|
Get AfricaFocus Bulletin by e-mail!
Print this page
|
Note: This document is from the archive of the Africa Policy E-Journal, published
by the Africa Policy Information Center (APIC) from 1995 to 2001 and by Africa Action
from 2001 to 2003. APIC was merged into Africa Action in 2001. Please note that many outdated links in this archived
document may not work.
|
USA: Summit Documents, 5
USA: Summit Documents, 5
Date distributed (ymd): 000323
Document reposted by APIC
+++++++++++++++++++++Document Profile+++++++++++++++++++++
Region: Continent-Wide
Issue Areas: +political/rights+ +US policy focus+
Summary Contents:
This set of two postings on the National Summit on Africa
continues the series of three posted in February by APIC.
Please note that, as has always been APIC's policy for this
electronic list, the responsibility for the views expressed is
that of the original source of each document. As the
guidelines posted on APIC's web site indicate, "selection of
a document for reposting implies that it is considered a
useful resource for wider public debate, but not necessarily
that APIC endorses all the views expressed in reposted
material." Neither the previous postings nor the two today
should be misconstrued as an "APIC statement."
As a matter of record, APIC has not made and does not yet have
a formal statement of opinion on how the important dynamic of
the National Summit on Africa process should continue in the
future. This is far too serious and complex a subject,
involving not only the responsibilities and directions of many
different groups, but also many individuals around the country
and indeed around the world, for us to reach quick conclusions
or prematurely adopt firmly defined positions. APIC is
convinced that the primary arena in which such a position
should be defined is among the very diverse strands of
concerned people who have been engaged in the Summit process
at many levels.
APIC's electronic distribution list is not the appropriate
vehicle for continuing these important discussions. For the
ongoing debate -- to the extent it is available on-line -- we
recommend two primary sources. One is the Summit web site
(http://www.africasummit.org). The other is an on-line
discussion entitled "Africa Matters," initiated in December
with an core group of many summit delegation chairs, and
opened to the public following the summit. This forum --
us-afr-network@egroups.com -- is available on-line for sign-up
and viewing of the archive at http://www.egroups.com. To sign
up by e-mail, send a blank message to us-afr-networksubscribe
@egroups.com. If there are other such fora that are
open to a wide audience, please let us know and we will find
a way to insert a notice of their existence through the
distribution list or the Africa Policy web site.
This posting contains the Summits' Top Ten Action Priorities,
just released, as well as statements by the three co-chairs of
the Michigan state delegation and by a co-chair of the New
York state delegation. For additional comments by other
co-chairs and delegates, see the Africa Matters discussion at
e-groups.com.
The other posting sent out today contains a letter from
Herschelle S. Challenor, Chair, NSOA Board of Directors and
Leonard H. Robinson, Jr., NSOA President and Chief Operating
Officer, as well as references to Foreign Policy in Focus
articles debating the Summit:
February 25, 2000 -
http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/papers/africapr
and
March 17, 2000 -
http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/progresp/vol4/prog4n11.html
+++++++++++++++++end profile++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
National Summit on Africa:
Top Ten Priority Recommendations
National Summit on Africa
1819 H St., NW, Suite 810
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: 202-861-8644
Fax: 202-861-8645
E-mail: africasummit@africasummit.org
Web: http://www.africasummit.org
During the National Summit, delegates deliberated and adopted
the following 10 priority recommendations (two for each of the
National Summit on Africa's five themes) for immediate action,
and to serve as the anchors to the National Policy Plan of
Action for U.S.-Africa Relations in the 21st Century [now due
to be available at http://www.africasummit.org on April 5,
2000. These ten points are also available on the delegates'
page (
http://www.africasummit.org/fdelegates.htm).]
Economic Development, Trade and Investment, and Job Creation:
1. The U.S. should take the lead in providing prompt and
meaningful debt relief for Africa by forgiving all Africa
public sector debt owed to the U.S. The U.S. should also
support and encourage the favorable renegotiation,
restructuring or cancellation of African debt held by private
and multilateral creditors, as well as that held by other
creditor nations.
2. It is absolutely necessary for the U.S. to stimulate direct
trade and investment between Africa and the U.S. because
without it democracy will fail and the human needs of the
people cannot be met. This should be done with particular
emphasis on small- and medium-sized businesses between
Africans and African-Americans. There must be support for the
Africa Growth and Opportunity Act in order to foster trade and
investment in Africa and enable African countries to develop
mutually beneficial partnerships with the U.S. so as to
accomplish these goals.
Sustainable Development, Quality of Life, and the Environment
3. In the interest of sustainable development and the goals of
self-sufficiency and economic independence in Africa, the U.S.
should support and strengthen access to potable water and
waste management; the prevention, control, and eradication of
infections and diseases through the use of non-traditional,
traditional, and herbal medicines. Prevention of all major
diseases in Africa should be supported in partnership with
African governments, civil society and non-governmental
organizations, the private corporate sector and other
multi-lateral and bi-lateral donor agencies. Moreover, the
U.S. must champion debt cancellation so African governments
can redirect those resources toward these efforts. The U.S.
should work collaboratively with organizations in Africa to
support efforts to provide disability, refugee, and mental
health services. HIV/AIDS should be given special emphasis.
These collective actions will also ensure the future of
Africa's children.
4. The U.S. should invest in and support African initiatives
to provide basic necessities through the development of
sustainable infrastructure. Addressing these issues requires
commitment to human capital, gender issues (with emphasis on
women), education, capacity building, participatory
development involving the inclusion of non-governmental
organizations, community-based organizations, and reliance on
expertise from Africa, as well as establishing linkages with
African-Americans. All existing and future U.S. government
projects, U.S. non-governmental organizations and businesses
should adhere to the same environmental protection standards
that they would need to meet in the U.S. and should be
required to sign on to a list of principles that promote
sustainable utilization of land, water, forest, wildlife,
marine, biodiversity, and coastal resources. The U.S. should
strictly enforce the prohibition of transporting, selling and
dumping of toxic and hazardous substances. Therefore, the
U.S. through its Department of State, agencies, and Congress
can play key enhancing roles by: 1) increasing the foreign
assistance budget; 2) sustaining and expanding information
technology infrastructure 3) using its relational leverage
with other donors to boost the livelihood of grassroots
communities; and 4) supporting efforts at land reform which
sustains small holder agriculture and food security.
Peace and Security
5. The U.S. should support United Nations and regional
organizations' peacekeeping and conflict prevention efforts in
Africa, including timely financial and logistical support. The
U.S. also should fully pay, without conditions, its current
United Nations dues and arrears and its assessments for
peacekeeping operations.
6. The U.S. should increase financial, technical, and
logistical support for African and multilateral initiatives
and institutions (including civil society) aimed at crisis
prevention, conflict resolution, peace enforcements, and
humanitarian assistance. Any action should incorporate an
intensive education program. The U.S. should increase efforts
to enact the optional protocol on child soldiers; to protect
African citizens against conscription, to inform American
consumers of the origins of African products and resources in
order to prevent the sale of those products from financing
war, conflict, and corruption. The President should
immediately sign, and the U.S. Senate should ratify, the
Treaty to Ban Landmines without reservation. The U.S. should
expand financial support for mine clearance, victim assistance
and rehabilitation, environmentally sensitive de-mining, and
landmine awareness. The U.S. should end all production and
sales of landmines and should support international
initiatives to make producers of landmines financially
accountable for property and human losses therefrom.
Democracy and Human Rights
7. The U.S. government, public and private sectors should make
the promotion of democracy and respect for human rights
central to their policies towards Africa. The U.S. should
increase support towards existing and emerging institutions
that do not violate human rights. U.S. foreign assistance
including trade benefits, security assistance, finance, and
logistics should be available on a preferential basis to those
that respect human rights. This assistance must include human
rights training. To this end, the U.S. should be committed to
bringing all Americans, particularly African Americans, to the
forefront of discussions, planning, and implementation of all
initiatives.
8. To promote African democracy and human rights in this era
of globalization, the U.S. government should require
U.S.-based corporations and international finance
institutions, particularly the World Bank, International
Monetary Fund and World Trade Organization, to advance these
goals in policy and practice. A corporate code of conduct must
make democracy and human rights central to doing business in
Africa. The charters of international institutions should be
amended so that they can no longer offer support and
legitimacy to illegitimate governments, and to democratize the
institutions to allow for more African representation. The
U.S. should support Africa's quest for a permanent seat on the
UN Security Council, should triple the number of African
refugees admitted to the U.S., increase aid to 0.7% of GNP,
and ratify all pending human rights conventions.
Education and Culture
9. The U.S., including African-American educational
institutions, should seek equitable partnerships with African
professionals, institutions, and communities to include
opportunities for international exchange, training, research,
technology, knowledge transfer, information sharing, and arts
and culture. The U.S. should fund and support efforts of all
countries to provide basic education, all types of literacy
programs, and HIV/AIDS education for children (particularly
girls) adults, and persons with disabilities.
10. It is imperative that action be taken consistently and
accurately to educate the U.S. public on Africa through mass
media, cultural institutions, and school curriculum. The U.S.
must encourage African ownership while discouraging
multinational institutions from destabilizing, displacing, or
competing unfairly with indigenous media. Policymakers must 1)
promote change in American knowledge and attitudes toward
Africa; 2) emphasize Africa's role in the history of global
civilization.
Letter from Michigan State Co-Chairs
March 5, 2000
To:
Dr. Leonard Robinson, President and CEO, The National Summit
on Africa; Dr. Herschelle Challenor, Board Chair, The National
Summit on Africa
From:
Rev. Mangedwa Nyathi, Co-Chair, Michigan Summit on Africa
Executive Director, Agape House, Hartford Memorial Baptist
Church. (313) 861-1200, Fax: (313) 861-7896
Ms. Salome Gebre-Egziabher, Co-Chair, Michigan Summit on
Africa
Education Equity Consultant, University of Michigan
(734) 763-2137, Fax: (734) 763-2137, e-mail: sge@umich.edu
Ms. Iva Smith, Co-Chair, Michigan Summit on Africa
Education Equity Consultant, University of Michigan
(734) 763-9910 , Fax: (734) 763-2137, e-mail: eixa@umich.edu
Concerning: The National Summit on Africa
We have just returned from attending this unique celebration
of Africa in Washington this last week, and we write to
congratulate you on all the arduous arrangements and long
hours of labor that we know that you and the staff invested in
creating all this activity for us. We were privileged to
attend, to hear so many promises to work for and with Africa
from leaders of the community, and to renew our own efforts to
be part of a greater voice for Africa in this country.
We do plan to continue our work as the Michigan Summit on
Africa in ways yet to be determined, and we shall be meeting
shortly to assess how we proceed. We already have plans for
seeking support for Africa partnership activities from the
Michigan Legislature. And we met with both Representatives
John Conyers and Carolyn C. Kilpatrick at the Capitol while we
were in Washington.
We shall be eager to receive the revised National Plan of
Action and to hear of the plans of the National Summit on
Africa for implementing our plan of action and policy agenda.
Participants in the Michigan Summit on Africa have a long
history of working closely with a variety of organizations
that have labored long for Africa here in Michigan -
especially with TransAfrica, the American Committee on Africa,
the Africa Fund, Washington Office on Africa, Africa Policy
Information Center, as well as with some others.
The pro-Africa movement here in Michigan, which has many
accomplishments including passing more state sanctions laws on
South Africa (3) than any other state, has benefitted in may
ways from the work, staff, and support of those organizations
over several decades. We were encouraged to join the Summit
effort and to build our own Michigan Summit on Africa in large
part because we saw some of those organizations joining the
Summit three years ago.
Therefore, now we are very concerned to learn how the Summit
effort, as was promised to them and us, will feed into and
work closely with all of those organizations and will not lead
to their demise by competing with them. We assume that you
will be convening meetings with the broader community of the
leaders of those organizations as you discuss future plans.
In addition, we are assuming that any plans will be provided
to and debated by the state delegations that constitute the
base of the Summit effort to date. This is good democratic
process, which we presume will be at the core of any
continuing Summit process and organization. We were encouraged
to read your letter, Dr. Robinson, that "To this end, we are,
right now, developing strategies to facilitate the Plan's
implementation, working in concert and collaboration with the
thousands of you, grassroots, non-governmental groups
throughout the country, as well as Africa-focused
organizations at the national level." We believe that it is
important that full debate and democratic decision-making
inform not only the development of the Draft Plan of Action
but also the purposes, structure, and operating principles of
any organization which extends the Summit process beyond May
31, 2000.
We have just seen your website announcements that: "Decisions
on the new structure for our next phase will be made during
our Executive Board meeting to be held on March 4th" (February
29, 2000, Special Announcement). We also read with some
concern that, "We are contacting a random sampling of
delegates and state chairs in order to consult with them on
this critical objective of the Plan's implementation."
(February 24, 2000) A "random sampling of state chairs and
delegates" is not a democratic process that we expected from
a constituency-based organization. We shall expect that you
will consult broadly with all delegations so that the full
benefit of our diversity it included in the decision-making
process - both about implementing the Plan of Action and any
continuing structures of the NSA organization. Clearly, no
decision about the future of the Summit can be made as soon as
March 4 if democratic consultation is to occur.
We look forward to hearing from you again.
Thank you again to you and your staff for all your efforts in
planning this meeting.
Letter from New York State Co-Chair
From: Mojubaolu Olufunke Okome, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of African Studies & Political Science
Fordham University, New York.
co-chair, NYS delegation.
E-mail: okome@fordham.edu
To: Leonard Robinson, President, and Dr. Herschelle Challenor,
Chair of the Board, National Summit on Africa
March 20, 2000
This is a response to the email of March 7, 2000
[note: the full text of that note, including the points Dr.
Okome refers to in her letter, is available in a posting also
sent out today, archived at
(
http://www.africafocus.org/docs00/sum0003a.php>].
I was unable to respond until the present time due to the
pressure of work. Since I am the "delegate from New York"
that was referred to in the letter, and I am a Nigerian, I
will respond to some issues that were raised in the letter.
I requested and got the permission of the Board of the
National Summit on Africa on February 20, 2000 at the final
plenary session of the summit, to address some concerns that
I had. In my statement, I expressed my commitment to the
process of the summit, acknowledged, and recognized the hard
work that it took to put together a process as significant,
broad, and momentous as the summit. I offered the comments
that I made in the spirit of a genuine desire to suggest that
some attention need be paid to several areas. I felt that
transparency, accountability, democracy and dialogue were
being neglected.
I clearly stated the reasons why I believed that to be the
case. Luckily, the NSOA board has recordings of all the
statements made at the final plenary session. I also have a
copy of my statement. At the time, I asked the board if my
statement and the petition that accompanied it could be
accepted as part of the official records of the summit. The
statement and 150 petitions as well as a cover letter was
delivered to the NSOA office last weekend.
It is disheartening that I am being dismissively referred to
as the "delegate from New York" when the board had as a
condition to allowing someone to speak, that the person be the
chair of a state delegation. I am Mojubaolu Olufunke Okome,
Ph.D., Assistant Professor of African Studies and Political
Science at Fordham University and co-chair of the New York
State Delegation.
If we have a democratic process in place, individuals that are
involved in this process ought to be able to raise issues of
concern to them. The concerns raised ought to be treated
seriously. The letter of 3/7/2000 implies that there is only
one possible interpretation to the impact of trade, that any
trade is good trade, and that Africa's problem arises from a
lack of trade. There is a difference between fair trade and
free trade. If the trade bill that is endorsed is one that
again, makes Africa vulnerable to the vagaries of the
international trade system, what would be the difference
between this new trade initiative and all others engaged in
previously? This is a matter that is debated within the
discipline of international political economy. As an African,
I support fair trade, and would suggest that free trade only
benefits the powerful within the world political economy.
To address the part of the letter that states: "The allegation
that the National Summit is 'being hijacked by a leadership
with a corporate friendly agenda' or will be dominated by
corporate interests is silly at best. ... All of the NGOS,
including Africa focused groups, actively seek and receive
foundation grants, which are, after all, resources generated
from corporate profits."
To claim that just because the funding from corporations,
including Chevron and Monsanto amounted to only $315,000.00,
they are unlikely to have any serious influence on the
National Summit is not to take seriously the expressed
commitment to corporate responsibility. Chevron in Nigeria
has produced oil and made immense profit in an area that
became environmentally degraded as a consequence of the
actions of oil producing companies including Shell and Mobil.
The company has interfered in local politics in a manner that
intensified ethnic strife and caused many deaths and loss of
property. Even a penny is too much to accept from such a
corporation.
In order that it is fully understood that corporate
responsibility is most important, and that Chevron's
activities in Nigeria deserve to be challenged, see a document
produced by Human Rights Watch titled: "The Price of Oil at
the website:
http://www.hrw.org/hrw/reports/1999/nigeria
Also be aware of a documentary titled: "Drilling and Killing"
prepared by Amy Goodman of WBAI Radio 99.5FM in New York. For
my open statement to the Nigerian government and Chevron, see
the public service announcement at
http://www.africaresource.com.
To assure us
"that we will consult with a cross section of State Chairs and
Delegates in reaching final decisions related to structure,
methods of communication and the nature of the relationship
between the Summit Secretariat and the states."
as promised in the letter is again, to indicate that the
opinions of some are more valuable than those of others. The
number of delegates and delegates at large and state chairs is
small enough that everyone ought to be consulted. If such
consultation is what is implied, all the better.
To promise us that "in concert with plans to restructure the
Board of Directors, we will reserve six Board positions for
one representative from each of the six regions. We have
already consulted with some of you by telephone concerning the
future plans of the Summit Secretariat. Following the special
meeting of the Executive Committee of the Board held this
weekend, this consultative process will continue through a
series of conferences calls."
is also to be selective in the determination of whom the board
finds worthy of consultation. If everyone was good enough to
participate in this process thus far, they ought to be
included and consulted hereafter.
The letter also states: "While it is the policy of the
National Summit on Africa not to respond to commentary that
criticizes its actions, in the interest of transparency, we do
feel constrained to provide some observations on a recent
electronic article by Jim Lobe and Jim Carlson, which
contained several false statements and half-truths."
None of what I said was either a false statement or
half-truth.
I will speak to the section that states: "In citing the
support for the African Growth and Opportunity Act by the
President Clinton, the Secretary of State, Senior Director for
Africa at the NSA, and Secretary of Transpiration Slater,
Messrs. Lobe and Cason neglected to point out that every
single African official who spoke at the Summit ... Indeed we
support the African leaders in their desire for a trade bill
The charge cited in the article that the National Summit was
being 'controlled by people with an emphasis on trade and
investment and that ... these are the new colonizers' is
intriguing, since a colonizer is one who settles in a colony.
In contrast, it is perhaps those who think they know what is
best for Africa, despite Africa's clear statements to the
contrary, that are acting in a paternalist manner
characteristic of the former colonial powers."
Colonialism as many Political Science 101 students know, has
never been associated only with the physical presence of the
colonizer in the land of the colonized. The control of the
economy of the former, and/or new colony is commonly known as
neo-colonialism, and it is alive and well in Africa. I
daresay, it is one of the enduring causes of the lack of
development of the African continent. If African leaders
refuse to learn the lessons of history, by not ensuring that
they pursue fair rather than free trade, they will bear the
consequences by engendering economic crises.
To quote again from your letter, "... Only one individual read
a document for which signatures were being sought during the
conference. The delegate from New York was given the
opportunity to speak, not to avoid a disruption as implied by
reporters, but rather because the National Summit supports the
articulation of diverse points of view. ... the role played by
American anti-apartheid groups, including most of the
individuals on the Summit Board, should be commended. However,
the issues that challenge the rest of Africa are more complex
and require different analyzes and responses."
It is precisely because complex issues are involved, not only
related to the rest of Africa, but also in post-apartheid
South Africa that some of the observations that I made were
raised. No one knows all the answers, and in the spirit of
true dialogue and respect for the free exchange of ideas,
people ought not to be dismissed for raising questions that
are an integral part of the cutting edge of discourse among
serious scholars of Africa and activists in Africa. A
petition was presented to you before you wrote your response.
You do not acknowledge that it was received.
Your mail said: "... In 1992-93, 62.4% of all drug traffickers
arrested at JFK International Airport were Nigerian. Illicit
drugs interdicted through these arrests were headed for the
streets of our inner city communities and constituted a threat
to U.S. national security. In 1993, Leonard Robinson, while
working for the then law firm of Washington & Christian, the
firm, with the encouragement of U.S. authorities, agreed to
assist the Government of Nigeria in establishing a drug
interdiction program, including initiating a poly-graph system
for all police officers, security personnel and border guards,
and to help formulate an official drug policy. Leonard
Robinson and others presently working with Africa focused
organizations, worked on this project. This work was conducted
in the national security interest of America."
I will only address the part of this quote that relates to the
Nigeria drug problem. If we all treat the global political
economy as one system, we will see the direct linkage between
huge debt, Structural Adjustment Problems and the increased
participation of marginalized people in third world countries
in desperate activities including the drug trade, mass
immigration to unfriendly climes and locales and increases in
social problems within the domestic systems of debtor
countries. This happened in Nigeria, it happened in Russia,
it happened in Colombia. If 62.4% of the drug traffickers
arrested in the airports were Nigerian, it could well be a
case of profiling. If the customs profile in such a manner
that Nigerians are targeted, then most of the people caught in
their dragnet will be Nigerian. Most Nigerians in the US are
hard-working, honest people who have contributed immensely to
the economic and social well-being of the United States.
Their contributions remains ignored, and/or trivialized.
The point of this discussion is to let you know that all the
while, Nigeria was involved in trading with the world. As a
matter of fact, the US is one of its largest trade partners.
However, the nature and form of trade was not beneficial to
the overwhelming majority of Nigerians. Today, just any
involvement in trade is not enough. The lessons of history
must be learned. In the post-WTO (Seattle) protest era, we
know that matters of trade cannot be treated as isolated from
the politics of production. To attempt to support ANY trade
is not to be aware of the need for FAIR trade. Fairness in
trade entails a serious commitment to corporate responsibility
and a serious commitment to economic and social democracy in
African countries. It also relates to sustainable
development, environmental protection, human rights
guarantees, and matters of peace and security.
One can still be committed to ensuring that Africa gets on the
policy agenda and be open to dialogue that is conducted in a
transparent, equitable and democratic manner. One can point
out issues of concern and still acknowledge the hard work of
summit staff and the Board of Directors. I am committed, and
I acknowledge your hard work. However, I would suggest that
the board institutionalizes a mechanism to address issues that
are brought to its attention.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mojubaolu Olufunke Okome, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of African Studies & Political Science
Fordham University, New York.
co-chair, NYS delegation.
This material is being reposted for wider distribution by the
Africa Policy Information Center (APIC). APIC's primary
objective is to widen international policy debates around
African issues, by concentrating on providing accessible
policy-relevant information and analysis usable by a wide
range of groups and individuals.
|
