With no fanfare or hype the Bush administration has quietly increased aid to Africa. Not by a small amount, either. Aid has tripled in the past five years. Many activists credit the moves with saving thousands of lives and improving a number of things on the continent. Sadly, a few have to try to paint it as somehow driven from bad motives or ultimately evil in intent.
The president has tripled direct humanitarian and development aid to the world's most impoverished continent since taking office and recently vowed to double that increased amount by 2010 — to nearly $9 billion.
The moves have surprised — and pleased — longtime supporters of assistance for Africa, who note that because Bush has received little support from African American voters, he has little obvious political incentive for his interest.
"I think the Bush administration deserves pretty high marks in terms of increasing aid to Africa," said Steve Radelet, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development.
Bush has increased direct development and humanitarian aid to Africa to more than $4 billion a year from $1.4 billion in 2001, according to the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. And four African nations — Sudan, Ethiopia, Egypt and Uganda — rank among the world's top 10 recipients in aid from the United States.
Beyond increasing aid to Africa, Bush has met with nearly three dozen African heads of state during his six years in office. He visited Africa in his first term, and aides say he hopes to make a return visit next year.
Although some activists criticize Bush for not doing more to end the ongoing genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan, others credit him for playing a role in ending deadly conflicts in Liberia, the Congo and other parts of Sudan. Meanwhile, Bush has overseen a steady rise in U.S. trade with Africa, which has doubled since 2001……
…….Some advocates suspect that the Bush administration's interest in Africa is motivated more by business ambitions than altruism. Grants made by the Millennium Challenge Corp., a foreign aid program developed by Bush with the aim of rewarding poor countries that practice good governance, are also partially predicated on whether countries have open markets that allow widespread foreign investment.
"I know a lot of activist groups who believe that the president's stated commitment to Africa is, at best, a play on words," said Nii Akuetteh, executive director of Africa Action, a Washington-based advocacy organization. "First of all, much of the aid is emergency food or medical aid, rather than true development assistance. Then there are conditions that are attached where the emphasis is more on countries that open up their markets so American companies can go in and privatize things like water and electrical service or have access to certain resources."
There has been very little reporting on any of this in the mainstream media to date. Even so, the administration is doing a great deal more than previous administrations. Requirements that nations practice good governance and open up to trade are not things to criticize, but things to applaud. Trade is the only thing that can lift the continent out of poverty. But some would apparently rather take shots at the administration and let people die than appreciate what has been accomplished. That speaks rather more to the values of the people criticizing than it does to the actions of the administration.
