Is America’s Involvement in Africa Popular?

             Over the last few years, I have heard and read many assessments of America’s engagement with Africa, and they overwhelmingly say that this country has lost interest in helping Africa and no longer cares about benefitting the continent’s governments and people.  As someone who worked on the early days of both the African Growth and Opportunity Act and the Prosper Africa initiative, as well as other U.S. programs to support African wellbeing, of course I find such comments offensive and incorrect.  Having worked in government over the past three decades, I have seen no such dismissal of Africa in terms of economic involvement on the continent nor in the desire of many government employees with whom I worked to genuinely be of assistance.  You could make an argument that the American business community isn’t as interested in doing business in or investing in Africa as some other countries, but that’s a topic for another day.

            My interest in weighing in on this matter was triggered by the comments of a fellow participant on a panel in which I participated recently.  He recounted a conversation with a Zambian official concerning whether that government favored U.S. or Chinese involvement.  The answer was China.  The reason given was that people could see what China contributed, whereas U.S. government investments were more along the lines of meeting social needs that were not as apparent to all.

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) defines foreign assistance as support “freely provided by the US government to a foreign government or international organization” without reciprocation. While foreign assistance can be money or commodities, “it also includes the provision of technical assistance, capacity building, training, education, and other services, as well as the direct costs required to implement foreign assistance.”

U.S. foreign aid to the Middle East and North Africa now slightly exceeds that to sub-Saharan Africa, but if you combine the North African aid with aid to sub-Saharan Africa, foreign aid to the continent is higher than any other region.  In FY2019, the U.S. government spent more than $21 billion on foreign aid – $7 billion more than the Department of Defense and higher by $15 billion than that of the Department of State.

Unlike China, which tends toward infrastructure projects that anyone can view, the U.S. government spends most of its funds on sectors that benefit African individuals and families.  According to the Congressional Research Service, from 2010-2020, roughly 70-75% of annual U.S. aid to Africa was devoted to addressing health challenges, especially HIV/AIDS, malaria, maternal and child health and nutrition. Much of this assistance was delivered via disease-specific initiatives, including the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and the President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI). Other U.S. aid programs seek to foster agricultural development and economic growth; strengthen peace and security; improve education access and social service delivery; bolster democracy, human rights, and good governance; support sustainable natural resource management, and address humanitarian needs.

In the last few years, there have been U.S.- or U.N.-designated humanitarian crises in Burkina Faso, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, and the Lake Chad Basin (including parts of Cameroon, Chad, Niger, and Nigeria). The United States administers humanitarian aid to Africa under various authorities, including:

·                 The USAID-administered Food for Peace (FFP) assistance authorized under Title II of the Food for Peace Act of 1954 (P.L. 83-480, commonly known as “P.L. 480”), primarily provides for the purchase and distribution of U.S. in-kind food commodities  There are 28 African countries that have consistently received a majority of annual FFP Title II emergency assistance in recent years.

 ·               The USAID-administered International Disaster Assistance (IDA) funds food and nonfood humanitarian assistance—including the Emergency Food Security Program (EFSP), which funds market-based food assistance, including cash transfers, food vouchers, and food procured locally and regionally that meets needs from droughts to floods and more.

         State Department-administered Migration and Refugees Assistance (MRA) assistance for refugees and vulnerable migrants.  The number of documented migrants within and from the African region has nearly doubled since 2010, continuing a two-decade trend of expansion.

 ·                   The Millennium Challenge Corporation, which supports five-year development agreements providing for some countries hundreds of millions in development funding to countries that meet various governance and development benchmarks.  MCC has supported 32 compacts or threshold programs in 22 African countries since its inception.

        The list could go on, and I believe the argument that America doesn’t care about Africa is dead wrong, although the method of assistance does not endear the U.S. government to those leaders who want visible benefits from U.S. foreign assistance.  One must ask whether it is better in the long run to help a country’s citizens improve their health, their children’s education and their overall economic wellbeing or helping politicians have something tangible to promote. 

This spending does not reflect a lack of interest in Africa; it displays a major interest in the benefit to African people rather than their governments.  The Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports that U.S. policymakers have debated the extent to which U.S. assistance supports partner African governments in taking the lead in addressing challenges related to socioeconomic development, security, and governance. The majority of U.S. aid to Africa is provided through nongovernment actors—such as U.N. agencies, humanitarian organizations, development practitioners, and civil society entities—rather than directly to governments.

Consequently, African governments don’t actually receive or handle as  much of the American largesse and thus cannot take credit for it or point to physical developments when running in elections.  For those not committed to transparency, large construction projects are the most popular source of corrupt activity.  That is true the world over, including the United States.  So, if you’re a government official from anywhere looking for a way to pocket more money than your salary provides, this has been a popular way to rake in funds. 

In addition to authorizing and appropriating U.S. foreign assistance, CRS states in its 2020 foreign assistance report that Congress has shaped U.S. aid to Africa through legislation denying or placing conditions on certain kinds of assistance to countries whose governments fail to meet standards in, for instance, human rights, debt repayment or trafficking in persons. Congress also has restricted certain kinds of security assistance to foreign security forces implicated in human rights abuses. Some African countries periodically have been subject to other restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance, including country-specific provisions in annual aid appropriations measures restricting certain kinds of assistance. Congress will continue to debate the merits and effectiveness of such restrictions while overseeing their implementation.

Again, if you’re an African official who is not scrupulous about adhering to international transparency principles or even if you’re an African official who does adhere, you would feel insulted that U.S. assistance is bypassing your government.  The reasoning for such allocations avoiding government control is not unreasonable, but the lack of trust cannot help but sting.  Meanwhile, China evidently doesn’t care whether leaders profit illegally from infrastructure programming and therefore doesn’t place the kind of restrictions on programming in Africa that the United States does.

A 2020 Afrobarometer survey in 18 African countries found that citizens aspire to self-sufficiency, but they prefer to retain local control and resist the imposition of conditions on external loans or development assistance.  The survey found that 54% insist that their own governments should make the decisions about how loans and development assistance are used, while 42% prefer that the countries providing the funds strictly enforce requirements on how funds are used.  Moreover, 50% still disliked aid conditionality, even when it is designed to promote democracy and human rights, while 45% favored such aid restrictions.

Afrobarometer surveys have shown that Africans increasingly recognize the importance of accountability.  Across 15 countries tracked by the survey firm since 2011, preference for having an accountable government over “one that can get things done” has increased by more than 10 percentage points – from 54% to 65%, suggesting that democracy as promoted by the United States is valued even when there are limitations imposed.  The survey firm sees in the results that dictators are not welcome, even if they claim to offer effective governance.

China’s investments and dealings with Africa have been a topic of widespread scrutiny and debate. Because China’s financial support for Africa is often in the form of long-term loans rather than grants, it has been criticized as a “debt trap” that China may use to gain strategic advantages on the continent. Some argue that African countries that borrow from China may lose key assets if they are unable to pay back their loans. Others are concerned that China is using its influence to promote its political ideals on the continent.

But how do ordinary Africans perceive China’s engagement with their countries and economies? Afrobarometer’s national surveys in 34 African countries in 2019/2021 show that Africans hold positive views of China’s assistance and influence on the continent, though its perceived level of influence on African economies has waned over the past five years. Positive views of China’s influence do not appear to affect Africans’ attitudes toward democracy.  The United States remains second to China as the preferred development model for Africans (63% to 60%), and majorities of those who are aware of Chinese loans and development assistance to their countries are concerned about being heavily indebted to China.

If you are an African leader stung by being considered too corrupt or inept at handling U.S. foreign assistance or a citizen whom U.S. assistance doesn’t directly touch, you might prefer Chinese involvement because you can see the roads and buildings they produce and the jobs they provide, while usually low-level, with infrastructure projects, and you don’t have to jump through regulatory hoops or hear lectures about how your government should behave.

However annoying and insulting African government officials may find the restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance, though, its intent is benevolent.  Increasingly, U.S. officials are realizing that how they describe the aid restrictions is important in the effort to gain adherence to them.  If you talk down to anyone – from president to average citizen – that conversation won’t turn out well.

There are efforts to improve African governance capacity, and it is hoped that it will expand along the lines of the MCC model that requires input from governments, the private sector and civil society.  That model allows for a more targeted approach that actually meets needs as perceived by citizens rather that what foreign aid providers think should be the priorities.  This format was designed to increase the chances of success by allowing all three sectors to become stakeholders in the development and implementation of any aid plan.

No one is born knowing how to manage programs – whether self-funded or paid for by others.  A greater level of training that is presented with respect just might work wonders in achieving the goals of both aid providers and aid recipients.