President Obama's Policy to Africa: An Interview with Jennifer Cooke

By James TurittoEditor-in-ChiefOctober 25, 2009 By James TurittoEditor-in-ChiefOctober 25, 2009Editor-in-Chief of the International Affairs Review website James Turitto sat down with Jennifer Cooke, director of the Africa program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, to discuss President Obama’s policy to Africa. Ms. Cooke is co-author of the recent book, U.S. Africa Policy beyond the Bush Years (2009). Below is a copy of the transcript:IAR: Broadly speaking, what are the core pillars of the Obama Administration’s policy towards Africa? JC: In his first speech in Accra, Ghana, the President put a major emphasis on governance, and he is going to highlight that as a cornerstone of U.S. policy. How this plays out in practice has yet to be seen. U.S. interests on the continent have not changed much since the Clinton or Bush administrations. They remain energy; security; investment in health; economic growth and development; and conflict resolution. In many ways the core interests stay the same, but I think the approach and understanding of how to pursue those interests may shift somewhat under the Obama Administration.Additionally, the financial crisis and a number of other issues have created big questions on global governance, on the global financial architecture, on the question of climate change, and on food security – all of these issues require a new global response. The administration will have to pay a lot more attention to multilateral institutions in U.S. interactions with Africa. Last September, you saw a special meeting with African presidents at the UN General Assembly; and you are going to see more care to African concerns in the run-up to the Doha trade negotiations; greater attention at the Copenhagen climate change summit; more emphasis on the UN Millennium Development Goals, which the Bush administration didn’t take very seriously.IAR: How has Obama’s policy to Africa differed from the Bush administration’s policy?JC: While we’ve seen announcements in the early trips by the President, himself, and by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, I don’t think yet that we can really say, “Ok, this has been a major shift from the Bush administration.” We have not seen the concept that will define the Obama Administration’s policy in Africa. But you have had a major announcement to put renewed focus on agriculture and food security and you’ve had an increase and broadening of global health resources and objectives.President Obama has a big legacy inherited from the Bush Administration that he is going to have to build on: the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and Africom. That is the baseline that he has to work with. But there were a number of other areas that were neglected under the Bush administration, specifically food security and agriculture, where the President can make progress. Another issue is broadening the health agenda from a very HIV-focused approach to one that addresses other diseases and health systems. He has an opportunity to better balance short- and long-term objectives and tactics in our approaches to security and counterterrorism as well.IAR: How would you rate President Obama’s approach over the last nine months?JC: President Obama was so incredibly popular coming into office that he was given a particularly long honeymoon period. Secretary Clinton’s trip to some difficult spots in Africa – Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya, talks with the president of Somalia – signaled the administration is not going to shy away from some of the difficult problems. And her visits to South Africa, Angola, and Nigeria indicate they are going to try to rebuild some of the big relationships that have been neglected over the last eight years.People’s expectations around the Obama administration’s Sudan policy were originally very high. Many of the most ardent critics of the Bush administration’s policy are now in Obama’s administration, and had called during the campaign for a more vigorous approach that ratchets up pressure on the government in Khartoum. But there you’ve seen stalling and internal debates within the administration on what that policy might look like. There has been growing impatience among domestic groups in the United States about how Obama’s policy is going to be different. In the U.S. public’s eye, it is by far one of the most visible elements of U.S.-Africa policy overall.IAR: The big elephant in the room is of course China. Given the country’s increase attention and investment to Africa, how has the Obama administration engage it?JC: Like the previous administration, there are going to be attempts to make Africa part of the U.S.-China dialogue, although there are obviously much bigger issues between these two counties as well. There is no doubt the Administration wants to minimize areas of potential conflict with China, and it may seek common ground on a lot of African issues. Already, you see China sending naval ships to the Horn of Africa to help combat piracy – not as part of the international task force there but nonetheless. In Sudan and Nigeria, we have common interests; both the U.S. and China have an interest in stability to ease the flow of necessary oil resources.The Administration will be open to talking to China about these things. Many of the key areas where the countries will negotiate might be maritime security, Sudan, potentially climate change, agriculture, and peacekeeping. Fundamentally, though, whether China’s entrance into Africa is a force for good or a force for propping up dictators (as might be the case in Guinea) will depend on how African states set the terms of engagement. The onus is on African countries to set the standards for investment and transparency and environmental stewardship.IAR: Is the Obama administration’s policy to Africa a bit of a contradiction by advocating good governance on the one hand and strengthening partnerships with autocrats on the other? JC: Not necessarily. From the start, President Obama’s foreign policy globally has been one of openness and engagement versus isolation and detachment. In a country like Angola, whom we rely on heavily for energy, a better way to address the issue of reform may be to engage and broaden the relationship rather lecture them on governance while we continue to buy their oil. In broadening the relationship—in security, agriculture, health, for example—we can also be working with civil society and nongovernmental actors, which ultimately will be the strongest catalysts for reform.During Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s trip to Africa last August, she went to countries, like Nigeria and the DRC, where governance is extremely poor, but we are going to need to be working with them – working with them on governance issues as well as a host of other issues.Many expected the secretary to travel to Rwanda, given President Clinton’s history there. Rwandan citizens do not enjoy a lot of political freedom, but there has been a certain exceptionalism by successive U.S. administrations vis à vis Rwanda. Much of this stems from the collective guilt over the 1994 genocide. While the Rwandan government tends to be very technically competent, there is a lot more that can be done in terms of opening political space, and its machinations in eastern DRC have contributed significantly to the ongoing crisis there. There is an opportunity here for Secretary Clinton to use the U.S.’s broadening partnership with Rwanda to press on issues of governance, civil liberties, and democratization, as well as playing a more constructive role in DRC.IAR: Who do you see emerging as a continental leader and America’s strongest partners towards the end of the Obama administration?JC: That is a difficult question. There are not any visionary leaders right now who are taking up the mantle of Olesegun Obasanjo or Thabo Mbeki, or even of Abdoulaye Wade in pushing continental issues of trade, integration, and good governance. Currently, Nigeria’s leadership is adrift, and South Africa has many internal problems.In terms of U.S. partners, you cannot avoid South Africa and Nigeria because of the sheer size of their economies.Angola is growing up in that space. It is emerging as one of Africa’s major economies and a potential leader, but they are in no position to talk about governance issues nor have they expressed any real interest in continental issues. So I am not sure that we will see big partnerships with select leaders, and that may not be the worst thing.Then you have the mid-level partners: Kenya and Ethiopia. Both of those countries, though, have major governance problems. Kenya could pull out of these problems and remain a reliable partner. Ethiopia’s problems, I think, are more enduring. While those five countries are relatively strong right now, the administration should not neglect smaller countries that are on the trajectory toward good governance.In the past, Ghana has played a significant role in regional affairs, and it could continue to serve as a regional mediator. It is fairly well governed; it consistently sends troops on peacekeeping missions; and it could be an interlocutor on North-South issues in the future.That’s the kind of leadership that may emerge – not one regional power but a multiplicity of voices.IAR: Alright, let’s talk about U.S. policy to Sudan, could you speak to the debates that have unfolded while the Obama administration developed their policy over the past seven months?JC: The major divide within the State Department, the National Security Council, and the White House has been on what will move Khartoum to be more cooperative. Is it pressure and more punitive measures or a more conciliatory approach?General Scott Gration, who Obama appointed as special envoy to Sudan, surprised many Sudan watchers by advocating a more conciliatory approach to the government, a shift from some of Obama’s campaign rhetoric. Meanwhile, U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have argued that Khartoum will only respond to pressures and that greater engagement or the possibility of incentives is fruitless.So Gration has come under enormous criticism from public constituencies and has gone against the wishes of many within the administration. During the 2008 campaign, these people were very vocal in support of a policy of isolation and condemnation of Khartoum. And these internal divisions resulted in the delay of a decision on the administration’s policy. Ultimately the strategy that has been laid out, in my view, endorses Gration’s approach—a mix of incentives and pressures and sustained dialogue with Khartoum. The big uncertainty is that the “carrots and sticks” to be applied remained classified, so it’s hard to judge the overall strategy.IAR: What role has the Save Darfur Coalition played in the debates on Sudan inside the White House?JC: Advocacy and diplomacy don’t always go hand-in-hand. Activism is good at mobilizing attention and moral outrage. In diplomacy and negotiation you have to talk with people with whom you have strong differences; both sides have to make compromises and concessions; you have to be pragmatic; and sometimes in getting to a workable solution, the perfect can be the enemy of the good. That doesn’t always wash well with advocacy groups.Further, whenever there is this very vocal and powerful public constituency, it tends to draw attention to that particular issue to the neglect of others. The focus on Darfur, or example, has drawn a lot of attention away from the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement during the last four years. Therefore, critical components of that agreement have been neglected. Now we are facing hard deadlines. Important issues have not been resolved to ensure the agreement goes well.Unfortunately, it has also drawn policymakers’ attention away from other crises in Africa. Darfur consumed the attention, resources, and manpower in the State Department under the Bush administration, and probably in the Obama administration too. While the issue is still extremely important, there are other vitally important places that are suffering from tremendous humanitarian catastrophes, namely Somalia and eastern Congo. Without those public constituencies, you don’t see the kind of diplomatic attention to work on those issues. Activism certainly can bring much needed attention to neglected situations, but diplomacy should not be held captive to those pressures.