Uganda (continued), President Bush in Africa, and AFRICOM

It appears that the prospects for a final resolution to the fighting in Uganda, raised after a monumental agreement between the LRA and the Ugandan government to set up a national war crimes tribunal, have dimmed as the LRA has walked out of peace talks in Juba, southern Sudan. The LRA has reportedly demanded cash payments as well as a large number of government posts in order to bring the conflict to a close. The Ugandan government has expectedly and understandably refused such demands and the talks are now in limbo. Stay tuned to see how the resolution of this 20 year long conflict plays out.

In a related topic, the ICC has stated that the arrest warrants for the three leaders of the LRA still stand despite the tentative agreement between the Ugandan government and LRA to set up a special division of the High Court of Uganda to try serious crime cases. The warrants will only be lifted "when the ICC judges determine whether national trials are an adequate alternative to prosecution". So much for an independent and sovereign judiciary.

President Bush's tour of five African nations this week has come to a close. The trip has garnered much attention, largely positive, about the Bush administration's programs in Africa geared to combatting malaria, HIV/Aids, etc. In fact, today's Financial Times, lauded Mr. Bush's positive legacy of expending 'an extraordinary effort in the international fight against HIV/Aids'. The highlight of the President's effort has been the President's Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (Pepfar), which has thus far led to earmarks of $15 billion to be spent in Africa. The FT, however, is not entirely pleased with Mr. Bush's program and suggested several changes including removal of restrictive spending, direct support to local health initiatives, and the greater need for accountability.

I have two reactions to the piece besides the obvious shock at a newspaper commending the President's program. First, I agree wholeheartedly with the FT's criticism of the NGO community for taking too much of the money that is donated for development and aid. An entire economy has arisen out of the practices of the NGOs which have created a system in which the giving of money has become paramount. The corollary is the FT's second criticism that better accounting and transparency is necessary. There has not been any clear indication that the billions of dollars donated have resulted in actual positive changes on the ground. This comes to the core of what annoys me about the development community, and I am stereotyping though I shouldn't, they want to give the money more than the Africans want to take it. (That line paraphrases William Easterly author of White Man's Burden) When that happens corruption ensues and results no longer meet expectations. The bottom line has become giving, achievement is secondary, if relevant at all. Thus, while its great that President Bush has a postive legacy in helping fight HIV, its not clear to me that Pepfar has actually done so. It has just sent US taxpayer dollars to NGOs operating in Africa.

Second, earmarks that restrict spending are necessary, when discussing such large amounts of money and this follows from what I wrote above. If the US government is going to give billions of dollars to a cause, it absolutely has the right to dictate how that money is to be spent. Giving it to the NGOs who run the development programs or directly to African governments is simply irresponsible and breeds an atmosphere that will likely lead to corruption. On that note, the US should expand its presence on the ground, and not rely on private organizations and charities to dispense the monies. This would mean a large increase in Peace Corps and USAID presence.

Finally, while AFRICOM was created by presidential order in February 2007, it has rarely been in the news. With the President's trip this week and the announcement that for the near future the HQ will remain in Stuttgart, its existence has made its way to the mainstream news media. In today's LA Times, Rosa Brooks, who I am absolutely not a fan of, writes that AFRICOM may be the President's most enduring legacy for Africa, 'the most significant US foreign and military policy innovation you've probably never heard of.' Brooks goes on to write about how despite the stated purposes for the creation of the combatant command, it smacks of Kipling-style White Man's Burden attitude and that in fact the US does indeed have a military interest on the continent. I have several responses to her snide and sarcastic comments, which I hope will be printed as a Letter to the Editor. First, the creation of Africom was long overdue. Unified combatant commands have been in existence since 1946 and in their present form since Goldwater-Nichols in 1986. The Pentagon has split the world up already, now Africa is not split into three but unified under one command. Second, with the spread of terrorism, drugs, and Africa's veritable treasure trove of natural resources which China has already begun to take advantage of (see Sudan), now is absolutely the time for the US to have greater involvement in Africa. To ensure the security of US interests. If that means a greater diplomatic and humanitarian role to aid African governments all the better. Finally, the creation of a combatant command for Africa does not imply a Kipling-esque White Man's Burden anymore than does a US presence in other foreign countries ie Germany, Japan, South Korea. Especially since AFRICOM is still currently based in Germany.