{UAH} The US/Africa Leaders Summit - Where do we fit in the picture?

WHERE DO WE FIT IN THE PICTURE?

 

In the weeks preceding the US-Africa Leaders Summit, I spent a considerable amount of time pondering where exactly we Ugandans in the Diaspora (especially those of us in the US) fit in the picture.  I was initially very excited about the summit and had made plans to go to Washington DC to attend some of the events.  But I have to confess to a significant level of frustration at the lack of information made available to me in the ensuing weeks and a total inability to see where I fit into the picture.  As such, like so many others, I finally opted to stay home and monitor the summit from my computer.

 

So let me ask this question.  What exactly did take place last week?  What results can we Ugandans in America expect to see, and (I continue to ask the question), where do we fit in the picture?

 

When our leaders talk about investment, and most specifically ask us to invest in Uganda, what exactly do they mean?  How are these words being translated and conveyed to Ugandans in North America?  Yes UNAA is hosting a convention that will feature a trade and investments forum where some of this will be discussed, but this is just one event and the message will be conveyed to just a fraction of the total number of Ugandans living in North America.

 

Based on information pieced together entirely from online sources, it is my estimate that Uganda's potential trade and investment benefits from this summit could top $500 million in the next few years.  But again I have to ask, where do we Ugandans in North America fit in the picture?

 

Now let me be clear on this.  I am not talking about small hand outs and token overtures to our community, I am asking about how we can be effective partners in the "Power Africa" program, or the agricultural "Feed the Future" program, or any of the many other programs that were discussed last week?  How can we be of significant relevance to the development opportunities that will occur as a result of this summit.

 

I believe that the Government of Uganda has done a totally inadequate and ineffective job of reaching out and communicating with Ugandans wherever they may live in North America.  I believe that the many community events that take place in Ugandan communities throughout North America and throughout the year present a multitude of opportunities for the Uganda Government to reach out and speak directly with the people.  Yes, their presence and message may not be particularly well received in some places, but such are the challenges. 

 

I remember when then Vice President Gilbert Bukenya came to Los Angeles in 2007 and met with the local community.  Yes, he was met with some hostilities here and there, but overall the Ugandan community appreciated the effort and many felt a degree of relevance to the government back home.  That was 7 long years ago.  Other senior government officials have since visited the area (the current Vice President, Speaker of Parliament, numerous members of parliament, Uganda Embassy officials, etc.), but none has made as public an effort to engage the entire community as the past Vice President.

 

So as a Ugandan living in California, I want to know what happened in Washington, DC last week.  I want to know what was discussed.  I want to know what the President, ministers, CEO's and other delegates from Uganda did and accomplished.  I want to know what was decided.  I want to know what opportunities were created.  I want to know how these discussions and decisions will impact the lives of my friends and relatives in Ugandai.  And on a personal note, I want to know where I fit in the picture.

 

--------------------------------------

US-Africa Summit: Obama's tough love well overdue – By Hank Cohen

Posted on August 14, 2014 by AfricanArgumentsEditor

President Obama committed time and tough love to to a surprisingly successful US-African leaders summit.

During the three-month preparatory period prior to the US-Africa summit there was much skepticism among Africa watchers in Washington.  The basis for the sentiment was the widespread belief that President Obama had already disappointed African nations who expected so much from an American President of African ancestry. Everything about the summit preparations appeared to confirm this view:

• Why did President Obama wait until his sixth year in office to hold the summit?  Was he just trying to play catch up with the Chinese?

• Why did Obama decide against having one-on-one meetings with each of the 50 African summit participants?  This could be considered demeaning to the Africans who needed presidential photo-ops for the citizens back home.

• Why was there no summit document to be announced at the end?  Did that mean there would be nothing substantive to announce?

Looking back at the summit a week later, I am persuaded that the net result was actually substantive and quite positive.

As far as the format is concerned, the Africans found the informality of American hospitality to be refreshing. The first evening, for example, African heads of state were taken out to neighborhood restaurants in groups of four with company CEOs from all over the country, chaperoned by Cabinet Secretaries, NSC senior officials, and State Department office directors.

One of the objectives was to introduce heads of state to the top echelons of the American private sector.  The Bloomberg Foundation and the American Chamber of Commerce did a great job of bringing in a large number of top CEOs to mingle with the African leaders over a two-day period.

Obama did not do one-on-one sessions with each of the African leaders, but he spent a whopping eight hours alone with the entire group on the third day, in three separate sessions.  Obama was mainly in listening mode, a refreshing change from the other summits.

Outside of the extractive industries, especially oil and copper, American investors are not well represented in Africa. The discussions allowed the Africans to encourage them to look seriously at opportunities in Africa, and to inspire confidence through personal contact.  At the same time, the CEOs told the Africans of their apprehensions about the risks of investing in Africa. This type of interchange is unprecedented and very healthy.

I believe that President Obama has utilized the occasion of the summit to make a major change in US policy toward Africa that is long overdue.

President Obama's message is that traditional foreign aid has been salutary, but has reached its limits. Foreign aid, combined with macroeconomic reforms, resulted in two to four percent annual growth since 1980.  That is fine as far as it goes.  But economic takeoff along the lines of the Asian Tigers requires major private sector investment, by both domestic and foreign players.

There are major impediments to greater private investment in most African countries.  President Obama went over all of them, and made focused proposals to address them.

The electricity deficit

Very little can be accomplished without adequate electric power.  The Obama Administration has come up with a very creative approach to the electricity deficit.  Encourage private investors to invest in electricity generation, leveraging the many sources of USG financial and logistical support in agencies such as OPIC, EXIMBANK, and TDA. The program, called, 'Power Africa' is already off to a good start.

The agricultural deficit

Relatively high earnings from commodity exports are being used mainly for importing food. This does not make sense because the potential for agriculture in Africa is quite high.  However, African farmers, who are in the majority in most African countries, have very low productivity.  They need classic extension services that do not currently exist.  They lack technology, machinery, storage, farm-to-market roads, and land tenure. To address this impediment to development, the Obama Administration has established the 'Feed the Future' program within USAID. It is more a knowledge driven program rather than money driven.

The 'Good Governance' deficit

Many potential investments, from both domestic and foreign sources, are not happening because of the absence of the rule of law, the problematic enforcement of contracts, and an overall poor bureaucratic environment related to licensing, permits, and quixotic decision making.  President Obama offered to make the US democracy organizations (i.e. NED and IRI) available to mentor in this area in addition to their classic work in democracy promotion.

What impressed me so much about the message from the summit was that President Obama is the first US President to tell the truth to African power.  Previous US presidents were popular with the Africans because they were creative and generous with assistance. Clinton offered the advantage of free trade in one direction, from Africa to the US. Bush offered a major program to attack HIV, Tuberculosis and Malaria, saving many lives.

Obama's message is tough love.  "It is up to you African leaders to set the right priorities and implement the right policies at home in order to allow us to leverage limited funds to attract investors. IT'S YOUR PROBLEM, guys."  No US president has sent this message before.  It was long overdue.

Herman J. 'Hank' Cohen is Former Assistant Secretary of State for Africa.