May 11, 2001

by

in

Open letter to Prime Minister Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia

Association of Concerned Africa Scholars
May 11, 2001

In response to the accelerating repression against students and scholars in Ethiopia, ACAS on May 11th wrote to Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, urging him to release all detainees and restore conditions ensuring freedom of speech and academic freedom. While some detainees have been released, others have not. We urge our members to write as well to:

Prime Minister Meles Zenawi: Fax: 251-1-55-2020
US Secretary of State Colin Powell: Fax: (202) 261-8577, Email: Secretary@state.gov

Print addresses are on our letter below. The African Studies Association (USA) also issued a letter to Prime Minister Meles on 25 June 2001.

Background: Human Rights Watch has issued an alert with a briefing (May 10, 2001); see also the appeal from the Families and Friends of Professor Mesfin Wolde Mariam and Dr. Berhanu Nega (May 14, 2001), as well as an online petition and short biographies of Professor Mesfin and Dr. Berhanu. Further efforts are being organized by the Ethiopian University Support Site, and the Addis Ababa University Alumni Network.

* * *

May 11, 2001

His Excellency Meles Zenawi
P.O.Box 1031
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Via Fax: 2511-55-20-20

Dear Prime Minister Meles,

On behalf of the Association of Concerned Africa Scholars (ACAS), a national organization of progressive scholars actively engaged with Africa, we write to urge that you take immediate steps to release detained students and scholars, and allow university communities to return to their work unhindered by state repression.

ACAS and its members have a long history of respect and support for Ethiopian struggles for freedom; indeed Ethiopia has often been a source of inspiration for Americans. We are thus particularly disturbed by what can only be seen as a determined campaign to suppress free speech and academic freedom. Whatever the events and persons involved in the April disturbances in Addis Ababa, the subsequent attack on Addis Ababa University and other institutions of higher education shocked our members and many in the international academic community. The reports of subsequent summary arrests and the detention of thousands of students and scholars–without charges or trial–is of especially grave concern. The even more recent arrest of Professor Mesfin Woldemariam, the founding member of Ethiopian Human Rights Council, and Dr. Berhanu Nega, a prominent economist at Addis Ababa University, signals we fear an unrelenting campaign to eliminate all dissent, well beyond even the repression of those who work within the fields of higher education.

We thus urge you to use your office to ensure the immediate release of all detained students, scholars, and related persons–or if evidence exists, their charge in public court. The continuation of sweeping arrests and detention without charges, the closure of universities and colleges, and the imposition of loyalty oaths as a condition of study and scholarship, gravely threatens Ethiopia’s proud intellectual heritage, its continuation, and progressive relations between Ethiopia and the United States. We hope continuing repression can be reversed, and return Ethiopia to us as a signal beacon of the struggle for freedom for both Africa and America.

Sincerely,

Merle Bowen, Co-Chair
William G. Martin, Co-Chair

cc:

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell
U.S. Department of State
Washington, DC 20520
Fax: (202) 261-8577

Ambassador Berhane Gebre-Christos
Ethiopian Ambassador to the United States
Embassy of Ethiopia
3506 International Drive, NW
Washington DC 20008
Fax (202) 686-9551

Feb 05, 2001

by

in

Open Letter to President Benjamin Mkapa of Tanzania

Association of Concerned Africa Scholars
February 5, 2001

President Benjamin William Mkapa,
United Republic of Tanzania
The State House
PO Box 9120
Dar Es Salaam
Tanzania
FAX 22-211-3425

Dear President Mkapa,

The Association of Concerned Africa Scholars writes today to condemn the killings of activists on the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba in late January and the ongoing suppression of peaceful citizens exercising their democratic rights. We support the call of our colleagues in the Legal Aid Committee of the Faculty of Law of the University of Dar Es Salaam (28 January 2001) for an end to police violence and repression.

As a national association of scholars in the United States, many of whom have had a long association with and respect for the United Republic of Tanzania, we are deeply concerned by these violations of fundamental human rights and the killings on the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba on Saturday 27 January 2001. We were equally appalled by the reports of arrests, harassment, torture, injury and incarceration of the leaders of political organizations exercising their rights to peaceful assembly on these islands and in Dar Es Salaam. We condemn these actions unequivocally and call for your government to immediately put a stop to such measures and to investigate the abuses of the police and other security forces.

We note that the Legal Aid Committee, which has been providing human rights training for members of the police force since 1997, expresses particular concern at the behavior of the police force and we call on the government to ensure that the commanders of this force are held accountable for the actions of their subordinates.

Mr. President, we look forward to hearing from you the actions that your government is taking to put a stop to these violations of human rights and we will be following these events closely in this country and working to make others aware of the reports from your country.

Sincerely,
William Martin
Co-Chair, Association of Concerned Africa Scholars
Fernand Braudel Center
Binghamton University
PO Box 6000
Binghamton, NY 13902-6000
wgmartin@prairienet.org
http://acas.prairienet.org

cc.
Ambassador Charles R. Stith
United States Embassy
P.O. Box 9123
Dar es Salaam
Tel [255] (22) 2666010/1/2/3/4/5
Fax 2666701
Email: usembassy-dar2@cats-net.com

His Excellency Mustafa Salim Nyang’anyi
Embassy of the United Republic of Tanzania
2139 R St. NW, Washington, DC 20008, USA.
Tel: (202) 884-1080 & (202) 939-6125
Fax: (202) 797-7408
e-mail: balozi@tanzaniaembassy-us.org

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell
U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC, 20520
Fax: 202-261-8577
e-mail: secretary@state.gov

Jan 31, 2001

by

in

Open Letter to the President of the Republic of Uganda, Yoweri K. Museveni

Association of Concerned Africa Scholars
January 31, 2001

[Note: Within a week after this letter, Dr. Depelchin was released and ended his hunger strike after UN observors were dispatched to Ituri province. Dr. Depelchin shortly thereafter left Uganda. We thank ACAS members and others for their work on this and related, continuing, issues.]

31 January 2001
His Excellency Yoweri K. Museveni
President of the Republic of Uganda
The President’s Office
Kampala, Uganda
Fax: 256 41 235 462

Dear Mr. President,

I write on behalf of the Association of Concerned Africa Scholars to express our deep concern and dismay over the kidnapping by Ugandan forces of Dr. Jacques Depelchin, whom many of us know from his work in the North American and African academic community. Dr. Depelchin was arrested at gunpoint on January 28, 2001 in Bunia, and taken to Kampala by force. He is now apparently under some form of “city arrest,” and is engaged, in response, on a hunger strike.

As far as we know, there is no justification for this action, and no charges have been laid against him. We thus urge that restrictions on Dr. Depelchin be immediately removed, and that his possessions be returned to him.

If, however, the Ugandan authorities have evidence that Dr. Depelchin has violated the law or committed a crime, then they should formally charge in open court and give him an opportunity to defend himself, with legal counsel, as guaranteed under law.

We also urge that your office to work to end the promotion of ethnic violence and genocide in Ituri province, and to encourage the despatch of neutral international observors to Bunia and Ituri.

Sincerely,
William G. Martin, Co-Chair

Mar 17, 2000

by

in

Boycott Conflict Diamonds

Physicians for Human Rights
July 17, 2000

Open Letter to the World Diamond Congress

Antwerp, Belgium

To whom it may concern:

We the undersigned human rights, religious, development, humanitarian, and consumer organizations call upon the international diamond industry to announce immediate, practical measures to end the international trade in conflict diamonds. We are dismayed that despite clear evidence that international trade in rebel-controlled diamonds has ignited, fueled, and sustained cruel conflicts in Sierra Leone, Angola and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, for many years, to date neither the diamond industry nor diamond importing governments have taken actions to successfully limit or end that trade.

Notwithstanding the promises of leading companies within the diamond industries that they do not deal in conflict diamonds, sales of such diamonds mined in rebel-controlled territory in Angola, the Congo, and Sierra Leone continue to the present day. Diamonds from these areas are laundered through such countries as Liberia, Togo, Zimbabwe, Congo-Kinshasa, Ivory Coast, and Burkina Faso; and then they are admitted to major cutting and export centers with few questions asked.

We are deeply concerned that Americans have unwittingly subsidized violence in Sierra Leone and Angola through their diamond purchases. According to U.S. State Department sources and independent experts, smuggled and illicit conflict diamonds may amount to as much as ten to fifteen percent of the $50 billion worth of diamond jewelry sold internationally every year. The United States accounts for sixty-five (65) percent of world diamond jewelry sales, which likely includes a significant portion of those conflict diamonds on the market. Thus, American purchases of diamonds provide substantial resources to insurgent forces which mine and/or steal rough stones, providing enormous profits to the diamond industry who export, cut, and sell these conflict diamonds.

Diamond smuggling has permitted the RUF in Sierra Leone and UNITA in Angola to spend hundreds of millions of dollars for weapons and equipment, transforming these insurgencies into formidable fighting forces that have wreaked devastation on their countries. The human cost of wars fueled by diamonds has been extraordinarily high: in Sierra Leone 75,000 have been killed since 1991; in Angola 500,000 have died during the return to civil war in the past decade.

The thousands of American citizens affiliated with our organizations will not knowingly subsidize war and violence in Africa through the purchase of conflict diamonds. Because the diamond industry has failed to impose any realistic or practical controls on its own members, failed to support and maintain a legitimate market that could marginalize the market in conflict diamonds, and failed to initiate a comprehensive, forgery-proof system for identifying, marking, and certifying the country of extraction from which it buys, cuts, and exports, then neither our members nor anyone else can exercise ethical choices when buying diamonds.

Important players in the diamond industry have very recently announced a number of positive steps, including the threat by De Beers, the Diamond High Council, the Israeli Diamond Exchange, and India to ban any member who knowingly trades in diamonds obtained from rebel movements in Africa. We are also aware that De Beers, which controls upwards of sixty percent of the world diamond industry, promised in March that all of its stones were conflict-free. But such threats and promises, while welcome, are largely symbolic unless the diamond industry, in collaboration with diamond producing, cutting, exporting, and importing countries, establishes a transparent, legitimate system that can force the trade in conflict stones out of business, or greatly reduce its profits.

Such a system will require a comprehensive, global system of transparency for establishing origin, legitimate export and import centers, customs and excise regimen in importing countries, international inspection of diamond packets, and other measures proposed by the Working Group on African Diamonds which met in Luanda in June 2000.

We support the Luanda recommendations and welcome the process that has been set in motion for an international ministerial meeting in September. However, the establishment of a comprehensive global system for the mining, export, manufacture and sale of legitimate diamonds will take time, and it may well be years before such a system dries up the flow of money and weapons to insurgents in Sierra Leone and Angola. But the diamond industry can take immediate action to deprive rebel movements of resources by identifying (or marking) diamonds or packets of diamonds and providing forgery-proof certificates of origin/legitimacy, without which no stone (or packet of stones) can be cut, exported, or sold.

The diamond industry has, to date, refused to initiate a system for assuring the legitimacy of the diamonds it buys, cuts and exports. It is past time to do so. We call upon the industry to announce that 1) it will no longer admit rough stones to cutting or export centers that do not have legitimate, internationally sanctioned certificates of origin from reputable diamond producing countries or government-controlled areas within diamond producing countries. 2) that the industry will not buy, or admit to exporting or cutting centers any diamonds or packets of diamonds that originate in the Democratic Republic of Congo, RUF-controlled Sierra Leone, or UNITA-controlled Angola or that have been transshipped through Liberia, Togo, Congo, Burkina Faso, or the Ivory Coast.

These actions could help in the short run, and will indicate the diamond industry’s good faith as a partner in longer-term actions that are needed. We urge you to announce these measures at your meeting in Antwerp on July 17.

Sincerely,

Leonard S. Rubenstein
Executive Director
Physicians for Human Rights

Serge Duss
Director, Public Policy and Government Relations
World Vision

Vicki Ferguson
Director of Outreach and Education
Africa Policy Information Center

Gay McDougall
Executive Director
International Human Rights Law Group

Beverly Lacayo
Missionary Sisters of Our Lady of Africa
North American Province

Reverend Phil Reed
Justice and Peace Office
Missionaries of Africa

Erin McCandless
Director
Cantilevers

Edward W. Stowe
Legislative Secretary
Friends Committee on National Legislation

Alan Graham
Chief Executive Officer
Air Serve International

Stephen G. Price, Director
Office of Justice and Peace
Society of African Missions

Daniel Hoffman, Africa Executive
Africa Office, Global Ministries
United Church of Christ/Disciples of Christ

Nina Bang-Jensen
Director
Center for International Justice

Larry Goodwin
Executive Director
Africa Faith and Justice Network

Daniel Volman
Director
Africa Research Project

Ezekiel Pajibo
Facilitator
Advocacy Network for Africa (ADNA)

The Africa Fund

United Methodist Committee on Relief (UMCOR)

Jennifer A. Stewart
Manager, Product/Program Development
Citizens Development Corps

Charmain Gooch, Director
Alex Yearsley, Campaigner
Global Witness

Africa Office of Global Ministries
United Church of Christ/Disciples of Christ
Daniel Hoffman, Area Executive for Africa

Leon P. Spencer
Executive Director
Washington Office on Africa

Merle Bowen and WIlliam Martin
Co-Chairs
Association of Concerned Africa Scholars

Gail R. Carson
Director
Relief and Food Security Programs

David Mozer
Chairperson
Washington State Africa Network

American Committee on Africa

Roney A. Heinz
International Director
Canaan Christians Fellowship Fund

William Goodfellow
Executive Director
Center for International Policy

Peter Vandermeulen
Paul Kortenhoven
Christian Reform Church of North America

Abdul Lamin
Coalition for Democracy in Sierra Leone

Rob Williams
International Development Manager
Concern Worldwide – U.S.

Margaret Zeigler
Deputy Director
Congressional Hunger Center

Stanley W. Hoise
Chief Executive Officer
Counterpart International, Inc.

John Kvcij
Chairman of the Board
Friends of Liberia

Billie Day
Friends of Sierra Leone,

Loretta Bondi
Advocacy Director of the Arms and Conflict Program
The Fund for Peace

Lynn Sauls
International Aid

Kakuna Kerina,
Director, Africa Program
International League for Human Rights

Kathryn Wolford
President
Lutheran World Relief

Kathleen McNeely
Program Associate
Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns

Terry Sawatsky
Co-director for Africa
Mennonite Central Committee

Bill Akin
Coordinator of Non-Violent Education Programs
Mid-South Peace and Justice Center

Rev. Kevin S. Kanouse, Bishop
Rev. Mark B. Herbener, Bishop Emeritus
Northern Texas – Louisiana Synod
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

Jack Marrkand, Executive Director
Partners for Development

Gordon Clark
Executive Director
Peace Action Education Fund

Lionel Rosenblatt
President
Refugees International

Cecelia Gugu Vilakazi
Editor and Publisher
SIMUNYE Newsletter

Maureen Healy
Africa Liason
Society of St. Ursula

Mark Harrison
General Board of Church and Society
United Methodist Church

Susie Johnson
Director, Public Policy
United Methodist Women

Roger Winter
Executive Director
U.S. Committee for Refugees

Jeredine Williams
West African Women’s Crusade
for Peace and Democracy

Mary Diaz
Executive Director
Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children

Meredith Tax, President
Women’s World Organization for Rights, Literature and Development
(Women’s WORLD)

Clive Calver
President
World Relief

Arne Bergstrom
World Relief

Rev. Seamus P. Finn, OMI
Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate

Jul 19, 1999

by

in

Breifing paper on the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act

The Association of Concerned Africa Scholars
July 19, 1999

Africa Growth and Opportunity Act Passes House
Efforts to Oppose Economic Conditionality Defeated
Opponents Focus on Senate

The House of Representatives in mid-July approved the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (H.R. 2489), legislation that if it became law would link new trade preferences for Africa to structural adjustment reforms and IMF style conditionalities. The ACAS Executive Committee believes the legislation approved by the House is worse than no bill at all and we recommend members urge their Senators to vote against the bill when it comes for a vote in that body.

Supporters of the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), including the Clinton administration, most business groups, Africare, the African American Institute, a majority of the Black Caucus and the entire African diplomatic corps in Washington, argue the legislation is a long overdue recognition of U.S. interests in Africa and an important first step in promoting U.S. trade and investment. The conditionalities in the legislation, argue supporters, are modest and in most cases are subject to the presidential discretion. But opponents such as Representatives Jesse Jackson, Jr., Maxine Waters and 12 other members of the Black caucus as well as the 13 million member AFL-CIO trade union federation, TransAfrica, the Sierra Club, Public Citizen, COSATU and a coalition of African NGOs argue the legislation imposes economic policy prescriptions without providing meaningful development for the poorest continent in the world. (For a full list of opponents see the Public Citizen web site at http://www.citizen.org/pctrade/Africa/opponents.htm). Although the South African government now supports the legislation, Nelson Mandela’s first reaction to the legislation was to call it “unacceptable.” An alternative trade bill proposed by Rep. Jesse Jackson (and cosponsored by 75 other members of Congress), that would expand trade preference, call for debt cancellation and insist on minimal levels of continuing development aid, was not even brought to a vote. Its provisions should be reconsidered by the House and Senate.

What AGOA Does

The legislation approved by the House offers African countries a series of rewards, including expanded duty free access to American markets for certain products, equity and infrastructure funds to support U.S. investment, and establishment of a mechanism to promote and review U.S. trade policy toward Africa. Yet to receive these benefits, African governments must remove restrictions on foreign investment, reduce corporate taxes and privatize state owned companies.

The benefits of these programs are, moreover, minimal. The House bill would in theory allow duty free imports of textiles, primarily from Kenya and Mauritius, if the textile imports do not damage U.S. companies. But a March 1999 Congressional Budget Office study suggested that in reality 90 percent of African textiles would probably be declared “import sensitive” and denied access to U.S. markets. The Senate version of the bill, which has been approved by the Senate Finance Committee but not by the full Senate, allows imports only of textiles made with U.S. cloth and thread.

The legislation also provides authority for the president to provide “duty free” access to U.S. markets for certain African goods under a trade provision known as GSP. Yet according to the Deputy U.S. Trade Representative, more than 29 African countries already have GSP trade status and the real effect of this provision is simply to encourage the president to consider allowing “enhanced GSP” status for certain African products if they will not damage U.S. manufacturers. Each decision on each product would have to first be reviewed by both the U.S. Trade Representative and the International Trade Commission.

Supporters argue the real value of the bill is not so much in the specific lifting of trade restrictions, but in the framework it establishes for promoting trade with Africa including the call for a free trade agreement between the U.S. and Africa and the establishment of annual forums at which trade and finance ministers from Africa and the U.S. meet. Efforts to strengthen U.S. ties with Africa are indeed welcome, and the Clinton administration has already established a special trade office for Africa and the first ever meeting of African and U.S. trade and finance ministers was held in Washington in early 1999. But what are the benefits to those who do not attend meetings of government officials and other elites?

The Wrong Framework, the Wrong Symbolism

A closer examination reveals that the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act approved by the House establishes the wrong framework and is a step in the wrong direction. The legislation passed by the House establishes a framework that might at best help a few more economically advanced countries-but will bring few if any benefits to the majority of people in Africa. Indeed at its core are policies now proven to increase poverty and decrease the provision of public goods such as health care and education.

At the core of the Act is another attempt to force African governments to prioritize a series of free market principles, including cuts in government expenditures, privatization of government corporations, new rights for foreign investors to buy African natural resources and state firms without limits, deep cuts in tariffs, and membership in the World Trade Organization. (See the attached excerpts from the bill for a list of the conditions.)

Labor advocates did manage to force the sponsors to add a provision raising the issue of labor rights and there is a reference to the importance of respect for “internationally recognized human rights,” but eleven of the twelve items on the checklist used to determine “eligibility” for benefits under the legislation are designed to open markets for U.S. investment and trade.

Such priorities were made starkly clear in the debate on the House floor in mid-July, when the sponsors of this legislation used a parliamentary maneuver to defeat an attempt that would have allowed countries to import generic, lower cost drugs to deal with national emergencies such as the HIV/AIDS crisis. At the moment, the U.S. is vigorously threatening South Africa with trade sanctions in retaliation for the South African government’s efforts to obtain low cost, generic alternatives to drugs necessary for combating AIDS.

These policies are not new. The World Bank and IMF have been imposing these policies on poorer countries in the world for decades, but even the multilateral institutions have acknowledged that these policies have not improved conditions for the poorest segment of the world’s population. In fact, according to a new report by the United Nations Development Program, the poorest countries have actually gotten poorer in the last decade and that same report notes that 29 of the 34 poorest countries in the world are in Africa.

In summary: the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act passed by the House is a step in the wrong direction. This legislation is an attempt to force African countries to prioritize macroeconomic policies that are not appropriate for the level of development in Africa.

An Alternative Vision

Congressman Jesse Jackson, with the assistance of labor, citizen and environment groups, drafted an alternative piece of legislation-the HOPE for Africa Act (H.R. 772)–that sought to focus U.S. Africa policy on debt relief, development assistance and social programs. That legislation, however, was never brought to the floor for a full debate. (For a full comparison of that legislation with the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, see the Public Citizen comparison on the web).

Defeat AGOA in the Senate

The Africa Growth and Opportunity Act must now be approved by the Senate. The ACAS Executive urges members to write to your senators and express your opposition to this legislation, and urge a new, fairer deal for Africa-as proposed in key provisions of the Hope Act.

July 19, 1999
The Association of Concerned Africa Scholars

Jul 20, 1998

by

in

Action Alerts: Need to Oppose the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act

By Bill Martin, Co-Chair ACAS
20 July 1998

The trade and investment legislation known as the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act has already been approved by the House and is coming up for a vote in the Senate Finance Committee this week. ACAS, along with many of our African allies and US groups like TransAfrica, the AFL-CIO and Public Citizen, believes this legislation is worse than no bill at all.

We encourage our members to actively oppose the bill.

We attach to this message background material that documents the problems with this legislation in its current form. This includes a background briefing, entitled “Dictated Trade,” that explains the principal problems with the legislation. We also provide excerpts from the eligibility requirements contained in the bill, which demonstrate the strict conditionalities to be imposed on African states.

We urge you to contact your Senators and asked them to vote against the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (S. 778).

Senate and other Washington DC addresses can be obtained from our web site

Further information, including statements by other African and US organizations, is also available on our ACAS web site as well as Public Citizen’s extensive site on the bill: the Public Citizen web site

Jul 20, 1998

by

in

Dictated Trade: The Case Against the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act

Dictated Trade: The Case Against the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act [H.R. 1432, S. 778]

President Bill Clinton and the U.S. Congress should be applauded for seeking to define a new U.S. foreign policy toward Africa that recognizes the demands from the continent for political, social and economic change. ACAS also welcomes the legislation’s intent to strengthen U.S. ties with the continent. The current draft of the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act pending before the Senate, however, is worse than no bill at all.

While this trade and investment legislation has won the enthusiastic support of some African governments, and the more lukewarm support of others (note President Nelson Mandela’s dissent), other African social movements and analysts have long argued that the policies promoted by the bill will result in yet greater hunger, poverty, and foreign control over the continent.

The Act does break new ground: it proposes to shift our relationship with Africa from aid to trade and investment. In fact, this month as the trade legislation is being debated, the Senate is also proposing cuts in foreign aid that will result in a 20% t o 30% reduction in foreign aid to Africa according to the Clinton administration.

The legislation offers a series of rewards for countries pursuing IMF style market-led economic reforms, including expanded duty free access to American markets for certain products, equity and infrastructure funds to support US investment, and the establishment of a mechanism to promote and review trade policy toward Africa.

Promoters of the Act, however, have been unable to demonstrate how African producers will benefit, beyond slight increases in textile exports. How producers of other manufactured goods, much less raw materials-and particularly oil which is 70% of US imports from Africa–might gain is not at all evident. It is no surprise that the most industrial and powerful African government has found the bill’s provisions, in the words of Nelson Mandela, “unacceptable.”

Those who will benefit are obvious. As one South African business magazine reported: “the prime beneficiaries of the Clinton African plan are the major American corporations.” Hundreds of millions of dollars in guarantees are allocated to insure US investment, subsidizing firms who reap the rewards of the forced privatization of African telecommunications and infrastructure. While the bill’s promoters speak of assisting Africans, African-Americans, and women, the primary group targeted for assistance a re the multinationals who control Africa’s trade and access to rich markets.

The bill’s sponsors argue there are no conditionalities contained within this legislation. A review of the text of the bill passed by the House, and the legislation pending before the Senate, reveals however an attempt to force African government to prioritize the following policies:

* severe cuts in government spending;
* fire-sales of government assets;
* new rights for foreign investors to buy African natural resources and state firms without limitation;
* deep tariff cuts;
* imposition of US monopoly and patent rules;
* binding membership in and adherence to all World Trade Organization regulations;
* compliance with all International Monetary Fund and other international financial institutions’ rules;
* avoidance of any “activities that undermine US national security or foreign policy interests” [HR 1432].

The US President alone is to apply these eligibility rules, using “quantitative factors” to monitor compliance.

These policies not new: in one form or another international financial institutions and multinational corporations have been seeking to impose them upon poorer African, Asian, and Latin American states for over twenty years. Where they have been implemented in other countries, the outcome is not only a loss of African states’ sovereignty, but documented increases in income inequality, poverty, malnutrition, and increasingly unstable economies.

These outcomes have led directly to widespread opposition to IMF, World Bank, and related programs by African trade unions, democratic movements, church groups, women’s organizations, etc.-and often riots as food prices rise, and health clinics and school s close.

Never however have these policies and conditions been gathered together as in the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, and then applied to a whole continent. This portends a bleak future, as Africans are stripped of their democratic right to make the most b asic of economic policy decisions, while foreign states and firms dictate trade and investment rules.

If we want to open the door to a more prosperous and democratic future for citizens of both the US and Africa, we need to forge a new relationship based on mutual needs and open public discussions with democratic African governments and movements–and not unilateral and private interests as in HR 1432 and S. 778. In its current form, the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act should be roundly rejected.

July 20, 1998
Contact:
William Martin, Co-Chair
Tel: 217 333 8052; fax: 217 333-5225/359-0949

Mar 09, 1998

by

in

Action Alert: Act Now on Africa Growth and Opportunity Bill

Association of Concerned Africa Scholars
March 9, 1998

To: ACAS Members
From: Bill Martin, Co-Chair
Date: March 9, 1998
Re: Act Now on Africa Growth and Opportunity Bill

I am writing to urge ACAS members to ask their members of Congress to vote against the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act that the House of Representatives is expected to consider this coming Wednesday, March 11.

In principle, supporters of Africa should welcome the new attention to Africa represented by this legislative initiative and President Bill Clinton’s upcoming trip to Africa. But the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (H.R. 1432) provides few tangible benefits to the majority of African countries that are too poor to take advantage of the bill’s purported trade and investment benefits. Furthermore, the legislation entrenches the positions of U.S. multinationals, reinforces failed structural adjustment programs, and imposes onerous new strictures for debt relief.

ACAS, together with TransAfrica, several unions, and Ralph Nader’s consumer organization Public Citizen, has openly and jointly opposed the act as currently proposed. We urge you to write your Congressional representative in opposition to the legislation as currently formulated. The House vote is scheduled for this Wednesday, March 11 and the legislation will then go to the Senate. Equally important, we urge you to consider writing op-ed pieces and letters to the editor of your local newspaper, arguing for an alternative partnership between the U.S. and Africa. Among the points we believe should be considered in developing this alternative are:

* Structural adjustment programs, so harshly imposed on African states, have failed and should be abandoned–as is being considered for Asian states confronted by economic crisis. SAPs in Africa to date have exacerbated income inequalities, forced a defunding of education and social programs, and brought broad-based growth to only a small number of African states at best;

* African trade unions, church groups, women’s organizations and a broad coalition of groups representing civil society have raised serious questions about the economic provisions enshrined in this legislation. Organizations representing these African forces have persuaded the World Bank to engage in a joint, two year long study of the effect of these programs in four African countries to better understand and critique the consequences of these programs;

* Most African countries are dependent on a relatively small number of primary commodity exports, and will thus see few tangible benefits from the provisions of this legislation, while multinationals are given further control over African markets and products;

* Debt relief–often contracted by US-installed and supported dictators–remains a priority for Africa, where 50 percent of the population of Africa as defined by the World Bank are living in poverty;

* Continuing and protected levels of U.S. foreign assistance to Africa remain a critical priority for U.S. foreign policy in the region. But the current Clinton administration proposals do not contain specific protected levels of assistance to Africa –although assistance is protected to the countries of the former Soviet Union and Israel/Egypt.

ASSOCIATION OF CONCERNED AFRICA SCHOLARS
8 March 1998

Mar 08, 1998

by

in

The Case Against the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act

Association of Concerned Africa Scholars
March 8, 1998

The Case Against the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (H.R. 1432)

Since the end of the Cold War, US policy toward Africa has drifted and become increasingly erratic. ACAS thus welcomes new thinking and initiatives. Unfortunately our analysis suggests that the new Africa Growth and Opportunity Act does not represent a step forward in US-African relations. And many Africans agree.

The Act does break new ground: it proposes, along with other initiatives, to shift our relationship with Africa from aid to trade. This recognizes a reality: US aid to Africa has been steadily declining since the early 1990s. Many, most notably the Congressional Black Caucus, have called for aid to be restored to the levels of the early 1990s, including the restoration of earmarked sums as is still provided for Eastern Europe, Israel/Egypt, etc. The President’s proposed 1998 budget continues the downward trend with slight increases only in military training and debt relief.

To replace this faltering commitment the Act proposes to promote African exports to the US and US investment in Africa. Promoters of the Act, however, have been unable to demonstrate how African producers will benefit, beyond possibly some slight increases in textile exports from Kenya and Mauritius–and even these, as US trade unions point out, may simply be transshipments from Asia. How producers of other manufactures, much less raw materials–and particularly oil which is 70% of US imports from Africa–might benefit is not at all evident.

Those who will benefit from this change in administration policy are obvious. As reported in the South African business magazine, Finance Week: “the prime beneficiaries of the Clinton African plan are the major American corporations” (June 5-11, 1997:17). Hundreds of millions of dollars in guarantees are specifically allocated to insure US investment, particularly those who reap the rewards of the forced privatization of African telecommunications and infrastructure.

The rules are of course quite different for African governments: to qualify for any assistance, particularly in the crucial area of debt relief, African governments must accept structural adjustment and free market provisions. NAFTA-like provisions to link US-African markets likewise target independent African regional market initiatives.

African trade unions, church groups, women’s organizations and a broad coalition of groups representing civil society have all raised serious questions about these provisions, which have most often meant cutting education and social programs while exacerbating inequality. Organizations representing these African forces have even persuaded the World Bank to engage in a joint, two year long study of the effect of these programs in four African countries to better understand and critique the consequences of these programs.

In short, while the bill’s promoters speak of assisting Africans, African-Americans, and women, the only group targeted for assistance are the multinationals who largely control Africa’s trade and access to rich markets.

For over two decades we have witnessed the US, the IMF, and the World Bank insist on structural adjustment, foreign investment, and export promotion as the solution to Africa’s development crisis–and reject real debt relief while cutting aid levels. It is time to recognize that these policies have failed, and led not to growth but inequality and increasing poverty.

Those seeking more equitable and beneficial relationships with Africa might consider:

· Reducing multinational corporations’ control over African exports and markets,

· Promoting fair prices for Africa’s exports, particularly raw materials and processed goods,

· Supporting African democratic movements, and human and academic rights,

· Setting aside structural adjustment policies–as is being discussed in Asia, and

· Providing more equitable, earmarked aid–as is done for other areas of the world.

ASSOCIATION OF CONCERNED AFRICA SCHOLARS
8 March 1998

Nov 25, 1997

by

in

Action Alert: Ban Landmines

Association of Concerned Africa Scholars
November 25, 1997

Members of ACAS have given strong support to the campaign to ban landmines and remove the 100,000,000 mines from the ground in 66 countries of the world, mostly developing countries where women and children (mostly people of color) are the casualties. The time has come for a final showdown in favor of a total ban.

Over 100 nations are ready to sign such a treaty in Ottawa, Canada, on Dec. 2-3, 1997. Unfortunately, the US is not one of them. Rather, as a grandiose public relations move, the US has announced its leadership in a major demining effort over the next decade, but refuses to sign the treaty that would stop most of the source of anti-personnel landmines. As a “ban bus” crossed the US this past month, citizens everywhere rallied in support of the ban. NGOs have taken the lead, as symbolized by the recent Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. Retired military leaders have supported the ban. Congress, though time prohited final passage, was ready to pass legislation to support the ban. ONLY THE PENTAGON OPPOSES THE BAN….and that without reference to their own documentation which shows them to be counter-productive.

THUS, ACAS members are encouraged to make a final attempt themselves…and through their influential contacts…to persuade President Clinton to sign the treaty! Send a strong message in support of the ban, through whatever means you wish, before December 1st.

President Clinton’s e-mail address is: president@whitehouse.gov

The White House comment web site is: http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/Mail/html/Mail_President.html

And on Dec. 2nd, phone the white house opinion line 1-202-456-1111

Maybe your comment will be the one to swing his position to that of the rest of the world. You might want to praise him for his demining initiative….and point out that 20 times as many new mines are placed each year, than removed. Why not stop the source???