By Oscar Obonyo

President Barack Obama’s administration could deploy its clout to force Kenya to hasten constitutional reforms.

For the second time on Saturday, the US Ambassador to Kenya, Michael Ranneberger, told The Standard on Sunday various options are available, including travel bans.

His statement reinforced another this month by Obama’s official emissary to President Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga, Johnnie Carson, who made it clear his brief was to “warn a friend” America could soon “flex its muscles.” Ranneberger spoke against the backdrop of a closed-door meeting between Obama and Tanzania President Jakaya Kikwete. It is believed Kenya’s troubled coalition and the gradual loss of grip by the weak-kneed Somali government featured at the meeting.

A secure Kenya is viewed by America and the European Union as guaranteed vanguard against the spill over of terrorism from lawless Somalia.

The turn of events, coming at a time the local economy and political fabric are tattered, rekindle memories of the first months of last year, when then US President George Bush sent messages to Kibaki and Raila that power sharing was not a matter of personal preference but inevitable.

Again like it is today one man, who played a big role in breaking the ice between Kibaki and Raila, was in the loop – President Kikwete who had just been crowned the African Union chairman. Bush flew into Tanzania – and it is after they met that Kikwete crossed over to Kenya with a message now believed to have been choosing between power sharing and dispatch of United Nations peacekeepers.

At the time, before Bush landed and with Kibaki having named a half-Cabinet with Kalonzo Musyoka as Vice-President, the VP flew to Tanzania to meet Kikwete.

   [ Enlarge ]

   President Obama Meets President Jakaya Kikwete and Sec. of State Hillary Clinton in The Oval Office

This round again Kalonzo left the funeral of Water Minister Charity Ngilu’s mother, saying he was flying to Tanzania to meet Kikwete. While there, his press service as well as the Tanzanian Press, curiously did not mention he had had closely-guarded talks with Kikwete, who was about to travel to the US. It is the journey that made him the first African leader to meet Obama as President.

As Kenya was told by Rannerberger, Obama would not set foot here, despite this being his ancestral roots, because of political disorder and jolt to the reform process.

Meanwhile, Ghana was celebrating Obama’s decision to choose her as his first stop as the President of the world’s only superpower.

In what our sources described as a “critical encounter,” Kalonzo met Kikwete on May 15.

According to a report filed from Washington in Saturday’s Daily News of Tanzania, Kikwete and Obama discussed Kenya’s political situation and “other trouble regions of Darfur, DRC and Somalia.”

Raila’s one-week tour

The details of the discussions were however scanty, but given the stand US ambassador in Kenya has taken on the confusion in the Grand Coalition, and the slow pace of reforms, and with Kikwete’s perceived ?expertise’ on Kenya’s affairs, it cannot be ruled out the issues raised by Rannerberger featured.

Asked what was discussed by the two world leaders on Saturday, the ambassador, who has adopted grassroots-based healing and reconciliation effort among communities scarred by post-election violence, said he did not know.

Interestingly, Kikwete’s visit to the US also coincided with that of Raila’s one-week tour of the superpower nation, where a few weeks ago, his wife Ida, met Mrs Michelle Obama.

Raila’s team was tight-lipped on whether he tried or may even have talked to Obama, or even what Ida discussed with US first black First Lady.

From Tanzania, the regular VPPS dispatches captured events involving Tanzania’s VP, Ali Mohammed Shein.

“The two (Kikwete and Kalonzo) met although no details were divulged and we have been warned against running the story,” an editor of Rai, Tanzania’s weekly political newspaper, confirmed to The Standard on Sunday.

According to the journalist, Kalonzo flew to Dar on Friday, and was met by his Tanzanian counterpart who drove him straight to State House for a meeting with Kikwete.

“Officially, your Vice-President’s host during the two-day trip was Dr Shein and not Kikwete. We could not run this story because State House officials confided to us President Kikwete was sensitive over the Kenyan affair as he did not wish to be seen to favour any side of the political divide,” the editor said in a telephone interview.

Although details of the Kalonzo-Kikwete meeting remain hazy, chances are the encounter was linked to the Obama meeting at the Oval Office on Thursday.

Kalonzo, a former Foreign Affairs Minister, played the same role, flying into African States shortly after the disputed presidential election, to give the PNU account to the international community.

It is not clear whether Raila was also in touch with the Tanzanian leader ahead of his meeting with Obama. The Standard on Sunday also could not establish whether Raila was scheduled to meet Obama, although Kenya’s ambassador to the US, Peter Ogego, said the PM was not expected in Washington.

A fortnight ago Obama warned President Kibaki and PM to ease political tension and fully execute the National Accord as crafted by former United Nations Secretary General, Kofi Annan.

His message, through Carson, was blunt: “The US is ready to take necessary steps should the coalition fail to implement the Annan agreement.”

Tattered economy

The apparent scramble for Kikwete’s attention by local leaders is understandable. The Kenyan situation after all formed part of the agenda of Obama-Kikwete talks.

Obama’s dissatisfaction with the local political leadership comes in the wake of a gloomy Economic Survey report by Planning Minister Wycliffe Oparanya. With a just 1.7 per cent growth, Kenya’s economy is no better than warring Somalia’s 2.6 per cent.

And even as the US is increasingly lumps Kenya with failed States in the region, the disturbing aspect of the unfolding drama is the country’s inability to tap and take advantage of the US President’s roots.

The one man, who is running away first with possible political and economic advantage from Obama, is Kikwete. Since election as Tanzania’s President in 2006, Kikwete has enjoyed closer ties with the ?Big Brother’. That was the case during the reign of 43rd US President George W Bush.

His country’s clout and fortune have correspondingly risen as Kenya’s plummet.

In mid-2006, for instance, Kenyans reacted angrily when news filtered through that Bush and Kikwete had discussed Kenya, during a bilateral meeting in Washington. Foreign Affairs Minister, Moses Wetangula, then an Assistant Minister, demanded a public apology from the two leaders.

Two years later, Bush flew to Tanzania when the country was burning, from where he issued threats to Kenyans to stop further bloodshed and form a coalition government. Kikwete delivered the message and it worked.

Today, Kikwete still occupies that special and envious place in the eyes of American leadership.

Last Thursday, he met Obama in Washington. When Kikwete invited Obama to Tanzania, which former President Clinton like Bush, visited and snubbed Kenya, the new US leader’s response was more than curious.

“I would like to visit Tanzania. Last time I saw your country from the other side of Serengeti National Park,” he said, referring to his 2006 visit to Kenya.

Then, Kibaki’s spokesman, Alfred Mutua, dismissed Obama as, “a junior Senator from Illinois.” Mutua was reacting to Obama’s assertion corruption is undermining Kenya’s development.

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Libyan president Muammar el-Qaddafi who has repeatedly proposed immediate unity and the establishment of a single currency, army and passport for the entire continent of Africa, was named chairman of the African Union on Monday, wresting control of a body he helped found and has long wanted to remake in his pan-African image.

His installation as the new head of the 53-member body resembled more of a coronation than a democratic transfer of power. Colonel Qaddafi was dressed in flowing gold robes and surrounded by traditional African leaders who hailed him as the “king of kings.”

The choice of Colonel Qaddafi was not a surprise – he was the leading candidate – but the prospect of his election to lead the African Union caused some unease among some of the group’s member nations, who were meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, as well as among diplomats and analysts. Colonel Qaddafi, who has ruled Libya with an iron hand for decades, is a stark change from the succession of recent leaders from democratic countries like Tanzania, Ghana and Nigeria.

PIC: Col Gadaffi gave up trying to unite the Arab world and is concentrating on Africa instead. On Monday he was named Africa’s “king of kings” by a gathering of traditional rulers.

Colonel Qaddafi is an ardent supporter of a long-held dream of transforming Africa, a collection of post-colonial fragments divided by borders that were drawn arbitrarily by Western powers, into a vast, unified state that could play a powerful role in global affairs. He has repeatedly proposed immediate unity and the establishment of a single currency, army and passport for the entire continent. He pledged Monday to bring up the issue for a vote at the African Union’s next summit meeting, in July.

While a few African leaders share his passion and his timetable for this pan-African vision, most prefer a go-slow approach, given the political realities that have emerged in the half-century since most of Africa became independent.

“In principle, we said the ultimate is the United States of Africa,” said Tanzania’s president, Jakaya Kikwete, the previous African Union chairman, according to the BBC. “How we proceed to that ultimate – there are building blocks.” — [ MORE ]

———————————————————————————————————————-

———————————————————————————————————————-

———————————————————————————————————

 Author: Tongkeh Joseph Fowale
Introduction

Africa entered the 21st century with immeasurable optimism, hope and the promise of a bright future after decades of chaos. This new-found optimism in the hitherto “forgotten continent” was rooted on developments unfolding within Africa and on the international scene. “African renaissance” as this resurgence came to be called, was inspired by the birth of the African Union (AU) and the New Partnership for African development (NEPAD). These new instruments of African power ushered the continent into a new century, and also signalled a new dawn in Africa’ relations with the outside world. This internal revolution coincided with the renewal of interest in Africa by great powers.

The prospects and challenges of African development in the 21st century have been (and continue to be) shaped by two conflicting forces. The first pressure emanates from outside players wrestling for Africa’s strategic and natural resources. This external pressure largely defines the pattern of trade, aid, investment and development in Africa. The second push comes from within Africa as the continent struggles to mobilise its resources in pursuit of development. “African solutions to African problems” as this new drive is called, attempts to give an African orientation to Africa’s developmental challenges which revolve around political instability, conflicts, poverty, disease, economic stagnation and lack of infrastructure.

Another significant cause for optimism in Africa in the Third Millennium was the coming of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in September 2000. This ambitious scheme which has been adopted by 190 nations outlined eight critical goals which fundamentally touched on the roots of Africa’s developmental challenges. These goals include; the eradication of poverty and hunger, the achievement of universal primary education, the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women, the reduction of child mortality, the improvement of material health, combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases, ensuring environmental sustainability and the development of a global partnership for development.

The MDGs highlighted the need to co-ordinate global efforts in lending a hand to Africa and to bring the continent into the orbit of what French President Nicolas Sarkozy called a “globalized world” at the September 2008 UN Meeting on African development. “The globalized world needs Africa,” he said. “It would be a delusion to envision Europe’s prosperity without working for the emergence of a major economic partner.” Sarkozy’s hope-laden message is quite similar to those echoed repeatedly by many world leaders aimed either at placating or comforting Africa. President George Bush earlier in February 2008 inspired hope in the continent when he declared “Africa in the 21st century is a continent of potential.” Behind these loud promises of hope, there is also a large vacuum of undelivered promises to Africa.

A decade of undelivered promises

For all its efforts at development, for all its pleas for assistance, and in its struggle to escape from plaguing poverty, Africa has received several responses, among them undelivered promises This “… rhetoric or fancy accounting” as Takumo Yamada, spokesman for Oxfam International described it, has left serious repercussions on Africa’s way out of poverty. Though the balance sheet of African development shows positive improvements, these gains cannot be consolidated with Africa’s efforts alone. Commending Africa’s struggle for development, UN General Assembly President Miguel d’Escoto observed, “Brave as its nations may be — and we know that they are brave indeed, — Africa cannot move ahead on its own.”

From the MDGs of 2000, through the aid promises of the G8 at Gleneagles in 2005, to promises made at bilateral and multilateral levels, Africa has been fed to the full with rhetoric. While traditional problems of political instability, violent conflicts, economic stagnation, poverty, disease and malnutrition continue to baffle the continent, Africa still has to make room for words. With the emergence of new global challenges such as the world food and fuel crises, the world financial crisis, and climate change, there are looming fears all around the developing world that the developed countries will hide behind such excuses to renege on pledges made to Africa.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon raised such concerns when he called on the developed countries to come to Africa’s rescue. “No one is more alarmed than you at the current trends which indicate that no African country will achieve the Millennium development Goals by 2015.” Ban cited the colossal $267 billion spent by OECD countries last year alone on agricultural subsidies to highlight his call for increased attention to Africa. It becomes even more pathetic to realise that these subsidies are part of Africa’s development frustration.

This same EU which invests considerable energy and resources on subsidies to farmers, made a pledge of $15 billion to ACP countries under the Cotonou Agreement in 2000. Eight years on little is yet to be realised. President Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal sounded his frustration with Europe, the West and the G8 over undelivered promises to Africa in very harsh terms. “I achieved more in my one hour meeting with President Hu Jintao — during the G8 meeting in Heiligendamm than I did during the entire orchestrated meeting of world leaders at the summit — where African leaders were told little more than that the G8 nations would respect existing agreements.” Continued he, “It is time for the west to practise what it preaches.”

When former British Prime Minister Tony Blair diagnosed Africa’s problem as “a scar on the conscience of the world” in 2005, expectations ran high that under his stewardship of the G8 Africa’s salvation was in sight. Under Blair’s leadership, the G8 vowed to “more than double aid to Africa,” backing this up with a promise of $25 billion worth of aid to the continent by 2010. Three years on, only $4billion of this money has materialised. “Does any body seriously think the 21 billion-dollar gap will be met in two years?” asked Glennys Kinnock, Chair of the ACP-EU Parliamentary Assembly. Citing the current financial crisis as a possible excuse for developed countries to renege on their promises to Africa, she insisted “If the strongest economise need stability, the weakest economies need dependability.”

As African leaders continue to make their pendulum swings east and west in search of develop assistance, they always return with briefcase-loads of promises. President George Bush promised a “Lazarus effect” on the continent when he came visiting in February 2008. China had promised salvation to Africa in the form of a “win-win” relationship. The EU with a waning influence on Africa, continues to make overtures in the form of Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs). Japan promised to make the 21st century “a century of Africa” through an agricultural revolution. India promised to transform the 21st century into a “Century of Asia and Africa.” President Sarkozy offered to be more transparent to Africa and cried out loud that “the suffering of the black man is the suffering of all men.”

It would, however, be grossly misleading o underestimate the role of external assistance in Africa’s development efforts. Africa’s current 6% growth rate, the reduction of conflicts, new democratic strides, the growth of trade, investment and infrastructure all owe significantly to new opportunities provided by outside players. Europe despite its declining trade with Africa, still remains a significant development partner. America’s Agricultural Growth and Opportunities Act (AGOA) and the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) have opened up vast trade and investment opportunities for Africa. Her role in advancing democracy, checking terrorism and contributing towards fighting AIDS and malaria are highly commendable efforts. China and India, the new “Southern drivers” of the global economy are the new forces behind Africa’s new growth patterns. These Asian powers have also made invaluable contributions in the area of infrastructural development in Africa.

These contributions notwithstanding, as long as the outside players continue to attach strings to their assistance to Africa, as long as the continent continues to be viewed as a place to be robbed in the name of aid or trade, as long as Africa is seen as a charity case, as long as their economic relations with Africa are shaped by ulterior motives, the MDGs will have little meaning. When trade with Africa becomes trade in arms, when the continent is militarised for any reason whatsoever, when promises of aid become practises of plunder, every effort will boil down to conflict and misery, the same ills the MDGs have vowed to check. Observed Ban Ki Moon, “The recent spate of conflicts over food and natural resources show that our security depends on building prosperity in the developing world.”

Africa’s fragile trade regime and the challenges of development

Among Africa’s countless economic problems, its fragile trade regime stands out distinct. According to a report published in September 2008 by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the continent has not only lost its share of global trade in the last twenty five years, but the level and composition of its exports have not changed significantly.

The UNCTAD report which examined the effects of recent trade liberalization policies on African observed that these policies have not had any impact on intra-African trade. According to the report, intra-African trade accounted for only eight percent of total African trade in 2006, a figure much lower than in other regions.

The causes (and consequences) of Africa’s poor trade performance are many. Heavy dependence on primary products makes the continent very vulnerable to fluctuating commodity prices. Poor infrastructure leads to heavy transportation costs. Bad weather conditions result in crop failure hampering food production and trade. Low levels of technology and mechanization lead directly to very low productivity. Diseases such as HIV/AIDS and malaria and typhoid take a heavy toll on Africa’s youthful population leading to a shortage of manpower in production. Conflicts in the continent seriously hamper. Western agricultural subsidies send a direct and dangerous ripple effect on African farmers. This is further worsened by the erection of tariff barriers against African products in the markets of developed countries.

This unfavourable trade structure was highlighted earlier by South African President Thabo Mbeki who frowned at the nature of Sino-African trade. “The challenge is that you could — develop a relationship between China and the African continent which in reality isn’t different from that developed between Africa and the former colonial powers.” He made the same call at the Japan-Africa Summit in Yokohama in May 2008 when he insisted that Africa’s future economic development should be based on trade not aid. “Without discounting the importance of trade” Mbeki said, “improved terms of trade are critical to ensure [Africa's] full integration into the global economy.”

Among the many changes in Africa’s trade structure advocated by Mbeki was the call for greater access to new technologies at affordable prices and investment in research and development, technology and innovation as key instruments in enhancing African trade and ensuring economic growth. Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete spoke the same language at the Fourth Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD 1V) calling on Japan to increase its trade with Africa. “What remains to be seen” he said, “is increased trade and investment between Africa and Japan ….”

What prospects for the MDGs

2015 is the target year of the Millennium Development Goals. Halfway in 2008, Ban Ki Moon has made it clear that the goals cannot be realised with the current trends. What makes this prospect bleaker is the number of new challenges facing the developed countries especially the current global financial crisis. Africa as usual stands at the receiving end of these odds.

The current trend also shows that without any major changes in its relations with its “development partners,” Africa has to pay the price not only for their economic problems, but for their further development as well. For example, the EU, caught up in the middle of its integration and economic crisis is trying to force a bitter pill down the throats of Africa in the form of Economic Partnership Agreements. Fearful of loosing Africa to its perceived rival – China, the U.S. is embracing a military approach towards Africa in the name of an Africa Command (AFRICOM). China on its part has embarked on a wanton exploitation of Africa’s raw materials backed by a counter-productive arms trade and also raising environmental concerns in the continent.

Though the MDGs touched on pertinent issues affecting the continent, they significantly avoided the perennial problems of migration, brain drain, capital flight and ethnicity which threaten the growth, peace and stability of Africa. No discussion about African development can be complete without paying regard to Africa’s youths, a large proportion of whom are, or will become migrants in search for decent lives. This youthful population also constitutes the cream of Africa’s intellectual wealth and therefore the engine of its future development.

Conclusion

Development is a process rooted in time and space. Every development process requires resources (human and natural). The external factor is also significant. Among these however, the human resource is the most important. President Bush did not miss the point when he observed “Africa’s most valuable resource is not its oil; it’s not its diamonds, it’s the talent and creativity of its people.” It is only when Africa’s “development partners” realise the need to make Africa’s human wealth more productive that the MDGs would have scored a point. To think that promises and hypocrisy can bail Africa out of poverty would be wishful thinking and the consequences will be shared by all. Bush again, “We have seen that conditions on the other side of the world can have a direct impact on our security.”

Climate change for example is a vivid illustration of how Africa has had to pay for the crimes of others. Said Ban Ki Moon, “it is sadly ironic that the poor who contribute the least to global warming suffer most from its ill effects.” It was in this light that the UN boss reminded the world that investing $72 billion yearly to achieve the MDGs, to pull “millions out of extreme poverty in Africa looks like good value.” The promises, the prospects and the challenges of the Millennium Development Goals stare at Africa, they stare at the world. “Paternalism has got to be a thing of the past,” said President Bush. “Joint venturing with good, capable people is what the future is all about.”
Sources

Resources:

• Associated Press “Text of Bush on Africa,” Available at — http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iBAo1yCOOLr02NJfYtgrYmyZQKxAD8UQESG00

• Executive Intelligence Review Japan Pledges To Eradicate — Hunger in Africa in 10 Years, June 6, 2008 Issue.

• FINANCIAL TIMES “Africa-China Trade” Thursday, January 24 2008, p.6

• Millennium Challenge Corporation Fact Sheet. “MCC and Africa: A Growing Partnership for Success.” September 3, 2008. Available at www.mc.gov

• Offah Obale, “Africa’s Export Performance still Dismal, Says UNCTAD, IPS. — Tuesday October 7, 2008.

• United Nations General Assembly, Sixty-third General Assembly High-Level Plenary on Africa, GA/10748, New York, September 22, 2008.