US President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama board Air Force One at the end of the final leg of their weeklong visit to Africa, at the Julius Nyerere airport in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Tuesday, July 2, 2013. (Ben Curtis/AP)

Mandela and Africa in the American imagination

By C. Matthew Hawkins, Guest blogger / 07.19.13

•A version of this post originally appeared on Africa on the Blog. The views reflected are the author's own. 

President Obama's three-country trip to Africa this summer has fueled a lively discussion about what – if anything – his presidency means for the African continent, as well as what American policy toward Africa should look like. But how has the trip actually registered with Americans? 

In my experience, black Americans, most of whom have descended from African slaves, tend to think of Africa as an extension of the United States’ own domestic struggle for racial equality. For them the greatest drama of the trip was generated by suspense over whether or not Mr. Obama was going to get a chance to meet Nelson Mandela, and the fear that Mr. Mandela might die during the journey.

Significantly, for those who believe that the Obama administration has been negligent about developing a meaningful policy on Africa during the five years he has been in office, the fact that Obama arrived too late to meet Mandela was a metaphor for the failure of the administration to clearly articulate a coherent Africa policy in general – long after the Chinese, the Indians, the Turks, the Japanese, and the Brazilians had already made significant inroads.

The ties between Africa and America, in the minds of Americans, have always been at once distant and close. We share Mandela and Martin Luther King Jr. as archetypes of social justice. The mythologies surrounding the two historic figures contain parallels. Like Mr. King, the narrative about Mandela has been softened and diluted in the popular imagination to make his story more acceptable to American institutions.

In America one doesn’t often hear about Mandela’s opposition to imperialism, just as one doesn’t hear very much about King’s opposition to the Vietnam War. One doesn’t hear about Mandela’s fight against the concentration of wealth among a financial elite, just as one doesn’t hear very much about King’s struggles for the rights of poor people and for organized labor in America.

What one does hear is a great deal about is Mandela’s struggle against apartheid, which parallels the institutional emphasis on King’s struggle against racial segregation in the United States. One hears about Mandela’s patience while in prison, and his willingness to forgive his captors, just as one hears about King’s persistent nonviolence in the face of hostile racist mobs in the US. 

Lacking much detailed knowledge about the continent as a whole, for many Americans, Africa is Mandela and Mandela is Africa., So their attention has been riveted by the story of the rapid deterioration of the South African leader’s health, almost to the exclusion of other topics.

For recent African immigrants to America, however, it was another story. This group, while often proudly distinguishing themselves from native black Americans, frequently expressed a less romanticized view of African governments and institutions during Obama's trip. They tended to be much more critical of African governments. They often argued that most of these governments were hopelessly corrupt, and that the only sensible thing for Obama to do was to not try to engage them at all. 

Then there was a third group of Americans – those whose views perhaps most closely reflect the mainstream. Americans often seem to feel most keenly motivated when we believe that we are in competition with someone else. This third group reflected those competitive tendencies, focusing on their fears about the growing influence of the Chinese in the African continent. The greatest question on their minds was how Obama’s trip could be used to counter Chinese investment and business deals with African governments.

Similarly, there were those who watched the trip for signs that it would signal the expansion of an American military presence on the continent as part of the borderless “war on terror." 

A version of this mainstream American thinking was expressed by resentment toward the tendency of some black Americans to continue to claim an African identity, just as many white Americans still identify with their European countries of origin. Those who resent the enduring African identity among black Americans expressed this resentment in their criticisms of Obama’s trip. They saw the trip as being a lavish vacation for the first family at taxpayer expense. They also saw it as being an attempt, by the president and the first lady, to get in touch with their “African roots” and strengthen their appeal among black voters back home. These critics noted that at a time when the federal government is raising taxes while its agencies are cutting services, the Obamas have embarked on a journey to Africa at an estimated cost of $100 million.

The complaints became so fierce that the White House was forced to explain that the president was conducting the nation’s business – but since the destination was Africa, and most Americans are not aware of the rising economic and geopolitical significance of the continent, the president’s attempt to promote his trip as being in the nation’s strategic interest was a hard sell.

Finally, there were small, progressive groups in the country that used media coverage of the trip to promote the view that Americans must take a second look at the African continent. Their message was that there is a “new Africa” emerging, and narratives that focus on corruption, violence, poverty, and disease are missing the point. This final group supports increasing deals and partnerships between African and American businesses, even though they are unclear about precisely how one should go about this.

They are ambivalent about more charitable aid to Africa, believing that such aid is condescending and paternalistic but might also be actually needed. Above all, they are clear about the fact that Americans must treat Africans with greater respect than they have in the past – they see respect, at the very least, as a good starting point.

So, what Americans see in Africa often reveals more about the state of mind of the Americans than it does about the realities in Africa. Reactions in the United States to Obama’s trip reflected what Americans needed to see and believe about Africa in order to reenforce what they see and believe about themselves, as Americans.

For some, Africa is a continent toward which Americans can express their generosity, or contempt, by focusing primarily on charitable aid, while for others it is a continent of budding economic opportunity that they haven’t quite figured out how to get in on. For some, Africa is a romantic and mythological motherland that possesses the mysterious elixir to heal the wounds of over 400 years of American racism, while for others it is a chaotic no-man’s land of failed states, child soldiers, rampant disease, and random acts of violence, and it will be the next battlefront in the US war on terror. And for many Americans, Africa does not even seem to register in their consciousness at all.

The range of reactions to the president’s trip reveals the divided image of Africa in the American imagination.

A worker shows gold found through gold panning at the Wad Bushara gold mine near Abu Delelq in Gadarif State, Wad Bushara, Sudan, April 27, 2013. (Mohamed Nureldin Abdallah/Reuters)

Study: African nations should give citizens a direct cut of their mineral wealth

By Tom Murphy, Guest blogger / 07.18.13

•A version of this post originally appeared on the blog A View From the Cave. The views reflected are the author's own.

Natural resources could be the next great development financing tool.

It is quite simple. Take the money that a government makes from the sale of oil, gold, copper, etc. and give citizens a cut.

Giving direct cash will help out the people that need it most and it could spur on development as people will then spend the money on local businesses and services. Additionally, it will reduce corruption and let the average citizen hold his or her government accountable for how money is spent.

That is the basic case made by Todd Moss of the Center for Global Development with his oil-to-cash initiative. A new working paper from World Bank economists Shanta Devarajan and Marcelo Giugale takes the idea and applies it to resource-rich African nations. They come up with some theoretical ways that countries can design schemes that will turn natural resources from a curse to a blessing.

It matters now because more African countries are discovering major reserves that will significantly alter their national trajectories. The researchers suggest that governments can follow the example of Alaska and the Canadian province of Alberta who developed schemes that distribute a fixed proportion of resource revenues to all citizens, adopting what the researchers call direct dividend payments (DDPs).

Giving a modest amount of natural resource revenues to citizens can contribute significantly to the elimination of poverty in some countries.

“A transfer of about 10 percent of oil revenues in Angola, Equatorial Guinea and Gabon, distributed universally, would be sufficient to close the poverty gap in these countries,” write Mr. Devarajan and Mr. Giugale. “For larger countries such as Mozambique and Nigeria, the transfer would cover about half the poverty gap.”

Governments were initially resistant to DDPs for three reasons:

1. Too hard and costly to identify citizens;
2. No incentives for present leaders to give up resource revenues;
3. Cash-strapped governments cannot afford to give away valuable revenue that pays for public services.

Devarajan and Giugale admit that all were problems year ago, but changes in countries and technological advances wipe away the three concerns. Identifying citizens is easier than ever. India, home to 1.2 billion people, is a third of the way done with its identification card scheme. If India can do it, so can smaller countries. The second concern is less of an issue due to increased democratization. With more countries having elections, candidates can campaign on the idea of initiating a DDP scheme.

Finally, the implementation of DDPs may actually make governments better. With less money, governments will have to eliminate wasteful spending and programs and may even increase public scrutiny for government spending. DDPs recognize the limitations of governments in accomplishing what they set out to do.

In an ideal world, where governments perfectly reflect the preferences of citizens and face no constraints in providing public goods, there is no need for DDPs or, indeed, for any type of cash transfer. The government will choose the correct mix of public investment and consumption, and implement it costlessly.

That sounds simple enough, but it may not be so easy. Prior research from Devarajan shows that increased scrutiny can slow down the ability of the government to invest natural resource revenues into services. Other research shows that governments may react by providing people with the services they want in order to avoid further scrutiny. In such a case, DDPs would ensure that governments are more responsive to the needs of citizens in order to keep people happy.

This careful balance means that DDPs will work well in countries already benefiting from natural resources, where the transfers would increase level of government scrutiny and the political system where the ruling party has to respond to citizen needs.

It will also work better in smaller countries where taking a small cut from revenues will go a long way. However, large countries should not be dismissed, say the authors. The transfers can move people living in poverty above or closer to the poverty line. Picking up on DDPs will improve transparency in governments, something that the authors say is a good thing.

They are not a substitute for continuing and enhanced efforts at developing the institutional capacity of governments. On the contrary, they complement those efforts, because they trigger additional demands for public accountability.

In this 2009 file photo, Equatorial Guinea's President, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, addresses the 64th United Nations General Assembly at the UN headquarters in New York. (Lucas Jackson/Reuters )

Study: West facilitates African corruption

By Tom Murphy, Guest blogger / 07.15.13

•A version of this post originally appeared on the blog A View From the Cave. The views expressed are the author's own. 

Last week, the French government sold off nine luxury cars at an auction in Paris, raising $3.6 million. Luxury names took the stage including Porsche, Bugatti, and Bentley.

The luxurious fleet once belonged to Teodorin Obiang, son of Equatorial Guinea’s President Teodor Obiang. The cars were seized in 2011 when the younger Obiang was charged with embezzling public funds in France.

It is quite the collection for someone who earned an official salary of $7,000 a month during that time. He has also managed to purchase a $30 million home in Malibu and liberated a $23.5 million art collection from the walls of fashion designer Yves Saint Laurent.

The money comes largely from the oil that the tiny west African country produces, whose profits have mysteriously made their way into the smooth rides and stylish suits worn by the Obiang family.

Corruption may feel like a problem in a far off nation, but it is also much closer to home than one expects, said Charmain Gooch, co-founder of the international NGO global witness, which studies corruption, in a recent TED Talk.

“Corruption is made possible by the actions of global facilitators,” said Ms. Gooch.

Banks and business in the United States and France, for instance, played a role in Mr. Obiang’s purchases.

He did business with global banks. A bank in Paris held accounts of companies controlled by him, one of which was used to buy the art ,and American banks, well, they funneled 73 million dollars into the States, some of which was used to buy that California mansion.

And he didn’t do all of this in his own name either. He used shell companies. He used one to buy the property, and another, which was in somebody else’s name, to pay the huge bills it cost to run the place.

Corruption is a worldwide problem. The Global Corruption Barometer 2013 asked 114,000 people from 107 countries questions about corruption, finding that some 1/4 of people say they paid a bribe when accessing public services and institutions. It is roughly the same rate as last year.

More than two-thirds of Americans say that corruption is a problem in the public sector. Nearly the same amount of people also said that corruption has increased over the past two years. 

“Bribe paying levels remain very high worldwide, but people believe they have the power to stop corruption and the number of those willing to combat the abuse of power, secret dealings, and bribery is significant, “ says Huguette Labelle, chair of Transparency International. “Too many people are harmed when these core institutions and basic services are undermined by the scourge of corruption.”

To do so requires more transparency from governments about the money collected and how it is spent, says the report. Governments should also support rule of law, provide stiff punishments for corruption, and clean up the democratic process.

One way that countries can reduce corruption is by taking on shell companies. Gooch cited a World Bank study that found shell companies were used in 70 percent of the 200 corruption cases it studied. These companies are set up in countries like the UK and the US. She remains optimistic that corruption can be defeated. A transparency campaign launched in 1999 and aimed at the oil and mining sectors has led to an increase in the number of transparency laws for companies, for instance.

“So this is change happening. This is progress. But we’re not there yet, by far. Because it really isn’t about corruption somewhere over there, is it? In a globalized world, corruption is a truly globalized business, and one that needs global solutions, supported and pushed by us all, as global citizens, right here,” she said. 

Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe (l.) shakes hands with Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai after he signed the new constitution into law at State House in Harare, May 22. (Tsvangirayi Mukwazhi/AP/File)

As Zimbabwe election approaches, West softens its condemnation

By Simukai Tinhu, Guest blogger / 07.14.13

•A version of this post originally appeared on Think Africa Press and is republished here with permission. The views expressed are the author's own.

In the past few months, there have been increasing indications that the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union are flirting with reconciliation – or at least a less stridently antagonist relationship – with the once internationally reviled Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe.

In March, for example, Western sanctions against some members of Mr. Mugabe’s inner circle were lifted after a constitutional referendum in Zimbabwe was deemed “peaceful, successful and credible” by the EU. Some of these aides were even invited by the British government to London for a re-engagement meeting. Then, last month when Mugabe announced – unilaterally and somewhat provocatively – that Zimbabwe’s general elections would be held on July31 , the EU and US were notably silent. A similarly muted response would have been hard to imagine just five years ago when Mugabe’s international standing was at rock bottom.

There are a number of possible reasons behind the apparent thawing of the West’s icy stance towards Mugabe. The first is that the president and his ruling ZANU-PF party have genuinely managed to reassure the West of their democratic credentials and that elections this time round will be free and fair. However, this seems to fly in the face of the fact that there have been virtually no political reforms since 2008 and that ZANU-PF has already made public its intentions to change the new constitution were it to regain power.

For the real reasons into the possible shift in the West’s position on Mugabe, we may have to look to other factors.

Zimbabwe’s new face

Over the past few years, the Zimbabwean government has made some attempts to reach out to the international community. In these endeavors, there is no doubt that Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai and his party, the Movement for Democratic Change-Tsvangirai (MDC-T), have helped give Harare a friendly face. Mr. Tsvangirai’s international tours and other diplomatic efforts have helped sanitize the Zimbabwean government, and his role as prime minister has allowed foreign powers greater flexibility to deal with Zimbabwe without being seen to be dealing with Mugabe.

However, Zimbabwe’s improved relations have in turn reflected well on the government as a whole. For his part, Mugabe may have also been hoping for painful relations with the West to heal over. His rhetoric against the British government, for example, appears to become more subdued compared to in the run-up to the 2008 elections.

Mugabe’s staying power

The US and UK’s softened stance could be derived from an acceptance that ZANU–PF and Mugabe are here to stay. As surveys undertaken by Afrobarometer and Freedom House suggest, ZANU–PF not only enjoys a great deal of popular support in country, but this support has been increasing while the MDC’s has been declining. Furthermore, as analyst Phillan Zamchiya has explained, even if the MDC were able to generate more willing voters than ZANU–PF in the next few weeks, it is likely that ZANU-PF would still be able to manipulate the result to ensure victory.

Given how deeply entrenched Mugabe and his party are in Zimbabwean politics, Washington and London may have calculated that unrelenting criticism would be futile and simply Zimbabwe into the arms of other interested parties such as China.

Access to Zimbabwe’s mineral wealth

Following on from the last point, the West’s change of tactics could be seen as a demonstration of realpolitik entrepreneurship. Western sanctions and the increasing involvement of other economic actors in Zimbabwe such as China – in part thanks to Mugabe’s ‘Look East’ policy in the face of those sanctions – has also left many Western countries on the back foot when it comes to Zimbabwe’s considerable mineral wealth. Recognizing that their sanctions did not work as intended, Western nations may now be trying to ease the way for Western companies to regain a stronger foothold in Zimbabwean economic affairs.

The opposition’s fraying image

Since the two MDC factions – the MDC-T led by Tsvangirai, and the MDC-M led initially by Deputy Prime Minister Arthur Mutambara and now by Welshman Ncube – joined the coalition government, Western support for them has faded. This is partly due to the corruption and undemocratic practices some MDC members have been accused of since taking office. Western governments may have realized that criticizing Mugabe and ZANU-PF without extending similar disapproval to MDC members allegedly involved in similarly corrupt activities would be hypocritical. Unwilling to denounce the MDC, Western powers may be consciously holding their tongues more when it comes to Mugabe too.

London’s new leadership

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George W. Bush were the main architects of the policies which saw Mugabe’s government portrayed as a pariah state. Mr. Blair relentlessly lobbied the EU to impose sanctions against President Mugabe. And his successor, Gordon Brown, intensified the assault on Mugabe’s regime.

Under the Conservative-led coalition government which took over in 2010, Prime Minister David Cameron has taken more of a back seat on Zimbabwe, possibly due to the UK’s numerous domestic problems and a shift in foreign policy focus towards Somalia. Some senior Conservative officials have even used a conciliatory tone towards Zimbabwe. Without lobbying from London, the EU has also become more circumspect in its criticism of Mugabe.

Faith in Zuma

During the political crisis that engulfed Zimbabwe between 2001 and 2008, Thabo Mbeki, the president of South Africa at the time, tried to resolve the situation through an approach which was dubbed ‘quiet diplomacy’. This soft approach was heavily criticized by the EU and the US, and Mr. Mbeki was seen as reluctant to put pressure on his fellow ‘revolutionary cadre’ to institute political reforms. Unsure of Mbeki, the UK and US may have felt it necessary to engage more directly in Zimbabwean affairs.

Today’s South African president, Jacob Zuma, is seen as more assertive towards Zimbabwe. Indeed, on his recent trip to the South Africa, US President Barack Obama praised Mr. Zuma’s administration for reining in ZANU–PF and for confronting them on issues such as violence and intimidation as well as the lack of progress on electoral reform. It is possible that the UK and the US trust Zuma to take an effective lead role on Zimbabwe and so feel more comfortable taking a hands-off approach themselves.

Avoiding an imperialist image

Another reason the West might have toned down its stance on Mugabe and avoided openly expressing support for opposition parties is the realization that such rhetoric could actually bolster ZANU-PF’s campaign and undermine the MDC’s. In the past, Mugabe has been able to generate much popular support by denouncing Western interference as imperialist and painting the MDC as puppets of the former colonial regime.

How long will it last?

Throughout the last decade, EU and US officials have told Mugabe’s government that it must bring an end to human rights abuses, corruption, and political violence if it is to be rehabilitated internationally. Yet despite the lack of political reform, the West has recently lifted sanctions, toned down criticism, and engaged in some conciliatory language. The EU and US appear to be attempting to deal with Mugabe and ZANU-PF quite differently than they were five years ago.

How long this will last, however, remains to be seen. Zimbabwean politics are in a precarious poised position and it is highly uncertain how the election will unfold. Rather than marking a whole new era of Zimbabwean-Western relations, the West’s softened stance is probably more part of a wait-and-see approach.

Well-wishers hold a poster of former South African President Nelson Mandela during a prayer meeting outside the African National Congress (ANC) headquarters in Johannesburg July 2, 2013. (Siphiwe Sibeko/Reuters)

Can South Africa's ruling party survive the loss of its global icon?

By John Campbell, Guest blogger / 07.10.13

•A version of this post first appeared on the blog Africa in Transition. The views expressed are the author's own. 

South African politics recently appears to be entering a period of flux. The opportunity for change is signaled by national icon Nelson Mandela’s serious illness. The media is regularly reporting that he is now on life support and South Africans seem to be reconciling themselves to his death.

Increasingly in recent years, he has been an important touchstone for the legitimacy of the governing African National Congress (ANC), especially as scandals involving party leaders have multiplied.

Indeed, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, second only to Mandela as an icon of the anti-apartheid movement, compared the ANC to the old National Party that imposed apartheid because the government of President Jacob Zuma was unwilling to issue a visa to the Dalai Lama, likely for fear of offending the Chinese.

Meanwhile, the media reports ANC scandals on an almost daily basis. The archbishop has said specifically that he will not vote for the ANC in the next elections. Furthermore, the Mandela family is feuding publicly even as their patriarch lies ailing, creating such a spectacle that the archbishop has publicly pleaded with them to stop airing their dirty laundry in public.

But, there are also signs of new growth. Cyril Ramaphosa, one of the architects of the 1993-94 transition to non-racial democracy, was widely thought to be hand-picked to be Mandela’s successor as ANC leader and president of the republic. When Thabo Mbeki became the party’s choice instead, Mr. Ramaphosa removed himself from politics and went into business.

He was highly successful and appears to have the confidence of both the domestic and international business communities. Often described as both “brilliant” and “highly competent,” he is now deputy president of the party. That makes him well placed to be Mr. Zuma’s successor. One possibility is that before the next national elections in 2014, Zuma could step down as president but stay on as party leader. Ramaphosa would then be in a strong position to be the ANC’s presidential candidate. Many speculate that an ANC government under Ramaphosa would be very different from the current Zuma government.

The formal opposition, the Democratic Alliance (DA), dominates a single province, the Western Cape – where Cape Town is located. The provincial premier, Helen Zille, Cape Town Mayor Patricia De Lille, and the party leadership generally are seeking to expand the party’s electoral base beyond its traditionally white and coloured (or mixed race) constituencies.

Its parliamentary leader is a young black woman, Lindiwe Mazibuko. They are particularly looking to make electoral inroads among the black middle class. They emphasize improved service delivery, clean government, and “constitutionalism.” The DA is looking to increase its total share of the parliamentary vote and, just possibly, to capture the Johannesburg city government and that of Gauteng province where the city is located, which is the heart of South Africa's economy.

What's more, an altogether new party has also been organized by anti-apartheid icon Mamphela Ramphele. A medical doctor, she was one of the founders of the Black Consciousness movement and is the mother of liberation martyr Steve Biko’s children. Subsequently she was the first black vice chancellor (equivalent of president) of the University of Cape Town, and later a World Bank official and a businesswoman.

Her newly formed party, Agang SA, will focus on four areas where many South Africans believe the ANC has failed: the economy, education, health, and security. The DA shares many of her views, and she has been chided by some for not joining forces with them so as not to split the anti-ANC vote. But as veteran journalist Allister Sparks observes, under proportional representation, the percentage of votes that a party receives determines the number of seats it has in parliament. If both the DA and Agang SA do well and cooperate (as they are likely to), the ANC’s dominance in parliament could be eroded in this election and possibly end in the next – scheduled for 2019. The ANC, however, will almost certainly continue to provide the executive.

Finally, Julius Malema, the former ANC Youth League bad boy, is talking about launching a radical, black political party. However, he faces fraud charges and may go to jail. Even if he does not, it is questionable whether he has the finances or organizational skills to launch a viable political party.

A soldier walks past a burnt vehicle during a military patrol in Hausari village, near Maiduguri, Nigeria, June 5, 2013. The area has been part of an intensive government crackdown against the Islamist rebel group Boko Haram over the last month. (Joe Brock/Reuters)

The hidden force behind Islamic militancy in Nigeria? Climate change

By Jim Sanders, Guest blogger / 07.08.13

•A version of this post first appeared on the blog Africa in Transition. The views expressed are the author's own. 

Recent protests in Turkey and Brazil are being lionized in the financial press as products of rising prosperity in “developing” countries, where economic growth grates against stagnant institutions. Yet simultaneously another powerful force is also engendering violent social unrest and revealing institutional deficiencies: climate change. 

Ohio State University professor Geoffrey Parker argues in his new book, Global Crisis: War, Climate Change and Catastrophe in the Seventeenth Century, that “the experience of the seventeenth century shows that long-term turbulence and unreliability of the weather inevitably produces calamitous outcomes for humanity.” Civil unrest, conflict, disease, government collapse, and commercial disruption are among the dire consequences.

For Parker, close study of the past, of how governments and people coped with climatic catastrophe in previous centuries, can yield valuable lessons for dealing with such disasters today. But “denial … the commonest human reaction to environmental catastrophe,” is an obstacle.

“The worsening droughts, desiccation, and desertification in equatorial Africa over the past forty years have caused massive migrations, famines, and wars that resemble those of the mid-seventeenth century; yet the rest of the world does virtually nothing,” Mr. Parker wrote in an article five years ago. We want to believe that climate change is not happening yet, or at least not to us, he says.

But in Africa, its effects are undeniable and likely to dwarf those of “booming” middle classes. According to a 1990 paper by Ahmadu Bello University professor Sabo Bako, members of the Maitatsine sect, active in northern Nigeria in the 1980s and described as the “forerunner” of Islamist militant group Boko Haram, included victims of ecological disasters that left them in “a chaotic state of absolute poverty and social dislocation in search of food, water, shelter, jobs, and means of livelihood.”  Climatic factors are cited in analyses of Boko Haram’s emergence and, in the view of one Nigerian security official, religious violence in the country is strongly correlated with environmental stress.

Terrorism and jihadist ideology dominate analysis of groups such as Boko Haram. But Parker suggests a different approach: rewind the tape of history as a means of bringing to light 350 year old coping strategies that could help manage what looks to be the world’s crisis around climate change. Such strategies are needed in Africa today.

Youths hold a candle as they pay their respects outside the Medi-Clinic Heart Hospital, where ailing former South African President Nelson Mandela is being treated, in Pretoria July 1. (Dylan Martinez/Reuters)

Mandela prayer vigil turns political

By Ryan Lenora Brown, Correspondent / 07.01.13

They arrived by the hundreds, spilling out of buses dressed in the green and gold of South Africa’s ruling party, the African National Congress, and carrying signs calling for the swift recovery of former South African President Nelson Mandela.

But as the crowd of well-wishers began to swell near the Pretoria hospital where Mr. Mandela lies is being cared for, its character took on a sharp political edge.

Visitors waved ANC flags and sang anti-apartheid protest songs. Volunteers passed out T-shirts bearing the slogan, “There is no born-free without a liberator. Vote ANC 2014,” and a truck rumbled by emblazoned with a massive image of the country’s current president and ANC party leader, Jacob Zuma.

“We don’t see anything wrong with that,” ANC national spokesman Jackson Mthembu told a local television reporter last Thursday. “No people here at the hospital were asked to vote for the ANC. There was no electioneering.”

But when it comes to Mandela, grief and politics are difficult to disentangle. The ailing former president is the ruling party’s most venerable face, a living reminder of its central role in bringing segregation to its knees and ushering in a new era of democracy and racial reconciliation.

“Very little that happens in South Africa is apolitical,” says Zine Magubane, a professor of sociology at Boston College who studies southern Africa. “Mandela reminds people of the ANC’s highest and most singular achievements.”

He commands a kind of unifying respect unparalleled in American politics, the rare figure behind whom citizens of nearly every political stripe in this rowdy democracy can rally. And with South Africans preparing to go to the polls next year to decide whether or not to give Mandela’s party another term in office, his legacy has taken on a pressing political importance.

Mr. Zuma took pains to draw connections between his administration and the Mandela presidency as he met with President Obama on Saturday in South Africa.

“We are pursuing the dreams and aspirations that Mandela was part of,” he said. “He said [to me] when I go to sleep I'll be very happy because I know South Africa is moving forward.”

However, attempts to draw connections between the moral stature of Mandela and the present-day ANC – muddied by accusations of corruption and mismanagement – have not been universally well received.

In May, a wide variety of critics blasted Zuma for using Mandela to boost his own political standing after a state television station broadcast footage of him and other party leaders visiting the former president in his Johannesburg home. In the video, the visitors circle the room, laughing and chatting as they snap photographs and clasp Mandela’s hands. All the while, Mandela sits rigidly and stares straight forward in silence, his expression slack and unchanging.

"I honestly cannot put in words how hurt the family was” by the decision to air the footage, Winnie Madikizela-Mandela, the former president’s ex-wife, told Britain's ITV News Sunday. "It was insensitive, it compromised the family, compromised his dignity, and it should have never been done."

Meanwhile, the leading opposition party, the Democrat Alliance, also drew fire when it released a poster showing Mandela embracing one of its white founders, tagged with the slogan, “We played our part in opposing apartheid.”

“The attempt by DA to appropriate Nelson Mandela as an icon with no political identity but a neutral person who can be in a poster of any political party is a clear desperate propaganda attempt,” wrote ANC leader Gwede Mantashe. 

There is, however, another voice rising in the political conversation about Mandela’s legacy – that of the country’s youth.

For the first time in next year’s election, there will be voters who were not alive to see Mandela released from prison in 1990, or to watch the wrenching political violence that shook the country as it transitioned to majority rule. These "born frees” grew up in a South Africa where apartheid, and the leaders who fought it, are historical figures rather than contemporaries.

“They don’t have the automatic allegiance to the ANC that their parents and grandparents did,” Ms. Magubane says. “At the same time, they understand the legacy of the past, and while they’re open to alternatives, they’ll wait for those alternatives to be compelling.”

US President Barack Obama greets Tanzanians at an official arrival ceremony in Dar Es Salaam, July 1, 2013. (Gary Cameron/REUTERS)

Far apart on US shores, Bush and Obama find time to meet in Africa (+video)

By Robert Marquand, Staff writer / 07.01.13

President Obama and predecessor George W. Bush haven’t exactly spent a lot of time together on American shores.

But with Mr. Bush still quite popular in Africa for his robust US aid programs, and with Tanzania going slightly crazy about the visit of an American president of African heritage, the US duo is hoping to offer up a bit of American soft power on behalf of US trade and better relations on the continent.

The 44^th  and 43^rd  US presidents will jointly lay a wreath in Dar es Salaam tomorrow in honor of those killed 15 years ago at a bombing of the American embassy, in what proved to be one of the first attacks on a US target by Osama bin Laden.

The White House described the joint wreath-laying as a coincidence, not scripted. At first, it appeared the two men would not meet despite being in the same city in the same corner of Africa.

Mr. Obama’s journey to Africa has included stopovers in Senegal and an emotional visit to South Africa, where Obama met the family of Nelson Mandela, the civil and human rights icon and former president who helped end apartheid.

The White House admits the Africa trip is an effort to improve the administration’s engagement with a continent where Chinese investment has risen from $10 billion in 2000 to some $200 billion last year, usually through state-run or state-linked companies.  In March, new Chinese President Xi Jinping visited Tanzania on his first overseas trip.

Yesterday Obama announced a surprisingly robust $7 billion initiative to help with African electrification, and tomorrow the president visits a US-designed and run power plant in Tanzania. 

The White House is in the East African nation partly because, on a six-day Africa trip designed to promote  trade and democracy, Obama needed to go to East Africa but could not easily visit old ally Kenya, since both the recently elected president and vice president are under indictment by the International Criminal Court for complicity in 2007 election violence.

Bush is in Dar es Salaam for a women’s conference on health that is run out of his George W. Bush institute. Contrary to many assumptions, Bush, as well as former President Bill Clinton, is widely seen as bringing far more tangible help to Africa than Obama.

Bush’s Emergency Plan of AIDS Relief is one of his administrations signal foreign policy successes, and Obama has praised it both in Senegal and then South Africa for helping to save millions of lives. At the same time, Obama has said the old US model of handing out aid willy-nilly on the continent is now giving way to a "new model" of trade and joint US-African partnerships, as Africa's economy continues to rise. 

In the Obama-Bush event, the White House evidently feels it makes sense to show togetherness in a place where Chinese investment and a wide network of expatriate business and trade communities from Great Britain, France, and Germany have often put American firms well in the back of the race on a continent that is starting to show dramatic signs of economic rise.

As Monitor correspondent Mike Pflanz noted in talking with Kenyan sources last week:

Obama is perfectly placed to “leverage the lashings of soft power he has in Africa” to succeed in both of his trip’s main aims: opening up new trade and cautioning over corruption, says Aly-Khan Satchu, a Kenyan economic analyst.

“He’s arriving behind the curve, but now is the chance for him to inflect that curve for the next few years,” Mr. Satchu says. “Obama has so much soft power here that he has not yet used. Put that on the table, and you watch the dialogue change immediately about his supposed semi-detached engagement in Africa."

Mr. Pflanz also pointed out the other side of the US trade equation, noting that China in recent months:

has inked deals on a raft of major infrastructure projects across Africa, the most recent being a $10 billion new port, railway, and economic zone agreed in May for Tanzania.

 “The US under Barack Obama seems only now to be waking up to what others are doing in Africa, and they are having to play catch-up,” says Andrews Atta-Asamoah, senior researcher at South Africa’s Institute for Security Studies.

Announcing the electricity program in Capetown yesterday, Obama stated that: 

Access to electricity is fundamental to opportunity in this age. It's the light that children study by, the energy that allows an idea to be transformed into a real business. It's the lifeline for families to meet their most basic needs, and it's the connection that's needed to plug Africa into the grid of the global economy.

US President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama wave from Air Force One as they depart Dakar, Senegal, June 28. President Obama heads to South Africa on Friday hoping to see ailing icon Nelson Mandela, during his three-nation visit to Africa. (Jason Reed/Reuters)

Circle of history: Will Barack Obama visit Nelson Mandela?

By Robert Marquand, Staff writer / 06.28.13

Whether US President Obama, now in South Africa, will over the next few days have a quick but symbolic visit with Nelson Mandela -- is a question the White House is monitoring hour by hour.

Mr. Mandela has been ailing for several months, but his family has made tentative but affirmative signals that the two men – the first blacks to lead their respective countries – could have a moment.

If Mr. Obama does makes a bedside visit, the family has indirectly suggested, it needn't be a media or political carnival, but can take place on the grounds that it might be meaningful to Mandela himself.

The 94-year-old leader of the African National Congress is one of the more significant human rights leaders of the past century, helping guide a peaceful transition away from white rule in South Africa. Mandela inspired a politically maturing 19-year-old Barry Obama at Occidental College in California, the president has been reminding the world.

Mandela’s daughter Zindzi Mandela-Motlhajwa said this week her father visibly brightened, opening his eyes and smiling from his hospital bed, when told that Obama was soon to visit the country.

Over the past five days, Mandela's condition has been swathed in rumors and confusion, though yesterday, South African president Jacob Zuma said the elderly figure's condition had stabilized. 

“We’ll see what the situation is like when we land,” Obama told reporters aboard Air Force One this morning, as the White House left Senegal for South Africa. Obama's three-nation visit to Africa will end next week in Tanzania, a tour that is meant to show American interest in trade and civil society on the continent.

The White House doesn’t want a gauche Mandela media circus at a time the world press is being criticized for sensationalizing the health of the former leader and conducting a macabre watch outside his hospital. Ms. Mandela-Motlhajwa said her father was showing his qualities as a fighter by confounding some of the rumors of his demise, including a media report Wednesday that he had died. 

"I think the main message we'll want to deliver, if not directly to him, but to his family, is simply profound gratitude for his leadership," Obama said today.

The two men did meet briefly and quite spontaneously at the Four Seasons hotel in Washington. At the time, Obama was the senator from Illinois, and, en route to another meeting but knowing Mandela was at the hotel, suddenly redirected his car.

Whether or not a direct meeting takes place,  Obama will likely visit Mandela’s family.

The president is also scheduled in two days to visit Robben Island, the prison where Mandela was incarcerated for the majority of the 27 years he spent in prison.

On Sunday, Obama gives a major address at the University of Capetown on Sunday. The speech comes nearly 50 years after martyred American political figure Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a civil rights champion, addressed students there, saying in 1966 that:  “Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice … he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and … those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.”

Today Obama is scheduled for a “town hall” at the University of Johannesburg in Soweto, where he will meet with  “the next generation of African leaders in civil society,” as White House spokesman Ben Rhodes described it.  The forum is expected to be one in which the American president also takes up the meaning of Mandela both in South Africa and to the larger world.