THE WIND OF CHANGE SWEEPS ACROSS AFRICA
With the lifting of outside support for these dictators, many of their nations
have been exposed as shams, as personal cash-cows for narrow elites who have
failed to unite their people behind them. By 1990, it had become clear that
sub-Saharan Africa was torn by crises. Former Tanzanian President Julius
Nyerere says that poverty lies at the heart of the conflicts in Africa.
Conflicts such as those being fought in Zaire, Rwanda and Burundi begin from
disagreements among leaders over allocation of economic resources. Too often,
there's imbalance in allocation, aided in part by official corruption. Corrupt
dictators who enjoyed the backing of rival superpowers were concerned more
with their own strategic agenda than with human rights or economic progress.
This, however, was supposed to be Africa's decade of democracy in which the
dictators, bereft of their cold-war relevance, would be replaced by elected,
accountable governments, heralding a new era of freedom and prosperity. But
these goals are proving elusive as ever for most parts of the continent.
Instead, millions of Africans are still waiting for life to improve after more
than three decades of freedom from colonialism.
The continent is littered with a woeful array of collapsed states such as
Burundi, Somalia and Liberia and the debris from hijacked elections in
Cameroon, Kenya, Guinea, Nigeria, Zambia and Zimbabwe. And even where
democracy is taking root, as in South Africa, the continent's hopes of a
brighter future are in danger of being buried under the weight of multiple
problems. "The world around us is fast changing and this continent risks being
left behind," said Anthony Lake, former US National Security Adviser, on a
visit to the continent in 1995, summing up the world's growing impatience with
Africa's failure to find its role in the post-cold war world. Says Chege:
"Liberalization has been achieved in Africa, but still it's attracting little
investment, except in minerals, because there is lack of confidence. Why?
Because they [investors] look at our governments and ask if they have legal
and political institutions in place for long-term investment. There are none.
Our leaders still look at their countries as if they own them."
Chege says the international community should speed up the departure of such
leaders before disaster arrives. Instead, says Chege, the international
community clings "to the myth of stability under the all powerful leader. In
reality, the institutions decay so much under this type of leadership that it
just takes a little push to bring about a change." The 1990s have seen
cold-war-inspired conflicts in Ethiopia and Mozambique come to an end. But
since the fall of the Berlin Wall, more than two million people in Africa have
died as a result of fresh intrastate wars unleased by pressures for the
democratic reforms that were supposed to bring new hope. A 1995 report by the
London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies found some form of
conflict in 26 of the continent's 49 states, offering a gloomy assessment for
the future. "The potential for sudden outbursts of violence exists in most
countries as rising populations meet falling living standards and weak
governments confront regional and ethnic movements," it said, obviously
referring to the armed clashes along the Nigerian border with Cameroon, in
Kenya's Rift Valley region, northern Uganda and southern Sudan.
In trying to find its future, therefore, Africa must not only battle harsh new
economic realities but also cope with the burdensome legacy of its past. And
it can no longer count on the largess of the outside world for help. The West
has given notice that African leaders who fail to heed the new rules of the
free market and competitive politics will have their aid suspended. Yet even
those who enjoy good economic health and a thriving democracy cannot expect
much from Washington or London, where international aid budgets are being cut.
Still, Africa's outlook may not be that bleak. Many African experts and
American authorities say it's not yet time to write off the continent now just
because it's going through a period of upheavals. "In Africa, the over all
economic outlook is improving, but daunting problems of debt, strife,
environmental stress and inadequate investment remain," US Secretary of State
Madeleine K. Albright said during her confirmation hearing last January. Adds
J. Brian Atwood, administrator of the US Agency for International Development:
"There is increased awareness that Africa is the world's last great developing
market, a realization that Africa is now undergoing major political and
economic changes that--if supported--can project sub-Saharan countries into
the global economy in a positive way."
For better or worse, the 1990s have already proved revolutionary for Africa.
Until 1990, Africa had only three countries that could be considered
authentically democratic. Today, multiparty elections have been held in more
than 40 countries, 18 of them held last year and another eight scheduled for
1997--although not all may be considered free or fair. Still, in South Africa,
Mozambique, Angola, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Namibia, all of the violent
struggles have given way to reconciliation and nation building.
African economic growth rates in 1995 and 1996 were projected to be in the 3
percent range--double that of the early 1990s, with a dozen countries in 1994
recording growth rates exceeding 5 percent. African infant mortality rates
show a dramatic decline, from 165 per 1,000 births 30 years ago to 97 per
1,000 today. Average life expectancy has risen from 40.1 to 51.3 years. "The
reality is that Africa is a continent on the move and in much of the continent
there is a new sense of hope and possibility," says Harold Wolpe, the US State
Department's special envoy on Burundi, who was a Democratic congressman from
Michigan for 16 years.
>From Timbuktu in Mali to Cape Town in South Africa, new leaders are
experimenting with new ways to address Africa's problems and new freedoms are
flourishing in places that once knew only repression. Some have proved
unexpected success stories, such as South Africa, where Nelson Mandela's
government has firmly instituted a new inclusive constitution and a Bill of
Rights, along with strict fiscal discipline. Botswana, determined to protect
its international reputation for fiscal responsibility and good governance,
has launched a war on corruption. Benin, Ghana, Mali, Malawi and Namibia have
thriving multiparty democracies.
"Governments of national unity," modeled after that in South Africa, are
cropping up in Mozambique, Angola and other southern African states. Now the
United States is struggling to transplant the same system in Zaire, where the
rebels of Laurent Desire-Kabila are on the verge of uprooting the dictatorship
of President Mobutu. While a "government of national unity" offers a tempting
hope for peace, some observers warn of its dangers, mainly that if care is not
taken it may undermine multiparty democracy in the long run.
On the economic front, the United Nations spent $9.3 billion on development
projects in Africa between 1991 and 1995, compared with $4.2 billion in
Asia/Pacific and $3 billion in the Americas. But development experts say all
is not lost, and they cite a number of human development projects to make
their case. The UN Development Fund for Women, for instance, has helped women
in Cameroon, Nigeria and Ghana achieve food security. It has also helped women
in Cameroon export their cassava products and given financial and technical
assistance to pumpkin growers in Nigeria and Ghana to mechanize their
production, ensuring higher returns. "They are making profits now," says
Fellishe Ekejiuba, head of the Africa division at the agency's headquarters in
New York.
Last February, World Bank President James Wolfensohn toured Senegal, Ghana,
Mozambique and South Africa and acknowledged that everywhere he was "getting
good news out of Africa." In supporting reports, the Bank noted that: "Africa
is becoming a good business address . . . most African countries have turned
their economies around in the last two years." There had been "negative
growth"--that is, economic decline--in the 1980s and early 1990s, but by 1994
things began to improve. In West Africa, for example, national economies grew
at rates swelling from 1.4 percent in 1994 to 4 percent in 1995 and 5 percent
in 1996--all because of liberalization. Investors from Europe, Asia and the US
put their money into oil, gas, mining and agriculture. State firms were
privatized and management improved.
LEADING LIGHTS: GHANA, UGANDA
Africa's seeming tendency for violence should be seen in the context of these
good changes. Africa is on the move and things are getting better. The
Republican-dominated US Congress is as pessimistic as possible about Africa's
potential to join the rest of the world in the information age. In 1994,
Republican Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, the chairman of the Senate's
Foreign Relations Committee, described Africa as "a rat-hole" swallowing
billions of dollars without any return. Since then the US agency for
International Development has had its budget cut and its aid to Africa slashed
from $743.5 million to $629 million in 1996. (The pendulum has since swung the
other way and USAID's funding for Africa increased to $665.1 million in 1997
and $700 million next year.) In response to pessimists like Helms, the World
Bank is quick to point to Ghana and Uganda as countries that have managed to
turn their economies around.
How did Ghana and Uganda achieve their economic miracle? Ghana has been under
the International Monetary Fund's economic guidance for 12 years. When
President Jerry Rawlings launched Ghana's Economic Recovery Program in the mid
'80s, the country's economy was in shambles. The roads were bad, there was a
fuel shortage, a drought and widespread bush fires, and the inflation rate was
120 percent. Now inflation is at 30 percent, roads are in better shape, and
agriculture and exports have improved considerably. The government has sold
off 180 state-owned firms. The mining sector, which has attracted foreign
investors, is a leading earner of foreign exchange. By 1995, the government
had granted prospecting licenses to 90 local and foreign companies. Tourism
continues to grow 12 percent a year, contributing 5 percent of the country's
GDP. During the multiparty elections last year, Rawlings got a second mandate
from Ghanaian voters in an election considered free and fair by international
monitors. At the start of his new term, Rawlings said: "Our vision of Ghana as
a gateway to West Africa is fast becoming a reality. We are attracting
investments into the Export Processing Zones to enable us to penetrate
external markets and thus stimulate growth in the regional economy, while
providing more employment opportunities."
But Ghana's economic miracle has not touched the average Ghanaian. The Ghanian
currency, cedi, has depreciated by 99.9 percent over a 14 year period, from
cedi 2.15 to $1 in 1983 to cedi 1,795 to $1 in early 1997. Ghanaians have to
struggle to make ends meet. Some reports say the minimum daily wage for 1996
was equivalent to $1. President Rawlings' proposal for a 24 percent increase
in fuel prices was rejected by Parliament and lowered to 19 percent. Finance
Minister Kwame Peprah recently told Wolfensohn that he doubted whether Ghana
would be able to continue with the World Bank's structural adjustment program.
As of last year, Ghana's portfolio with the Bank was $3.3 billion, consisting
of 39 projects, with a balance of $1 billion. "Our present political system,
which is guided by the constitution, is beginning to influence the country's
ability to carry out the desired adjustments required by the Bank," said
Peprah.
In East Africa, Uganda is being watched closely. Since the government of
President Yoweri Museveni implemented major economic policy reforms in 1990,
Uganda has received about $200 million in foreign investment. Total
investments, both local and foreign, have more than doubled since the 1980s.
The result? Uganda boasts one of the highest economic growth rates in the
world, aided in part by political stability. USAID Administrator Atwood notes
that investment by Africans in their own countries is also on the rise, citing
the rapid growth of the nontraditional export industry in Uganda, Ghana and
Kenya.
NEW INITIATIVES: TRADE AND INVESTMENTS
Africa has a future. USAID's Atwood says that, for the first time since the
1970s, the continent as a whole has experienced two consecutive years of
growth. The World Bank forecasts continued growth of 3.9 percent a year over
the next decade as African countries continue to reap the benefits of
responsible economic policies. Atwood says there is an aggressive effort to
support private-sector reforms and that growth rates in Mauritius and Botswana
are among the most impressive in the world.
"A new generation of political leadership is emerging in the continent," says
Atwood. "The Mobutus of the world are being replaced by the Mandelas of the
world."
There is new focus on Africa. US First Lady Hillary Clinton made a tour of the
continent in March and applauded some of the work being done in Senegal, South
Africa and Uganda.
A conference sponsored by the Corporate Council for Africa last April brought
together American and African business leaders and government officials with
the purpose of developing more effective ways of linking US business and
Africa.
This increased focus has provoked a new debate among pundits and policy makers
over whether trade should replace aid for Africa. The Clinton administration
has launched an economic recovery program for the sub Saharan region,
stressing trade and investment rather than aid. USAID has spent $5 billion in
development projects in Africa since 1991, with another $700 million earmarked
for next year. The Clinton plan has drawn broad support from both Republicans
and Democrats in the Congress because it involves no new spending.
Representatives Jim McDermont, Phil Crane and Charles Rangel have introduced a
bill in Congress, the "African Growth and Opportunity: End of Dependency Act,"
which, if passed, would extend duty-free treatment to additional products from
Africa and establish a government-backed $150 million equity investment fund
and a $500 million infrastructure fund, starting next year. It would also
eliminate quotas on textiles and clothing from manufacturing countries like
Kenya and Mauritius.
The Clinton administration wants to write off the debts of governments that
adopt bold growth policies, stepping up finance for exports and redirecting
food aid to reforming nations. The first part of the process started in
March-April when the World Bank forgave Uganda $300 million of its $3.4
billion debt. Burkina Faso, Cote d'Ivoire, Mozambique, Congo and Mauritania
are also scheduled to have their debt written off.
At a packed House subcommittee hearing, Mrs. Charlene Barshefsky, the US Trade
Representative, said in April that the administration hoped to "change the
minds of those in the private and public sectors who doubt the continent's
potential" by building on progress already made. "The core premises of our
plan are that those nations willing and able to pursue the most aggressive
growth-oriented economic policies--principally by opening their economies to
the world marketplace--are the ones most likely to the engines of growth on
the continent. The plan provides incentives for all African countries to join
the group."
House Speaker Newt Gingrich said the initiative offered "an opportunity to
form a genuine partnership." All African countries would be eligible for
investment support from the two new funds, backed by the Overseas Private
Investment Corporation.
The Clinton administration hopes to persuade other industrialized nations at
the G-7 meeting in Denver in June to adopt the new initiative. But in fact the
initiative comes practically intact from the writings of Jeffrey Sachs, a
professor of economics at Harvard University, who recently submitted a plan of
action to both the Congress and the US Treasury. The plan reflects two key
lessons about the development process and the impact of foreign aid that have
only recently became understood: First, opening markets to competition, which
can boost growth rates by as much as 2.2 percent a year. (A World Bank study
published last year found out that domestic trade barriers in the sub-Saharan
region cost it $11 billion a year, about the same amount Africa got in foreign
aid from developed countries in 1991.) Secondly, for the plan to succeed it
must be tried on selected countries whose economies are promising. (Professor
Sachs reckons that only a few countries might qualify for this program by next
year, among them Uganda, Ghana, Mali, Malawi and Mozambique.)
The program is scheduled to end in 2020. This is in keeping with the emerging
view that aid must be geared toward attaining self-sufficiency. Where
governments have depended wholly on foreign aid, those governments have often
become bystanders in their countries' development.
LOOKING FORWARD: WILL TRADE/INVESTMENT BE THE KEY TO SUCCESS?
Will the new initiative work? That's what everyone who has been studying the
African situation is asking. The African Policy Information Center, a group
that lobbies on behalf of Africa in Washington, says it believes there's a
mistake in the plan. "As long as they stress private investment without public
investment, it [the plan] is not good enough," says William Minter, a senior
research fellow at the center. "Because that's putting blind faith on
corporate citizenship. By itself, [private investment] is guaranteed not to
work." He says trade and private investment must be complemented with public
investment in areas of critical need like education and information
technological.
Minter says aid from the industrialized nations must still remain part of the
package to Africa if the program is to have any long-term effect. "Africa
cannot act as a beggar, but the question of trade and investment should be
decided based on what Africa needs, and it should not just take what is
offered," he says, adding that what Africa greatly needs, apart from aid, is
information exchange.
That's a theme that African leaders are beginning to focus on. At a meeting of
African states on the subject of trade and investment in Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia's capital, on May 7, K. Y. Amaoko, UN Under Secretary General and
executive secretary of the Economic Commission for Africa, said Africa's
access to the information superhighway holds the key to its future.
How can this be achieved? Multisectoral investment. The UN, USAID and other
groups sympathetic to Africa are now trying to lobby for continued aid as well
as the new plan to promote trade and investment between Africa and the West.
The UN is also considering a plan, the African Information Society Initiative,
which will enhance collaboration and implementation of information and
communications infrastructure in all of the 52 African countries. It
complements the UN's system-wide $10 billion Special Initiative on Africa,
which was launched last year by former UN Secretary General Boutros
Boutros-Ghali of Egypt. "Quality information about economic opportunities in
Africa can be broadcast to the world," said Amaoko, "while African operators
tap global information networks to find lucrative opportunities which they
could exploit."
That way, especially with a boost from political stability, Africa could
attract serious interest and investment for development, just as it attracted
Western powers a century ago following reports by Henry Morton Stanley.
END