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/

Address by the Minister in The Presidency, National Planning Presidency’s Budget Vote debate Trevor A Manuel, MP

President Zuma, in announcing his new Cabinet last month, established a Ministry for Planning in The Presidency. Before discussing the broad objectives, key institutions and the proposed Green Paper, I wish to briefly sketch the context and rationale that gave rise to the need for a planning ministry.

Countries that have grown rapidly over two to three generations have often had clear strategies which required difficult trade-offs and a careful sequencing of policies. Often, long run growth and development requires long term investments in people, in democratic institutions and in infrastructure. Countries are often reluctant to make correct trade offs because trade offs sometimes imply pain in the short term or pain for some people, with long term uncertainty. If a country chooses to spend more on education, it must spend less on something else. If a country chooses to invest more, it must consume less today.

Governments all over the world are confronted with this dilemma of how to make trade-offs that involve long term benefits and short term pain. Democracies instinctively deal with policies that provide benefits within a single term of office. But many of the challenges that confront us today require a much longer term perspective. Addressing our skills constraints requires a long term perspective.

Reducing unemployment requires a long-term strategy. Reducing CO2 emissions requires a long-term plan. Addressing our future water and food requirements require long term plans that have opportunity costs in the short term with payoffs in the longer term. The creation of a planning ministry in The Presidency is about incorporating these ideas into our policy thinking and enabling government to make long term investments even though the return may accrue long after we’ve left office. Most importantly, it is about governments learning to do better.

A government which is focused on the development imperative and on improving on both the quantity and quality of services to citizens must place an emphasis on its own learning. Much of this learning arises from the rigour of analysis of the implementation of its policies. The authors Ashraf Ghani and Clare Lockhart, in their book “Fixing Failed States”, share the following observation of how things fall apart.

They observe various centres of power vie for control, multiple decision making processes confuse priorities, citizens lose trust in the government, institutions lose their legitimacy and the populace is disenfranchised in the most extreme cases, violence results. This negative cycle creates a sovereignty gap.

Mister speaker, it is this fragmentation that we seek to avoid.

To sketch the context for the planning ministry, allow me to outline what the broad roles and functions of The Presidency are in relation to planning. To do this, we need to locate the functioning of The Presidency in our system of government. The seat of the executive of government is Cabinet, headed by the President. The executive arm of government has to operate collectively. This implies that key decisions are taken collectively and members of the executive share collective responsibility and accountability for the decisions of the executive.

The Presidency has many functions, three of which are key in setting out the context today. The first is the policy coherence function. It is the task of The Presidency to ensure policy coherence throughout government, that policies support the overall objectives of government that inconsistent policies are changed, unintended consequences are recognised and managed and contradictory policy outcomes in government are minimised.

A strategic approach to planning that sets out a coherent vision backed by clear and measurable targets and programmes does not materialise out of thin air. Institutions and mechanisms are needed. The economist James K Galbraith sets out the argument for planning thus, the experience of the wider world even that of the most despised countries—provides no general case against economic planning and also none in favour of unfettered markets as a substitute for a planning system. On the contrary, it shows that in a properly designed system, planning and markets do not contradict each other. They are not mutually exclusive. Rather, the choice of one or another for any particular problem is a matter of what works best for the purpose - it's a question of a social and political division of labour, of what tools are needed for what goal.

Hence, the output of the planning function is clear direction, a coherent vision for the future supported by medium and long term plans. These plans should encapsulate the priorities of government and articulation of the policy tradeoffs it faces and its key policy choices. These plans and policy choices are to be made by the executive, collectively. The role of The Presidency is to lead the process of developing a coherent agenda and plan for government.

The second role of The Presidency is to ensure that the agreed upon agenda is reflected in the work and priorities of all of government, to ensure policy co-ordination in government. In any system, individual ministers, government departments, provinces, municipalities, state enterprises and other agencies should shape their actions in terms of an overall agenda or plan.

This policy co-ordination function is carried out through Cabinet directly by the President, through cabinet committees by the respective chairs of cabinet, through clusters of directors general, through Minmecs, the President’s co-ordinating council, through the budget and numerous other institutions and processes in government. The policy co-ordination function is critical to ensure that government’s agenda is implemented with the vigour and consistency that citizens expect and hence it is located in The Presidency. In summary, it is about driving the agenda of government.

The third function is the performance management function. The Presidency must develop the capability to monitor the performance of government, evaluate the impact of programmes and to intervene where performance is sub-optimal. This function is not about removing the accountability that vests in individual ministers, provinces or municipalities. It is a recognition that citizens expect more and better from their government and holds the executive collectively responsible for delivery.

There are several techniques to drive better performance, the details of which will emerge in the next few weeks. Our marching orders here are the clear focus on performance and accountability set out by President Zuma in his State of the Nation Address. Two elements in this toolbox are the ability to set clear targets linked to government’s priorities and to intervene to unblock institutional blockages to better performance.

These three functions of The Presidency are interlinked. They cannot be separated through artificial barriers. Government’s plan and priorities must drive the setting of targets. Assessments of performance must feed into the co-ordination role of government and informs what the agenda should be in various government clusters. Information gleaned in the monitoring function informs government’s agenda and the agenda determines what is measured and monitored.

President Zuma, Deputy President Motlanthe, Minister Chabane and I have collective responsibility for these three roles. We are politically accountable for these roles. However, all ministers, parliament and each institution in government are also accountable for performance and delivery and have specific responsibilities to ensure that government achieves its objectives.

Minister Chabane and I have agreed to release two green papers simultaneously - one on planning and co-ordination and one on performance monitoring and evaluation. The purpose of these green papers is to provide all stakeholders with a sense of government’s thinking in this regard and provide them with an opportunity to input into the process of deciding how these functions will be performed.

The precise role and function of the Planning Ministry and National Planning Commission as well as the importance of a national strategic plan and vision that has the support and backing of the wider society will be outlined in a Green Paper to be released for discussion by the end of July.

It is intended that this green paper will be presented to parliament as a discussion document in the next month or so. We look forward to an active engagement with you on these issues.

Let me turn now to one or two of the specifics of the planning function. The planning function will co-ordinate the process whereby government develops its long term vision and plan. This long term plan must take into account the key long term challenges facing South Africa and articulate the vision for the type of society that South African’s desire.

The process whereby Cabinet collectively agrees to the Medium Term Strategic Framework is the second major task of the planning function. This document sets out governments priorities, informs resource allocation and provides a framework for the sequencing of programmes and reforms. The Medium Term Strategic Framework (MTSF) then needs to be broken down into detailed outcomes that can then be used to inform the priorities of government. For example, if the MTSF says that raising the literacy rate of Grade three school learners, then this is what The Presidency will measure and this is what will inform interactions between the Minister of Basic Education and The Presidency.

The Planning Ministry has a key role to play in building the organisational and technical capability of the state to ensure government delivers on its policy commitments. We envisage the creation of a nerve centre in The Presidency which would develop links with organisations such as the Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA), Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC), Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and other science councils, universities and relevant think tanks to provide expert opinion on long term developmental issues such as water security, climate change, food security, defence capability and migration. The expertise exists in the country and does not have to be replicated in The Presidency. What we do need is the capacity to commission research, to synthesise the evidence and to be able to feed these into the policy processes in government.

There is also a need to encourage a more systematic approach to long term planning in government and in state owned enterprises. This is particularly true in sectors such as spatial planning, energy, transport and water security where long term perspectives are important. This is critical for private sector investment too. Investments in the mining sector require policy certainty and energy security in the energy sector. Land use planning and agricultural investment are intertwined.

What will the planning function not do? There is a notion floating around in some circles that The Presidency will take over existing planning responsibilities from national departments and State Owned Enterprises (SOEs), and even from provincial and local governments. As my preceding points on the role and functions of the planning ministry show, nothing can be further from the truth. Micro-planning and sectoral planning will not be undertaken from the centre. Rather the Planning Ministry will seek to encourage, support and harness sectoral and sub-national strategic plan making and initiatives and mainstream these within the national planning process. That is giving concrete expression to sectoral priorities and priorities emanating from provinces and municipalities.

A further misconception that has been created is that The Presidency will play the role of gatekeeper for plans and that all government institutions would be required to get clearance from The Presidency before a plan is adopted. This would be foolish and undesirable, let alone totally impractical leading to massive delays in implementation. On the contrary the task of The Presidency would be to ensure that the quality of planning by government departments, state owned enterprises and provincial and local governments achieves a high standard, and that the quality of planning in these institutions continues to improve.

Finally, honourable speaker, these are many questions that still have to be answered. This administration has only been in place for six weeks. We request the patience and space to be able to work through this very complex set of issues. In several cases, ministers have to sit down together to work out who does what, what the relationships are and how we account for what is delivered. In doing this, I want to assure this house that we will be guided by a spirit of co-operation and collective accountability. Turf wars are unacceptable. It will take time to resolve some of these issues.

We are working tirelessly to refine the system of government to define our roles and to allocate responsibilities. In some ways, this is an ongoing process, a process of perpetual improvement. In other ways, some of the institutions are new and require time to mature. I assure you that we will involve you and all stakeholders in discussions on these critical issues facing our country. The green paper processes will contribute towards refining the way in which the centre of government works.

Our endeavours, honourable members, are premised on the need to strengthen democracy, to strengthen the trust that citizens have in this democratic government and its institutions. Our efforts are for a better democracy, capable of anticipating and responding to the needs of all of our citizens.

Thank you.

Issued by: The Presidency
24 June 2009

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