transfer of US views to other societies, neglect the substance of democratic participation in favor of formalities of electoral systems and ill-defined "training" programs, and neglect the potential for dialogue with Africans themselves about priorities in building democratic institutions suitable for each country. At a time when the World Bank and other multilateral institutions are increasingly realizing the need to listen to grassroots critics, the US still gives little opportunity for the intended beneficiaries to engage in dialogue with policymakers on the results and process of bilateral programs. Questions: (1) Support for democracy and human rights: What level of US funding do you support for civil society, pro-democracy, and human-rights groups in Africa, through US agencies? Through multilateral institutions? Through African governments that demonstrate the political will to build more effective and participatory democratic institutions? About the same as now, less than now, much less than now, more than now, much more than now? (2) Program accountability: What mechanisms do you propose or support to gain feedback from African human rights and pro- democracy representatives, and African civil society more generally, on US policy and programs concerning human rights and democracy in African countries? (3) Nigeria: What additional measures, including specific sanctions, do you propose to increase pressure on the Nigerian military regime to respect human rights and accept popularly elected democratic authority? Do you support the Nigerian sanctions legislation introduced in 1996 by Senator Kassebaum (R-KS) and Representative Payne (D-NJ)? Would you support additional US funds to aid pro-democracy groups and Nigerian civil society? (4) Kenya: Do you support withholding US and international aid from Kenya in response to the Moi regime's abuses of human rights, instigation of ethnic violence and harassment of political opposition groups? (5) Zaire: What concrete measures would you support to induce pressure on Zaire leader Mobutu on issues including ethnic violence in Eastern Zaire, the flow of arms through Zaire fueling conflicts in Angola and the Great Lakes region, and repeated failure to stop impeding the process of democratization for Zaire? (6) Algeria: Given the economic importance of US-Algerian ties, and the region-wide implications of the violent confrontation between a repressive regime and extremist fundamentalist forces, do you support a more active role for the US, with European and other countries, in promoting peace negotiations and an end to violence in Algeria? Sustainable Development & Social Equity The issue of what policies are most effective in promoting sustainable development that can benefit the majority of Africa's people is complex. There are no magic formulas to ensure success. US policy should integrate different components rather than placing sustainable development and private sector approaches as contradictory alternatives. Sustainable development should be the goal, including economic growth, social equity, and preservation of environmental capital which protects the options of future generations. These are goals and values which apply equally to the least developed countries and the most advanced industrial countries. As Africa advances towards these goals, the potential for mutually beneficial ties between the US and Africa also grows. Trade and aid policies should be seen as complementary, rather than mutually exclusive options applied to different sets of countries. The effectiveness of both will also be significantly affected by the adequacy of measures to address the serious problem of indebtedness of African states. Both existing and new programs should be considered in relationship to each other, and evaluated in terms of their potential contribution to sustainable and equitable development. There should be procedures for results-based evaluation of programs, regardless of whether they are implemented primarily through governmental agencies, the private sector, or the voluntary sector. The actual economic ties between the United States and each of Africa's five regions (North, West, Central, East and Southern) are already substantial. Sub-Saharan Africa alone, excluding both North Africa and South Africa, accounts for more US trade than Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union combined. The potential for expansion is enormous. To develop that potential and insure that it benefits ordinary citizens both in Africa and the United States, however, requires sustained investment in human resources and infrastructure, understanding that the payoffs will take time. With the end of political apartheid and the beginning of democracy in South Africa, the US and South Africa now confront many of the same dilemmas. Both need to deal with racially and class-divided societies, as well as with escalating crime and economic insecurity. Both must find how to invest in human resources and promote social equity while confronting serious budgetary constraints. There is much opportunity for mutually beneficial exchange, not only in trade and investment, but also in dialogue about how to confront similar societal problems. Questions: (1) Do you support reinstatement of the "earmarked" allocation of assistance funds for the Development Fund for Africa, which ensures a minimum level of US bilateral support for African development? (2) The US is dead last among developed countries in percentage of Gross National Product going to investment in sustainable development assistance world-wide, which accounts for less than 1% of the US federal budget. Yet the average American thinks we are spending 15 times that much or more. What are you doing as a candidate to correct this misinformation, and to promote increases in assistance that facilitates development? (3) Do you support prompt US payment of outstanding arrears and current obligations to the World Bank's International Development Association, as well as to United Nations agencies engaged in development-oriented programs? (4) Program accountability: What mechanisms do you propose or support to gain feedback from African grassroots development groups, and from African civil society generally, on US policy and programs concerning economic policy and development in African countries? (5) The "structural adjustment" packages promoted by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, and the parallel "market-oriented economic reform" packages pushed by the US government, have been strongly criticized by African grassroots groups as often overly rigid, damaging to the poor, harmful to the environment, and having a doubtful record even in terms of economic growth. What mechanisms would you suggest to promote a wider, more democratic debate about the proper mix of economic policies, both in international institutions and the US policy community, which would allow substantive input from African civil society, including environmental, labor, human rights, and women's groups? (6) What measures do you support for more rapid debt relief for heavily indebted African countries, including better terms for relief of bilateral loans and of debts to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund? (7) Do you support measures such as the one advanced by Representative McDermott (D-WA) and others to expand US trade and investment with Africa, and to move towards a US-Africa Free Trade framework? If so, what measures do you propose to include so that the benefits are equitably distributed, with increased African access to the US market as well as vice- versa, and so that workers' and environmental rights are protected both in the US and Africa? (8) South Africa: What measures do you support to increase the dialogue between the United States and South Africa, at different levels of government and civil society, about common problems? What mechanisms do you support for both the South African and US public to provide more input on the content of US government programs in South Africa and US-South African dialogue at elite levels of government and business? Shaping and Changing Gender Relations Highlighted by the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in September 1995, there is an increasing recognition that the solution of the full range of Africa's problems cited above will hinge in large part on the extent to which Africa's women move towards full participation at all levels. Women and children are disproportionately the victims of war and displacement. The voices of women, if they are heeded, are often the most eloquent and coherent for peacemaking. Support for the small farmer and rural food security, as well as for micro-enterprise and viable survival strategies in Africa's sprawling cities, in practice must mean support for women, who are disproportionately represented in these life- sustaining roles. Concerns for equity, human rights promotion and political participation must integrally support the protection of women's rights, including protection against domestic and sexual violence. New World Bank President James Wolfensohn has joined many earlier advocates in noting that investment in the education of girls is among the most cost- effective development action that countries and international institutions can take. African women's groups are both growing in number and taking a wider range of initiatives. But they face many difficulties, including lack of organizational capacity, traditional prejudices, and unsupportive governments. Many of the initiatives promoting women's rights have been advanced by multilateral institutions, particularly UN specialized agencies, which face massive budget problems, largely as a result of US cutbacks. US government support for bilateral and multilateral family planning programs, vital to women's health, has been restricted by Congress. There is a continuing need to incorporate sensitivity to women's rights not only in economic or civil society assistance programs but also into human rights criteria which should influence US bilateral relations with African countries. Questions (1) Do you support continued and increased funding for multilateral and bilateral programs promoting African women's rights, including protection against violence, health, family planning, education, participation in economic development (including micro-enterprise), and political participation? (2) What measures do you support further to incorporate women's rights issues, including implementation of the Beijing Platform of Action, into US bilateral relations with African countries? Into immigration policy towards asylum seekers?
Documents previously distributed in the e-journal are
available on the Africa Action website: To be added to or dropped from the e-journal subscription list, write to e-journal@africaaction.org. For more information about reposted material, please contact directly the source mentioned in the posting.
|
|
Africa Policy E-Journal
