Obama has
just finished his trip to Africa and has received lot of attention
here, and also worldwide – perhaps more so than some of his other
travels – mostly because of the rarity of the visit, the health of
Mandela and perhaps even the increasing attention the continent is
getting as the next big thing, however true that may be. Much of the
reporting has had an 'about time' theme to it, especially from
African journalists, who reflect some local sentiment in lamenting
his neglect of the continent in his first term, and the lack of any
major initiative – which we now have. Much of the reporting has
also drawn parallels with China's engagement with Africa, many times
combining the two themes of US neglect with China's active engagement
and, if at least implicitly, weaving into a backdrop of a changing
global order and Africa as a coveted ally and battleground. A lot of
this is misplaced, there is a tendency to get a little over-excited
here in Africa about a changing global order, in part because we have
been flattered by China's attention and it feels good to be
acknowledged as having a role to play. Things are changing, but
probably a little slower than often expressed and the entire China story
still has to run its course. Also, much of this is misplaced because
the US still has a role to play in Africa and does seem to enjoy
support that is perhaps not always commensurate with the changing trade statistics that show Africa's huge shift to China.
Nonetheless, China has changed the way the US is seeing Africa, and that is reflected in the shape of the new power initiative.
Firstly, on
Obama's seeming neglect, it is hard to blame him really. For one he
has always carefully managed his identity in US politics by not
making a big thing out of it, or using it very judiciously to select
groups and only then to tell a very specific story that is not
threatening to other voter groups, especially white Americans. It
was always going to be difficult for him to come straight off the bat
in the first year or two with some African initiative lest he scare
people about exactly where his loyalties lied – perhaps absurd, but
there are some scary people who oppose him and whose followers are
equally scary. I do not pretend to be an expert on US
politics, but I imagine had he touted some policy encouraging African
immigration to the US as a means of development (
economic arguments better than the political), Donald
Trump would be more
than riled up. Identity politics was probably a minor reason
however; he also had wars to end, the Arab Spring and an economy to
save and he was never going to be re-elected on a non-immediate
foreign policy achievement. Let's not drive him too hard on this
issue then, he is here now, fresh into his second term and his power
initiative could be promising, caveats later.
The other
focus on the reporting has been making comparisons with China. This
is perfectly natural, China's expansion into Africa has been rapid
this last decade. But there are some big issues on that front and China is
grappling with the consistency's of its own policies and trying to
win public support from an at time suspicious local populace. The
graph below is interesting, although the data is old (2008,
weighted), it is still revealing how equal, and overall slightly
ahead the US is compared to China in public perceptions, despite the
much larger role China plays in most economies relative to the US.
This is from the
Afrobarometer survey, and only shows those answering
at the most positive extreme – but other categories were roughly
similar; 30% in each country had no opinion. A recent
Gallup poll
highlighted the US' popularity in Africa too.
To say that
his trip is about playing catch up or is a reaction to Chinese
expansion is tenuous. The US wants different things from Africa (not
raw materials, although arguably allies) and it still has much
prestige and soft power to draw on. The world order has not changed
so much that there is a zero-sum game amongst great powers that
allows only one major bilateral relationship. Nonetheless, the shape
of the initiative that Obama has chosen to pursue is interesting in
its departure from the humanitarian agenda's of past Presidents, and
the governance agenda of Western agencies that has dominated
development engagements recently. It is infrastructural and focused
on trade, not dissimilar to the Chinese model that has won it many
favours in Africa. Perhaps China's use of such a model inspired him,
or perhaps it is just a focus he wants to pursue given the impact it
could have – indeed there is a great need for power in Africa, with
many development gains on offer (both macro and micro –
Dinkleman has an interesting paper on this.)
There are
many types of power though, and it is not clear exactly where the
Power Africa initiative will aim to strike the balance. Reading the
White House factsheet, there does seem a focus on a variety of
projects, that include clean and renewable (technology intensive)
solutions that are both large and small in scale. Given Obama came
very close to vetoing the World Bank loan to South Africa for the
Medupi Coal Power Plant (the largest dry-cooled plant in the world,
turning some of the world's dirtiest coal into gaseous form – like
many great economic transformations before it), it is hard to imagine
these types will be on offer. Which is a pity. This is not to say that
there is no room for the technologically cool and exciting
small-scale, renewable projects many Western consultants will
enthusiastically write up, but Africa needs cheap and reliable base
load power. And we have the fossil fuels on hand to match it.
Centralised (electrical) power is almost always more efficient and
cheaper, and while with grid power comes grid responsibility (to
paraphrase the equally inspirational Ben Parker), it is arguably easier than micro-managing and maintaining smaller sites. It
requires a grid, and expertise – which many African states have, at
least centrally located, and this is infrastructure we will need if
we are ever going to transform into an industrial society and enjoy
the wealth that it offers. For this though, $7bn is no where near
the almost $400bn the AfDB estimates Africa needs for infrastructure.
It is a start and the trade and infrastructure based nature of it
should be welcomed, but Africa must ensure that the best development
gains are honestly appraised and realised and that the initiative does not
descend into pet projects of development practitioners and the
American clean energy industry who ignore the economic development –
environment trade off that sadly does currently exist.