Africa - U.S. Wants to Spotlight 'Successful Models' And Be An 'Effective Partner' - Obama

Barack Obama makes his first visit to sub-Saharan Africa as president of the United States next week, following a trip to Russia as well as to Italy, where he will participate in a meeting of industrialized nations known as the G8.

AllAfrica's Charles Cobb, Jr., Reed Kramer and Tami Hultman went to the White House to explore President Obama's views on Africa in advance of his visit. The interview took place in the Blue Room.Charles Cobb posed the questions.

We asked visitors to our site, allAfrica.com, what they might be interested in with respect to your policy. And as you might imagine, the responses are everywhere: conflict resolution, development issues, trade issues, et cetera. But they and we have one immediate question: How is it that you happened to pick Ghana as the first place to visit in sub-Saharan Africa?

Well, part of the reason is because Ghana has now undergone a couple of successful elections in which power was transferred peacefully, even a very close election. I think that the new president, President Mills, has shown himself committed to the rule of law, to the kinds of democratic commitments that ensure stability in a country. And I think that there is a direct correlation between governance and prosperity. Countries that are governed well, that are stable, where the leadership recognizes that they are accountable to the people and that institutions are stronger than any one person have a track record of producing results for the people. And we want to highlight that.

And I assume that you'd like to see a lot more 'Ghanas' in Africa. And part of your policy would be, I assume, to encourage that.

Absolutely.

How?

Well, part of it is lifting up successful models. And so, by traveling to Ghana, we hope to highlight the effective governance that they have in place.

I don't think that we can expect that every country is going to undergo these transitions in the same way at the same time. But we have seen progress in democracy and transparency and rule of law, in the protection of property rights, in anti-corruption efforts. We have seen progress over the last several years; in some cases, though, we're also seeing some backsliding. In my father's own country of Kenya, I'm concerned about how the political parties do not seem to be moving into a permanent reconciliation that would allow the country to move forward. And Kenya is not alone in some of the problems that we've seen of late, post-election or pre-election.

And we just want to make sure that people are mindful that this isn't just some abstract notion that we're trying to impose on Africa. There is a very practical, pragmatic consequence to political instability and corruption when it comes to whether people can feed their families, educate their children, and we think that Africa - the African continent is a place of extraordinary promise as well as challenges. We're not going to be able to fulfill those promises unless we see better governance.

Do you have priorities in terms of countries or regions? For instance, West Africa is extremely important in terms of oil; East Africa in terms of some of the strategic concerns of the United States?

I think the entire continent is important. And keep in mind that although I'm visiting Ghana on this particular trip, we've already had [Prime Minister] Tsvangirai of Zimbabwe in the Oval Office. We've had [President] Kikwete from Tanzania in my office. And in each case, I'm trying to send the same message. You've seen some very good work by the administration in Tanzania focusing on how to deliver concrete services to the people, and wherever folks want to help themselves, we want to be there as a partner. And I think that you've got some very strong leadership in Africa that is ready to move forward and we want to be there with them.

On the economic front, that means opening up better trade opportunities. It means that we are interested not just in foreign aid, but in how we strengthen the capacity for development internally in these countries, and we want to work in a multilateral context, as well as the bilateral strengthening of relations with many of these countries.

But as you point out, there are strategic, national security, economic, environmental reasons why we think this region is important. And part of the reason we wanted to - although we're only going to one country this time, I actually thought that it made sense for us to connect a trip to Ghana to a previous trip with the G8. We'll be meeting a number of African countries in Italy during the G8 meeting - before that, a meeting in Russia - to show that Africa is directly connected to our entire foreign policy approach; that it's not some isolated thing where once every term you go visit Africa for a while to check that box, but rather it's an ongoing part of a broader discussion about how we move many of these international challenges forward.

Development assistance will presumably be an important piece of your Africa policy. Now, development assistance is pretty fragmented, whether you look at the United States or you look at it globally, in the sense that varying countries have varying approaches. Now you, more than any President, are associated with using technological tools, and I can't help but wonder if you have thought about using technology to bring some coherence, if you will, like tracking how aid works or where it goes, et cetera.

Look, I think you make a very important point, and that is that even just within the U.S. government, our aid policies have been splintered among a variety of agencies, different theories embraced by different people depending on which administration, which party, is in power at any given time. Trying to create something steady and focused - and always basing our policies on what works and not on some ideological previous position is going to be very important.

And technology can play a very important role in streamlining our aid to countries, making sure that we're tracking how that aid is being applied, making sure that it's reaching the people it's intended to reach. One of the concerns that I have with our aid policy generally is that western consultants and administrative costs end up gobbling huge percentages of our aid overall. It seems to me that what we should be doing is trying to minimize our footprint and maximize the degree to which we're training people to do for themselves. So I think using the Internet, using software, using modern technology to improve delivery systems is important.

Now, I also think, on the ground, in many of these countries, how we think about not high-tech stuff but low-tech technologies to, for example, improve food production is vitally important. I'm still frustrated over the fact that the green revolution that we introduced into India in the '60s, we haven't yet introduced into Africa in 2009. In some countries, you've got declining agricultural productivity. That makes absolutely no sense. We don't need fancy computers to solve those problems; we need tried and true agricultural methods and technologies that are cheap and are efficient but could have a huge impact in terms of people's day-to-day well-being.

In addition, you mentioned a few minutes ago the importance of investment and not just aid. What's the balance between assistance and investment? Most businesses get a bigger return on their investment in Africa than any other part of the world. So should that receive more emphasis than it's been getting? What kind of balance in your mind exists in development assistance?

Well, a couple of points I would make. Number one, you're not going to get investment without good governance. So that's part of the reason why we emphasize it. Again, this is a very practical, hard-headed approach to how we're going to see improvements in the daily lives of the peoples of Africa. If government officials are asking for 10, 15, 25 percent off the top, businesses don't want to invest there. That's point number one.

Point number two, I think that when my father left Kenya and traveled to the United States back in the early '60s, the GDP of Kenya and South Korea weren't equivalent - Kenya's was actually higher. What's happened over that 50-year period? What you've seen is Korea combine foreign investment, integration with the global economy, with a strategic sense of certain industries that they can promote for export; great emphasis on education for a skilled workforce; insisting that foreign investment is accompanied by technology transferring so that homegrown industries can be built and nurtured.

So we've got models out there. We know what it might take. What we haven't seen is a consistent, steady application of some of these models over time in Africa, and I think that now is the time to start.

Is that a failure of U.S. policy or is that a failure of governance in Africa?

I would say that the international community has not always been as strategic as it should have been, but ultimately I'm a big believer that Africans are responsible for Africa.

I think part of what's hampered advancement in Africa is that for many years we've made excuses about corruption or poor governance; that this was somehow the consequence of neo-colonialism, or the West has been oppressive, or racism. I'm not a believer in excuses.

I'd say I'm probably as knowledgeable about African history as anybody who's occupied my office. And I can give you chapter and verse on why the colonial maps that were drawn helped to spur on conflict, and the terms of trade that were uneven emerging out of colonialism.

And yet the fact is we're in 2009. The West and the United States has not been responsible for what's happened to Zimbabwe's economy over the last 15 or 20 years. It hasn't been responsible for some of the disastrous policies that we've seen elsewhere in Africa. I think that it's very important for African leadership to take responsibility and be held accountable.

And I think the people of Africa understand that. The problem is that they just haven't always had the opportunities to organize and voice their opinions in ways that create better results.

In the last minute or so of our conversation, even though you are really barely into your presidency, I already feel compelled to ask you a legacy question. (Laughter.) And that is: What, when you finish your presidency, do you expect your stamp on Africa policy to be? What do you think that will be?

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 improving 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.

That would be a good legacy. I don't expect that we're going to get there in four years or eight years, but I think we can get on that path. And the United States is a critical partner in that process.

I need another hour or so. (Laughter.) But I thank you for your time.

Thank you so much.

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

President Barack Obama will visit Ghana next week.

President Barack Obama will visit Ghana next week after talks with other world leaders in Italy on restoring global economic growth and completing the long-running Doha round of world trade talks.

Mr. Obama, appointed U.S. trade representative, former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk, who said "the world's poorest developing nations have a special place in the Obama trade agenda."

Mr. Kirk will travel to Kenya in early August for an annual trade forum with sub-Saharan African countries.

Here are some facts about U.S. trade with sub-Saharan African countries:

U.S. trade with sub-Saharan African countries remains small, despite U.S. duty-free treatment for most of the region's exports. Sub-Saharan African countries accounted for just slightly more than 1 percent of total U.S. exports and about 3 percent of total U.S. imports in 2008.

U.S. imports from sub-Saharan Africa grew about 28 percent in 2008 to $86 billion, but higher oil prices accounted for a large chunk of that increase.

Oil accounted for about 80 per cent, or $71.2 billion of U.S. imports from sub-Saharan Africa last year. The United States also imported about $3 billion of platinum, $2 billion of autos and auto parts, $1.6 billion of diamonds and $1.3 billion of iron and steel from the region.

The U.S. exported about $18.6 billion worth of goods to sub-Saharan Africa in 2008. The top export was $2.2 billion in motor vehicles, followed by grains and oilseeds, oil and coal products and aircraft and aircraft parts.

West African countries, in the Doha round of world trade talks, have pushed for deep cuts in U.S. cotton subsidies, which they believe have depressed world cotton prices and have robbed them of potential export markets.

The U.S. has agreed in principle to deeper and faster cuts in cotton subsidies than for other crops. But its insistence that major developing countries like Brazil, India and China make better offers to open their markets to U.S. farm and manufactured goods has prevented a Doha round deal.

Many African countries like Congo, Gabon, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, South Africa, Swaziland, and Zimbabwe are sugar producers. Their access to the U.S. sugar market is restricted by a quota that is fiercely defended by the politically powerful U.S. sugar lobby.

Kirk, a former Dallas mayor, is from Texas, a U.S. cotton and sugar-producing state. He has met with trade ministers from Angola, Nigeria and Mozambique since taking office in March and traveled to South Africa in May for the inauguration of President Jacob Zuma.

Congress passed the African Growth and Opportunity Act in 2000 to boost trade with the continent. Mr. Kirk will travel to Kenya in early August for the annual AGOA meeting with sub-Saharan trade ministers.

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

Retooling Strategies to Help Dubai Retain its �Sizzle�

BGR Group Managing Director Morris Reid says companies in the Gulf should change their approach and pursue business with smaller US companies

Morris Reid loves his cigar and is a self-confessed watch and cuff-links freak. A big man, when he is not jumping in and out of trans-continental flights to push what he calls commercial diplomacy, Reid can often be found on US television networks commenting on political and economic issues.

As Managing Director of the BGR Group, a large US lobbying firm, Reid mostly works with a full plate � at conferences, seminars, meetings and, as I learned, at lunches too. He worked earlier with the Clinton administration, following which he ran his own public affairs company for several years until it merged with BGR around the time the United States was electing a new president, at the end of last year.

Lobbying, for Reid, is a necessity in the world�s biggest economy. �I think the Catholic Church has a lobbyist too,� he says, tucking into his green salad on a fine March afternoon at the Capital Club (Reid was in town for the CONNECT-World CEO Conference). His mother strictly enforced a vegetables-first policy on the dining table, he tells me, adding that while lobbyists could be found everywhere in the world, the system has been formalised in the United States.

�Lobbying has been around since governments were created. There will always be a situation where people have interests that need to be represented and advocated for. Again, in the world�s biggest economy, there are certain winners and losers, and you certainly want to be able to advocate your position,� Reid tells me, defending lobbyists and power brokers while expanding on his definition of commercial diplomacy.

Reid calls himself a pro-business Democrat and tells me that, in a world that has changed hugely since Barack Obama took over the US presidency in January, he is seeking opportunities to bring together small and medium-sized businesses � the backbone of the US economy � with similar-sized firms in the Gulf region.

�I see my role as a facilitator of business-to-business, business-to-government and government-to-government interaction, but at the end of the day politicians cannot be the only solution. I see my role as being a conduit of bringing parties together from the Gulf and in America to do business,� he tells me.

Deals are important to a man who has worked with high-profile individuals, government officials and corporate executives in solving political and corporate issues for more than 15 years. His best deal, he says, is always the one he�s working on at the moment. �The deals I remember and reflect upon the most are those that had major economic impact and also serve a larger agenda,� he explains, while quickly asking questions about the impact of the global economic downturn on Dubai and the United Arab Emirates.

The world has changed in the past few months, perhaps forever. Uncertainty and a financial collapse have forced most governments to intervene in markets and companies, doling out money to the needy and nearly nationalising private companies. Big government is everywhere, watching, questioning, demanding, and interfering. Is socialism (that dreaded word) taking roots in capitalistic societies, I ask Reid.

�The answer is yes, but a government has to always act in an appropriate way. When the very stability of the global markets is hanging in the balance, the government must step in. And that is what they are doing,� Reid says, adding that a government must also know when to stop.

Is that always possible? �No,� he says. �It is the people who have to be vigilant and make sure the government does not over-step. One thing we always say is that it is hard to get it back once you give it up. That is a real concern now.�

However, the new administration has taken care of the one big concern he had in the past about America�s global image. �It is a whole new game� America is ready to re-engage the world. The good news is that with President Barack Obama, America is a welcoming society again. By and large, people, particularly from this region, felt that they were not welcome. Clearly, under President Obama, the welcome mat is open.� But there are internal issues that America faces as it battles recession and works to extricate itself from its financial mess.

�In the short term, America is looking inward because it is in lot of pain. The reason why we are in pain is because we are not long-term planners. We are short-term planners. We are more of a reactor society than a strategic one. We generally don�t plan for the long term, whereas the Chinese and some of the Asian societies are much better at planning,� Reid says. He cites the example of a ravaged US automobile industry that was once the world leader but lost out due to its lack of innovation. He also blames American entrepreneurs who lacked a global perspective, unlike their counterparts from other parts of the world.

�Long term, America is going to have a more open outlook because we are becoming more diverse. We still have three exports that people of the world want,� he tells me, counting education, health care and entertainment on his fingers.

Obama, according to him, has two and half years to fix things. �In 30 months, if the average American does not feel that we have turned a corner on the economic crisis... that cripples the President�s political posturing. So he has 30 months to turn this page, because if the will of the people [is] not with him, politicians will act differently with Barack Obama. Right now, politicians generally want to give him the benefit of doubt, as he has got public sentiment on his side. In 30 months, these politicians will be fighting for their own survival.�

The Gulf region, Reid says, needs to focus more on the small and medium-sized businesses in America in its attempt to diversify their economies beyond energy. Then he returns to his mother and her vegetables. �In a lot of ways, they (this region) didn�t eat vegetables. They went for the sizzle. The real trick for the region is how to sustain it when oil is below $40� per barrel, he says, urging governments here to engage with different US companies than they have in the past. Instead of trying to do deals with the 1,000 largest companies in the United States, firms in the Gulf should pursue America�s 23 million small businesses, he says, donning his analyst�s hat.

Dubai, he says, needs to identify its core customer to jump quickly out of its crisis. �The core customer is the family that wants to come and have a great experience, maybe look for a second home. There is a super-high end of the market, and there is the middle tier of the market. This is where they need to focus,� he says, giving the example of Las Vegas, which retooled its marketing efforts once it figured out that it needed to send out welcome notes to families and not just gamblers.

Editor Rahul Sharma savours the idea of mixing work with pleasure for this column. You can write to him at rahul@khaleejtimes.com.

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

Obama's Daunting Middle East Challenge

After eight years of misguided policy by the Bush administration in the Middle East, the time is overdue for an enlightened strategy to tackle the region's woes. This must include an approach that will bring hope to a region shattered by violence, consumed by conflict and division and filled with disdain toward the United States. Although the massive economic crisis facing America is, and should be, President-elect Obama's first priority, he must not hesitate to confront the simmering conflicts in the Middle East that cannot be relegated to the back burner without severely undermining the strategic interest and security of the United States.

Mr. Obama faces an incredible challenge to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan honorably, to restore hope to the Palestinian people, and to engage Iran and Syria constructively while fostering regional economic development. These are daunting tasks that may take several years to accomplish but must, nevertheless, be tackled no matter how impossible they may seem. Mr. Obama's promise for change must be implemented not only with the goal of restoring America's credibility and moral leadership abroad, but also with the intention to serve the United States' strategic interests and prevent a potentially major regional conflagration. America's new strategy in the Middle East must be comprehensive and integrated, utilizing all of America's diplomatic instruments and power while working with allies. While the United States must take the lead, it must also commit itself to a strategy of multilateralism working with other powers to orchestrate solutions to some of the most intractable conflicts that America alone simply cannot solve. The new American strategy in the Middle East must be developed with an eye on establishing comprehensive regional security in which the majority of, if not all, the states in the area will have a stake in maintaining.

In Iraq, the new administration must remain committed to withdrawing most of the American forces within sixteen months as envisioned by President-elect Obama, but with some flexibility provided that three critical criteria are first met. The Iraqi internal forces and the military first must be well-integrated and trained to maintain internal security and order. Secondly, it is important that the Sunnis are provided with the means to defend themselves and run their own internal affairs as they see fit akin to their Kurdish counterpart. Lastly, an oil law must be enacted providing for equitable distribution of oil revenue to all Iraqis. By pursuing these three objectives and aided by the lull in violence brought about by the surge of American forces, the Iraqis themselves will be more inclined to agree on political reforms and reconciliation. In addition, the United States should actively seek the involvements of Iraq's neighbors, especially Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Jordan who have stakes in Iraq's stability and a strong desire to bridge the Sunni-Shiite divide. Anything short of that would reverse much of the progress made to date, except this time with far greater intensity than ever before as American residual forces will be unable to prevent renewed violence. America has a moral obligation to leave Iraq reasonably assured of sustainable security and political stability. That much we owe the Iraqi people and the Obama administration must not settle for less.

In dealing with Iran, the new administration must create a strategy based on engagement and deterrence to prevent Iran from continuing to enrich uranium with impunity. The United States must initiate direct talks with Iran and end the threat of regime change in Tehran while making it abundantly clear that a nuclear Iran is not an option. This can be accomplished by pursuing three tracks of separate but interconnected negotiations. The first track should focus on negotiating an end to Iran's enrichment of uranium without preconditions, and what would be the economic incentive package provided in return. The United States should take the lead in these negotiations joined by its European allies along with China and Russia. The negotiations should be limited to a three month period to prevent Iran from playing for time. The second track ought to focus on Iran's and the United States' grievances against each other. By constructively engaging Iran, Washington will help build mutual confidence, spur progress on the first negotiating track, benefit bilateral relations and encourage Iranian reformers to pursue democratic change without fear of retribution.

The third negotiating track should concentrate on regional security to alleviate Iran's national security concerns and reinforce the United States' commitments to the protection of its allies in the region. Should Iran, nevertheless, insist on continuing the enrichment of uranium, the United States must be clear about the extent of the devastating sanctions that will be orchestrated against it while not ruling out the use of force as a last resort. The United States must spearhead all three tracks without which future talks will be as elusive as the previous negotiations, except this time the West and Israel will be facing the unsettling prospect of a nuclear Iran with potentially dreadful consequences.

Since the 1992 Madrid peace conference the solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict has been hashed and rehashed ad nauseam and nothing fundamentally new can be said about the ultimate solution that will be framed. A Palestinian state established over Gaza and most of the West Bank with East Jerusalem as its capital, living side-by-side with the state of Israel--while finding a just solution to the Palestinian refugees--remains the only viable solution. And the return of the Golan Heights to Syria is sine qua non to resolving the Israeli-Syrian conflict. But having a clear view of an Arab-Israeli peace does not reduce the potential risk of devastating war, which makes the need for a solution a pressing imperative. Here too, for the Obama administration to help orchestrate a peace agreement, it must accept the premise that America's active and direct role is indispensable.

The Obama administration must embrace the Arab Peace Initiative, initially adopted by the Arab League in March of 2002. Although the Road Map has advanced the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, embracing the Initiative remains critical for two reasons: because it represents the collective Arab will which can rein in Arab extremists, and because only a comprehensive peace with all twenty-two Arab states offers Israel the security it has sought since its inception in 1948. The Obama administration must persuade Israel to formally accept the Initiative, while assuring the Israelis that the US will guarantee their security and will insist on maintaining Israel's Jewish national identity under any peace formula.

The United States must play an active and direct role between Israelis and Palestinians by appointing a presidential envoy with a wide mandate that must stay in the region for as long as it takes until an agreement is forged. Throughout his two terms, President Bush sent over a dozen special envoys to the Middle East, yet none stayed long enough to allow for the consistency and continuity needed to keep both sides fully engaged. The new permanent envoy must be acutely perceptive of the histories of both people and have a keen understanding of the emotional, psychological and religious complexity of the conflict. This is particularly important as both sides suffer from serious psychological hang-ups about each other that ultimately prejudice their negotiating stance. Moreover, because of the endemic internal division and the existence of rejectionist groups in both camps, the Israeli and Palestinian governments need American cover to make the necessary concessions. A permanent envoy who can exert the necessary pressure and speak on behalf of the president can provide such a political cover.

The Obama administration must insist to Israel that ending the occupation of the West Bank also means an end to all settlement activity. The settlement expansion and the building of new outposts has been one of the major impediments to the peace negotiations in the past and has undermined Israel's credibility. While Obama has reiterated America's loyalty to Israel as its closest ally in the Middle East, he must also show that he can be an honest broker in the region when it comes to creating a Palestinian state. It is also of paramount importance that other Arab states in the region with good relations with Israel and the U.S. including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Morocco are engaged at the outset in all peace efforts. In addition, these states should contribute to the creation of a peacekeeping force to be stationed in Gaza and the West Bank to enforce the provisions of the peace agreement. Only Arab forces representing the collective interest of their states can rein in Islamists who are likely to continue to resist any peace accord with Israel until they are brought to heel. Such an Arab force should be sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council and preferably be placed under American command and monitoring to give Israel a greater sense of confidence in the durability of peace.

Contrary to the Bush administration's policy that has attempted to isolate Syria as it sought a regime change, the Obama administration must engage Syria directly and in doing so dramatically change the political dynamics in the region. Syria is the linchpin to weakening Hezbollah and Hamas and marginalizing Iran's influence in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. Israel and Syria have made tremendous progress in their recent indirect negotiations mediated by Turkey. But Syria seeks normalizing relations with the United States. President Bashar al-Assad will be ready to enter into direct negotiations with Israel and conclude a peace agreement as soon as the Obama administration engages Damascus directly. An accord between Israel and Syria will also pave the way to a peace agreement with Lebanon, once Israel withdraws from Shebaa Farms, a disputed swath of land thrust between Israel, Lebanon and Syria.

Finally, any Arab-Israeli peace, however comprehensive, may not endure unless it is accompanied with an economic and humanitarian development program that will not only deal with the pressing need of millions of Arabs who live in abject poverty but foster political and human rights reforms. Moreover, there are many Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas in the Palestinian territories who will continue to exploit these social ills to foment resistance as peace with Israel runs contrary to their interests. The Obama administration with its European counterparts must reassess American and Western financial aid to many Arab states and implement programs of sustainable development. Ultimately the United States cannot afford to limit its presence in the region to military or government-to-government solutions and must aim to create comprehensive packages that include bottom-up solutions.

Although the people of the Middle East are eager to forge peace to end decades of violence and suffering, they need a bold, visionary and committed American leadership to help them navigate through the treacherous road to peace. President Obama may have an historic opportunity to achieve what has eluded many of his predecessors.

##

Author - Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is an expert on Middle East politics and affairs, specializing in peace negotiations between Israel and the Arab states. For the past twenty five years, Dr. Ben-Meir has been directly involved in various negotiations and has operated as a liaison between top Arab and Israeli officials. Dr. Ben-Meir serves as senior fellow at New York University's School of Global Affairs where he has been teaching courses on the Middle East and negotiations for 17 years. He is also a Senior Fellow and the Middle Eastern Studies Project Director at the World Policy Institute. Dr. Ben-Meir hosts "Global Leaders: Conversations with Alon Ben-Meir," a series of debates and conversations with top policy-makers around the world. He also regulary holds briefings at the US State Department for international visitors.
http://www.alonben-meir.com/

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

Oppenheimer: On Obama and Trade Pacts

Perhaps the most important question raised in the last presidential debate was the one that got the least media attention - whether a Barack Obama presidency would lead to U.S. protectionism, trade wars and a global depression.

 

Was that a fair accusation by Republican candidate John McCain?

The issue came up about halfway through the debate when McCain - noting that Obama ''has never been south of the border'' - attacked him for not supporting the U.S. free trade agreement with Colombia and for wanting to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement. 

''I don't think there's any doubt that Sen. Obama wants to restrict trade, and he wants to raise taxes,'' McCain said. ''And the last president of the United States that tried that was Herbert Hoover, and we went from a deep recession into a depression.'' 

Obama responded that ''I believe in free trade,'' but he added that not every free trade deal is a good one. He said he opposes the Colombian deal because of human rights concerns over killings of union leaders in that country, and that he opposed NAFTA because he objected to its lack of proper labor and environmental clauses. But, on the other hand, he said, ''I supported the Peruvian Free Trade Agreement, which was a well-structured agreement.''  McCain supporters say Obama is pandering to U.S. labor unions, which are campaigning actively for him and competition. Obama's current ads claiming that McCain's tax policies ''shift jobs overseas'' paint the Democrat's true feelings, Republicans say. 

And they note that Obama's claim that he ''supported'' the Peruvian free trade deal is misleading because Obama did not actually cast a vote for it. Obama aides say their candidate missed the vote because he was attending an Iowa debate that day, but that Obama publicly endorsed the deal at the time.

If Obama is a closet protectionist, as the McCain camp claims, that would entail huge risks for the global economy. 

The Great Depression of the 1930s was sparked by a 1929 stock market collapse, but really turned into a global depression after the United States passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act on June 17, 1930, which raised U.S. customs duties for imports by up to 50 percent. 

The tariff increases were aimed at helping domestic companies and generating jobs at home. Instead, other countries responded in kind, international trade plummeted by 33 percent over the next three years, U.S. exports collapsed and U.S. unemployment rose at record levels. 

The lesson is clear: Adopting protectionist measures in a recession is playing with fire, McCain supporters (and many Obama fans, too) say. 

My Opinion: I don't think Obama is a protectionist. When I interviewed him, he almost jumped from his seat when I asked him if he's anti-free trade. Like Bill Clinton before him, he would most likely switch to a more pro-free trade stance once in office. 

What worries me is whether Obama would have the guts to go against the growing protectionist mood in the country at a time when America needs to open new export markets more than ever. A new Zogby poll shows that 59 percent of Americans support either revising or withdrawing from NAFTA. 

And I wonder whether Obama would spend his political capital trying to persuade a Democratic-controlled Congress to support free trade. 

Pollsters forecast that the Democrats will retain control of both chambers of Congress and may win a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Twenty-three of the 35 Senate seats up for grabs are held by mostly pro-free trade Republicans, and some may be replaced by trade-skeptic Democrats, they say. 

Granted, a landslide victory by Obama on Nov. 4 would give him enough political clout to sway Congress in the right direction. But an Obama win by a small margin with a more protectionist Congress and amid a growing isolationist sentiment would be a different story. 

I have to confess that I like Obama on most issues. But on this one, I would like him to show more statesmanship. If the next president doesn't enthusiastically embrace free trade, the United States will be under growing domestic pressures to close its market to foreign goods, hurting the world economy - and itself. 

Andres Oppenheimer
The Miami Herald

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

Africa: Obama's Three Objectives for Continent

Witney W. Schneidman
Washington, DC

Witney W. Schneidman, an adviser on Africa to the campaign to elect Senator Barack Obama as President of the United States, sets out Obama's fundamental policy objectives for Africa.

Barack Obama understands Africa, and understands its importance to the United States. Today, in this new century, he understands that to strengthen our common security, we must invest in our common humanity and, in this way, restore American leadership in the world.

As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he has engaged on many African issues. He has worked to end genocide in Darfur, to pass legislation to promote stability and the holding of elections in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to bring a war criminal to justice in Liberia and to develop a coherent strategy for stabilizing Somalia.

In 2006, Senator Obama visited Kenya where he spoke truth to power to the leadership about the corrosive impact of corruption, in South Africa he demanded honesty from the government about HIV/Aids, and he met with American military commanders in Djibouti at the Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa to discuss the threat of terrorism to U.S. interests and to the interests of our partners in the region.

Obama also visited refugee camps in Chad, where he heard first-hand about the experiences of Sudanese women who had been forced from their homes and had their families torn apart, and worse, by Khartoum's genocidal policies.

Over the last 18 months, Barack Obama has worked with the Kenyan leadership to help resolve the post-election crisis in that country, and he has called for an increase on pressure on Robert Mugabe for stealing elections and sponsoring violence against his own people.

Barack Obama continues to speak out against Khartoum's ongoing war of genocide in Darfur, and has called on Ethiopia and Eritrea to walk back from the brink of war.

The Diaspora

There is another very important quality about Barack Obama that informs his perspective on Africa, and that is the fact that he is a product of the African diaspora, the son of a Kenyan father, whose grandmother still lives in Kenya.

In fact, this campaign is making a strong effort to reach out to African Americans across the United States country and to those first, second and third generation Africans who have become American citizens to encourage them to be part of the effort that will elect Barack Obama president of the United States.

It is a powerful reality that more Africans have come to the United States since 1970 than came during the middle passage. The more than two million African immigrants in the U.S. can be an important source of support in strengthening relations with Africa.

Through a more active dialogue with the various African diaspora communities and organizations, the U.S. will find itself in a better position to develop its agenda and accomplish its objectives on Africa.

For those who may ask why, there are several reasons for this interest in the African diaspora community.

* Africans are the most educated immigrant group in the country.
* African-born men and women have higher median earnings than all foreign-born men and women in the U.S.
* Remittances from Africans in the diaspora are on the rise, estimated to be in excess of $4 to 6 billion per year. Nigerians, as one example, remit more than $3 billion per year.

The Obama campaign is witnessing an unprecedented surge of support and excitement from African Americans as well as diaspora communities, and this support will be critical to Barack Obama's success in November.

Most immediately, the diaspora community has started to organize itself into groups such as Ethiopians for Obama, Eritreans for Obama, the African Immigrant Movement for Obama and the African Diaspora for Obama. In fact, one thing that Ethiopians and Eritreans clearly agree on is that they want Barack Obama to be the next president of the United States.

Most immediately, we want those 10,000 Ethiopian-Americans in Virginia to help turn that state blue on November 4th, we want all Nigerian-Americans living in Cleveland, Akron and elsewhere in Ohio to turn out the vote in their communities, we want the Somali-American community in Minneapolis to help win Minnesota, and we want African diaspora communities all across the country to come forward and exercise their rights as Americans. Even if individuals are not eligible to vote, they can still hand out leaflets, make phone calls and canvass their neighborhoods.

In the short-term, all those of African descent have the potential to be a key game changer in this election.

Moreover, the experience of Barack Obama underscores the values that many Africans and Americans share and the ties that bind us together.

The experience of Barack Obama has also raised extraordinary expectations in Africa. We need to be realistic about these expectations, especially given the financial pressures in the U.S., and remember that whatever the U.S. might try to do in Africa will be in support of the actions taken by our partners in Africa and the goals that they set for themselves and goals that we set together.

Obama's Africa Agenda

Barack Obama will pursue three fundamental objectives on the continent.

* One is to accelerate Africa's integration into the global economy.
* A second is to enhance the peace and security of African states.
* And a third is to strengthen relationships with those governments, institutions and civil society organizations committed to deepening democracy, accountability and reducing poverty in Africa.

Conflict Resolution

A priority for Barack Obama is to end the genocide in Darfur by increasing pressure on the government to halt the killing and stop impeding the deployment of the United Nations peacekeeping force. He holds Khartoum accountable for abiding by its commitments under the Comprehensive Peace Accord that ended the 30-year conflict between the north and South.

In Somalia, Obama sees a need to recalibrate the U.S. approach. For the last several years, our efforts at state-building, humanitarian relief and counter-terrorism have worked at cross purposes; we need to develop an approach so that they work at common purpose.

In the eastern Congo, there is a need to strongly support the UN military force, MONUC. We also have to transform the "tripartite plus" process, which brings together senior officials from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Burundi and Uganda, from a talk-shop into one that imposes verifiable accountability on each participant for progress and security.

In the Niger Delta, we should become more engaged not only in maritime security but in working with the Nigerian government, the European Union, the African Union and other stake holders to stabilize the region.

In Zimbabwe, the recently agreed-upon power sharing arrangements need to evolve quickly from a Mugabe-controlled government to a government that reflects the March 29 election that the Movement for Democratic Change won. Most immediately, Robert Mugabe needs to allow NGOs unhindered access to the four to five million people who need essential food and medicine supplies.

Africom, the U.S. military command for Africa, should also realize its potential, in cooperation with other U.S. agencies and regional partners, to promote peace, security, and stability on the continent.

An Obama agenda will create a Shared Security Partnership Program to build the infrastructure to deliver effective counter-terrorism training, and to create a strong foundation for coordinated action against al Qaeda and its affiliates in Africa and elsewhere.

The Shared Security Partnership Program will provide assistance with information sharing, training, operations, border security, anti-corruption programs, technology and the targeting of terrorist financing.

Africa and the Global Economy

To accelerate Africa's integration into the global economy, and to expand prosperity on the continent, Obama would establish an Add Value to Agriculture Initiative (AVTA) that will spur research and innovation aimed at partnering with land grant institutions, private philanthropies and businesses to promote higher yield seeds, better irrigation methods and affordable and safe fertilizers.

Such an initiative will also address issues related to food security in order to alleviate high food costs in various African countries.

Barack Obama will strengthen the African Growth and Opportunity Act to ensure that African producers can access the U.S. market and will encourage more American companies to invest in Africa. He will also work with the Overseas Private Investment Corporation to develop lending facilities to small and medium businesses, so that those companies under $5 million can become $10 and $20 million companies, creating new jobs, sustainable incomes and partners for American companies.

He will help to enhance the prosperity beginning to reach Africa. The World Bank estimates Africa's middle class will grow fourfold in the next 20 years, from its current levels of 12 million people in countries such as South Africa, Zambia, Nigeria, Kenya and others. Barack Obama will work to accelerate this process.

China's rapidly expanding influence on the continent holds promise for Africa, especially in the area of infrastructure development. Its growing presence is also generating concerns around saddling new debts on African governments, environmental degradation and worker safety on the part of Chinese extractive companies, and eroding the market share of African producers on the continent and globally.

Barack Obama will engage the Chinese to establish the rules of the road and to ensure that we are working at common purpose to enhance economic development on the continent.

However, it will be important that African governments are part of this effort and part of this dialogue; the days of external powers on their own deciding what is best for Africa needs to come to an end, once and for all.

Deepening Democracy, Ending Poverty

When it comes to engaging with our African partners to deepen democracy, enhance accountability and reduce poverty, Barack Obama will work with Congress to put more resources on the table.

But let's give credit where it is due. The President's Emergency Program for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), with 1.7 million people in Africa on anti-retrovirals, has been an extremely important initiative, as has the Bush administration's program to eradicate malaria and address neglected tropical diseases.

It is often said that this administration's legacy in Africa will revolve around these programs and the tripling in development assistance from $2 billion in 2000 to $6 billion today, and rightly so.

Nevertheless, the picture is incomplete if we stop there. The reality is that the bulk of this increase is due to increased spending on HIV/AIDS, humanitarian assistance and debt relief. In fact, development assistance to the poorest countries in Africa has decreased by half in this time frame. Ironically, the percentage of development going to the best-governed countries has dropped even more, by two-thirds, in this period.

The Millennium Challenge Account may change this latter trend, given the $3.7 billion in commitments to 10 countries in sub-Saharan Africa.

We have seen no increase in development assistance in areas such as democracy building, the rule of law, judicial reform, the strengthening of parliaments, education and enhancing the entrepreneurial skills of men and women.

To redress this, an Obama agenda will work with Congress to increase our investment in foreign assistance. Obama will spearhead an initiative to eliminate the global education deficit by establishing a Global Education Fund to help fill the financing gap for primary education in Africa and the developing world. He will also make the Millennium Development Goals America's goals.

On climate change, an Obama agenda will launch a Global Energy and Environment Initiative (GEE) to bring developing countries into the global effort to develop alternative sources of energy and mitigate the stark consequences of climate change.

Barack Obama's vision of leadership in this new era begins with the recognition of a fundamental reality: the security and well-being of each and every American is tied to the security and well-being of those who live beyond our borders, including in Africa. The United States will provide global leadership grounded in the understanding that the world shares a common security and a common humanity. We must lead not in the spirit of a patron, but in the spirit of a partner. Extending an outstretched hand to others must ultimately be about recognizing the inherent quality, dignity and worth of all people.

This kind of American leadership will also leverage engagement and resources from our traditional allies in the G8 countries, as well as from new actors, including emerging economies such as India, China, Brazil and South Africa, the private sector and global philanthropy.

Yet while America and our friends and our allies can help developing countries build more secure and prosperous societies, we must never forget that only the citizens of these nations can sustain them.

Bipartisan Policy

What all of us who are engaged in Africa have in common is a willingness to put partisanship aside when it comes to advocating for resources for Africa. There is no question that this bipartisan consensus, especially in Congress, needs to be nurtured, deepened and expanded.

The consensus was first forged in 2000, when the Clinton administration advocated for the African Growth and Opportunity Act. It was enhanced during the Bush administration, which extended AGOA three times, created the Millennium Challenge Account and, of course, the $15 billion PEPFAR programme.

This bipartisan consensus was evident several months ago when the Bush administration asked Congress to double to $30 million the amount that the U.S would spend on AIDS relief. In a stirring act of American compassion, Congress funded the program at $48 billion with another $2 million being allocated for programs in the U.S.

Barack Obama knows about bipartisanship through his work as community organizer, a state legislator in Illinois and a U.S. Senator. He understands that hunger is not a partisan issue, he understands that disease is not blue or red but it is very real. He understands that genocide in Darfur is not an issue of Republican or Democrat but one of morality and common humanity, and he worked with Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, to pass the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act in 2006.

By every measure, this election is historic. In voting for Barack Obama, you will be voting for genuine change and, when it comes to Africa, a deepening of those partnerships that benefit Africa and benefit America.

Witney W. Schneidman served as deputy assistant secretary of state for African affairs in the Clinton administration. This article is excerpted from remarks to the Constituency for Africa 2008 Ronald H. Brown African Affairs Series forum on "U.S.-Africa Policy Agenda and the Next Administration" at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. Posted to the Web on September 29, 2008

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