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

[Helen Rodgers]

I agree that the way the United States is currently helping failed states is clearly not working. There needs to be change and this change should be made on an international level. The problems that are developing from these failed states are going to affect the entire international community in terms of terrorism or the migration patterns that probably will occur with overpopulation. If the entire community is going to be affected by a problem I feel that they should do their best to come together and work out the solutions that not only help the failing states, but can keep themselves content as well. These solutions might be nearly impossible to come up with due to the conflicting nature of various countries; therefore, I do feel that it is best to assemble an “international study group” that is freed of prejudices and jealousies as Ambassador Walker suggested. While I feel the issue of failed states is pressing, I also feel that the United States should not loose its focus on the countries where we already maintain a presence such as Afghanistan. If the United States looses its focus on Afghanistan or other relatively unstable countries we currently have a presence in, there is the possibility that these states could eventually fall back to their old ways. This would simply create a cyclic problem and the United States would never be able to achieve its goals. Therefore, I feel that the best way to solve the failed state problem is to form an international study group, but to focus on a few countries at a time and stabilizing those first with priority being given to unstable countries where another country already has a presence. It is most important to stabilize these countries first in order to avoid a cyclic effect.

[Alex Duncan]

I agree that a consort of democracies seems like the best idea to deal with Africa. Democracies generally have similar values: one of which is helping to provide people with basic human necessities in food, water, and shelter. One of the main problems that Africa faces at the moment is overpopulation—too many people need these same basic resources of food, water, and shelter. Overpopulation can be a direct link to poverty, disease, starvation, and corruption. The more people there are, the higher the unemployment rate, the less vaccinations there are, the less food there is, and the more one has to bribe the few people in power in order to get what one wants. Available food, clean water, and sturdy shelters are the building blocks of society, without which a society cannot progress. The question is not whether or not African societies need to control their populations, the question is how best to do so.

It will be in President Obama’s best interest to help quell the population growth of Africa. A potential solution is to expand human aid initiatives such as the Peace Core (and their European counterparts) further into Africa with international support from the United Nations. Increasing the size of the Peace Core will also give college graduates a job opportunity-something many will need with the current job market. The United Nations can send in peacekeeping troops to some of the less hostile African nations, and let the young, energetic minds help educate the local populations about forms of birth control, basic water purification techniques, and distribute vaccinations. This needs to be done in a localized way: town-by-town, and village-by-village so that the locals feel the positive effects of aid. Once people start to experience the benefits of aid they will want to keep the aid around, which will be a great incentive to keep the nation stable. While this model clearly does not work with war-torn nation, it is a viable place to begin.

[Shyama Nair]

Current aid policies in Africa have been highly ineffectual and this is largely due to inappropriate planning of funds by the Bush administration. Spending large proportions of aid funds to push agendas of abstinence education fails to deal with the problems themselves. While continued education may work in a stable nation, it certainly will not in a fragile state where people are simply trying to survive.
This now places quite a load on the coming Obama administration to create new policies that will forge a new course for change. Given the financial crisis however, juggling domestic issues and international ones will be a challenge. However, I think ambassador Walker is right to say that the problems in Africa should not be ignored. Leaving a nation to completely deteriorate will ultimately have a huge impact on the rest of the world because history has in fact proved that people turn to desperate measures in times of crisis. Thus, it will in fact be an incubator for the growth of terrorism as Ambassador Walker mentioned. This, along with the clear human rights violations that are taking place, beckon the world to take action. Perhaps the first step will be to restructure aid programs so the most crucial needs in the places where the situation is the most dire are met. Creating change in Africa will have to begin with dealing with the vast number of health issues because widespread death and disease only breeds further instability. The problem here is with the uncooperative governments and regimes of the region. As Ambassador Walker correctly points out, if the safety of the aid workers themselves are being threatened it will be impossible to get the necessary help there. This is where the US cannot act unilaterally and will need a great deal of international support. Sanctions by one nation alone on a regime will by no means deter them from their actions. For instance, if the US imposes sanctions but China continues to trade with the regime in order to further their national interests, no headway will be made.
As such, I think you are right in stating that international cooperation among like- minded governments will be the best way to begin dealing with the issues. The problem however is that each nation is still trying to guard their own national interest. Furthermore, there has only been finger pointing by the big powers of the world on who is to blame for what issue. If the big powers of the world can somehow see beyond national gain for an instance, they may be able to see the dire state the nation is in. Although this will be a difficult task, I do believe that continued effort to form an international coalition to deal with the issues in Africa will be necessary to cause any change in Africa.
S

[camiller]

As ineffective as some of the measures are that our country has been taking to help with problems of developing countries, it's still better than nothing. In light of this new change in administration, our domestic challenges of the market and involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan will still take precedence over taking a new policy direction on struggling states in Africa. I find it difficult to believe that America would lead the world in bringing together unbiased development experts on an international level to form a new system of foreign aid. Other issues between democratic countries, like economic interests, are bound to get in the way of finding long term solutions to these issues of genocide, corruption, poverty and terrorism.

If the US did decide to put this project on the forefront and agreed to execute an effort with other democracies, it should focus on one or two issues, setting the stage for a new network of powers to help developing countries. Perhaps more countries involved in cooperation could yield more money and personnel to these countries and what they should really be focusing on is changing the country's thoughts about Foreign Direct Investment. More of an emphasis on stimulating private enterprises will yield more long term commitments, which could phase out governmental intervention in a shorter amount of time. Countries must build up their infrastructure so they can have the tools to deal with many of these issues. Yet, actually executing this idea is easier said than done.

Although a framework of democracies for development would be ideal, it is likely that policies will remain the same under the new administration, with alterations within the current framework. One of the main hindrances to solving development problems is the United States' dominance of global markets. The US is too reluctant to agree with other countries over issues if it means that it may have to sacrifice anything domestically. By continuing to flood markets with goods and services, the US is choking local markets of developing nations even though aid money is pouring into their country. Americans will not want to see cutbacks in farm subsidies in order to let local farmers in developing countries have a chance in the market. An agreement amongst democracies trying to curb this problem could open the door to more efficient foreign aid, but the decision is in the hands of the US. Until the US can sort out its own problems domestically and find a strategy to trade more fairly on a global basis without sacrifice, development projects will continue to be inefficient.

[Aminata Diop]

Africa’s economic and political situation represents a priority for the new administration for two reasons; the increasing poverty and corruption are transforming it into a haven of terrorist activity and the exploitation of its natural resources will attract investors. A country’s rapid development is only assured if there is sufficient local and foreign investment. As of today, the few educated people in Africa flee to better opportunities and foreign investors do not risk their money in politically and economically unstable countries. There seems to be no hope for African countries in that they also endure a vicious circle of poverty that augments corruption.
President Obama claims that “the power of democracy, liberty, opportunity and hope are the strength of our nation”, but will that really help Africa or worsen its situation? External aid merely serves the US foreign policy and fails if the government of the aided country is corrupt. If, ideally, the administration established a league of democracies to develop Africa as a whole, African countries would prosper. Leaders from African and developed countries would discuss the possibilities of using resources to benefit all African countries. Nigeria could use its oil resources to benefit the continent, the Inga Dams in Congo have enough hydroelectric energy to provide for West and Central Africa, Guinea is a top bauxite producer, etc. As a result, foreign countries will invest in Africa; a new wave of opportunities will urge people to be educated, more tax revenues from new jobs will provide for increase in government revenues and better government services. The US could then use soft power techniques to make sure that their ideals are followed, including democracy and battle against terrorism. Unfortunately, developed countries are characterized by political realism and national interest while third-world countries are based on power and corruption.

[Jeff Corbett]

As Ambassador Walker alludes to in his blog, it is critical that the United States does not deal with Africa as a series of isolated problems. On the contrary, it is time to engineer a new model of aid that effectively gives support to the African citizens that need it most, rather than falling into the hands war lords and corrupt politicians throughout the continent. For too long the United States, along with other foreign aid services have practiced stop-gap approaches when dealing with problems in underdeveloped nations. The current situations in Iraq and Afghanistan reveal that trying stop a problem such as Al-Qaeda is extraordinarily difficult; especially once this problem has become a deeply entrenched part of the society.

America must use the lessons learned from Afghanistan and Iraq to attack the problems that face Africa at their roots. As Ambassador Walker points out, foreign aid has “little lasting effect in the absence of good governance”. While it is true that if failed states are left alone they might be infectious to their neighbors, it can also be argued that the only way a failed state will be able to develop is through its own doing. With the guidance of democratic powers such as the United States, a contingent of uncorrupt and stable regimes can be established throughout Africa. A new model of governance, based around the practices of African nations that have moved towards democracy, such as South Africa, might serve as the first building block in a series of steps that will lead to the development of Africa. This will provide African citizens will a safer alternative of leadership in their central governments, as opposed to terrorist groups or tribal war lords. At this point, foreign aid and assistance might be put to good uses such as creating infrastructure and fighting poverty as well as disease. However, as long as there is not a stable system of governance throughout Africa any financial as well as human aid provided by the United States and its allies will be rendered useless.

[Jamon R.]

The need for increased dialogue is of great importance in order to deal “with issues like global poverty, disease, corruption, hunger and other destabilizing forces.” The question remains should this proposed organization limit itself in scope and effect through a “Democratic” prerequisite. If the goal of the organization is to solve global problems, then why should the organization be exclusive to those states that are similar in nature? These global problems will not solved by exclusion, but rather escalated by it. A Democratic prerequisite creates and all to common notion of “Us vs. them” ideology that has pervaded the last eight years.
In addition, what defines a Democracy? Are there not states that consider themselves to be democracies such as Russia, but are simply highly consolidated dictatorships? The best prerequisite for this organization would be states and people which have a vested interest in ending these globally destabilizing forces. In essence, they understand the need for rational actors in an increasingly uncertain world.
Additionally, excluding countries like Saudi Arabia and China from this organization would simply render it underdeveloped and limiting. The goal of the organization is to deal with global issues, but how do you deal with global problems if you do not include everyone’s opinion. The only way to deal with these broad based issues is to examine the root of the problems. In order to do this, the organization would have to look at how the issues affect the world as a whole, and not the limited corridors of power controlled by a few large democratic states. (i.e. Britain, France, U.S.)
The need for an organization that removes institutional bias through rational analysis is clearly needed, although the implementation certainly hard. These destabilizing forces are interrelated and thus should be treated as such. In the recent Financial Crisis, there has been much emphasis on the word Credit. In its latin root credo means “to believe / trust.” While the need for this organization is clear, the organization must pick up where others fail. People and states need to believe that it has a vested interest/ mission to solve these global problems and not the problems of a select few.

[Justin Williams]

The pressing problems facing struggling African nations may have to take a back seat to graver issues the world now faces. While President-elect Barack Obama may have an able advisor in Susan Rice, who will undoubtedly educate the next administration on the perils of inaction on social issues in Africa, the more important issue from a United States security perspective is the continued threat of terrorism from African nations; Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Zimbabwe, and Nigeria. At this time, Americans and other democratic nations are not as worried about the poverty, disease and famine so common in Africa as they are nervous that the radical terrorists that inhabit these nations will become more capable for massacre.
The concept of a league of democracies has gained a lot of credibility as an alternative to the United Nations, which has been prevented from taking any meaningful action to address major issues of corruption and state sponsored terrorism by virtue of the same and other autocratic states being voting members. As long as authoritarian states are allowed to control the discussion on human rights abuse, no credible action can be expected.
The sad fact of the matter is that a major attack or mobilization of African terrorist groups is needed to stimulate most democratic nations of the world. With the future Presidency of Barack Obama in sight, this fact will most likely apply to America as well, facing one of the most liberal leaders in history.
While President-Elect Obama may want to help nations such as Sudan, there seems to be a more dire need for help in America. In a address to the Chicago council on Global Affairs, then Senator Obama advocated the need for American involvement in both humanitarian and anti-terrorism aid. However, at this point in history and with the every evolving problems facing the world, I doubt President-elect Obama will make good on his statements regarding foreign aid. A struggling economy, administration change and a dissatisfied majority will dictate the need for focus on the United States before our hands open to others in need. Ambassador Walker is correct acknowledging the fact that America cannot do this job alone, however who will lend a hand in these dire times?

[Colin Flaherty]

As the current economic crisis continues to spread across the globe, the developing countries in Africa have an even greater potential to fail. President Elect Obama, who will inherit many domestic and international problems, must be sure not to overlook the importance of the situation in Africa. While the United States remains the most hated adversary of many terrorist groups, proximity poses a great threat to our European allies. Since terrorism harbored in these “failed states” is a global concern, the developed world must display their values with consistency to provide a solution. The African nations are conflicted between the many different moral values of the countries they trade with or receive aid from. The competition between the United States and China for access to the natural resources of Africa only serves to promote the greedy and individualistic tendencies that have led to higher corruption in government and human rights violations in Africa. The developed world must project a unified front committed to helping the African people and combating corrupt and cruel practices.

Unfortunately our major tools for providing aid to the continent also largely perpetuate the problem. Foreign aid can be used to fuel the corrupt governments, because of enforcement problems. Military presence is frequently met with hostility and can lead to a country unifying under their corrupt government for protection. Finally, sanctions and restrictions can simply compound the problems and lead to the further mistreatment of the African people. To effectively help and prevent “failed” states in Africa, we must develop a new diplomatic solution whether it involves economic benefits or threats that can properly aid the African people without being subjected to the extortion of corrupt governments. Hopefully some program like the Millennium Challenge Account can restructure in a way that allows aid to these “failed” states but in a way that can be appropriately enforced.

[Kate Staykova]

The main proposition of the blog is that development tools of the rich North to help the poor South have proven inadequate to alleviate the plight aflicting the lives of the peoples of the South. As a remedy to these ongoing failures of development programs, the blog proposes the establishment of an international study group of scientists, development experts, terrorism experts, etc. to design the proper institutions and the credible policies for developing failed states. While criticism of past programs is justified by reality, such critisicm is unproductive as the blog fails to provide any concrete plan of development other than the “empty vessel” proposal that change in failed states will be brough about by change in international cooperation. The main problem with international, i.e. outside effort to deal with a failed state faces the danger of raising doubts among the population about the intentions of the outsiders. Such intervention can be played out by the ruler of such a state who is most of the time an autocrat whose only goal is to stay in power. In order to do that he needs to buy the loyalty of a select few and keep the majority of the population in subjugation and fear through implementing bad policies and keeping the economy in a devastated state. The whole mentality of such people is distorted into passive acceptance of their situation along with the rule of the dictator and his favored cronies or militia as fate and Act of God. The fundamental problem of failed states gravitates around the individual mentality of both the leadership and the population. The leader should be provided with the incentive to align his interests with those of the people in order to implement policies that will benefit the public good. In order for this to happen his office has to be dependent on his policy competence and a broad majority of people and not on the support of his corrupted cronies. But a change in the entire political framework is needed that will reward the leaders for his good policies. Any outside intervention that does not deal with changing the narrow self-interested goals of the leaders and the mentality of the population will face the danger of perpetuating the corrupt leadership and the plight of the people. But how can such a change in the political institutions of a failed state and the mental framework of its people be brouht about by an outside international cooperation? Can such political institutions be designed from outside and implemented withouth such implementation to be accused of encroaching upon the sanctious sovereignty of a nation? In order for such international cooperation to be credible it has to be universal, encompassing all nations and having the same laws for all the members. But no matter how credible it is the fundamental vicious cycle to be broken remains: the very people who must enforce the new institutions are those whose interests are hurt the most, namely the autocrats in rule. The new international cooperation should establish the legal framework for its own credibility and design a holistic approach to development aiming at designing changes in the political institutions to promote the public good that will ensure the emergence of a middle class and preservation of its rights, encourage enterpreneurship and, consequently, sustain economic growth!

[John DeWitt]

The current state of unrest in many parts of Africa is certainly an issue that pertains to both U.S. and world security. Problems concerning hunger, drought, disease, corruption, war, etc. cannot be isolated to just one country or region. It seems that if we are to solve these problems, our efforts must be directed to the entire continent as a whole.
From the standpoint of national security, we must direct our diplomacy away from violence, a solution that only promotes the further hatred of America. While we must pursue terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda, who may propose a threat to America, bombing villages and killing civilians most certainly creates more enemies than it destroys.
Instead of violent pursuit, we must cut off the creation of terrorist groups at the stem. Foreign aid programs aimed at promoting literacy, democracy, and equality can create a new generation of Africans that is more educated, tolerant, and capable of succeeding.
Finally, steps must be taken to stabilize countries whose environments act as harbors for terrorists. Many African nations do not possess the resources necessary to stop the formation of terrorism. The burden of policing terrorism is best put in the hands of the individual nations themselves. So let’s actually give these nations the ability to enforce anti-terrorism initiatives.
Global warming certainly poses a daunting threat to the future of Africa. If we stand idly by and watch, then Africa is certainly doomed to collapse into a state of chaos. Action must be taken now in order to reverse the trend of injustice, terrorism, and violence that plagues Africa.

[Raymond D. Coffey]

I do agree that most of the solutions available as of now are not working in Africa. I also believe that some sort of coordinated effort amongst nations is necessary to deal with Africa's problems although I do contend that not just coordinated alliances amongst democracies are the sole solutions. Democracies are just as prone to fight with each other as a current world autrocats. As for finding solutions, we should not generalize and falsely assume that these failed policies will work for all nations. We need to first examine the situation carefully before even considering foreign aid or military intervention; in terms of Africa in general, the first major problems that should be addressed right away are instability, government corruption, and education. Solving these problems in Africa will require an assessment of the situation at hand, and then a decision for either foreign aid or military intervention. As for regarding Obama's future policies in Africa, Obama will have to make sure that he does not ignore Africa and its potential to be a breeding ground for terrorism. Not ignoring Africa will be tough for Obama, because even if he picks the right advisor for dealing with Africa's problems, Obama will have to first deal with the US domestic problems and reassess US economic goals before dealing with foreign nations. As the economic crisis wears on, it will likely evolve into a global depression. Solving this crisis will take years and even if Obama attempts to deal with Africa's problems directly, he still must overcome these first few major hurdles before dealing with foreign aid, economic development, and health. Obama has set high expectations for himself but whether he is successful in dealing with Africa or other issues, remains to be seen. My prediction is that he will be successful on the foreign front because foreign affairs come more under the US President's control. On the domestic front, I am cynical in part because he will forced to compromise as he will not have an absolute majority in the Senate and as he lacks much political capital in the Senate even he won the popular vote. In terms of Africa, I am very doubtful he will do much as most of his attention will diverted on dealing the US domestic economic crisis and improving relations with hostile nations.