|
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 Please note that many outdated links in this archived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: Africa Trade Documents, 2
USA: Africa Trade Documents, 2
Date distributed (ymd): 990307
Document reposted by APIC
+++++++++++++++++++++Document Profile+++++++++++++++++++++
Region: Continent-Wide
Issue Areas: +economy/development+ +US policy focus+
Summary Contents:
This posting contains links for commentary and anaylsis on
current bills before Congress concerning U.S. economic
relations with Africa, as well as an open letter from the
Washington Office on Africa.
The full text of the bills, as of the end of February, is
available by sending a blank e-mail message to
hr434@africapolicy.org (HR434, 57K) or to
hr772@africapolicy.org (HR772, 73K). Press releases by
proponents of each bill, and testimony from the Washington
Office on Africa on behalf of the Africa Trade Policy Working
Group, are included in a previous posting.
+++++++++++++++++end profile++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Links on the U.S./Africa Trade Debate
In contrast to 1998, the debate this year concerns two
alternative bills. The Clinton Administration, African
Ambassadors, and private business, as well as a bipartisan
group in Congress including senior members of the
Congressional Black Caucus, have lined up behind HR434, which
was introduced first and is modeled on last year's African
Growth and Opportunity Act. Critics of the bill, also
including many in the Congressional Black Caucus, now have an
alternative in the recently introduced H.O.P.E. for Africa
Africa, HR772. Although HR434 has greater initial momentum in
Congress, and has been on a fast track through committees to
a vote expected soon by the House of Representatives, support
for HR772 has grown rapidly in recent weeks. Debate on the
House floor is likely to include amendments which may alter
the texts of the bills. The prospect of any bill on the topic
in the Republican-controlled Senate is uncertain, however.
For additional background and updates:
(1) President's Annual Report on "A Comprehensive U.S. Trade
and Development Policy Toward Sub-Saharan Africa." (in PDF
format)
http://www.ustr.gov/reports/africa/1999/99report.pdf
(2) Updated information on legislation
http://thomas.loc.gov
(3) Additional documents from Congreesional Hearings
http://www.house.gov/ways_means/trade/106cong/tr-1wit.htm
(4) Updates, action alerts and background on the campaign for
HR772 and against HR434
http://www.citizen.org/pctrade/Africa/africahome.html
(5) Jesse Jackson, Jr. Web Site
http://www.jessejacksonjr.org
(6) Analysis of broader trade issues
http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org
(7) Additional links on Africa trade issues
http://www.africapolicy.org/featdocs/tradinfo.htm
Washington Office on Africa
212 East Capitol Street
Washington, D.C. 20003, U.S.A.
Phone: 202/547-7503; Fax: 202/547-7505
E-Mail: woa@igc.org;
Web: www.woaafrica.org
Economic justice and the African trade bills before Congress:
An open letter to the Members of Congress and to the
administration of President William J. Clinton
We at the Washington Office on Africa have joined with our
colleagues in the faith-based and non-profit-based Africa
advocacy community in struggling with the economic justice
issues implicit in the Africa trade bills placed before the
current and previous Congress. It has been a struggle because
the evidence of a serious commitment toward meaningful
inclusion of Africa in the mainstream of the world economy by
this administration and by friends of Africa in Congress is
clear. The provisions in these bills with which we are
uncomfortable are not, therefore, a product of the
indifference to and oftentimes hostility toward the African
continent, its governments and its people that we have seen on
the part of the government of the United States in the past.
We welcome this heightened respectful attention to U.S. policy
toward Africa, strong evidence for which has come from, among
others, the African diplomatic community here in Washington.
This said, the Washington Office on Africa, a long-standing
church-supported advocacy organization, must ultimately reach
our position on African-related issues before Congress and the
administration by justice standards. We do not consider this
a naive approach. We believe that both historical and
contemporary evidence suggests that national self-interest is
best secured by just and mutually-beneficial relations with
other nations and regions. It is our appeal that U.S. trade
policy toward Africa be held against the touchstone of
fundamental principles of economic justice.
We consider that the following values are crucial to the
meaningfulness and effectiveness of any U.S. trade policy
toward Africa, and we wish to reflect here upon the extent to
which they are met in the current trade legislation before
Congress:
- The U.S. must respect the integrity of Africa nations to
discern and implement economic policies appropriate to the
needs of their people.
The Washington Office on Africa readily accepts that an unduly
restrictive and controlled economic environment can be
detrimental to a healthy economy. To that extent we recognize
that the existence of large numbers of parastatals in many
African nations is unproductive, and that complex regulations
governing business activity in many African nations discourage
investment and initiative. These features further expand
opportunity for corrupt activities, which make economic
prospects all the more discouraging. We can therefore
understand the temptation of a nation such as ours, with a
vibrant economy, to counter economic policies in many African
nations by offering a prescription based upon our own economic
system. The African Growth and Opportunity Act (HR 434) does
this by its constant references to "market-led economic
growth," "the private sector," and "economic reform," the
latter a clear euphemism for movement toward our economic
model.
We find this regrettable, for two reasons: First, it denies
the integrity of African nations to define economic policies
appropriate to themselves. Our first objection is thus an
objection to American arrogance. An African nation, faced with
extremely high poverty levels, with stunning unemployment
rates, with limited health and other social services, and with
an overwhelmingly young population without access to extended
education, must discern for itself how "freely" the
marketplace should operate in light of the demands of a
legitimate and pressing social agenda that that nation faces.
The protests that African nations have made to some provisions
of Structural Adjustment Programs are rightly founded upon the
imposition of policies detrimental to the social well-being of
their people. For the United States to define economic policy
for African nations if they are to benefit from a U.S. trade
bill is, at best, inappropriate.
Our second objection is that these U.S. legislative
prescriptions for African economies blindly assume that the
market, left alone, will meet societal needs. There are no
grounds to presume that this is so. The persistent gap between
rich and poor in our own nation demonstrates the opposite,
despite years of free market policies. It is not anti-private
sector to suggest that an African nation might legitimately
moderate market forces in the interest of such social "goods"
as universally-available health care and education, yet
insistence in HR 434 of our definition of economic reform
suggests otherwise.
Provisions in HR 434 for the establishment of a Free Trade
Area (sec. 6) need to be seen in the context of this U.S.
legislative prescription for Africa. It may well be that
sub-Saharan Africa or African regions or particular African
nations may choose to express their sovereignty by entering
freely into such trade agreements. Far better here, however,
for the U.S. to recognize the asymmetries of power revealed in
differing levels of development, and to speak instead of
policies and programs that will serve as catalysts for
sustained growth and equitable development, whatever economic
form those efforts may ultimately take.
We endorse a more open trade environment to the extent that it
is broad-based and embraces fair labor practices and
environmental sensitivity. We endorse a process toward
mutually-beneficial trade agreements rather than a declaration
of a defined goal -- Free Trade Areas -- that by their very
nature are unlikely to be mutual in the U.S.-Africa context.
The African Growth and Opportunity Act's preoccupation with an
unencumbered private sector simply is not conducive to
authentic and broad-based development.
Even if, therefore, one argues that these U.S. prescriptions
for Africa exist mainly in "findings" and "progress toward"
statements in HR 434's eligibility criteria, and are therefore
likely to be applied with generous subjectivity, and even if
negotiations for Free Trade Areas may lead to adaptations that
are more fully mutual, the Washington Office on Africa
believes that U.S. legislation should demonstrate greater
respect for the challenges Africa faces and for the rich
diversity of appropriate means to address those challenges.
"Fair trade," "mutually-beneficial investment," and
"broad-based economic development" are far more helpful
standards than are expressed in HR 434.
- Economic relationships must be mutually-beneficial -- any
policy that seeks only a U.S. advantage and neglects the
concerns and aspirations of Africa is a flawed and ultimately
counter-productive policy.
The African Growth and Opportunity Act begins with the
Congress' speaking of "the mutual economic interest of the
United States and sub-Saharan Africa." The textile provisions
(sec. 7), while posing minimal threat to U.S. textiles, may
provide some advantages to some African nations.
Unfortunately, the overall impact of the trade provisions of
HR 434 seem one-directional. For example, the expanded
provisions in sec. 14, dealing with the U.S. and Foreign
Commercial Service, call only for an identification of U.S.
goods and services for export to Africa and speak only of the
entrance by U.S. businesses into Africa. If there is a genuine
commitment to mutuality, then we urge that a similar effort be
undertaken, perhaps by the Asst. U.S. Trade Representative for
African Affairs, to identify African manufactured goods
already being produced that have the potential to become a
meaningful export industry. The absence of any mention of
mining exploitation, which raises difficult economic,
political and social questions in Africa, and of oil
exploration and extraction in Africa, which at this moment is
causing serious environmental and social consequences,
especially in Nigeria, undermines any claims of mutual
benefit. And demands that African nations open their doors to
uncontrolled foreign investment simply make a very unequal
"partnership" worse.
- U.S. policy must juxtapose international trade with
continuing development aid and international debt relief if
the social and economic hopes of Africa are to be realized.
Development assistance and international debt relief for
Africa are as critical to economic growth as a more open trade
relationship. We find it gratifying that the House
International Relations Committee restored the section from
the previous Congress' bill dealing with assistance under the
Development Fund for Africa (now sec. 17 in HR 434). We are
also pleased that HR 434 expresses concern for "deep debt
reduction" so as to remove this stunning burden upon African
economies.
It remains, however, an embarrassment to us that the United
States, given our stature in the world, continues to be so
miserly in its development assistance to a continent whose
needs are so vast. We believe that the Development Fund for
Africa's earmark for Africa should be reinstated and funded at
an annual level not less than 1994, and that the African
Development Foundation, which represents such an important
support for grassroots African civil society initiatives,
should secure increased funding. Given the presence of
development assistance sections in HR 434, we believe those
provisions should be included here.
It also remains discouraging to us that debt remission in HR
434 is linked specifically to the Heavily Indebted Poor
Countries (HIPC) initiative. A close examination of the
Mozambican reality affirms the need for an alternative to the
HIPC approach. The level of debt servicing in Africa as a
proportion of most nations' budgets, and the failure of HIPC
to move the process forward rapidly and deeply, lead us to
call for a far more flexible approach to debt relief, in terms
of both international and U.S. bilateral loans.
We hope that comments about "trade not aid" made at an early
stage in this debate have now been silenced. It has never
been, and is not now, an either-or choice. Economic justice
demands that we acknowledge the great economic disparities in
the world, and the impact of those disparities upon the human
condition. Excessive debt perpetuates those disparities, and
severe limitations upon aid from the richest nation on earth
denies the fulfillment of the grand human potential that is
present within Africa. "Growth and Opportunity" have a nice
ring in the title of HR 434. Only if U.S. legislation deals
more substantively with aid and debt issues will that title
have any real meaning.
- U.S. trade policy must be grounded in a concern that
economic benefits will accrue not merely to an African elite
but also to those in Africa living in poverty.
We are pleased that the House International Relations
Committee accepted an amendment to the eligibility
requirements in HR 434, upholding internationally-recognized
standards of protection of worker rights in Africa. We also
acknowledge that there are scattered references to the status
of women in that bill. At the same time, we regret the failure
of the House committee to accept a further amendment regarding
environmental protection as a crucial aspect of economic
development. Our hope is that this latter failure will be
rectified.
- U.S. economic policy toward Africa must encourage the active
participation of African civil society in decision-making.
We appreciate the effort in HR 434 to create an ongoing
structure by which U.S. officials can hear African finance and
trade officials. If U.S. officials take advantage of this
opportunity to listen as well as to speak, the Trade and
Economic Cooperation Forum (sec. 5) has the potential to
affirm true mutuality and partnership. We also value the
encouragement the U.S. is to offer to nongovernmental
organizations to hold parallel meetings to the Forum. This
opportunity for African civil society to be engaged in the
discussion will not happen, however, unless African NGOs are
identified by other than governmental entities, funding for
African NGO participation is provided, and structures are
established ensuring an active inter-relationship between the
NGO meetings and the Forum. The absence of any such structural
provisions in the H.O.P.E. for Africa bill (HR 772) is a
matter for regret. We are similarly concerned that the
advisory committees of the Overseas Private Investment
Corporation and the Export-Import Bank include representatives
from African civil society.
The Washington Office on Africa believes that these are
crucial provisions. African political leadership has
frequently failed to hear the voices of their own people. This
failure has not only denied people their basic rights; it has
also undermined economic development in that the invaluable
gifts and insights of African grassroots leadership have been
kept from the policy-making process. If the U.S. is serious
about hearing African civil society, both HR 434 and HR 772
need to give substance to the intent.
These then are the principles by which we have considered
African trade legislation before Congress. Our hope is that
the legislative process will lead to revisions that will
render U.S. economic policy toward Africa more respectful of
African hopes and more sensitive to African realities.
Ultimately, however, we are not convinced that the emphases of
the African trade legislation before Congress provide the
vision for a more ethical, humane, developmental approach
toward Africa. Whatever may emerge from Congressional
consideration of the African Growth and Opportunity Act and
the H.O.P.E. for Africa Act, the Washington Office on Africa
urges Members of Congress and this administration to treat
this trade legislation as a beginning, and to move on to
envision afresh the immense potential for an empowering U.S.
policy toward Africa, one characterized by genuine partnership
and one respectful of the diversity of that continent and of
our world. Such an approach will lead to a far more flexible
policy and program and process defined not by American
parameters but by human creativity. At some point -- and we
believe that point is now -- the U.S. needs to approach Africa
with the view that there is something to be learned as well as
offered. When we do that, we will be able to speak of economic
justice more comfortably when we speak of U.S. economic policy
toward Africa. The Washington Office on Africa will welcome
the opportunity to be part of that discourse.
Yours faithfully,
Leon P. Spencer
Executive Director
February 24, 1999
This material is being reposted for wider distribution by
the Africa Policy Information Center (APIC). APIC's primary
objective is to widen the policy debate in the United States
around African issues and the U.S. role in Africa, by
concentrating on providing accessible policy-relevant
information and analysis usable by a wide range of groups
and individuals.
|
