|
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 Please note that many outdated links in this archived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: Letter on Africa Trade
USA: Letter on Africa Trade
Date distributed (ymd): 971027
WOA Document
+++++++++++++++++++++Document Profile+++++++++++++++++++++
Region: Continent-Wide
Issue Areas: +economy/development+ +US policy focus+
Summary Contents:
This posting contains a letter to members of Congress from the US-Africa
Trade Policy Working Group. The letter calls for amendments to the proposed
African Growth and Opportunity Act, to ensure that it not impose rigid
economic conditionalities damaging to African grassroots interests, that
it increase resources for aid and debt relief, and that it include wider
consultation with diverse sectors of civil society in African countries.
+++++++++++++++++end profile++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
US-Africa Trade Policy Working Group
Conveners: Bread for the World - (301) 608-2400,
contact: Ray Almeida (ralmeida@bread.org)
Washington Office on Africa - (202) 546-7961,
contact: Doug Tilton (tilton@africapolicy.org)
October 16, 1997
Dear Representative:
The Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, H.R. 1432, is one of the most
substantial pieces of legislation on Africa to come before the House in
many years. It offers Congress an opportunity to begin to move away from
a piecemeal approach to policymaking--dominated by efforts to respond to
isolated crises--and to consider instead how the United States can construct
a coherent and comprehensive Africa policy that acknowledges and facilitates
Africa's success. We applaud the sponsors of this legislation for recognizing
that effective policy requires complementary initiatives to reduce Africa's
debt, provide carefully targeted foreign assistance, and stimulate increased
trade by opening US markets to African goods and by promoting infrastructure
development to enhance the capacity of African nations to exploit these
new opportunities.
If adopted, H.R. 1432 has the potential to shape US relations with Africa
well into the 21st century. It is therefore essential that this legislation
articulate both a coherent policy direction, consistent with the overarching
principles and objectives of US foreign policy, and also a set of concrete
initiatives to advance those objectives.
In the final analysis, H.R. 1432 must be judged on the basis of its
capacity to effect sustained improvements in the lives of ordinary Africans.
Market-oriented economic reforms will not automatically benefit a majority
of households. To the contrary, rapid and indiscriminate liberalization
has frequently had devastating consequences for vulnerable populations.
Market liberalization should not be seen as an end in itself, but should
be pursued selectively as part of a package of reforms designed to promote
sustainable development especially the reduction of poverty and hunger
in environmentally responsible ways.
Similarly, increased investment in infrastructure and social services,
while essential, does not guarantee that poorer communities will benefit.
Without broad popular involvement in determining development priorities,
such investment is more often geared to the needs and interests of powerful
national and foreign elites. Decisions concerning the pace and extent of
economic reform must be widely and openly debated. This requires the development
of inclusive, participatory, and accountable political institutions with
the capacity to be sensitive to local conditions.
These concerns have been stressed in several critiques of H.R. 1432
and related White House proposals that have recently emerged from grassroots
organizations on the African continent.* Given the serious reservations
that these groups have expressed about the bill in its present form, we
urge current and potential proponents of H.R. 1432 to amend the legislation
to:
- Articulate more flexible eligibility requirements which focus on the
promotion of sustainable development - The eligibility requirements contained
in Section 4 (and mirrored in the goals outlined in Section 10, as amended
by the International Relations Committee) constitute a rigid and inappropriate
"one-size-fits-all" prescription for economic reform. This parallels
the structural adjustment programs that have been imposed on many African
countries by the World Bank, often with disastrous consequences for poverty
reduction efforts. Moreover, conditioning US assistance, including GSP
concessions, on compliance with these demands contradicts the government's
commitment to the promotion of democracy and participatory governance a
pledge made at the Denver Summit of the Eight and reiterated on numerous
other occasions. Instead of dictating terms, the eligibility requirements
should underscore the US government's desire to form mutually beneficial
economic partnerships with those nations that are making steady progress
toward the reduction of poverty and the establishment of open and accountable
policymaking institutions that enable all citizens to take part in determining
political and economic priorities.
- Support initiatives that produce tangible benefits for Africa's poorest
and most vulnerable people - Although this legislation acknowledges the
importance of continued development assistance programs and the urgent
need for substantial debt relief, it makes no additional funding available
for these programs. Instead, funds are earmarked for trade and investment
programs, the most immediate beneficiaries of which will be the comparatively
affluent not only successful individuals within nations, but also already
"successful" nations within the region. Of the new initiatives
funded by this bill, the $500 million infrastructure fund created by Section
11 stands the best chance of extending services to poor communities. However,
the bill does not give priority to the development of accessible infrastructure
that responds to the needs of the poor.
- Insist that US programs model broad consultation by giving grassroots
groups a meaningful voice in policy planning and implementation - Grassroots
church, labor, human rights, and community groups are often best placed
to articulate the needs, interests, and aspirations of ordinary citizens.
It is essential that such groups be given a formal and continuing role
in all of the key structures responsible for implementing the legislation,
including the Economic Cooperation Forum (Section 6) and any committee
formed to advise on the deployment of funds for investment in infrastructure
and equity.
We would welcome an opportunity to discuss these recommendations with
you further or to share with you critiques which we have received from
African organizations.
We know that you share our eagerness to ensure that this legislation
generates discernable improvements in the lives of all of Africa's peoples,
and we look forward to working with you toward this goal.
Yours sincerely,
Africa Faith and Justice Network, Maura Browne, Executive Director
Bread for the World, David Beckmann, President
Catholic Conference of Major Superiors of Men's Institutes, Rev. Ted
Keating, S.M., Director for Justice and Peace
Church World Service, Rodney I. Page, Executive Director
Friends Committee on National Legislation, Edward W. Stowe, Legislative
Secretary
Lutheran World Relief, Kathryn F. Wolford, President
Maryknoll Justice and Peace Office, Marie Dennis, Associate Director
Mennonite Central Committee, James Shenk and Terrance Sawatsky, Co-Directors,
Africa Program
NETWORK: A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby, Kathy Thornton, R.S.M.,
National Coordinator
Northern Arizona Peace and Justice Network, Warren Day, Convenor
TransAfrica, Randall Robinson, President
Unitarian Universalist Service Committee, Heather Foote, Director, Washington
Office
United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society, Dr. Thom
White Wolf Fassett, General Secretary
U.S. Catholic Mission Association, Rev. Eugene S. Pocernich, Associate
Director
Washington Office on Africa, Rev. Barbara Green, Acting President
- Two of these critiques were distributed by the Africa Policy Information
Center (APIC), and are available at:
http://www.africafocus.org/docs97/eco9708.php,
http://www.africafocus.org/docs97/trad9709.1.htm,
and
http://www.africafocus.org/docs97/trad9709.2.htm
Significant additional material on related issues raised at the Denver
Summit and in response to annual reports by the US Trade Representative
can also be found on the www.africapolicy.org site (use the search for
documents on the site, or the geographical listings of documents for 1996
and 1997). Also see the collection of documents at http://www.africanews.org/specials/afecon.html
This material is produced and distributed by the Washington Office
on Africa (WOA), a not-for-profit church, trade union and civil rights
group supported organization that works with Congress on Africa-related
legislation. WOA's educational affiliate is the Africa Policy Information
Center (APIC).
|
