Budi Irawan

Africa has been mentioned only fleetingly in the recent US presidential debates, a reflection of how low the continent rates.

In the three debates between Democratic party candidate Barack Obama and Republican John McCain, as well as in the one between their running-mates Joe Biden and Sarah Palin, Africa was mentioned only in passing as a foreign policy or security issue of concern to the United States.

In the final debate between Mr Obama and Mr McCain at Hofstra University in New York last Wednesday, there was not a single reference to Africa.

In the second debate on October 7 there were passing references to Africa by both candidates, the focus being mainly on the situation in Darfur and on Sudan as well as the issue of US support for any intervention. There were also references to Somalia and the Rwanda genocide.

In the first debate at the University of Mississippi on September 26 Mr Obama made two fleeting comments, one on his Kenyan lineage and the other on the Chinese presence in Africa.

According to Prof Walter Mead, a senior fellow for US foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, the dearth of African issues in the debates cannot be interpreted to mean that the continent does not matter. “In debates the things presidential candidates spend time on is what they disagree on,” he said. “That’s not a sign that there is no interest in Africa”.

Prof Reed says that, in fact, there has been more attention to the continent during the presidency of George W Bush, qualifying that assertion, however, with the observation, “some welcomed, some not”.

Foreign policy

He insists that Africa is growing as a US foreign policy interest, citing specifically the growing importance of oil imports from the continent.

Thus, he says, the US has a deep interest in stability on the continent, particularly in the oil-producing states in West Africa.

If Mr Obama does become president, he says it will renew interest in African issues. This is because Mr Obama will not just be the first African-American head of state, but one whose father was an African from a modern nation state–Kenya. This interest could lead to a push for increased US humanitarian assistance to the continent. The push is likely to come from all along the social and political spectrum. The left, traditional advocates for increased aid, may redouble their efforts.

Other African issues of interest as US foreign policy concerns, Prof Mead says, include security, particularly the ever- present terrorism threat. He describes the 1998 bombings of the US embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as a warning sign.

The United States, he points out, will remain involved in countering terrorism, not just as on the security front, but also to promote the capacity of African states to govern themselves more effectively.

Prof Mead cites Egypt as one of the countries that remain key players in the efforts to solve the Middle East crisis.

But his observations on Africa’s importance to US foreign policy, as read from the presidential debates, are not supported by his own assessments. In a lengthy presentation on foreign policy priorities for the next US president, Prof Mead did not once mention Africa, referring to the continent only when prompted.

On his own list, the priorities are Asia, particularly the growing clout of China and India; Europe and the new Russian assertiveness; the Middle East, in particular Iraq and Iran, and the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

The first presidential Debate:

KENYA (Obama): Well, let me just make a closing point. You know, my father came from Kenya. That’s where I get my name. And in the 60s, he wrote letter after letter to come to college here in the United States because the notion was that there was no other country on earth where you could make it if you tried. The ideals and the values of the United States inspired the entire world.

CHINA (Obama): We’ve got challenges, for example, with China, where we are borrowing billions of dollars. They now hold a trillion dollars’ worth of our debt. And they are active in regions like Latin America, Asia and Africa. The conspicuousness of their presence is only matched by our absence, because we’ve been focused on Iraq.

The Second debate:

DARFUR, RWANDA AND SOMALIA (Obama): Well, we may not always have national security issues at stake, but we have moral issues at stake. If we could have intervened effectively in the Holocaust, who among us would say that we had a moral obligation not to go in?

If we could’ve stopped Rwanda, surely, if we had the ability, that would be something that we would have to strongly consider and act. So when genocide is happening, when ethnic cleansing is happening somewhere around the world and we stand idly by, that diminishes us.

And so I do believe that we have to consider it as part of our interests, our national interests, in intervening where possible. But understand that there’s a lot of cruelty around the world. We’re not going to be able to be everywhere all the time. That’s why it’s so important for us to be able to work in concert with our allies.

Let’s take the example of Darfur just for a moment. Right now there’s a peacekeeping force that has been set up, and we have African Union troops in Darfur to stop a genocide that has killed hundreds of thousands of people.

We could be providing logistical support, setting up a no-fly zone at relatively little cost to us, but we can only do it if we can help mobilise the international community and lead. And that’s what I intend to do when I’m president.

McCain: The United States of America is the greatest force for good, and we must do whatever we can to prevent genocide, whatever we can to prevent these terrible calamities that we have said never again.

But it also has to be tempered with our ability to beneficially affect the situation. That requires a cool hand at the tiller. This requires a person who understands what the limits of our capability are. We went into Somalia as a peacekeeping operation and we ended up having to withdraw in humiliation.

And I may have to make those tough decisions. But I won’t take them lightly. And I understand that we have to say never again to a Holocaust and never again to Rwanda. But we had also better be damn sure we don’t leave and make the situation worse, thereby exacerbating our reputation and our ability to address crises in other parts of the world.

The Biden-Palin debate:

BOSNIA, DARFUR and CHAD (Biden): I think the American public has the stomach for success. My recommendations on Bosnia, I admit I was the first one to recommend it. They saved tens of thousands of lives. I don’t have the stomach for genocide when it comes to Darfur. We can now impose a no-fly zone. It’s within our capacity.

We can lead Nato if we’re willing to take a hard stand. We can, I’ve been in those camps in Chad. I’ve seen the suffering, thousands and tens of thousands have died and are dying. We should rally the world to act…..to stop this genocide.

Source