DR. SULAYMAN S. NYANG
PROFESSOR OF AFRICAN
STUDIES
HOWARD UNIVERSITY
MAY 10, 2007
House Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight
&
Subcommittee on Africa
and Global Health
INTRODUCTION
The
call for human rights in African societies is reverberating in the firmaments
of African debates about living well in the 21st century and
embracing the mighty hug of peace and tranquility in the post Cold War era.
There are however several reasons why this is not the case. There is first the
tyranny of the political class who have failed in many countries to deliver the
goods since the fall of colonialism and settler rule in Africa; there is also the
reality of the politics of the belly and the lack of food security; there is
the resurgence of the mosquito and its collaborators in the domain of diseases
and poor health in the African universe; and there is also the biting power of
globalization and modernity in Africa. It is indeed against this background
that one can look at U.S.
foreign policy towards Africa and the role and
place of human rights in this scheme of things.
The
chairman has asked me to examine relations between the United States of America and the African
countries of Equatorial Guinea
and Ethiopia.
In examining the relationship between the United
States of America and two cooperative, but dictatorial,
governments, the African countries of Equatorial
Guinea and Ethiopia,
I would also like to add to their charge the most appropriate counter-example
of an uncooperative and dictatorial government in Africa. For that, I would like to consider for
purposes of contrast the case of Zimbabwe. Four things deserve our
immediate attention in this analysis.
The
first is the historical distinctiveness of the three countries and the manner
in which their relationship with the United States of America is vastly
different. Zimbabwe is a former settler colony with great potentials for
industrial and economic development; Ethiopia is a huge country with a large
population whose futures have been affected by the lack of adequate food and
growing dependency on foreign food support; Equatorial Guinea is a small state
whose future has been ameliorated by the oil boom that captures American
interest in this part of the African equator.
The second thing is the growing
Chinese penetration of the African continent in search of oil and friends. At
this juncture it makes political sense for U.S.
policy makers to see this Chinese second coming to Africa
as a challenge to American diplomacy and American business know-how. Zimbabwe is a
country whose troubles gave fame and glory to Communist China’s involvement in
the building of the Tanzam railroad. Again, while focusing on this point, it
should be noted that Ethiopia was also an object of attraction during the Cold
War and the American resources were expended to woo and win friends in the Cold
War to help eliminate a communist-linked dictatorship in that part of Africa.
History in its games of ironies and paradoxes has conspired to bring President
Mugabe and former President Mengestu within the Zimbabwean drama. Mugabe, be it
noted, was supported in the U.S.
by some Americans because of his movement’s agitation against racial oppression
under Prime Minister Ian Smith of Southern Rhodesia.
Now he is being attacked for bringing pain and suffering to his people because
he has instructed a dictatorship in his own country. Ethiopians, looking at the
U.S. from abroad, may wonder
about the attack on Mugabe, the host of Mengestu, and the lack of criticism of
the kind of leadership in Ethiopia
under Prime Minister Meles Zinawi.
The third point is the thread of
political violations that links the three countries. In spite of their
differences in size, history and cultural complexities, the three countries
pose a serious challenge to American diplomats and politicians. There is the
need to assert America’s
moral currency in Africa and the new forces of
globalization and globalization have made it more imperative. In a world where America’s moral
standing is under attack at home and abroad, it is significant for our
diplomats and politicians to pay adequate attention to the human rights of
other peoples. In the particular case of Africa,
the Africans are asking for our involvement in their deliberate efforts to
address the issues listed at the very beginning of my introduction.
The fourth point lies in the
democratization drive around the world. American leaders, since the end of the
Cold War, have spoken about peace dividend and the cultivation of the seeds of
democracy in Africa. In all our State
Department reports there is the constant use of “however” to underscore the big
gap between public articulation of government messages and political realities
of life in these countries. This persistence overuse of “however” has convinced
me that the Hobbessian state of nature is still alive in many parts of Africa. Nasty, brutish and short captures the problems
you are dealing with and my brief review will help you appreciate the monster
before you and the urgency for the development of America’s
moral currency in Africa and beyond.
In my view, America’s moral currency should be
as strong as the dollar bill if not stronger. I have stated this at the White
House when I addressed a group of presidential fellowships sponsored by the
Center for the Study of the Presidency in 2003 and during a public lecture at
Chautauqua in upstate New York
in 2006. In both circumstances I made it clear that America’s continuing influence in
world affairs is going to depend on our consistency and persistence in the
cultivation of the seeds of democracy and in our feelings and attitudes towards
the humanity of others.
With this understanding I now
proceed to the discussion of the three case studies under review. I will begin
with the situation in Equatorial Guinea
and then pursue my line of reasoning to shed ample light on Ethiopia and Zimbabwe. As a final note, I will
offer a number of policy recommendations which I believe could help us in our
efforts to remain credible in our affirmation of belief and action in the
propagation of democracy and in the execution of the fairly well established
policies of AGOA, the Millennialism Challenge Fund and others in our arsenal.
EQUATORIAL GUINEA
In discussing this African
country one must take as his point of departure the long tradition of tyranny
in this country. The rule of law is the exception not the rule. Although much
has been said and done by members of the international community to promote
responsible and accountable government, the dictatorship identified with Marcia
Nguema in the first two decades since independence has not changed. His successors
have perpetrated the same kind of tyranny. When Secretary of State Rice greeted
President Obiang at the State Department in 2006 as a “good friend” of the United States,
it was a friend of our mineral needs and oil industry, not of our interests in
human rights and democracy.
By
giving special treatment to certain governments in Africa because of oil or any
other factor, the U.S.
stands to lose moral authority and political effectiveness. In the eyes of many
people, there is the belief that the United
States government has been reticence in its advocacy of
democracy in Africa when it comes to certain
countries and certain political leaders. Countries that have oil tend to be
treated differently and their leaders, behaving like spoiled kids, expect no
reprimand and show no remorse in their acts of tyrannical rule.
U.S diplomats have operated under
these tight and repressive regimes. In State Department reports on human rights
in Africa we learn about US Embassy officials
organizing meetings with high-level Government officials. These American
diplomats have tried to put press on their Equatorial counterparts for improved
transparency in public finance and in the management of the oil sector. Over
the last three years some progress has been noted by U.S. officials. In support of this
view is the government’s commitment to transparency by working with the World
Bank to qualify for participation in the Extractive Industries Transparency
Initiative. Commitment was also made to seek participation in the G-8
Transparency and Good Governance Initiative.
Those who are critical of
the performance of the government of Equatorial Guinea do not see any
significant breakthrough in the diplomatic efforts to minimize if not eliminate
repression and torture in this country. It is true that U.S. diplomats
have remained active in their desire to promote democratization through talks
with the Government, the opposition, the media and the community
representatives. Between October 2003 and now, the U.S. diplomats have sought means of
bringing life to civil society. This desire to effect political change, in my
view, is a difficult task given the Government’s allergies to human rights and its
unwillingness to respect the rights of citizens and foreigners. The rights of
the citizens of this country are violated almost anytime because of the
anxieties and fears of those in government. Although efforts have been made to
process the planting of the seeds of democracy and the rule of law through the
creation of a university in Malabo,
it is too early and too premature to bank heavily on such a new development.
Creating partnership between the university and American colleges and
universities could be helpful, but the tyranny of the leadership in Equatorial Guinea
should force us to take this pill of optimism with a grain of salt. Equally
noteworthy are the attempts to engage corporate America, particularly those
operating in the oil industry, in the promotion and affirmation of the U.S.
Embassy message “on the importance of transparency, rule of law and respect for
human rights, and worked with international organizations to further reinforce
the message”
ETHIOPIA
In writing about the situation
in Ethiopia
one must recognize three things that have serious consequences for American
foreign policy over there. The first rests on the traditional belief that this
part of the Red Sea is inextricably linked to U.S.
interest on the Arabian Peninsula and the
larger Arab World. This was definitely the logic that governed our Cold War
policies. The second reason why America’s moral currency needs to be fully
protected and advanced over here lies in the fact that America’s involvement in
the lives and politics of peoples of the Horn of Africa has created African
diasporas in this country never thought possible in the post World War II
period. Today, thousands of Ethiopians, Somalis and Sudanese are part of the
American experience. Connected to them at home and abroad, U.S. policy
makers should pay close attention to the democratic process in these countries
and whenever and wherever possible, much pressure should be applied to the
leaders of this region. As stated above, it was America’s involvement in the bloody
civil wars of the Horn of Africa that led to a number of good and bad
experiences. The rise and fall of Mengistu in Ethiopia led not only to the demise
of thousands of people, but it planted a dangerous dictatorship and stripped
the land of fertile grounds for democratic cultivation. Mengistu is now
celebrating his seventieth birthday in Zimbabwe,
although he is still a wanted man in Addis
Ababa where he ruled ruthlessly until he fled in 1991
with the support and welcome of Robert Mugabe. The Ethiopian high court
condemned and sentenced him in February this year and would like him to be
brought to justice. This is not likely to take place because both the Ethiopian
government and the Mugabe regimes are seen in many human rights circles as
political lepers. Such a malady cannot be solved by such personalities; rather,
if change is to take place, the two contending forces in African and foreign
eyes need to be removed from the scene. Such a regime change is unlikely. What
can best be done by the U.S.
government is to put pressure on all culpable parties in Africa
through consistency and persistence. If the three case studies here are to be
listed as bad, worse, worst and the Equatorial Guinea is the worse and Zimbabwe
is the worst, then in the Ethiopian context, American policy makers should take
into account how to put greater pressure on the Ethiopian government in the
administration of justice and in the creation of bridges of peace between
ethnic groups and religious communities in that country.
I am aware of efforts being made
to build bridges between religious groups over there and in the Ethiopian
Diaspora and some progress has been made. However, while acknowledging this
state of affairs, I should hasten to add that the democratic progress in this
country is handicapped by the violent nature of the political competition between
the government and its opposition. Unless and until the U.S. reconciles its
strategic interest in Ethiopia with its claim for democracy in the region,
factors such as cooperation with the U.S. military and the CIA in the war
against international terrorism and the prospects for oil in Ethiopia could
muddy the waters and damage any serious claim of moral currency for the United
States of America.
This consideration is critical
because not only are our politicians and diplomats working on matters affecting
peoples of the Horn of Africa over there, but their actions and operations
reverberate in the firmaments of Diaspora debates. And this too affects the
remittances going there and the political climate that rules life over there as
well. To remove the veil of fear and to address the politics of the belly in Ethiopia, Equatorial
Guinea, and Zimbabwe,
the moral currency of the United States of
America must be backed by a combination of all the
resources at America’s
disposal. What are these resources? They are the economic might of the country
and the military and cultural status of the people since America rose to
global prominence after the First World War. It is only through such
demonstration of moral consistency and political determination to support the
cause of those struggling to build up new democracies that America can regain the lost moral high ground
because of the negative consequences of the war in Iraq.
Although the Chairmen did not
ask me to address the question of Zimbabwe, I have decided to give
you a slice of reality in this uncooperative country. I intend to use it as a
counterpoint to the arguments I am making. I think it is dangerous and unwise
for us to propagate democracy and human rights if we fail to do a tale of two
cities. Harare and Addis Ababa have much in common. Some of
these details and historical parallels discussed below should be helpful.
ZIMBABWE
In addressing the question of Zimbabwe in
this testimony, let me identify five points to remember in our assessment of
this country. As stated above, history in its effective use of ironies and
paradoxes has created a situation in which President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe and former President Mengistu Haile
Mariam of Ethiopia
are ideological stars in a fading drama. Caught in the web of the old Cold War
African radicalism, these two gentlemen are aging politicos whose love for
power and common desire to survive the hurricane of democratic change and
reform have combined to make them the sources of greater venom in their
countries and abroad. These two men are perceived at home and abroad as
dictators. One is the beneficiary of the war against settler colonialism, the
other rose to power riding the horse of Cold War antagonism between the United States of America and the Soviet Union. Now that we are trying to influence the
cause of democratization in Zimbabwe
we must demonstrate moral consistency and political sagacity in our treatment
of Mugabe and his political foes. Caught in the middle of this fray with our
ambassador playing a critical role in beating back the forces of political
maladministration in that country, it is imperative for the U.S. government
to make certain distinction. It should not allow the tyranny of Mugabe to be treated
more seriously than the political tyranny of the government of Ethiopia or Equatorial Guinea. By not remaining
morally consistent and by allowing other factors to color their thinking, U.S. diplomats and politicians could fail in the
new effort to bring democratic rule to Zimbabwe.
The second point to note here is
the collapse of the Zimbabwean economy and the consequences of such collapse
for the democratic process. Truth be known, the Mugabe regime is not likely to
be deterred by this phenomenon. Most of the African and foreign journalists
writing on the crisis in Zimbabwe
have lamented this unfortunate state of affairs. One Nigerian journalist,
Eucharia Mbachu, described him as follows: “He was the darling of the left, the
liberals in the West and in many parts of the world when apartheid ruled
supreme in South Africa and
Ian Smith called the shorts in southern Rhodesia. Mugabe’s claim to fame
was due to his numerous college degrees and his audacity to be a strong black
man willing to suffer the telling, and at times violent, blows of white racism
in his homeland.”
This characterization of Mugabe is
relevant in our assessment because America’s
attempt to win and influence people in Africa
and beyond must grapple with this image of the man and his country. As the
third point in my discourse, I would argue that if we are to score some points
and effect change on the path towards African democratization, moral
consistency and willingness to put the feet of both Mugabe and others equally
guilt to the fire, regardless of whether their countries have oil or not,
should be widely noted. Searching through the internet one comes across blogs
and writers sympathetic to Mugabe. Their arguments are always based on America’s
double-standard and a racial tinge is often attributed to the language of the
anti-Mugabe. Real or imagined, such ideological verbiage could be effectively
handled if we apply the same rule to Mugabe as we do to Meles Zinawi and his
counterpart in Equatorial
Guinea.
The fourth point about Mugabe and Zimbabwe
is the status he has enjoyed over the years as a senior liberation veteran.
Because he is older than Thabo Mbeki of South
Africa and many of the other political leaders in
southern Africa and beyond, he has taken full
advantage of this seniority to cajole and bamboozle those who are bold enough
to challenge him and opposed his decision to stay in power. Unwilling to go the
way of respect President Nelson Mandela Robert Mugabe has stayed on course.
Even the recent meeting in Tanzania
failed to make a dint. Even talks of secret meetings between his former
colleagues in the party and in the military have not shaken him. In order for
the U.S.
to make some breakthrough, President Mugabe must come to realize that there is
moral consistency. This is a tall order and events of the last decade have not
provided us with any guide to the politically perplexed in Zimbabwean affairs.
The fifth and last point is that
President Mugabe is vulnerable politically but the destiny and political and
economic situation of Zimbabwe
ironically makes the country more vulnerable than the man. In the scale of
history, the man called Mugabe could go to his grave anytime soon; however, the
eruption of violence in Zimbabwe
could wreak havoc to that land. Already the country has lost over a million
people to forced migration. The old question of brain drain in Africa has become a Zimbabwean joke of the century. There
are more Zimbabwean nurses in British hospitals than in suffering Zimbabwe. The
Zimbabwean currency has fallen so low that many Zimbabwean have abandoned any
attempt to equate financial power through local currency with moral status in
the new reality of an African version of the Hobbesian state of nature.
In concluding this brief case study
of Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, and Zimbabwe in the form of a testimony
before the U.S. Congress, let me stating the following:
1.
The United States government cannot exercise moral
authority in the African struggle for democratic rule if America’s moral currency falls to the low level
than we now lament about Zimbabwe’s
own currency. In other words, America’s
moral currency should be as strong as the dollar bill and even stronger than
the Euro which has almost double its financial and moral relationship with our
own during our moments of global moral retreat.
2.
The
second conclusion is that America’s
impact in the cultivation and development of democracy in Africa can gain
momentum in the smaller countries of Africa
only if greater efforts are made to maximize press on the African political
class and the benefits of economic development in these countries are carefully
monitored and studied. By developing a moral linkage between political
responsibility and financial relationship between the U.S. and these
countries, the strategic weaknesses of these countries should be seized upon judo-style
to wring out favorable concessions on behalf of the democratic process. This is
true only if and when U.S.
politicians and diplomats mean what they say about America’s commitment to democracy.
3.
The
moral currency of the United States of America
in Ethiopia and Zimbabwe
is going to be a bone of contention in one and not the other. In the special
case of Zimbabwe,
the forces and factors identified above have made it important for American
diplomats and politicians to recognize the limits of the present mode of
engagement with Mugabe. Unless and until we explore other sources of dealing
directly or indirectly with President Mugabe, chances are the situation will
continue to deteriorate. With millions of Zimbabwean people on the run and with
many lives at stake, America
has a serious challenge in its hands. Something must be done in Zimbabwe and America
has to exploit all avenues of diplomacy and political sagacity to return the
peace and tranquility than came to this country after many years of turmoil
against Prime Minister Ian Smith and his declaration of Southern
Rhodesia as an independent country. Interestingly, we have come
back to our original point of departure. To move beyond Ian Smith and Mugabe, America
must be fully engaged next time in Zimbabwe. The land question and all
the issues that are used to blame America’s lack of moral currency
will not disappear. True and serious application of moral consistency and
persistence will regain our moral stature in southern Africa
and beyond.