Experience, Roots Give Obama Edge in Africa

In this election year, American voters have the ability to determine the future of U.S.-Africa relations.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) represents a positive step forward. Though he has only traveled to Africa once on official state business, Obama has already used his influence in the recent struggle in Kenya. According to a Time report, following the Iowa caucuses, Obama "had near-daily conversations with U.S. ambassador to Kenya Michael Ranneberger or with opposition leader Raila Odinga." As a U.S. senator, Obama provides an authoritative and diplomatic presence. As president, his ability to work for diplomatic solutions would only be increased.

In an April 2007 speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Obama explained that if elected, he would double America's annual investments in support of Africa to $50 billion by 2012. These funds would be used in an ambitious plan "to fight terrorism, halt the proliferation of deadly weapons and build the health care infrastructure needed to prevent and treat such deadly diseases as HIV/AIDS and malaria."

Obama's plan is more extensive than President George W. Bush's current President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (Pepfar), a $15 billion commitment to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa. By discussing these issues in his campaign platform, however, Obama demonstrates that he is more aware of the issues than Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). He recognizes the tremendous challenges facing the continent. America should be an active partner, not an apathetic bystander.

McCain represents a step backwards for U.S.-Africa relations. While he frequently touts his foreign policy experience, his knowledge of Africa is considerably lacking. McCain cannot match Obama in terms of readiness to engage and assist African nations. In March 2007, the senator was asked if he supported financing the distribution of condoms in Africa to prevent AIDS. His response of "I haven't thought about it" leaves much to be desired from a presidential candidate. When asked, "Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV," McCain replied, "You've stumped me." Such ignorance on an issue so relevant to the world today is unsettling. Perhaps, as Obama has suggested, the Straight Talk Express has lost some wheels during the last 71 years.

McCain portrays himself as a strong advocate of U.S. intervention in Darfur. In a 2006 letter to the Washington Post, McCain and former senator and presidential candidate, Bob Dole (R-Kan.), write that "people of conscience were shocked by and ashamed of our failure to stop the genocide in Bosnia and Rwanda. We must not repeat these mistakes."

Voters should question McCain's motives. Does the candidate consider Darfur more of a humanitarian issue or an economic issue? Is the goal of intervention to end the violence or to fulfill his campaign promise of opening new markets to American corporate exploitation? Either way, this call for action has been unsuccessful, and such intervention has failed to materialize.

Obama's proposed initiatives are still in danger of being regarded as controlling and paternalistic new outgrowths of Western imperialism. Africa's leaders and citizens skepticism of American sincerity is understandable, considering that as recently as the 1970s, portions of the continent were under European control. The long history of white colonization and brutality has negatively influenced opinions of American involvement.

In light of Bush's February 2008 five-nation diplomatic visit, there is a growing suspicion among African leaders that the United States is planning to establish an army base on the continent. Africom, a proposed Pentagon headquarters, would aid in the training of African troops, but would not serve as a permanent U.S. military instillation. This outpost could facilitate the transfer of international aid across the continent.

African cynicism cannot be mollified simply by Bush's recent reference to the military base rumor as "baloney" or "bull." The United States and the international community have the resources to make a difference in Africa. A different approach to leadership must be taken.

In this respect, Obama's racial identity gives him a potential advantage over McCain. During his 2006 visit to his father's home country of Kenya, the senator remarked that "when I came here I felt the spirit among the people who told me that I belonged." This sense of belonging, of being an insider, is especially important when it is reciprocated. If Africans identify with Obama, they will be, at least initially, more receptive to his policies. Any proposals seen as reminiscent of colonial times would surely dampen this relationship, but at the onset Obama is positioned to drastically strengthen American relations with Africa.

There is a clear struggle over the definition of foreign policy between the Democrats and Republicans. According to his own definition, McCain appears qualified to manage the nation's diplomatic relations. Instead of listing foreign policy under the issues section of his campaign Web site, McCain has separate pages for the war in Iraq and national security. He speaks about "fighting against violent Islamic extremists" and preparing the military for the 21st century, issues where he can credibly claim to have experience.

Interestingly, the Web site does not mention international diplomacy or relief efforts. According to the National Priorities Project, American taxpayers spend $275 million every day, or over $100 billion each year, on the war in Iraq. Such reckless and unnecessary spending, conceived by the Bush administration and approved by McCain, has diverted money away from where it is most needed. McCain has made it clear that this will continue if he is elected.

This is in striking contrast to Obama's issues section. Under a headline entitled "Renewing American Diplomacy," Obama stresses that America must expand its diplomatic presence around the world. He calls for establishing consulates "in the tough and hopeless corners of the world – particularly in Africa." From the start, he shows awareness of the fact that foreign policy is more than military strategy. As the world's wealthiest nation, America has a responsibility to offer aid and assistance to those in need. The nation must prioritize humanitarianism over militarism. Spending billions on weapons systems ensures that few funds remain for international relief efforts. On this issue, Obama is far more knowledgeable and better equipped to lead than McCain.