This week Secretary Clinton headed to Africa to improve relations with the struggling region (Reuters). The US has done much to address problems there in recent years, including extensive provision of development financing through multilateral lending institutions and the reasonably successful PEPFAR program initiated by Dubya. Clinton’s trip is welcome as the US must actively compete with China for influence in the region.
The United States’ primary interest in Africa is trade growth. Africa can and should be the next low-cost labor region of the world, so trade with African states is in the interests of both firms and consumers in the US—and the struggling economies of the region. The continent is plagued by barriers to trade–in addition to damning geopolitical legacies from colonization and the Cold War, economic growth-restricting population movement restrictions and capital controls, disease, resource curses, corruption, and conflict. Islamic Africa and the Horn of Africa present other geopolitical questions, but trade should be Washington’s primary concern for the region as a whole.
The tragic and destructive conflict that continues to ravage the continent is difficult to ignore. Unfortunately, the US has learned by sad experience that a policy of unilateral humanitarian intervention is inherently costly, non-neutral, and inconsistent, not to mention typically unsuccessful and rife with unintended consequences. Conflict reduction would hasten trade development, but intervention efforts should only be undertaken by multilateral organizations which can share the financial, military, and political costs of involvement. The US should willingly support UN and other efforts in the region, but the days of unilateral interventions and their inevitable costs to US credibility are over. The international community must bear the costs of failing to end conflicts, not the United States alone. US foreign policy must protect US interests.
All efforts in Africa should be focused on reducing trade barriers, and the PR coming out of the administration seems to adhere to that principle.
See also:
- Economist Lant Pritchett’s book on the economic costs of population movement restriction (you can read it free online)
- Dueling books by economists Jeff Sachs and Bill Easterly on aid and development
- Economist Jagdish Bhagwati’s book on “globalization” in the developing world
- Chollett and Goldgeier’s fabulous book on 1990s US foreign policy, including a nuanced discussion of the Somalia and Rwanda debacles (everyone should read this book)
Real Diplomacy 