SENATOR TED KENNEDY MEMORIAL LECTURE - Pretoria, South Africa

SENATOR TED KENNEDY MEMORIAL LECTURE

New Beginnings, Enduring Challenges:

American Foreign Policy to Africa from Kennedy to Obama

Witney W. Schneidman

University of Pretoria

Pretoria, South Africa

October 27, 2009

Fifty three days ago, a lion among us, Senator Ted Kennedy, was buried in Arlington National Cemetery close to his beloved brothers, President John F. Kennedy and Senator Robert F. Kennedy.

With Ted Kennedy's passing, everyone one in the world lost a champion of democracy, a crusader for human rights and a passionate defender of dignity.

In his eulogy, President Barack Obama compared Senator Kennedy to the "Happy Warrior" that the British poet, William Wordsworth, spoke of when he wrote:

As tempted more; more able to endure,
As more exposed to suffering and distress;
Thence, also, more alive to tenderness.

Senator Kennedy's reach was enormous. Whether it was health care for all, opposing futile wars, making it possible for collegiate women to have resources in sports equal to men, or ensuring equality for the handicapped, the Senator touched the lives of all Americans in a way that few have.

Following the death of Bobby Kennedy, he eulogized his brother with three lapidary phrases that resonate today, and aptly describe Teddy himself: "he saw wrong and tried to right it, he saw suffering and tried to heal it, he saw war and tried to stop it."

An outsized personality and a beacon for liberal passions, Ted Kennedy embodied the famous adage--that you can accomplish anything you want if you do not care who gets the credit, and, as a result, he is duly credited for making our nation a better nation, and this world a better world.

As a legislative deal maker, the Senator was exceptional. There is the famous story of how he won the support of a Texas Committee Chairman on an immigration bill. Senator Kennedy walked into the meeting with a plain manila envelope, and showed only the Chairman that it was filled with the Texan's favorite cigars. When the negotiations were going well, he would inch the envelope closer to the Chairman. When they stalled, he would pull it back. Before long, the deal was done.

Ted Kennedy understood Africa.

At the urging of his brother, Jack, he first visited the continent in 1956 after graduating from Harvard to gain insight into the African countries emerging from European rule, traveling to Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria.

It was in Algeria, that he encountered the certainty of French colonial rule and, after being in Algiers, understood that it was no match for the determination of the Algerian independence movement.

Ted returned to Africa five years later, weeks after President Kennedy took office, visiting the Congo, Rhodesia, Ghana, Guinea and elsewhere.

Senator Kennedy's commitment to ending apartheid, therefore, came from his understanding of the reality of decolonization in Africa.

And this is why, as President Mandela said after his death, Ted Kennedy "made his voice heard in the struggle against apartheid at a time when the freedom struggle was not supported in the West."

Kennedy's inspired campaign against apartheid included a protest at the gates of Pollsmor prison in defiance of the South African police where he demanded Mandela's release.

Kennedy was a fierce champion in the U.S. Senate of what became the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act, signed into law on this day, October 27th, 23 years ago.

In short, Senator Kennedy reflected the outrage of many Americans who saw apartheid as an affront to humankind.

But Ted was not the first Kennedy to connect with this remarkable nation.

On June 6th 1966, speaking to a gathering of the National Union of South African Students on the Day of Affirmation at the University of Cape Town, Ted's brother, Bobby Kennedy, then the junior Senator from New York, gave what many consider the greatest speech of his extraordinary life.

Saluting the courage of many South Africans who opposed apartheid, and reassuring them that they indeed had friends in the outside world, Kennedy said:

"It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.

Kennedy Africa Policy

The American poet, David Whyte, in his poem, "Working Together," writes:

We shape ourself to fit this world / and by the world are shaped again.

And so it is with a nation's foreign policy, and American policy toward Africa is no exception.

In the next 30 minutes, I will endeavor to convey the outlines of American policy toward Africa from Kennedy to Obama, with a focus on Southern Africa, and will close with some observations about what to expect from this administration.

Now if some of you are asking yourselves, how long did he say he was going to speak, let me assure you that I aspire to reflect the positive aspect of the observation made by Mark Twain, that it is "wise men who speak because they have something to say; fools speak because they have to say something."

When President Kennedy was sworn into office on January 20th, 1961, he inherited a world that was a battleground between extremes of the right and left, between democracy and totalitarianism, extinction and survival.

For Kennedy, this battle was most acute in the developing world, the Third World, where nationalism, which he recognized as consistent with the values of democracy, was being threatened by the prospect of communist subversion.

Following a trip through strife-torn Asia in 1951, Kennedy remarked that nationalism "is the most important international fact of life in the second half of the twentieth century."

Therefore, Kennedy concluded, the United States could no longer afford to buttress the "inequitable status quo" of colonialism. The nationalist era had to be acknowledged and engaged.

At the same time, the United States had interests in Africa and elsewhere, especially security and commercial interests, which some argued demanded caution and continuity in policy.

This dichotomy, between nationalism and anti-communism, defined the contours of American policy toward Sub-Saharan Africa during the Cold War.

Breaking the Mold?

The first months of the Kennedy Administration did indeed see a break from the past.

At the United Nations, the Administration voted against Portugal's ongoing colonial rule and extended material and political support to Frelimo in Mozambique and the FNLA in Angola.

At the same time, there were those in the Pentagon and elsewhere in the bureaucracy who believed Portuguese threats to deny refueling rights for American military aircraft on the Azores in the mid-Atlantic, thereby weakening America's capability to protect Western Europe, and lobbied against engaging the new order in Africa.

As the author Richard Mahoney puts it, policy in the Kennedy Administration was defined by a trade off of Africa versus the Azores.

As for South Africa, some policymakers argued strenuously that the country made a valuable contribution to Western security. After all, South Africa had allowed the U.S. to establish a deep space military tracking station near Pretoria.

Ultimately, the Kennedy Administration suspended all arms sales to Pretoria but decided not to support African efforts to expel South Africa from the United Nations.

By the time of President Kennedy's death on November 22, 1963, it was apparent that the problems of Southern Africa would not be resolved easily or quickly.

When presented with a resolution in the General Assembly in the summer of 1963 that would increase pressure on Portugal and South Africa, Kennedy asked his advisers how the French would vote.

When he was told that they would "seek the best of both worlds," he said "let us try that this time."

Kennedy understood intuitively the observation of the British philosopher, Edmund Burke, who said that, "Not the least of the acts of statesmanship is gracefully to grant what eventually cannot be withheld."

Nevertheless, his decision to seek the best of both worlds ensured a policy defined by ambiguity.

The objectives of enhancing U.S. security and supporting self-determination in Africa were both served, albeit imperfectly.

Still, the administration did not abandon either objective.

The Johnson Conundrum

African issues intruded early into the Johnson presidency.

The unprecedented ten-nation African tour by China's prime-minister, Chou En-Lai, in December 1963, and his comment that Africa was "ripe for revolution" transfixed many in Washington who increasingly viewed Africa as a great prize in the growing competition for global influence among the U.S., the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China.

Nevertheless, Johnson, preoccupied with the war in Vietnam and turmoil at home, paid little sustained attention to the continent.

While the U.S. did impose sanctions on Rhodesia, Johnson took no position on the rapid rise of American investment in South Africa.

The net effect, by the end of the Johnson administration, was to virtually extinguish what had been a raging debate in the American foreign policy establishment between regionalists versus globalists, Africanists versus Europeanists, security interests versus support for decolonization, largely in support of the status quo.

In January 1968, Vice President Hubert Humphrey made a nine-nation visit to Africa in a belated effort to show America's commitment to the continent's well being.

In a speech in Lusaka, he criticized Portugal, Rhodesia and South Africa for turning "their faces from the inevitable triumph of self-determination," as he put it. Unfortunately, the U.S. government seemed to be doing the same.

Nixon's Retreat

For Richard Nixon and his national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, their most immediate task was to extract the U.S. from Vietnam and to ensure that the nation was not easily drawn into future conflicts in Third World trouble spots, or what they described as "peripheral" areas.

A central component of the Administration's diplomatic strategy was the policy of détente, which linked increased cooperation with the Soviet Union to Moscow's agreement not to seek unilateral gains in the developing world.

Another dimension to Nixon's global security strategy was the opening of relations with the People's Republic of China.

As Kissinger would write in his memoirs, he hoped that the U.S.-China rapprochement would act as a further brake on Soviet ambitions in the Third World.

Policy toward Southern Africa was codified early in the Nixon Administration with the issuance of National Security Decision Memorandum 39. The key paragraph stated:

"The Whites are here to stay and the only way that constructive change can come about is through them. There is no hope for the blacks to gain the political rights they seek through violence, which will only lead to chaos and increased opportunities for the communists. We can through selective relaxation of our stance toward the white regimes, encourage some modification of their current racial and colonial policies…"

Morality aside, key elements of this analysis proved profoundly wrong when on April 25th 1974, the Armed Forces Movement, led by General Antonio de Spinola, toppled the dictatorship in Lisbon setting the scene for a rapid end to 400 years of Portuguese colonial rule in Southern Africa.

And as the Administration was soon to find out, the incentives provided to the Soviet Union through détente were no deterrent to Moscow's decision to increase its influence in Southern Africa.

The "peripheral" area of Angola quickly became the focal point for a renewed scramble for influence in Africa.

With a fortuitous sense of timing, the Chinese chose this moment to exit Angola, wisely declining to pick sides in this increasingly violent transition.

The Cold War conflict in Angola escalated quickly.

The U.S. initiated a covert operation, that didn't stay covert for very long, with the assistance of South Africa. Cuba made the decision to deploy 20,000 troops, and a vicious deadly proxy war broke out.

Ultimately, international and domestic criticism compelled Washington to back off its support of South Africa, and Congress cut funding for the CIA's effort to wage war in Angola.

On November 11, 1975, the MPLA declared Angola's independence.

The U.S. would not normalize relations with the Angolan government for the next 18 years.

The Soweto uprising, on June 16, 1976, further portrayed Henry Kissinger and his boss, President Gerald Ford, as unable to impact, let alone positively influence, the course of events in what appeared to be an increasingly complex and unsettled region of the world.

It was against this backdrop that I began to learn about Africa.

My first defining experience on the continent was in Uganda where I was on January 21, 1971, when Idi Amin staged a successful coup d'etat.

Shortly, thereafter when I started to study the 20 countries I had visited in my year traveling after high school, I realized that America was in the minority of nations that had stable, predictable political transitions.

In much of the world, it seemed that if change occurred at all, it was often sudden and chaotic.

And in Africa, the countries were very young, and in Southern Africa, struggling for independence or majority rule.

This mix of people, politics and geography captured my imagination at an early age and compelled me to set my personal compass on U.S.-African relations as a career, and to do what I can to advance a positive agenda.

The Carter Interregnum

So naturally, I resonated with President Carter's ambassador to the United Nations, Andrew Young, who stated in January 1977 that the new administration would have "a very aggressive policy to move towards majority rule in Southern Africa."

And in sharp distinction to the Nixon-Kissinger approach, Carter stated: "We have based our policies on the belief that the peaceful transfer of power to the black majority is not only necessary and desirable but possible."

Like previous administrations, the Carter team struggled to come up with the right calculus of pressures and incentives to move Pretoria toward majority rule.

A principal instrument became U.S. support for the Sullivan Principles. These principles, developed by the Reverend Leon Sullivan, an individual whose legacy I work to extend at the Leon H. Sullivan Foundation in Washington, compelled American companies in South Africa to end segregation in the workplace and provide training and other opportunities for black workers.

By the end of the Carter administration, there was a sense that little had been accomplished.

The Assistant Secretary of State for Africa, Richard Moose, noted in 1980 that "change" had taken place in South Africa, but that it would be a mistake to "interpret the difference as progress."

Constructive Engagement

With Ronald Reagan assuming the presidency in 1980, the United States once again shifted its gears.

As Princeton Lyman, a former U.S. ambassador to South Africa, writes in his book, "Partner to History," "two giant forces, destined to clash," were at work in shaping American policy toward South and Southern Africa.

One force, put in play by the Assistant Secretary of State of African Affairs, Chester Crocker, was the policy of constructive engagement that linked the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola to Namibia's independence, and offered improved relations with Pretoria for its cooperation with this plan.

The other force was the growing strength of the anti-apartheid movement in the U.S. that linked civil rights leaders, student protesters and local government activism into a major national campaign.

Reagan's indifference to majority rule and growing domestic strife in South Africa, appearing on American televisions every evening, fueled the anti-apartheid movement in the United States.

Starting in November 1984 when Randall Robinson and three others were arrested for refusing to leave the office of the South African ambassador in Washington, more than three thousand Americans would be arrested in front of the South African embassy.

Within several years, nineteen states, sixty-eight cities and one hundred and nineteen colleges and universities had imposed some sort of sanctions or pressure on South Africa and American companies doing business there.

By the time Crocker left the State Department, after the election of George H.W. Bush, Southern Africa was changed forever.

First, the Cold War was over, and the Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, had stated explicitly that the problems of Southern Africa could not be solved through military force. As well, Cuba withdrew its forces from Angola, Namibia was on the verge of independence, and South Africa ended its long and very costly destabilization of Mozambique.

Once again, America's historic objectives in Southern Africa of advancing self-determination and majority rule while limiting the advance of communist governments had been imperfectly served, to say the least.

It fell to Congress and civil society in America to intensify pressure on Pretoria, largely through economic sanctions, while the Reagan administration served a more narrow, but vital, set of interests.

By now, I have ignored the advice of Benjamin Disraeli: be amusing, never tell unkind stories; above all, never tell long ones. But there is an important point to this story for which I would like to think the noted British prime minister would make allowance.

Clinton and Africa

With the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union and the onset of South's Africa's transition to democracy, American policy to Africa under President Clinton searched for new direction.

That search reflected the story of the famously absent-minded Albert Einstein who once boarded a train and was asked by the conductor for his ticket. After fumbling in his pockets for several minutes, the conductor said he would arrange for his passage to be paid, to which Einstein replied, "it is not the cost I am worried about, I need to be reminded about where it is that I am going."

And so it was with Clinton Africa policy.

The new president inherited a humanitarian mission in Somalia that quickly turned into a searing foreign policy disaster when, in October 1993, two American black hawk helicopters were shot down and the bodies of 16 American soldiers were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu as the world watched on CNN.

Caution toward Africa led Washington to stand by a year later as more than 800,000 people perished in genocide in Rwanda. This inaction created one of Bill Clinton's deepest regrets as president, as he would subsequently declare and apologize for.

However, in that same year, 1994, the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, Ron Brown, led a trade mission to South Africa and Botswana in which he signaled for the first time that the U.S. had legitimate commercial interests on the continent.

Ron Brown's commercial diplomacy toward Africa reflected important changes taking place across the continent, notably the emergence of civil society, democratic governance and economic reform.

In fact, President Clinton's unprecedented 12-day 6-nation African visit in 1998, in which I participated in my capacity as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, was designed to highlight these positive trends which, in the intervening years, have come largely to define this continent.

At the same time, the Clinton Administration and the new ANC government in South Africa had little knowledge of each other and, in fact, eyed each other warily in key areas.

To address these concerns, Washington and Pretoria made the important decision to create the Gore-Mbeki Bi-National Commission in an effort to foster a greater understanding of each other's objectives and to shape American support for South Africa.

We worked hard in the Clinton Administration to build on the success of the BNC, and this led to the creation of the U.S.-Angola Bilateral Consultative Commission, the U.S.-SADC Forum, and the U.S.-Nigeria Economic Cooperation Commission in an effort to deepen America's understanding and support for the process of economic and political reform.

One of the most important accomplishment of this era was President Clinton's signing into law of the African Growth and Opportunity Act.

AGOA acknowledged that by providing African nations with enhanced access to the American market, trade would become a stimulus to economic development. Moreover, it codified what Ron Brown had understood, that trade and investment are a cornerstone of U.S.-African relations.

AGOA also forged a bipartisan consensus in Congress, which is still very much alive today, based on the recognition that it is in America's national interest to invest resources in Africa's development.

With the deadly attack by al-Qaeda on the American embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi and the robust effort to end the conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea in the Horn of Africa, the shape of America's post-Cold War approach toward Africa began to take form: the U.S. had enduring security interests on the continent, conflict resolution was a priority but so was enhancing democracy and commercial ties through trade, investment and development assistance.

The question remained, as always, how should the U.S. balance competing objectives to advance its interests while supporting key African goals.

Bush's War on Terror

When the United States was again attacked by al-Qaeda on September 11, 2001, universal condemnation—and support for America--was instant and virtually uniform from NATO to the African Union and around the world.

Yet as soon as President Bush declared, "if you are not with us, you are against us," it became apparent that the United States was prepared to act unilaterally in what the White House saw as a new global confrontation between good and evil, survival and annihilation.

In what quickly became defined as a "global war on terror," the Bush Administration attacked and overthrew the Taliban in Afghanistan, and 18 months later invaded Iraq,

Within months, American foreign policy was dominated by the draining consequences of a seemingly endless war in a remote country. At the same time, the war on terror, condemned by much of the world's public opinion, increasingly took on the menacing overtones of a collision with the world of Islam.

As the American national security adviser, Zbigniew Brezinski, wrote, "nemesis nips at the heels of hubris."[1]

Accordingly, expectations for Bush in Africa were quite low, but in fact, he surpassed the expectations of many, including myself--evoking the African proverb: don't insult the crocodile until you cross the water.

President Bush made a major effort to end the north-south civil war in the Sudan, and identified the violence in Darfur as genocide. He extended and improved AGOA twice. He also created the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and, later, the President's Anti-Malaria Initiative.

Even though its diplomatic roll out was poorly communicated, the creation of the U.S. Africa Command also belongs in this group of important policy innovations toward Africa.

For sure, key conflicts went unresolved during the Bush Administration, especially in Darfur, Somalia, the eastern DRC, Zimbabwe and the Niger Delta. Nevertheless, Africa is likely to be the most positive aspect of the Bush foreign policy legacy.

Obama Takes Over

Looking back at the broad sweep of American policy toward Africa, I draw several conclusions.

In both the post-colonial and post-Cold War eras, Washington has faced an enduring challenge of balancing and integrating the complex of American policy objectives so that the U.S. and the vast majority of nations on this continent can advance a common agenda.

The challenge is not about regionalists versus globalists, or Africanists versus Europeanists, it is about developing a policy that is coherent, sustainable and achieves mutual goals.

Clearly, some administrations have done better at this than others.

Second, aligning U.S. priorities with Africa's priorities, be it self-determination in the 1960s or strong governance and accelerated economic development today, can be extremely challenging but it is essential that we both try, and succeed, if the U.S. and Africa are to advance their many common interests.

Finally, it is apparent that if the U.S. focuses its attention only on governments, and neglects engagement with the broader elements of African society, such as parliaments, universities, women's organizations, entrepreneurs and other members of civil society, American policy on the continent will never realize its full potential, and this will also be a constraint on Africa's progress.

So what are the prospects for the Obama administration's policy toward Africa?

Perhaps most importantly, I would argue that Obama's global security agenda is one that most African governments support.

As the president stated many times throughout the campaign and since taking office, "the security and well being of Americans is inextricably linked to the security and well being of people elsewhere."

And as he said in his inaugural address, "we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals."

Be it environmental degradation caused by climate change, attacks on innocent civilians by religious extremists, the threat posed by nuclear weapons, disease, or people who do not have enough to eat, the United States cannot afford inaction when the fabric of nations and regions threatens to unravel.

This does not mean that the United States can, or will, or, indeed, believes it ever could, solve every problem. To the contrary.

As President Obama said at the United Nations last month, the U.S. expects help from others in addressing global security issues.

As he put it: "Those who used to chastise America for acting alone, cannot stand by and wait for America to solve the world's problems alone. (The Obama administration) has sought…a new era of engagement with the world. Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

With regard to Africa, there has never been an American president as knowledgeable of this continent as Barack Obama, given his Kenyan heritage.

But the President isn't alone. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, my former boss, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, and my former colleague, the Assistant Secretary of State for African affairs, Ambassador Johnnie Carson, among others, bring an extraordinary depth of experience, insight and commitment to their task of shaping American policy toward Africa.

For these individuals, and many others in the American government, at the core of the American agenda in Africa is good and effective governance, accountability and transparency.

As President Obama said in Cairo in June and Accra in July: "each nation gives life to democracy in its own way, and in line with its own traditions. But history offers a clear verdict: Governments that respect the will of their own people, that govern by consent and not coercion, are more prosperous, they are more stable, and more successful than governments that do not. And this is not just about holding elections. It is also about what happens between elections."

In addition to governance, the Obama administration is committed to ending ongoing conflicts, food security, energy security, taking steps to protect Africa against the negative consequences of climate change, promoting renewable sources of energy, supporting the Millennium Development Goals in an effort to eradicate extreme poverty and enhanced trade and investment.

Not only is President Obama committed to doubling double foreign assistance by 2014, he has already announced a $3.5 billion food security initiative, as part of a larger G8 program.

On her seven-nation tour in August, Secretary Clinton gave more definition to the U.S. agenda in Africa. In addition to the issues already mentioned, the Secretary underscored the need to make AGOA more effective, to end sexual violence against women especially in the eastern DRC, and to put relations between South Africa and the United States on a stronger and more productive footing—something that is already paying dividends under the very able leadership of Ambassador Gips and his colleagues in the South African government.

Against this backdrop, it is worth noting how President Obama envisions his legacy in Africa.

In an interview with allAfrica.com prior to his Ghana visit, Obama echoed Winston Churchill's observation that "Continuous effort - not strength or intelligence - is the key to unlocking our potential."

As the president put it: "I would like, at the end of my term in office, to be able to say that the United States was an effective partner with countries throughout Africa in building the kinds of institutions--political, civil, economic--that allowed for improved standards of living and greater security for the people of Africa; that we moved them on a trajectory in which they are integrating with the global economy; and that a young person growing up in Johannesburg or Lagos or Nairobi or Djibouti can say to themselves, I can stay here in Africa, I can stay in my country and succeed, and through my success, my country and my people will get stronger."

This perspective is reflected in a recent article by President Paul Kagame of Rwanda who wrote: "Africa and the United States may be on the verge of a new partnership, not one of dependency and aid but one of shared ideas, vision and investments that increase our mutual prosperities."

So, it's fair to ask, will we get there?

I recently read the poem, "Behold Mama, Flowers," by the distinguished South African poet, Dr. Mongane Wally Serote, and there is a verse that says:

what will happen now memories keep coming back and the future is a wall scrawled with the graffiti of my memories what will happen now even as I wave the truth away as if it were smoke coming to my eyes my sight knows

And it is that sight, that vision, which Ted Kennedy spoke of shortly before he died, when he said: "I hope for an America where we can all contend freely and vigorously, but where we will treasure and guard those standards of civility which alone make this nation safe for both democracy and diversity."

Be assured that Senator Kennedy wanted the same for every nation on this great continent.

At the same time, he, like President Obama, would say that it is up to each of us to make this happen because, as Senator Kennedy said time and again in his signature phrase: "…the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream shall never die…"

Thank you.

---

[1] Zbigniew Brezinski, Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower, (New York: Basic Books, 2007)

US EXPORT COUNCIL PROVIDES ASSISTANCE TO US COMPANIES SEEKING ACCESS TO HIGH GROWTH MARKETS OVERSEAS. http://usexportcouncil.com/

President Barack Obama's speech in Accra, Ghana

Good morning.

It is an honor for me to be in Accra, and to speak to the representatives of the people of Ghana. I am deeply grateful for the welcome that I've received, as are Michelle, Malia and Sasha Obama. Ghana's history is rich, the ties between our two countries are strong, and I am proud that this is my first visit to sub-Saharan Africa as President of the United States.

I am speaking to you at the end of a long trip. I began in Russia, for a Summit between two great powers. I traveled to Italy, for a meeting of the world's leading economies. And I have come here, to Ghana, for a simple reason: the 21st century will be shaped by what happens not just in Rome or Moscow or Washington, but by what happens in Accra as well.

This is the simple truth of a time when the boundaries between people are overwhelmed by our connections. Your prosperity can expand America's. Your health and security can contribute to the world's. And the strength of your democracy can help advance human rights for people everywhere.

So I do not see the countries and peoples of Africa as a world apart; I see Africa as a fundamental part of our interconnected world — as partners with America on behalf of the future that we want for all our children. That partnership must be grounded in mutual responsibility, and that is what I want to speak with you about today.

We must start from the simple premise that Africa's future is up to Africans.

I say this knowing full well the tragic past that has sometimes haunted this part of the world. I have the blood of Africa within me, and my family's own story encompasses both the tragedies and triumphs of the larger African story.

My grandfather was a cook for the British in Kenya, and though he was a respected elder in his village, his employers called him "boy" for much of his life. He was on the periphery of Kenya's liberation struggles, but he was still imprisoned briefly during repressive times. In his life, colonialism wasn't simply the creation of unnatural borders or unfair terms of trade — it was something experienced personally, day after day, year after year.

My father grew up herding goats in a tiny village, an impossible distance away from the American universities where he would come to get an education. He came of age at an extraordinary moment of promise for Africa. The struggles of his own father's generation were giving birth to new nations, beginning right here in Ghana. Africans were educating and asserting themselves in new ways. History was on the move.

But despite the progress that has been made — and there has been considerable progress in parts of Africa — we also know that much of that promise has yet to be fulfilled. Countries like Kenya, which had a per capita economy larger than South Korea's when I was born, have been badly outpaced. Disease and conflict have ravaged parts of the African continent. In many places, the hope of my father's generation gave way to cynicism, even despair.

It is easy to point fingers, and to pin the blame for these problems on others. Yes, a colonial map that made little sense bred conflict, and the West has often approached Africa as a patron, rather than a partner. But the West is not responsible for the destruction of the Zimbabwean economy over the last decade, or wars in which children are enlisted as combatants. In my father's life, it was partly tribalism and patronage in an independent Kenya that for a long stretch derailed his career, and we know that this kind of corruption is a daily fact of life for far too many.

Of course, we also know that is not the whole story. Here in Ghana, you show us a face of Africa that is too often overlooked by a world that sees only tragedy or the need for charity. The people of Ghana have worked hard to put democracy on a firmer footing, with peaceful transfers of power even in the wake of closely contested elections. And with improved governance and an emerging civil society, Ghana's economy has shown impressive rates of growth.

This progress may lack the drama of the 20th century's liberation struggles, but make no mistake: it will ultimately be more significant. For just as it is important to emerge from the control of another nation, it is even more important to build one's own.

So I believe that this moment is just as promising for Ghana — and for Africa — as the moment when my father came of age and new nations were being born. This is a new moment of promise. Only this time, we have learned that it will not be giants like Nkrumah and Kenyatta who will determine Africa's future. Instead, it will be you — the men and women in Ghana's Parliament, and the people you represent. Above all, it will be the young people — brimming with talent and energy and hope — who can claim the future that so many in my father's generation never found.

To realize that promise, we must first recognize a fundamental truth that you have given life to in Ghana: development depends upon good governance. That is the ingredient which has been missing in far too many places, for far too long. That is the change that can unlock Africa's potential. And that is a responsibility that can only be met by Africans.

As for America and the West, our commitment must be measured by more than just the dollars we spend. I have pledged substantial increases in our foreign assistance, which is in Africa's interest and America's. But the true sign of success is not whether we are a source of aid that helps people scrape by — it is whether we are partners in building the capacity for transformational change.

This mutual responsibility must be the foundation of our partnership. And today, I will focus on four areas that are critical to the future of Africa and the entire developing world: democracy; opportunity; health; and the peaceful resolution of conflict.

First, we must support strong and sustainable democratic governments.

As I said in Cairo, each nation gives life to democracy in its own way, and in line with its own traditions. But history offers a clear verdict: governments that respect the will of their own people are more prosperous, more stable and more successful than governments that do not.

This is about more than holding elections — it's also about what happens between them. Repression takes many forms, and too many nations are plagued by problems that condemn their people to poverty. No country is going to create wealth if its leaders exploit the economy to enrich themselves, or police can be bought off by drug traffickers. No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20 percent off the top, or the head of the port authority is corrupt. No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery. That is not democracy, that is tyranny, and now is the time for it to end.

In the 21st century, capable, reliable and transparent institutions are the key to success — strong parliaments and honest police forces; independent judges and journalists; a vibrant private sector and civil society. Those are the things that give life to democracy, because that is what matters in peoples' lives.

Time and again, Ghanaians have chosen Constitutional rule over autocracy, and shown a democratic spirit that allows the energy of your people to break through. We see that in leaders who accept defeat graciously, and victors who resist calls to wield power against the opposition. We see that spirit in courageous journalists like Anas Aremeyaw Anas, who risked his life to report the truth. We see it in police like Patience Quaye, who helped prosecute the first human trafficker in Ghana. We see it in the young people who are speaking up against patronage and participating in the political process.

Across Africa, we have seen countless examples of people taking control of their destiny and making change from the bottom up. We saw it in Kenya, where civil society and business came together to help stop postelection violence. We saw it in South Africa, where over three quarters of the country voted in the recent election — the fourth since the end of apartheid. We saw it in Zimbabwe, where the Election Support Network braved brutal repression to stand up for the principle that a person's vote is their sacred right.

Make no mistake: history is on the side of these brave Africans and not with those who use coups or change Constitutions to stay in power. Africa doesn't need strongmen, it needs strong institutions.

America will not seek to impose any system of government on any other nation — the essential truth of democracy is that each nation determines its own destiny. What we will do is increase assistance for responsible individuals and institutions, with a focus on supporting good governance — on parliaments, which check abuses of power and ensure that opposition voices are heard; on the rule of law, which ensures the equal administration of justice; on civic participation, so that young people get involved; and on concrete solutions to corruption like forensic accounting, automating services, strengthening hot lines and protecting whistle-blowers to advance transparency and accountability.

As we provide this support, I have directed my administration to give greater attention to corruption in our human rights report. People everywhere should have the right to start a business or get an education without paying a bribe. We have a responsibility to support those who act responsibly and to isolate those who don't, and that is exactly what America will do.

This leads directly to our second area of partnership — supporting development that provides opportunity for more people.

With better governance, I have no doubt that Africa holds the promise of a broader base for prosperity. The continent is rich in natural resources. And from cell phone entrepreneurs to small farmers, Africans have shown the capacity and commitment to create their own opportunities. But old habits must also be broken. Dependence on commodities — or on a single export — concentrates wealth in the hands of the few and leaves people too vulnerable to downturns.

In Ghana, for instance, oil brings great opportunities, and you have been responsible in preparing for new revenue. But as so many Ghanaians know, oil cannot simply become the new cocoa. From South Korea to Singapore, history shows that countries thrive when they invest in their people and infrastructure; when they promote multiple export industries, develop a skilled work force and create space for small and medium-sized businesses that create jobs.

As Africans reach for this promise, America will be more responsible in extending our hand. By cutting costs that go to Western consultants and administration, we will put more resources in the hands of those who need it, while training people to do more for themselves. That is why our $3.5 billion food security initiative is focused on new methods and technologies for farmers — not simply sending American producers or goods to Africa. Aid is not an end in itself. The purpose of foreign assistance must be creating the conditions where it is no longer needed.

America can also do more to promote trade and investment. Wealthy nations must open our doors to goods and services from Africa in a meaningful way. And where there is good governance, we can broaden prosperity through public-private partnerships that invest in better roads and electricity; capacity-building that trains people to grow a business; and financial services that reach poor and rural areas. This is also in our own interest — for if people are lifted out of poverty and wealth is created in Africa, new markets will open for our own goods.

One area that holds out both undeniable peril and extraordinary promise is energy. Africa gives off less greenhouse gas than any other part of the world, but it is the most threatened by climate change. A warming planet will spread disease, shrink water resources and deplete crops, creating conditions that produce more famine and conflict. All of us — particularly the developed world — have a responsibility to slow these trends — through mitigation, and by changing the way that we use energy. But we can also work with Africans to turn this crisis into opportunity.

Together, we can partner on behalf of our planet and prosperity and help countries increase access to power while skipping the dirtier phase of development. Across Africa, there is bountiful wind and solar power; geothermal energy and bio-fuels. From the Rift Valley to the North African deserts; from the Western coast to South Africa's crops — Africa's boundless natural gifts can generate its own power, while exporting profitable, clean energy abroad.

These steps are about more than growth numbers on a balance sheet. They're about whether a young person with an education can get a job that supports a family; a farmer can transfer their goods to the market; or an entrepreneur with a good idea can start a business. It's about the dignity of work. Its about the opportunity that must exist for Africans in the 21st century.

Just as governance is vital to opportunity, it is also critical to the third area that I will talk about — strengthening public health.

In recent years, enormous progress has been made in parts of Africa. Far more people are living productively with HIV/AIDS, and getting the drugs they need. But too many still die from diseases that shouldn't kill them. When children are being killed because of a mosquito bite, and mothers are dying in childbirth, then we know that more progress must be made.

Yet because of incentives — often provided by donor nations — many African doctors and nurses understandably go overseas, or work for programs that focus on a single disease. This creates gaps in primary care and basic prevention. Meanwhile, individual Africans also have to make responsible choices that prevent the spread of disease, while promoting public health in their communities and countries.

Across Africa, we see examples of people tackling these problems. In Nigeria, an interfaith effort of Christians and Muslims has set an example of cooperation to confront malaria. Here in Ghana and across Africa, we see innovative ideas for filling gaps in care — for instance, through E-Health initiatives that allow doctors in big cities to support those in small towns.

America will support these efforts through a comprehensive, global health strategy. Because in the 21st century, we are called to act by our conscience and our common interest. When a child dies of a preventable illness in Accra, that diminishes us everywhere. And when disease goes unchecked in any corner of the world, we know that it can spread across oceans and continents.

That is why my administration has committed $63 billion to meet these challenges. Building on the strong efforts of President Bush, we will carry forward the fight against HIV/AIDS. We will pursue the goal of ending deaths from malaria and tuberculosis, and eradicating polio. We will fight neglected tropical disease. And we won't confront illnesses in isolation — we will invest in public health systems that promote wellness and focus on the health of mothers and children.

As we partner on behalf of a healthier future, we must also stop the destruction that comes not from illness, but from human beings — and so the final area that I will address is conflict.

Now let me be clear: Africa is not the crude caricature of a continent at war. But for far too many Africans, conflict is a part of life, as constant as the sun. There are wars over land and wars over resources. And it is still far too easy for those without conscience to manipulate whole communities into fighting among faiths and tribes.

These conflicts are a millstone around Africa's neck. We all have many identities — of tribe and ethnicity; of religion and nationality. But defining oneself in opposition to someone who belongs to a different tribe, or who worships a different prophet, has no place in the 21st century. Africa's diversity should be a source of strength, not a cause for division. We are all God's children. We all share common aspirations — to live in peace and security; to access education and opportunity; to love our families, our communities, and our faith. That is our common humanity.

That is why we must stand up to inhumanity in our midst. It is never justifiable to target innocents in the name of ideology. It is the death sentence of a society to force children to kill in wars. It is the ultimate mark of criminality and cowardice to condemn women to relentless and systematic rape. We must bear witness to the value of every child in Darfur and the dignity of every woman in Congo. No faith or culture should condone the outrages against them. All of us must strive for the peace and security necessary for progress.

Africans are standing up for this future. Here, too, Ghana is helping to point the way forward. Ghanaians should take pride in your contributions to peacekeeping from Congo to Liberia to Lebanon, and in your efforts to resist the scourge of the drug trade. We welcome the steps that are being taken by organizations like the African Union and ECOWAS to better resolve conflicts, keep the peace, and support those in need. And we encourage the vision of a strong, regional security architecture that can bring effective, transnational force to bear when needed.

America has a responsibility to advance this vision, not just with words, but with support that strengthens African capacity. When there is genocide in Darfur or terrorists in Somalia, these are not simply African problems — they are global security challenges, and they demand a global response. That is why we stand ready to partner through diplomacy, technical assistance, and logistical support, and will stand behind efforts to hold war criminals accountable. And let me be clear: our Africa Command is focused not on establishing a foothold in the continent, but on confronting these common challenges to advance the security of America, Africa and the world.

In Moscow, I spoke of the need for an international system where the universal rights of human beings are respected, and violations of those rights are opposed. That must include a commitment to support those who resolve conflicts peacefully, to sanction and stop those who don't, and to help those who have suffered. But ultimately, it will be vibrant democracies like Botswana and Ghana which roll back the causes of conflict, and advance the frontiers of peace and prosperity.

As I said earlier, Africa's future is up to Africans.

The people of Africa are ready to claim that future. In my country, African-Americans — including so many recent immigrants — have thrived in every sector of society. We have done so despite a difficult past, and we have drawn strength from our African heritage. With strong institutions and a strong will, I know that Africans can live their dreams in Nairobi and Lagos; in Kigali and Kinshasa; in Harare and right here in Accra.

Fifty-two years ago, the eyes of the world were on Ghana. And a young preacher named Martin Luther King traveled here, to Accra, to watch the Union Jack come down and the Ghanaian flag go up. This was before the march on Washington or the success of the civil rights movement in my country. Dr. King was asked how he felt while watching the birth of a nation. And he said: "It renews my conviction in the ultimate triumph of justice."

Now, that triumph must be won once more, and it must be won by you. And I am particularly speaking to the young people. In places like Ghana, you make up over half of the population. Here is what you must know: the world will be what you make of it.

You have the power to hold your leaders accountable and to build institutions that serve the people. You can serve in your communities and harness your energy and education to create new wealth and build new connections to the world. You can conquer disease, end conflicts and make change from the bottom up. You can do that. Yes you can. Because in this moment, history is on the move.

But these things can only be done if you take responsibility for your future. It won't be easy. It will take time and effort. There will be suffering and setbacks. But I can promise you this: America will be with you. As a partner. As a friend. Opportunity won't come from any other place, though — it must come from the decisions that you make, the things that you do, and the hope that you hold in your hearts.

Freedom is your inheritance. Now, it is your responsibility to build upon freedom's foundation. And if you do, we will look back years from now to places like Accra and say that this was the time when the promise was realized — this was the moment when prosperity was forged; pain was overcome; and a new era of progress began. This can be the time when we witness the triumph of justice once more.

Thank you.

US EXPORT COUNCIL PROVIDES ASSISTANCE TO US COMPANIES SEEKING ACCESS TO HIGH GROWTH MARKETS OVERSEAS. http://usexportcouncil.com/

World Bank says Mena to see about 4% growth

The global financial crisis is expected to depress growth in the Gulf and other countries of the Middle East but uncertainty surrounding oil prices poses the highest risk to them, according to the World BankWorld Bank.

After sharp increases in the first half of this year because of strong crude prices, the oil revenues, investments and current account surpluses in the region are expected to sharply slowdown in 2009 and this will affect real growth in most countries, it said in its global economic outlook report for 2009.

It expected real growth in the six-nation Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC) and other countries in the Middle East and North Africa (Mena) to plunge from 5.8 per cent in 2008 to less than four per cent in 2009 before it starts to pick-up in the following years after the global economy begins its recovery.

But the report said he impact of the financial crisis on the region has remained less pronounced compared to the other economies, adding that most Mena banks were not major holders of securities in the United States.

"Uncertainty surrounding the medium-term path for oil prices is probably the element of greatest risk confronting the region. Where the global price of oil settles, grounded in the fundamentals as well as by pressures exerted by Opec will determine the potential growth path for the oil-dominant economies of the region.

The 'base case' view posits world crude oil prices remaining within a $65 to $75/bbl range through 2010," the 200-page report said.

"But substantial downsides to this price forecast can be envisioned should the slowdown in developing-country GDP growth fall much below the 4.5 per cent posited for 2009. Although a repeat of 1985-1986, when oil prices tumbled to $10/bbl is unlikely, prices below $50/bbl could be in the cards, with attendant adjustments required by the region's exporters," it said.

Figures by the US-based institution showed strong crude prices boosted the revenues of key Mena oil exporters by nearly 50 per cent to $200 billion (Dh734bn) in the first half of 2008. But it added the loss of more than $100 in oil prices in the second half is expected to have strong adverse effects on the region's finances.

"Regional oil exporters are now experiencing a substantial downshift in hydrocarbon receipts, terms of trade, and current account surplus positions that will manifest more clearly in 2009," it said.

"The oil exporters current account surplus increased from 17.2 per cent of gross domestic product in 2007 only moderately to 18.7 per cent in 2008, but global economic recession in 2009 will pressure oil prices lower and yield a sizable additional fall off in world oil demand."

It projected the group's current surplus position to drop steeply to eight per cent of GDP during 2009 and to 5.4 per cent by 2010. Real growth will be affected as revenue declines are likely to result in downsizing of ambitious investment projects or postponement of planned programmes, it said. At the same time, Opec's attempts to set limits on the decline in oil prices by constraining oil production will depress the oil sector in many economies, with ripple effects to the non-oil economy and the private sector.

"To date, the direct effects of the financial crisis experienced by most developing economies in the region have been relatively mild. Banks and investment companies in the Middle East and North Africa were not large holders of sub-prime mortgage-backed securities, or 'toxic assets," the report said.

But its figures showed the global crisis has had its toll on capital flows into the region, adding they are expected to decline further in the next period.

Bond issuance dropped by almost two-thirds from around $4.6bn to $1.5bn between January and August 2007 and the like period of 2008. Equity issuance also declined from $2.1bn to $750 million or 65 per cent.

"The downturn and financial crisis will exact a toll on growth in the Middle East and North Africa, but one that will be less dramatic than, for example, in Europe and Central Asia or South Asia, where country exposure and fragility of initial conditions are considerably more pronounced," it said.

"As a result, the region's GDP is anticipated to slow from 5.8 per cent in 2008 to 3.9 per cent in 2009. Recovery in 2010, predicated upon a resolution of the financial crisis in high income countries and a moderate revival of OECD growth, would see GDP pick-up to 5.2 per cent, led by a return to 5.7 per cent growth among the diversified economies."

According to the report, a very gradual build-up in global oil demand is likely to restrain GDP gains among the oil-exporting countries to five per cent in 2010. Mainly reflecting cuts in oil production, export volumes are projected to decline by around 2.1 per cent in 2009, while the regional current account surplus falls to six per cent of GDP, from 13.5 per cent in 2008, it showed.

"Recovery for the region in 2010 hinges on a pick-up in exports and a moderate upturn in investment, but primarily on a 1.8 percentage point pick-up in household outlays to a growth of six per cent, as the earlier run-up in commodity prices and consumer price inflation moderates, giving way to gradual stabilisation and to a pick-up in consumer purchasing power," it said.

"The region's current account position should continue to narrow to some four per cent of GDP, providing a new set of 'initial conditions' from which developments into the next decade are likely to spring."

By Nadim Kawach Emirates Business 24/7 2008

US EXPORT COUNCIL PROVIDES ASSISTANCE TO US COMPANIES SEEKING ACCESS TO HIGH GROWTH MARKETS OVERSEAS. http://usexportcouncil.com/