A Democratic Alliance of Development

The President elect has pledged action on the issues of energy supply and global warming.  He has been outspoken on the Darfur “genocide” and has criticized some African leaders for corruption.  He has a close advisor in Susan Rice who is well versed in the problems of Africa, having been Assistant Secretary of State under President Clinton.  She brings knowledge of AIDS, global poverty, conflict and terrorism as these issues relate to Africa.  And while Obama will have many priority issues to deal with when he takes office, he should be carful not to relegate the Africa related issues to the back-bench.  He should also be aware, as I am sure Susan is, that the problems that plague Africa cannot be dealt with in isolation from one another.

Aside from the humanitarian interests, the existence of al-Qaeda franchises in Algeria and Morocco, threaten not only those countries but Europe as well.  If failed states are, indeed, a Petri dish for the growth of terrorism, then Africa is an incubator.  The problems in a number of countries feed on each other.  Impoverishment, overpopulation, lack of resources, lack of education, corruption of leadership, draught and disease are the handmaidens of a failed state.  Global warming promises greater problems in the future, as arid areas expand and food crops contract.  Diseases like malaria will threaten new areas as warming and humidity patterns change.  And those individuals who manage to attain a higher level of education will be lured away by higher salaries than impoverished states and institutions can afford to pay.

Foreign assistance, external forces, sanctions, and mediation are among the few tools available to the West, to exert leverage for change.  If the mantra of the Obama Administration in America is “change,” it is all the more appropriate for the failing states of Africa.  Too often, our tools for change are blunt instruments or are not suited to the job.  While sanctions may have worked in Libya, they seem to have little impact on Sudan other than to increase the plight of the average Sudanese citizen.  Foreign forces can perhaps stabilize a situation, but are poorly designed to repair a country.  As for foreign assistance, it seems to have little lasting effect in the absence of good governance, corruption and the cleptocracies that prevail in too many countries.  It is a noble thought to expect that programs like the Millennium Challenge Account can impact on a failed state.  But the very nature of the Account precludes it from investing in a failed state.  Good governance is not an attribute that is in great demand in the most desperate countries where the watchword among the authorities is “take what you can get.”  Another major engine for growth in a developing economy, foreign direct investment is also not available given confiscatory laws, instability, xenophobia and other deterrents to rational investment.  And it is not at all clear that traditional aid programs, which seek to build infrastructure and bottom up development, are equal to the task, particularly when aid personnel are constantly under the threat of attack and death. 

While it is tempting to allow failed states to go their own way and devolve into chaos, the problem is that they too often are infectious to their neighbors and offer a safe haven to thugs, criminals, and terrorists.  But if our traditional tools are inadequate to deal with the problems of rebuilding societies, then perhaps the new administration should begin over and, working with other democratic states, building on some of the lesson of Iraq and Afghanistan, Northern Ireland and other crisis spots, and using the lessons of the past in terms of foreign assistance and private investment, build a new model for international intervention in situations like Sudan. 

An international study group of counter terrorist, foreign policy, political experts, and development experts, freed of the institutional jealousies, stereotypes and prejudices of existing institutions, might be able to offer a basis for international cooperation among like minded governments to deal with the disease of failed states.  While I am not an advocate of the concept of a league of democracies, in this case, an international effort among democracies might be able to propose credible policies and institutions that could deal effectively with issues like global poverty, disease, corruption, hunger and other destabilizing forces. Certainly, more of the same, as we have seen over the past decade, is not going to work. 

Comments

[Steven B.]

Ambassador Walker is clearly correct when he points out that we need a new policy to deal with Africa and failed states and that “more of the same…is not going to work.” As Afghanistan and Somalia have shown, failed states are a threat to regional stability and US interests and security; in short, they can no longer be ignored. While his suggestion to form an international study group of experts to deal with failed states is a good idea, it does not answer one fundamental question: how to make the suggestions from the group be heeded.

As we have seen in the past, there is no shortage of good ideas to combat the myriad of problems that face Africa and have led to failed states. There are countless articles that point out how aid could be better used and suggest new US policy changes to promote good governance and increase regional security. The main problem, however, is in actually getting the ‘powers that be’ to change their current policies to pay attention to the ideas of groups that propose much needed changes to governmental policy. The current system of distributing aid has many powerful backers and entrenched interests—notably those given the contracts to provide the aid and their allies in Congress. Ambassador Walker’s study group might be able to help sway some public and elite opinion, but it provides no concrete way of enforcing any changes.

Without enforcement, I am afraid that the suggestions of the group, however relevant, will be merely put on a shelf somewhere to collect dust. Therefore, if the new administration creates a study group to focus on failed states and Africa, it must give it real power to push through the changes it recommends. Failing this, US policy will, unfortunately, remain the same.

[Peter Woodruff]

While I agree that allowing failed states spiral into chaos will leave them vulnerable to an influx of “thugs, criminals, and terrorists,” I also feel that our next president must be careful not to allow America to become embroiled in further conflicts that may undermine our efforts to first establish stable environments in our existing theaters of war. Any US-led intervention in the ongoing conflicts of Sudan, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, etc. has the potential to become another military quagmire.

As you said, future plans for assistance in these troubled states may be most effective if coming from unbiased, multilateral brain trusts. Without the pandering of unilateral interests perhaps some fresh ideas may surface. Solutions may come in the form of reward-based assistance, a strong UN Peacekeeping presence, or a tighter rein on the black-market for weapons - I am not sure what will work. But I am convinced that as president, Obama will be willing to set aside the ineffectual policies of the past and prioritize our international affairs with a knowledge of past failures and an understanding of what is at risk should we do nothing in a world that needs change, for the better.

[Zoe Bruck]

U.S. aid programs such as the Millennium Challenge Account, which sets standards of good governance in order for a state to receive money, have become less enticing to African leaders as they are presented with new opportunities for investment from China, which comes with no democratic or humanitarian prerequisites. When given a choice between aid with oversight or aid with none, nondemocratic leaders will choose an option such as China. Thus, the U.S. is faced with losing much of its ability to establish good governance and provide aid and investment in Africa.
Barack Obama is ascending to power at a time of weakening American influence in Africa both ideologically and economically. However, Africa cannot be ignored as poverty, civil war, and failed states have and will continue to provide hotbeds for terror. International cooperation is one way to make aid to Africa much more efficient. If the many governments and NGOs working in Africa could better coordinate their efforts, projects would be much more successful. The U.S. should not work exclusively with like-minded governments. With the influence that China is gaining in Africa, it will be difficult to make headway in many areas, like Darfur, without their cooperation.
Obama’s election has caused widespread excitement throughout Africa and he can take advantage of his incredible popularity in the region to transform the perception of the U.S. and promote democracy. African leaders will be eager to be seen by their people working with the new administration. Obama’s win may be a signal to Africa more than empty rhetoric about liberty and equality that a democratic government truly does provide opportunity for all.

[Chloe Major]

In your comment, “A Democratic Alliance of Development” you note that President Elect Obama’s many challenges (the economy and the housing crisis) should NOT neglect the problems in Africa. I fully agree that the problems of developing nations, particularly Africa, should not be forgotten, and that the issues there-AIDS, devastating poverty, and terrorism- are in no way separate from each other. However, while your solution is a “coalition of the willing”, I am not sure that this would successfully work to overcome the troubles Africa faces.

As you point out, the problems in Africa stretch beyond just humanitarian interests. As Dr. Collier, former research director at the World Bank, points out, “a cesspool of misery next to a world of growing prosperity is both terrible for those in the cesspool and dangerous for those who live next to it” (2007). Further, while it is a security concern for near by nations, as global warming increases the spread of disease and further depletes already scarce resources, the problem only grows. Clearly something must be done, and President Elect Obama is in the position for action.

Obama’s message for change must be put to use now more than ever. Past methods of aid have been helplessly ineffective. Development money has been poorly managed or has fallen into corrupt hands; good governance appears to be too much to ask for. Is it possible that the most effective thing to do is let change come from within, instead of pushing development forces from the outside in? Does allowing Africa to fend for itself sanction a breeding ground for disaster?

What we have is not working, but I am uncertain that a cooperative effort would effectively solve the “Africa Problem”. I fear that even with democracies working together for a common goal, external interests and pressures would still take over. Can the interests of Africa ever be put first? Can outside agencies ever “back burner” their own interest? I think that without a “from the inside out” approach, our tireless efforts will still be fruitless.

[Stuart L]

Early on in the Obama Presidency, Africa will likely take a back seat to the current global and domestic (US) economic crisis. However, when the US economy, along with the broader global economic system, eventually recovers, the question of what to do with Africa will return to a more prominent place on the President’s agenda. Obama would be wise to handle the African crisis in much the same way he should handle the American economic crisis: with a strong focus on investment in domestic infrastructure.

The old aid system, the system of pushing democracy while throwing money at current regimes, simply isn’t working. Under-developed African states need roads, bridges, sewers, schools, and hospitals more than they need democracy. Democracy will come to Africa, but not when hundreds of millions of Africans are too busy trying to avoid death by starvation or disease to care much about freedom or democracy. Africa needs better infrastructure to raise its standard of living, and it needs this infrastructure on a very local scale – think local roads and small bridges, not super-highways and suspension bridges. Economists have established fairly convincingly that investment in domestic infrastructure leads to long-term growth and a higher standard of living. Domestic investment is what will get the United States out of this current economic crisis, and its what will get Africa out of its massive political, humanitarian, and economic crisis.

Not all American solutions will work in Africa. Building a first-world hospital in a third-world, nearly doctor-less state is foolish. We need aid workers, engineers, and development planners on the ground in Africa, working with local government officials to develop local solutions. Coordinating with local (town/city/tribal) governments is particularly important – in Africa, lasting change won’t come from the national level down; it will come from the local level up.

[Mary Adams]

An international collaborative working towards solutions to the disease of failed states is a start to unbiased and effective foreign aid. History demonstrates that foreign assistance is often designed to support the country supplying aid. Not only are assistance programs typically built on foreign values, but they are also built to serve foreign interest. Such an example is American-made buses in Cairo. Unfit for the rough streets of the city, bus repairs exceeded the supply of American parts and service. Even more troublesome is military intervention in failed states that is motivated by threats to national security. This technique creates fear and hate of outside forces and usually increases the violence within. Thus, the greatest accomplishment of an international study group would be elimination of private foreign interests.
A group of experts from like minded governments would have both the time and resources necessary to develop comprehensive programs that not only focus on the establishment of programs, but also the maintenance and oversight. Together, these experts would discuss past programs and propose new policies and institutions tailored to the local values of the failed states. Unstable nations are more likely to welcome an international organization without ulterior motives that understands and respects their citizens and culture.
The corruption, lack of education, lack of resources, overpopulation, hunger and disease these nations face must be dealt with through a solution that attacks the heart of the problem. A malnourished population, both nutritionally and educationally, leads to nonexistent middle class in many of these failed states. The key to a healthy state is a healthy population. Foreign assistance programs aimed at relieving a nation’s hunger and disease through culturally appropriate means will improve quality of life and lessen the effects of poverty. A population who no longer faces the challenge of living through adolescence can look towards the future and escape the mindset of poverty. A large, healthy populace will be motivated to improve the bleak future they face in their state, a force much powerful than even the most researched and developed foreign assistance programs.

[Cali Garson]

During President George W. Bush’s term in office, Africa seemed to be looked over. While the President has decreased the rate of AIDS and malaria, there is still an ongoing genocide in Darfur and an immense lack of resources. As aware as most of the population is of these issues plaguing Africa, they are equally unaware of the Al-Qaeda presence in African countries. Due to the lack of media attention, I am not sure how perceptive the American public will be towards entering new territories to fight Al-Qaeda, especially Africa, which poses no immediate threat to the United States.
The United States has been fighting terrorism with wars that are not necessarily popular with the public and the rest of the world and just because Europe is threatened by these new cells, does not mean that they will want to rejoin the United States in the war against terrorism. While it is very hopeful that humanitarian aid will divert would-be terrorists and stop terrorist activity, the United States has yet to do anything that completely eradicates a terrorist cell especially without war.
Africa should remain a pressing issue during Obama’s presidency, however, imposing sanctions and foreign assistance has not seen complete results in the past. The mere presence of Al-Qaeda in African countries is disconcerting, but since the United States has failed to have a successful policy to get rid of terrorist cells, a new policy would need to be formed to successfully deal with African terrorist cells.

[Henry Johnson]

Africa is certainly challenged with a dynamic array of problems and needs the assistance of democratic nations like the United States. With the help of Susan Rice, Obama can use foreign policy in Africa to facilitate a change in foreign assistance models. A successful change in African corruption, disease, poverty and stability will undoubtedly serve the interests of the U.S. in the long term; the question is how to bring about successful, positive change. While more of the same is not going to work, and the old tools of “foreign assistance, external forces, sanctions and mediation” are ineffective, we should not expect there to be a perfect answer. In other words, it may be too much to expect “an international study group of counter terrorist, foreign policy, political experts, and development experts” to work effectively without the “jealousies, stereotypes, and prejudices of existing institutions,” but such a conglomeration is a step in the right direction.
Cooperation among democratic governments may be able to take the old American tools and use them in new ways. A study group of experts is better than a single expert for solving international threats like an unstable Africa. This group of experts could establish an internationally controlled version of a Millennium Challenge Account geared specifically towards failed and failing states. Instead of run by a corporation, other democratic powers could help the U.S. in providing new forms of assistance, effectively broadening the criteria for eligible recipients. Whatever tools are used and whatever the solution is, Africa must not be left behind. If Obama can utilize an international group of experts, a new solution could unveil itself, and there is no harm in trying. Nevertheless, many of the current global issues are enduring and widespread, and no solution will be immediate.

[Lachlan Markay]

The Ambassador's hint at a League of Democracies solution to the quagmire of the failed state is on the right track but, I believe, does not go far enough.

These troubled nations can be plagued by internal violence, poverty, disease, and unresponsive or oppressive governments. Solutions to these problems must be multi-pronged and multilateral. A cooperative agreement among developed nations would do well to alleviate many of these problems, but no international organization that currently exists can present a sufficiently comprehensive approach to failed or failing states.

Such an organization must combine military, economic, humanitarian, and state-building efforts. It must offer the North American Treaty Organization's assurance of mutual security to preserve peace and stability--through the presence of an international peacekeeping force; the International Monetary Fund's economic and political development programs to enhance and build national institutions essential for a stable and prosperous nation; and the World Food Programme's humanitarian aid distribution network to alleviate the immediate ails of the nation's impoverished citizens.

Such a plan is ambitious to say the least. It assumes a near impossible (or at least unprecedented) level of international cohesion and cooperation. Member nations would need to donate massive sums of money. Political squabbles among nations would need to be set aside. In short, the objectives, interests, capabilities, and political wills of all nations involved would have to align, at least briefly.

As the Ambassador notes, the challenges that confront the world as it comes to the aid of failed states require no small effort from the global community. No international institution is yet suited to the task, but a melding of various organizations into a comprehensive and multifaceted approach may make considerable progress.

[Charlie Ruff]

Current aid policies have struggled and if improvements are to be made, change will have to be radical. Democracies must cooperate to form a central aid authority which will have the ability to administer aid on its own terms. The authority must be founded on clearly stated principles and explicit goals to maintain focus if politics attempt to intervene. To allow for independence, a structure needs to be set up where democracies will contribute money and support to the central aid authority on a long-term basis. Africa is a fast moving continent. Regimes change often and the dire situation in Africa demands immediate attention while offering little time for discourse. The current crisis in the DR Congo shows the failure of the slow-moving and ineffective UN security force there. Due to these circumstances, it is imperative that a central authority enjoys the ability to make autonomous decisions. The central aid authority must possess the ability to offer aid on a consistent basis that is not conditional on the politics of the developed world. If developed countries pull out or threaten to pull out of the aid authority after its establishment, the system will collapse. The cooperation of developed countries is only needed to create an un-political authority that will look after the interests of Africa. After the creation of a central aid authority, the role of developed democracies ends. In effect, developed countries will forfeit democracy amongst themselves in order to achieve strong, independent and effective decision making ability. Beyond crisis intervention, a centralized authority would be more effective in distributing aid as it would decrease overlap and could also better coordinate the efforts of NGOs. Thus, a central aid authority could increase the effectiveness of aid through its decision making ability and by streamlining efforts of NGOs and private agencies.

[Danielle Alfano]

Africa has become more than a humanitarian issue for the United States. The increasingly impoverished and disease-ridden continent has recently seen the emergence of al-Qaeda in Algeria and Morocco, thus potentially adding Africa to our list of national security problems. Still, the question of how to make a difference in Africa remains. Corrupt governance in these regions often does not allow aid to be distributed properly, and even if governments were overturned, an uncorrupt government does not automatically lead to a swift accent from failed state status. According to AfricaAction.com, such desperate times have forced many African governments to loan from the IMF and World Bank. The policies of these organizations have proven detrimental to many economies, leading to a decrease in average income and an increase in poverty.

Despite intentions, programs such as the Millennium Challenge Account may not severely impact the plight of a failed state. Furthermore, it has proven difficult to encourage foreign direct investment in failed states, yet in Herb Body’s Article “Town Meeting on Africa Focuses on Growth and Opportunities Act,” Susan Rice argues that the African Growth and Opportunity Act has created the presence “of several democratic nations in Africa, double-digit growth among a few economies and significant investments by United States corporations.” Perhaps the US government should use its voting power in the IMF and World Bank to alter policies so African governments will no longer suffer from cutbacks on spending, and thus have the autonomy to allocate more resources towards internal problems such as hunger and disease. The IMF and World Bank can also adopt more constructive policies, like the Policy Support Instrument which was created in 2005 by the IMF. Instead of providing financial aid, the PSI provides economic advice, monitors the activity of the participant nation, and endorses it accordingly. With the IMF’s endorsement, the nation will hopefully receive a higher rate of loans while at the same time maintaining its autonomy. By adopting policies that assess developing countries on a case by case basis and encouraging programs such as the African growth and Opportunity Act and PSI, the US government can hopefully encourage more foreign direct investment in these areas, thus catalyzing economic growth and eventual development.

[Lindsay Jones]

One of the major difficulties for President Obama throughout the next four years will be balancing his pledge to provide support for the many suffering in Africa while dealing with major issues at home. First of all, consider the fact that American troops are already spread far too thin in warring countries like Afghanistan and Iraq. With the timeframe for troop pullout in Iraq appearing to be farther and farther away, it is highly unlikely that the U.S. could provide any effective ground support in war-ravaged countries like Sudan. With that being said, the U.S. will not be effective in this region alone. In order to repair the many conflicts in Africa and to prevent the reach of rebel and terror militias throughout the region, the U.S. must collaborate with the international community to train and deploy additional troops to aid the already engaged African troops who are poorly armed and trained for such dangerous and widespread conflict. The N.A.T.O troops that are currently engaged in the peacekeeping process are not enough, as we have clearly seen with the continuation of the human rights abuses in Darfur and Congo, despite considerable numbers of troops having been deployed to the region to combat rebel troops. In this effort, the U.S. may all also be able to rely heavily on French and European troops, who have considerable experience in this region. Despite France’s hesitancy to join American efforts in the Middle East, their experience should be highly considered in dealing with African conflicts.

Even if broad international cooperation should occur in this region, President elect Obama will still be challenged by the presence of non-democratic nations in Africa like China and Russia, who rely heavily on Africa’s natural resources to support their economies. I find it very unlikely that China is going to quietly back away from their incredible investment in Sudan, where they are both chief developer and importer of Sudanese oil. Their involvement in Sudan, as it has in the past, will also be a major deterrent for the United Nations and N.A.T.O in their peacekeeping and development efforts. In terms of allocating resources for direct investment and development, President elect Obama will certainly be restrained by the severity of the current financial crisis in the U.S. I am certain that the American people will be much less empathetic and supportive of U.S. led collective action in Africa while they are concurrently unable to afford to stay in their homes in their own country.

[Bill Getman]

This “Democratic Alliance of Development,” formulated as an international study group of diverse individuals and groups “freed of the institutional jealousies, stereotypes and prejudices of existing institutions” that will foster a basis for democratic development in failed states is an excellent notion, but one that will ultimately and completely fail its mission if ever realized. It will do so because it is exactly half of the solution in that it completely entrusts a nation’s developmental interests in the hands of this ‘Democratic Alliance.’ The trick in the whole matter is the process, of which this Alliance is but half.

These conclusions derive from the process that the non-profit organization Sesame Workshop employs in its various programs. The creator of the popular children’s TV show Sesame Street, Sesame Workshop uses a specific process to create incredibly localized children’s programming in 18 different countries, excluding the United States. Rather than using the same American show dubbed into different languages, Sesame Workshop uses the same process, but to a custom-made result. In every instance, Sesame Workshop brings together a diverse range of individuals from the local culture; government leaders, leading scholars, celebrities, comedians, and so on into a large conference which determines the educational objectives for the partner country. The result is a children’s show custom-made to suit each partner country’s individual educational needs.

Development should be conducted in the same manner. The ‘Democratic Alliance’ can still exist in the same role that the Sesame Workshop personnel play in encouraging brainstorming of developmental needs while overseeing the actual workings. However, there also needs to be a corresponding group from the under-developed state to help determine issues tailor the process to their individual needs. Only through this partnership can this ‘Democratic Alliance’ become effective in development.

[Allie Lawson]

The current situation in Africa poses an international security threat. The prevalence of poverty, overpopulation, lack of education, disease, and corruption has led to many failed states, which often serve as a haven for criminals and the development of terrorist groups. Al-Qaeda has already manifested itself in Algeria and Morocco, which threatens the safety of both surrounding African and European countries. The President elect has voiced concern about the problems in Africa, and his work with Susan Rice shows promise that Obama will be committed to learning about and trying to alleviate the issues in Africa. Giving these issues some precedence is crucial to deter the spread of terrorism throughout the continent. When people feel ignored, radical groups become more enticing because they provide a cause, and thereby reaffirm individual worth.

Traditional tools such as foreign assistance or mediation which have been used to help failed states have proven themselves ineffective. However, failed states cannot be ignored because their problems can infiltrate surrounding states. This is particularly relevant for failed states hosting terrorist groups. A new approach is needed. The U.S. should collaborate with other democratic states to reflect upon past foreign aid mistakes and create a new system of global intervention for places such as Somalia. An “international study group” of policy and development experts is a good place to start, but it is by no means a solution. There is no guarantee that a group of intellectual elites will be free from institutional jealousies or stereotypes; however, such a group could provide a source of international cooperation among democratic governments to tackle the problems of failed states. It is likely, however, that change will have to occur inside the states themselves to have a lasting impact. Dr. Paul Collier, former research director at the World Bank said “once a state fails, it takes 59 years, on average, to return to functionality, at a cost of $100 billion.” Clearly, change from within is unlikely to occur anytime soon.

[Marie Piayai]

Humanitarian aid should be and I believe it will be a priority of President elect, Barack Obama’s agenda. It is important that he surrounds himself with foreign advisors that are aware of the ailing issues in countries such as Africa including AIDS, poverty, conflict, hunger, terrorism, disease, etc. I completely agree that hot zones that are plagued with inequality and plight only spread to other areas surrounding the country or perhaps to other parts of the world. The biggest criticism of foreign assistance is where the money is going and if foreign aid is affective. We need to reevaluate our strategy.

The most important stabilizer to the developing world is good governance. Our job as a democracy is to act as role models to show how important good governance is in bringing success. We also need to empower the poor through foreign aid that actually reaches them, so that they will feel more comfortable and confident asserting their needs as a citizen.

One of IFAD’s (International Fund for Agricultural Development) programs is to supply electricity to small towns in Africa. After they installed streetlights, more people were able to stay and sell at they stands longer and crime was heavily reduced because the lights made the streets safer. I honestly feel that traditional aid programs building the infrastructure can work. The problem is that, the support for traditional programs is not consistent so if a lamp breaks, repair is delayed or never gets done.

Since the Millennium Challenge Account and UN programs are something that many international actors contribute to, it should be an aligned effort to “build a new model of intervention”. The United States should definitely use the mistakes we have learned from in Iraq and Afghanistan when contributing to foreign aid programs. This idea of a new coalition of democracies might be a little far fetched, but if we all have the same general consensus on foreign aid it could be a coalition without signing a pact or agreement of sorts.

[Jessy Gelber]

In Former Secretary Madeleine Albright’s book, “Memo to the President Elect”, she made a bold statement; “Sad to say, you [President Elect Obama] will enter office with respect to American Leadership lower than it has been in the memory of any living person”. This might be the toughest presidency yet. In Ambassador Walker’s blog, he has demonstrated this point by highlighting some of the numerous problems the president will face in the upcoming years. I agree that the US cannot have “more of the same”, but the problems left by the last administration need to be dealt with properly and carefully. Therefore, President- elect Obama’s real test will be his ability to solve the country’s unfinished problems, like Iraq and Afghanistan; while attempting to tackle a new list of potential threats, like Africa, “an incubator for terrorism”. Will Obama be able to uphold his tag line “Yes We Can” by making a difference not only in domestic politics (stabilizing US economy) but also in the international community?

The US cannot tackle these problems alone. With an increasingly global world, problems have become more complex and interrelated, making solutions harder to implement and decreasing the chances of success. Fix one unstable state, like Iraq, the problems just move to another state, creating instability, like in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But I agree with Ambassador Walker, “I am not an advocate of the concept of the league of democracies” because classifying a “consolidated democracy” is difficult, reversal in democratic movement could be an issue (how do you kick people out) and lastly, I believe it isolates democracies from the rest of the world. I believe a league of democracies would create a backlash against democracy- working against the proposed purpose.

Still, in order to fix these problems Obama needs to reach out to the international community- policies Former President George Bush neglected. The Bush’s mismanagement of international politics over the past 8 years reflects poorly on the US’ image. How can we solve these problems when the international community has no respect for our country? Obama, in order to attempt solving these overarching problems, which have been widely ignored, needs to first restore the American image and then bring unity to international community to develop cross border solutions.

Work Cited: Albright, Madeleine. Memo to President Elect: How We Can Restore America's Reputation and Leadership. New York: Harper Collins, 2008.

[Dave Christie]

The problems in Africa can not be isolated and handled individually, nor can they be dealt with using traditional means of military aid. These are complex modern problems that require equally complex modern solutions. Although it is frustrating, these problems can not be solved immediately. These problems have been developing since the colonial era in Africa, and as such will require a long-term solution. I believe the key to initiating reform in Africa stems from Fukuyama’s paradigm. The issues in Africa can best be solved by establishing democracies throughout the continent. This must be accomplished, however, by an internal movement towards democracy. Immediately imposing democracy in African nations is a sure recipe for failure. The first step to this is modernizing the continent, so that Africans will have the desire to live in a liberal society. This can best be accomplished by an emphasis on economic development, to elicit foreign investment.
In order to do so, however, Africa must first go through a period of stabilization. While this requires some military involvement, it can not be accomplished by simply relying on infantry units. Furthermore, this must be accomplished by a coalition of democracies, in order to eliminate the individual interests of any one nation. As suggested by Ambassador Walker, this force must contain counter terrorist experts, foreign policy experts, political experts, and development experts. Traditional military units are not trained to accomplish the same tasks as these experts, and as such are ill equipped to single-handedly stabilize Africa. As Africa becomes a more stable environment, it will become a more attractive place for foreign investment. This will allow nations throughout the continent to modernize and gain the desire to live in a liberal society, which will lead to the creation of democracies. As previously stated, this process will not immediately solve the widespread problems in Africa. This long term perspective, however, is the only way to solve the complex and intertwined problems plaguing the continent.

[Kevin Osborne]

The problems that African nations are facing are a conglomeration of multiple factors. The disease, the lack of suitable infrastructure, the high level of corruption, the criminal elements, the lack of education, and the draught all are contributing to the downward spiral the many African nations are in. With the election of Barack Obama and the promise of change, the opportunity for America to take the lead in assisting failed states in Africa is prominent. There have been a variety of solutions implemented in Africa and as of now, positive results have been scarce.
Barack Obama’s continued interest in Africa after he takes office will be necessary to convince the international community to begin the process of developing a new solution. Ambassador Walker says,

“An international study group of counter terrorist, foreign policy, political experts, and development experts, freed of the institutional jealousies, stereotypes and prejudices of existing institutions, might be able to offer a basis for international cooperation among like minded governments to deal with the disease of failed states.”

An international body of experts that are tasked with devising a new and creative solution seems like the best possible solution. It is not possible to confront a single issue at a time, but instead a comprehensive solution must be designed to address the most dire and pressing issues simultaneously. A neglected aspect of the war on terror is the failed states, which are a perfect arena fostering terrorist activities. To confront the issue of international security, America and the international community must begin to assist Africa in solving their problems. Due to past events we have seen that America alone will have no impact on turning around the troubled African nations. America must make a coalition of nations and experts to transform African nations into positive contributors to the world. Barack Obama must align with leaders of other nations to tackle this issue and not go at it on his own agenda. Obama’s promise of change in this arena will come with the help of other countries.

[cgibbons]

Issues like global poverty, disease, corruption, hunger, and other destabilizing forces are exactly what they are described as, a global problem. It cannot be left up to one developed, stable state to become the global policeman, policy maker, or mother to disobedient and chaotic states. It should also not be the job of any one state to fix the problems of another; rather, states should help one another learn to help themselves fix problems. Reliance on others not only creates a necessity of outside influence, but it also hurts the future of a state’s legitimacy and stability if it is reliant on an outside source. Independent states should in fact be independent, not dependent. This does not mean, however, that help cannot and should not be offered; it means that a focus of the help should be on developing a state’s own stability and independence by wishes of that state and through understanding what individual states need to achieve such stability. It also means that those states that are in a position of power or influence should use soft power to be a leader in the world for others to follow and bring help to those who need it.

In the case of Africa, it has become, in fact, exactly what Ambassador Walker says, an “incubator” for “a Petri dish for the growth of terrorism.” As we can see from examples in Afghanistan and Iraq, forced “development” (or democratization in the eyes of the Bush Administration) as well as stabilizing forces did not have the outcome that the current administration foresaw them to have. However, in the case of Northern Ireland in which the Clinton administration worked with Blair and leaders of Northern Ireland as well as the Republic, much more stability and independence came from the combination of help from outside, stable states. Even though the Troubles of Northern Ireland are still not completely solved today, much progress has been made and perhaps this is an example for nations to look to when trying to help the corrupt and terroristic states in Africa.

Obviously what has been done in Africa so far has not worked, and in some instances, the problems have gotten worse. For issues like global poverty, disease, etc, the answer should be one of a global voice. Global understanding and collective problem solving must be the answer to the problems that have not yet been solved. Only through education, joint efforts to help those in need, and a belief not only of the states in need, but those around them, that we must work together to begin to solve what we have all allowed to fail, will be the answer to the so far unsolvable.

[Kate Marek]

In time, the failing African states could in effect threaten the United States and the rest of the world. Up until this point, the UN and the United States have intervened only half way. Going in with short-term policies for these failing states does not solve the problems that they create, but instead just prolongs them. The Darfur “genocide” echoes the limited amount of effort from the international community that has been put into settling this conflict, as mass-killings, starvation, and rape have been widespread for over the past five years. Somalia’s lawless region that has endured corrupt and diffused governments for the past seventeen years further supports this argument.
The international community needs more aggressive efforts to achieve peace in African failing states, followed by intense and closely monitored nation building. Providing billions of dollars of foreign assistance to humanitarian and peacekeeping organizations does help the cause, but it does not solve it, especially when aid workers are being killed on a daily basis. The international community needs to follow through on their efforts and implement policies that are realistic and attainable for the long term, while at the same time preventing other states from following down this same path. It is obvious that these failing states pose as a huge problem for the world in the long run. Not only do they provide a safe haven for terrorists to build and strengthen their networks (which is what happened with Afghanistan), but they are also contagious in a way that they generate regional conflicts. It is imperative that the international community monitors the borders of these states during the peace and nation building process to ensure that drugs, criminals and terrorist organizations cannot transfer to another weak and violent spread nation. Not taking care of these states is also a waste of international funding, as money is spent on supporting humanist organizations and weak military presence that cannot provide a solution to the large sum of problems that pollute the African nations.
President-elect Barack Obama has already made it clear that the Darfur “genocide” is a top priority for the new administration. Obama needs to put more pressure on China to reevaluate their foreign policy, as their oil interests and weapon supply to Sudan are clear by now. In addition, Obama needs to make the failing states of Africa a world-wide priority and not one that is just lead by the United States alone. I agree that an international cooperation of “like-minded governments” are necessary and will prove to be more effective then the traditional short-term policies that have not provided a solution up until this point. With the abundance of issues that face the United States and this next administration, it is vital that we do not go at solving the problems in Africa alone. However, we can provide a strong presence with ideas and support along with other powerful nations in ensuring that the African failing states are ridded of corruption and violence with long-term goals in mind that will be carried out until peace and self-governance is attained.

[Alexandra Jenik]

It is clear the many problems that Africa faces are interrelated and the U.S.’ policies towards the continent have long been ineffective in solving these problems on short-term and long-term scales. The Clinton administration’s choices in intervening in Somalia, and then lack of action in Rwanda represents massive failures on the U.S. part in helping the people of Africa. The Bush administration took a similar path in implementing weak programs to combat Dafur’s “genocide.” The news that is reported on African countries remain few and far between; indicators of peoples’ lack of interest in the constant flow of problems facing African nations. A recent report from the New York Times stated that in the Congo, 100,000 refugees are trapped behind rebel lines and in need of aid, yet the UN Security Council has been debating for over a month if more troop should be committed, while in Zimbabwe, the World Food Program has been forced to cut back aid because of a lack of funding. When it comes to the problems concerning Africa, one can almost picture the State Department yawning and shoving the file under the more “pressing” issues concerning the Middle East.
The rise of global warming represents a connecting thread that will force all nations of the world to take a more active role in Africa. While global warming might first have immediate and drastic consequences in Africa, it will only be a matter of time before other countries outside of the African continent are affected, which will force these countries to think critically about the growing problems and act. It would be wise if President-elect Barack Obama begins his term by working with other developed nations in devising a more comprehensive and properly tailored plan to deal with the wide range of issues. By bringing together numerous experts on climate change, poverty, agriculture and Africa’s economy, we can take the first steps in properly eliminating the roots of certain problems, and also attempt to foster efficient growth in specific areas that will benefit not only the people of Africa, but the rest of the world in the long run.

[Katie McGuire]

As President-elect Barack Obama attempts to fulfill his promises of “change,” more obstacles exist before him than most can imagine. As your post pointed out, we must combat AIDS, global poverty, climate change, etc. because they directly impact the state of our economy, our citizens, and the globe.
As your third paragraph pointed out, our tools to “exert leverage for change” are often “blunt instruments,” and you pointed to Libya and Sudan as an example where a similar prescription failed to remedy both problems. Clearly, we cannot simply force-feed our preconceived Westernized solutions onto societies where solutions require a better understanding of the history, area, and its unique capabilities. Comprehensive planning is imperative to the success of sanctions and foreign assistance programs. The Millennium Challenge Account failed to impress me as well, but I disagreed with your point about assistance programs seeking to build infrastructure and bottom-up development. As you pointed out in your ‘Pernicious Rumors’ post, ‘the war on terror depends on the man on the street.’ We cannot base our labels of success on GDP because this does not distinguish between who actually gains and who loses. To fight poverty, conflict, and terrorism, we must reach to the bottom billion, at the basis of the problem. The Zero Hunger Program in Brazil has shown promise by supporting small local farmers. Removing our crop subsidies would considerably help subsistence farmers around the world and would even boost our budget for more monitored foreign direct investment.
The international study group you suggested brought more questions to my mind than answers. We have existing institutions including the UN and NATO that have the legitimacy to act, and a “study group” without much credibility could be easily ignored. Following World War I, the League of Democracies failed partly because of the US denial of its legitimacy and return to isolationism. With the rise of new superpowers like India and China, the US can no longer proceed with unilateral action (as the Iraq War makes very clear.) It is imperative for the United States to cooperatively work with other countries to solve global issues with global impacts. Until we can prove our team-player status in existing institutions, another international group will do little to catalyze change.

[Greg Casey]

Creating a ‘Democratic Alliance of Development’ could present a substantial improvement over current sources of aid. Such a system would have two major benefits. First, by pitting countries varying objectives against each other, the results of such an alliance would be less plagued with political and ideological motivations, which can hamper effectiveness. Second, the possibility of greater coordination among development projects could lead to increased efficiencies and greater project scope.

In an alliance with a reasonable set of checks and balances, it is unlikely that a single country could push through its own political or ideological agenda. Unfortunately, in the current system, these forces can influence development policies and cause a sever reduction in effectiveness. Consider the United States as an example. On the political front, we require USAID to use only American grown food in famine relief projects. This is extremely costly and inefficient. On the ideological front, we waste a tremendous amount of our PEPFAR resources on abstinence education and do not distribute condoms, except in rare circumstances. Both of these absurd restrictions demonstrate how the politics and ideals of America inhibit our ability to provide effective aid. Theoretically, an international organization would not submit to the political or ideological will of a certain member, allowing projects to focus on development, and not political, goals.

Removing political motivations from aid provision will also have another profound effect: it will greatly affect the countries that receive aid. Under the current circumstances, countries have little motivation to allot their scare aid money to countries that possess little political or security importance. The Unites States budget is obviously controlled by political forces. An international organization without such concerns would almost certainly devote more aid to Africa based on relative need.

Coordination among current projects could also lead to increased efficiencies in development programs. Take microfinance as an example. Many non-profit microfinance institutions (MFIs) (which, in many cases, receive significant amounts of funding from state governments) compete with each other over donations from private individuals. Thus, each institution receives only a small percentage of available funds and, therefore, remains relatively small and cannot increase its outreach or improve its technological infrastructure. If combined, these MFIs would enjoy both increased assets as well as increased economies of scale which would allow them to provide services to more people at a lower cost. Coordination could also increase the scope of operations. For example, building new schools and using them as vehicles for informing people about safe sex practices. Together, removing competition, increasing efficiencies and increasing scope would also allow a “Democratic Alliance of Development” to improve upon our current sources of aid.

[Phoebe Potter]

Many President-elects proclaim their intentions for the third world, to improve the lives of the people through health, social, and economic reforms. Barack Obama has specifically pledged action in Africa. However, once in office, many other pressing issues come to the surface and take precedent. For instance, early in his Presidency, George Bush was known for his commitment to development programs in Latin America. However, after 9/11 the promises for development in Latin America were put on the backburner, and issues directly linked to the Middle Eastern terrorism threat became the priority. However, what President Bush, as many of his predecessors have missed, is the crucial link between these seemingly altruistic acts in developing countries and the security and economic interests of the United States. Underdeveloped countries are often a breeding ground for terrorism and chaos, and ignoring these issues will have dire long-term impacts that require far more costly solutions. It is difficult to rally the American people behind long-term hypothetical scenarios. People are willing to have their tax dollars spent on homeland security and a war on terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan because they are reacting to an attack. However, spending millions, if not billions of tax dollars to develop Africa is much harder to sell politically, even if it may prevent the far more challenging and dangerous issues that inaction lead to.

Even if the new President elect does not succumb to political pressures and lives up to his pledge to bring reform to Africa, there are no tools at his disposal that guarantee success. Individual aid programs are usually too limited and cannot be administered and overseen. The Millennium Challenge Account program tries to deal with oversight issues by making aid contingent on documented improvements in corruption, government, and social and economic issues, but if countries are unwilling to cooperate, the MCA has no real impact. Obviously, pooling resources by establishing a multinational organization can increase the amount of aid reaching Africa, but it does not guarantee any improvements in administration. If anything, it could lead to dissent over procedural issues that will undermine administrative efforts.

The inherent problem is the inability of governments to administer programs that require a working incentive structure. Aid programs have not historically lead to sustainable development, diminishing the incentive for cooperation of African nations. Conversely, aid-giving countries do not have a pressing incentive to succeed – while the long-term, hypothetical rewards of development are important, they are not the immediate compensation that drives effective project implementation. Additionally, the government can easily absorb the short-term costs of failure (it isn’t going to go out of business). True reform in developing economies is most efficiently driven by private foreign direct investment, which works within a strong incentive structure where sustainability is essential to returning profits. The government should still be involved, but play a secondary supportive role, as well as offer tax incentives to encourage FDI in Africa. While private investment is not a guaranteed success, especially given the severe instability in many African nations, it holds far more promise than tired aid programs.

[Alex Morgan]

The problems Africa faces are immense and I am not sure even if Barack Obama secures another term as president that he would be able to bring substantial positive change to this troubled continent.
The population problem within Africa at least has a discernable solution. There should be widespread support in the Obama administration for programs that seek to educate Africans about contraceptives. Proper sexual education should help to decrease the number of people born in African countries with population problems. Contraceptives will also help prevent the spread of diseases such as HIV. It is difficult though to convince people to adhere to these programs especially if their cultures are against contraception or value multiple children. The question is how people can be persuaded to help their countries decrease in population and disease. Should there be a one-child policy? Can a one-child policy exist in African societies without meeting an incredible amount of resistance? This is just one example of the complexity of problems facing Africa.
Aside from population and health, the main issue facing many African nations is poverty. But foreign aid seems to have little effect and feeds the corrupt governments in many African countries without helping the people. How do you get people to invest in sometimes unstable and violent countries? I do not have exact answers or solutions to Africa’s economic problems, but the economy must obviously be the focus of any efforts to change Africa. If the nations and organizations of the world can find a way to stamp out corruption in African governments, give young people more options other than joining rebel groups, and can find a way to bring foreign investment to the most failed of the failed African states then there might actually be change in Africa. Perhaps the Obama administration should focus on the countries in Africa that have the fewest problems. If they can first turn these nations around, then maybe the newly changed nations can help to aid the truly failed states. Support governments that help their people and place international pressure on governments that exploit their people. Use well-trained military troops to support U.N. officials to ensure that the food gets to the people. (But don’t occupy the country) Closely monitor how aid is being spent so that money does not go to waste and crack down on African officials who abuse the foreign aid system.
I say bring in all the experts necessary to solve Africa’s create a new international organization of professional health, population, and economic problem solvers if one does not already exist. The United States cannot do this alone, change will come from the collaboration of dozens of developed nations with the intellectual capital to turn things around.