Dean Slaughter

While what is happening in South Africa and throughout Africa can make one weep isn't clear that American's, even Black Americans, don't care?  We may want to keep AIDs or ebola in Africa but other than that is there a continent that concerns America less?  With the end of the Cold War places like Angola, Somalia, Ethopia have all dropped off the radar screen.

Even the nothern tier of the continent which has oil doesn't excite Americans. Rather that appeals to either statistics or empathy doesn't Africa have to be brought into the world community now?  Trade links and the like aggressively established so that we give Africa an occaissional thought before much of the continent is decimated?

Maybe the war in Iraq is turning me into an isolationist, maybe I always was an isolationist. But when I look at the results of our interventions in the affairs of distant contries, with which we have little or nothing in common, I am not encouraged by the results.  While I can see why our leadership in areas like AIDS prevention is useful, I do not regard the fact that too many Africans and their respective leaders seem unable to respond to the causes of these own problems as being our cross to bear. Furthermore, if we spend less time meddling in other countries affairs we will probably find that various types of radical political groups will find fewer reasons to see us as "Target #1", in their jihads.  

kiltedliberal makes a good point that by ignoring the problem, we sign our own death warrants.  Or at least, our own disease warrants.  We live on one planet.  Whatever the problems in Africa, ignoring them is not an option.

That said, it's frustrating to send help down what looks like a rathole.  Cultural attitudes, especially toward rape of women and children, are the worst.  But also bad are the problems of female poverty and status so low that only a minority even ask for condoms to be used.  The concept that men might want to use condoms for their own sakes, if nobody else's, doesn't seem to be on the map.  And then there are customs, which might be modifiable by education campaigns, that help spread the disease.  One example is drying the vagina before sex because this is supposed to make it more pleasurable (for the man).  Hard to imagine that it does much for pleasure, but it certainly helps spread AIDS.

Viciousness, poverty, and customs spread the virus in a flood, and we're there with our teaspoons, trying to bail.  It's better than not being there at all, but it feels so hopeless.  Does anyone know of ways some of these cultural and female powerlessness issues have been addressed?  Has anything been found to work?   

Great post, Dean Slaughter. And the rest of the discussion has been equally interesting. The question of Africa - whether it counts or not, how to engage with the continent, among other issues - must be central to any new thinking about a progressive foreign policy. How wonderful then to discuss the topic in this forum.

 In just these first 5 comments (Greenbaum, Campesino, Kilted Liberal, Razzor, Quixote), one comes across a wealth of insights and opinions. To nearly all, the situation is devastatingly frustrating, to the point of hopelessness. Yet, nonetheless, several consider the possible outcomes if the situation continues to deteriorate at the present rate: risks to global and American health, a continent of failed states and terrorist breeding grounds, and as the post itself concludes, a vast increase in the risk of internal conflicts and humanitarian disasters with the potential to draw in American and other outside forces. Deep-rooted cultural norms are seen as a dominant cause of the problems, thus bewildering all attempts to solde the problem through aid. And taking up the new liberal non-interventionist position, one commenter argues that a) if the problem is in large part fueled by an inability or unwillingness to act on the part of nationals and their leaders, then such problems are not our responsibility, and b) that interventions in distant lands can actually increase the rage directed against us, rather than increasing goodwill. All in all, a rather terrible situation.

I would argue that the tragedy of the situation does not allow for hopelessness, but rather requires our urgent attention and some very creative thinking. It is one world, as was mentioned, and this fact is all the more relevant for the U.S. Our security and other national interests are tied up with the wellbeing of all the world in a way that is not true of any country, both because of the range and extention of our nationals and their interests and due to our role as a global leader (which is ours by virtue of our wealth, capabilities, values, and history--whether we want it or not). And as good liberals, some of us are already coming up with some solutions: more and deeper trade links, get rid of the evil abortion-rider on our aid dollars, use our aid to help alter cultural norms as much as on other spending programs. Excellent ideas all.

I would suggest that as with many other critical areas of the world, American engagement with Africa, and particularly vital questions such as its poverty and struggle with AIDs is critical, not only for the future of the continent but for American security as well. If we fail to engage, fail to support reformers and the stability of states, then we only strengthen the forces of fragmentation. Moreover, we cannot improve our knowledge of the problems Africans face, or apply our techonology and research capacities to their solution, if we are not there. If the situation looks hopeless now, it wil be determinedly so if we decide now to pull back and let events run their course. The converse, that increased engagement, efforts, and aid dollars wil necessarily lead to a betterment of the situation, is not guaranteed. But sometimes you have to be bold and take risks, and really this one is a no brainer.

I like reading President Bush’s speeches, because as surely as his policies bend to the most conservative ends of social, economic, and foreign policy spectrums, his political rhetoric consistently is rooted in the best of center-left thought. As a case in point, I would argue that Bush is absolutely correct in stating that the greatest security threats facing our country in the near, middle, and long term, are related to weak and failed states. There are two distinct reasons why this is the case. First, because these states harbour and nourish global public bads, whether they be big open spaces free from state oversight (and thus facilitative of terrorist training), corrupt officials who are useless in the war against drugs, radical ideologies (which oftentimes arise out poverty, inequality, and social exclusion), diseases, or  any of which threaten to spill out into the international sphere causing problems for other states—particularly one as extended as we are. Second, such states are prone to enter into conflict with their neighbors. Particularly in an age of resource scarcity, we should worry that these conflicts have the potential to grow, and to pull larger powers inexorably into the mess. By this view, then, Africa becomes ground zero for the prevention today of a number of of America’s security risks of tomorrow. In other words, part of the new perspective that progressives MUST bring to security planning for the future is the centrality of Africa. That’s right, the centrality of Africa.  

What can we do to solve the AIDs crisis? I’m not sure, honestly. But that’s why we so desparately need to spend more of our time and resources in asking the questions and seeking the answers. So the response to the new liberal non-interventionists, is two-fold. First, the region is different. There are no (or hardly no) anti-American jihadis in Southern Africa—yet. That could all change if hopelessness and violence futher overwhelms the continent’s peoples, but for now, there just isn’t the large stock of people who hate us in Southern Africa like there is in the Middle East. And second, we don’t really have another option besides more engagement. The status quo has disastrous ramifications for Americans’ future. Instead, we need to do what liberals do best: honestly face the horror of the situation, but recognize the possibility of progress and get to work.

blank_page
The hollowing out of African militaries due to AIDS is a significant problem, and one that, as the author points out, bodes ill for peace-keeping operations as well as African solutions for African problems. What this means for American national security is another question. I think there may be a temptation to overstate what state failure and governance problems in Africa mean for the U.S.

I fear that advocates who use national security language do so because they think the issue won't get enough attention otherwise. The striking thing about HIV/AIDS it seems to me is that moral concerns have been important drivers for this White House to do something significant about the disease. The question becomes, would they have done that much less if concerns about state failure and terrorism (and wanting to project a benign face of America) not been other important considerations? To put it bluntly, did it take 9/11 to get PEPFAR?

Given the mobilization of Christian conservatives on this issue, along with more liberal AIDS activists, I think this White House was prepared to do a lot already. 

I have a posted on this at my blog.