The African-Born Voice in U.S. Policy

             In the making of U.S. policy toward Africa, the influence of African Americans has rarely been especially influential.  At an earlier point, when the Congressional Black Caucus was led by members who had important Congressional positions and were vehement about Africa issues, they were heeded because they could benefit or demolish non-Africa initiatives.  However, it takes that level of commitment by black legislators because it is well known that the mass of African Americans don’t know or care much about Africa.  However, a new player is emerging on the scene: Africa-born African Americans.

            Not that this is a new group. Today, one in every six black people in the United States is foreign-born.  Since 2000, the black immigrant population has risen 71%.  Yet like so many black voters, African-born people have reflexively voted Democrat and have not been seriously solicited by Republicans, despite having characteristics that make them prime candidates for recruitment.  Africans living in America are the most educated group in the country, largely because it takes a lot for Africans to be allowed entry into the United States (at least until the southern border became an opening for immigration to the world).  As a largely professional class, Africans in America also have the wherewithal to use their money to influence politics as other ethnic groups have.  Combine that with greater thought about political leverage the votes of naturalized citizens wield, and you have potential electoral power that can change elections.

            Previously, Africa-born Americans have acted as Diaspora groups attempting to sway their home governments.  They have supported candidates whom they believed in – rhetorically and financially.  They have cheered their heroes and booed their enemies when they visited the United States.  Their main effort to influence U.S. policy toward their home countries was to demonstrate on Capitol Hill or at the White House.  Occasionally, some elements would meet with Members of Congress or their staffs.  But as I have often informed African-born people: when you visit government offices in Washington, you’re an advocate like people from many other points of origin pressing their case, when you do so in Congressional districts, you’re a voter whom politicians must heed in advance of the next set of elections.  That lesson appears to be catching on.

            Before California Governor Gavin Newsome faced the verdict from voters in his recall, Ethiopian-Americans met with him.  It was really too late in the game for that meeting to have had any real impact on that recall – there was no time to affect the opinion of Africa-born voters.  Nevertheless, it was just the latest in a growing number of meetings between Ethiopian-American voters and California politicians.  Their influence undoubtedly had an impact on Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA), Chair of the House Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health and Global Human Rights, who opposes the Biden administration policy of solely punishing the Government of Ethiopia for human rights violation in  in the country’s Tigray region.

“I denounce the threat to ‘oust Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed – through political negotiation or military force if necessary – and install a transitional government’ made by the alliance of the Tigrayan People’s Liberation Front with the Oromo Liberation Army and other opposition groups throughout Ethiopia. I cannot emphasize in any greater terms that there is no military solution to this conflict, which threatens not only the territorial integrity and governance of Ethiopia, but also, also significantly weakens the safety and security of the entire region,” Rep. Bass said in a November 13 statement.

Not only is Rep. Bass heading a Congressional panel considered critical in the development of America’s Africa policy, but she’s running for Mayor of Los Angeles.  The support of Ethiopian American voters would be critical in her effort to win that office.  At the very least, she can do without active Ethiopian American opposition and is politically savvy enough to be responsive.  She’s likely heard the rumors on social media about Ethiopian Americans becoming disenchanted with Democrats over what they consider the administration’s skewed policy toward Ethiopia.

In the case of Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), he is a longtime Ethiopia watcher who also objects to the current administration’s Ethiopia policy.

“It astounding to me that our government continues to treat this situation [in Ethiopia] with both sides being equal, when clearly they are not.  One side is the democratically elected government, the other is a disgruntled faction reacting with violence because they are no longer in power, it’s a terrorist group,” he said in a recent statement.

Sen. Inhofe certainly is in touch with Ethiopian Americans, but as usual, he forms his opinions based on his own beliefs.  There certainly are far fewer Ethiopian Americans in Oklahoma than California.  Still, his statement is backed up by Ethiopian Americans activists who do influence those without Inhofe’s confidence in his opinions.

The Ethiopia policy being pursued by the Biden administration is the result of relationships advisors to President Biden developed during the time when the Marxist Dergue government was in control of Ethiopia.  There were Americans who became close to Tigray Peoples Liberation Front figures and continued to maintain such relations once the TPLF gained control of the government.  These Americans benefited from this relationship and now are in positions of power in the administration and see things through a lens more favorable to Tigray leadership with whom they are familiar.  Remember, the TPLF led the Government of Ethiopia until recently, and these advisors were liaisons to that government from U.S. policymakers.

Perhaps the influence of activist Ethiopian Americans can convince them to be more even-handed in their policy recommendations on Ethiopia since there is more than enough blame for human rights violations and the humanitarian crisis in Tigray than just the Ethiopian military or even Eritrean government forces; it’s just easier to sanction governments than it is to do so to movements that are more amorphous.

A pro-Tigray group on Twitter known as @TigraiHub is promoting a letter supportive of the administration’s Ethiopia policy.  We shall see which side prevails in this war of word in America.

Meanwhile, there is another issue brewing that is causing concern among yet another African-born group: Nigerian Americans.  A day before Secretary of State Antony Blinken arrived in Nigeria as part of a tour of Africa last month, the administration removed Nigeria from its list of countries with religious freedom concerns.  The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, which makes such designations, objected to this omission.

“Religious freedom conditions in Nigeria remain poor, with both state- and societally perpetrated violations. The federal government continues to persecute the leadership and members of the Islamic Movement in Nigeria (IMNi), a Shi’a minority group. Additionally, there are widespread instances of intercommunal and militia violence, rampant kidnapping, and general criminality that also prevent religious freedom,” according to a report by USCIRF.

            Diplomatically, this was the kind of move administrations often make to placate a government before a high-level visit.  Such moves often take place with African-born criticism, but no political cost being threatened.  In this case, though, the depth of Nigeria’s religious freedom problems cannot be ignored or downplayed, and perhaps bolstered by increasingly successful Ethiopian American political moves, Nigerians are looking to flex their political muscle, especially on the eve of a mid-term national election year.

In an article from the National Democratic Coalition of Nigeria (NADECO) entitled “Blinken in Nigeria: Why Americans Don’t Take Igbo and Biafrans Seriously”, the group says the State Department’s announcement was consistent with recent U.S. policy.

 

“That Blinken, Biden’s Secretary of State, would remove Nigeria from the list of countries engaged in the egregious violations of religious freedom, should not be surprising.  Even under Trump, who publicly lashed out at Buhari during a White House press conference, “for killing Nigerian Christians,” US policy was still Nigeria-friendly,” according to the article. 

 

“And even though Pompeo, Trump’s Secretary of State, had at first placed Nigeria on the anti-religious freedom list, which would have triggered immediate sanctions, he had them removed in the ‘US national interest.’  In fact, US ‘national interest’ in Nigeria is dictated by Exxon-Mobil and a few greedy and unethical US diplomats and foreign policy ‘experts.”

 

Certainly, energy supply from Nigeria does play a role in U.S. Nigeria policy, but it is not the only factor.  Nigeria provides international peacekeepers, and its support in international forums is considered valuable by U.S. policymakers because of the political influence the country has on the continent.  Still, removing the USCIRF designation from a country that has been called “the most dangerous place in the world for Christians” is not acceptable, especially given comparison with the many Middle Eastern countries that have demonstrated opposition to religious freedom.

Ethiopian Americans have begun discussing an exodus from the Democrat Party, but while there have been Nigerians flirting with support for the Republican Party, their support is still up for grabs.  How the administration and other political officeholders in both parties handle this Nigerian religious freedom issue may help to determine the outcome of races run in November 2022.