U.S. Seeks Greater Economic Role in Africa

By PETER WONACOTT

LUSAKA, Zambia—U.S. officials and business leaders have gathered here for a bout of soul-searching on how to lift trade and investment in Africa, underlining a broad recognition that American companies are trailing those from China and India in tapping the continent’s economic opportunities.

The meeting in Zambia has drawn one of the largest U.S. delegations to Africa in years. It includes U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who arrives in the capital Lusaka on Friday. She is the first U.S. secretary of state to visit Zambia in 30 years.

Mr. Kirk said he was “sobered by the reality that we are just at the beginning” of a broader economic ties with Africa.

The focus of the meeting is the African Growth and Opportunities Act, or Agoa, an 11-year-old piece of U.S. legislation that provides preferential access to the American market for more than 1,800 African products. It covers 37 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, with a handful of others disqualified because of coups and corruption.

Many participants say the U.S. needs a new approach to a continent that is projected to grow faster than any other global region over the next five years. They say trade assistance, along with humanitarian aid, together aren’t enough to tap a market with a billion potential consumers.

“America has more medical doctors and Ph.D.s here than businessmen,” says Greg Marchand, who runs a telecommunications and consulting company in Zambia called Gizmos Solutions Ltd. “And we wonder why we aren’t doing a lot of business.”

The U.S. remains the top donor to Africa, disbursing $7.6 billion in 2009, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

China isn’t a member of the OECD, and doesn’t provide detailed breakdowns of aid and investment to Africa. But in 2009, China became Africa’s largest trade partner. In the first 11 months of last year, China’s trade with Africa amounted to $114.81 billion, according to the Chinese government’s White Paper on the topic. U.S. trade with Africa for the period reached $103 billion, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

China has tied much of its trade and investment to Africa with preferential loan deals, often aimed at securing supplies of oil, gas and minerals. Top-ranking Chinese officials regularly visit African countries to cement these agreements.

“The goal of China is mercantilist; they do what they need to do to get access to natural resources,” says Paul Ryberg, the Washington-based president for the African Coalition for Trade, which represents African companies in the U.S. The centerpiece of U.S. economic engagement, Agoa, says Mr. Ryberg “is economic development, creation of jobs and the creation of a middle class to buy our products.”

But while Agoa boosted African exports to the U.S.—10 times from its inception to 2008—it has failed to broaden significantly the trade relationship. Energy exports account for about 90% of sub-Saharan African trade to the U.S., according to a study published last month by the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.

That type of trade relationship is seen as too narrow to seize new opportunities linked to Africa’s accelerating economic growth and new consumers.

The International Monetary Fund predicts sub-Saharan Africa—a collection of 47 countries—will grow 5.5% this year and 6% in 2012. Over the next five years, the IMF predicts that average growth of sub-Saharan countries will be higher than other regions. The African Development Bank Group estimates a new consumer class on the continent of 300 million people.

Yet the continent remains burdened by political corruption and poor infrastructure—problems that ratchet up the price of goods, particularly in many landlocked countries. Most African countries rank at the bottom of the World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business survey.

Companies from China, India and Brazil generally have been less daunted by such challenges. Bharti Airtel Ltd., India’s largest phone company, now operates in 16 African countries, part of a dramatic expansion of Indian investment in Africa. This month, Bharti Airtel said it signed a deal with China’s Huawei Technologies Co. to help manage and modernize its network in Africa.

U.S. officials say American companies, not the government, must pursue African business opportunities. In most African countries U.S. investment lags far behind American aid. In Zambia, for example, the U.S. foreign direct investment was $79 million in 2008, up 3.9% from the year before, according to USTR. Meanwhile, the U.S. Agency for International Development estimated it spent $390 million in Zambia last year, up from $300 million in 2009.

Outside Lusaka, China has invested more than $1 billion in an investment zone near the Chambishi copper belt. The zone includes 14 Chinese companies, mostly mining and equipment makers.

China’s investment in Zambia hasn’t been without its troubles. In March, 600 workers went on strike demanding a 50% pay increase, the latest in a long list of labor disputes. Meanwhile, Zambia’s opposition politicians have accused China of taking away jobs from Zambians and subjecting their country to a new form of colonization.

At the same time, the southern African economy is showing signs of moving beyond its dependence on minerals. Lusaka’s commercial real-estate market is crammed with new tenants, even as new buildings and shopping malls go up.

The 36-year old Mr. Marchand, an entrepreneur from Chicago, says he arrived in 2005 with four laptops, a printer and $100,000 to start his telecom and consulting company. The U.S. government assistance, he says, was minimal. “They issued me a passport.”

At least now the U.S. government is paying attention, says Mr. Marchand, who is also the president of a new American Chamber of Commerce in Zambia. On Saturday, U.S. Secretary Clinton and U.S. Trade Representative Kirk are scheduled to attend the chamber’s opening ceremony.

—Jackie Bischof in Johannesburg contributed to this article.

Share

Africa: Let us not Forget Reparations

It is pertinent to draw the world’s attention to the issue of reparations for Africa once again. This much vilified issue of reparations for Africa seems to have receded to the background particularly since the death of one of its most avid supporters the late Nigerian Business Mogul MKO Abiola.

The question being asked by many informed observers is why the call for reparations for Africa? They opined that Africa is asking for too much and also seeking to be “spoon fed” without basis. They tend to draw analogies between Africa and other continents, particularly Asia with whom Africa shares similar history. They point to the fact that if the continent of Asia could set itself on the path of self discovery and economic and social development, in spite of its dearth of mineral resources, then Africa has no reason to lag behind and continue to call for reparations. They also draw the attention of the pro reparations community to the fact that most African nations have mismanaged loans and development aids granted them by Breton Woods Institutions such as the World Bank, IMF and donor agencies such as the London Club, Paris Club etc. As a matter of fact they assert that Africa is now enmeshed in the debt trap because of the foreign loan mismanagement malaise.

They also pointed out, that Africa has not been able to tap or benefit from robust economic packages like the ambitious AGOA [African Growth and Opportunities Act] signed into law by the former American President, Bill Clinton, which sought to provide leverage for African goods in the American market. The weakening of institutions of state and absence of democracy in the true sense of the word in most parts of Africa has also been fingered as one of the reasons why the quest for reparations is untenable.

The sound and forceful logic of the anti- reparations community in rejecting calls for reparations for Africa may be compelling but there is a need to expand the frontiers of the question from “why reparations?” to “what is reparation?”. Reparations may be conceptualized as compensation especially monetary, paid to countries or people who have been subjected to severe deprivations and degradations which consequently leads to a pronounced disadvantage.

The history of the African continent through several epochs and eras in world history which is well documented is replete with severe deprivations and human degradations, accompanied by so much bloodshed. This includes the slave trade, colonization, imperialism, resource exploitation, proxy wars religious inquests and so on. It may be averred that a correlation, maybe not so significant, can be drawn between these events and the present state of the African continent. Hence the call for reparations may NOT out rightly be out of order.

It is to this end, that a call for reparations is made, and such compensations should be channeled to critical areas such as the endemic scourge of malaria on the African continent, pandemic scourge of HIV/AIDS, famine in Africa, humanitarian displacement [Refuge problems] that are all still prevalent problems in the continent

Share