nazret.com Merkato Blog

Ethiopia: Letter to the Editor Response to Professor Alemayehu G. Mariam


By Teddy Girma and Sara Shiferaw

Dear Editor:

In a recent commentary posted on your website, Professor Alemayehu G. Mariam offers an analysis of the American foreign policy in Africa and its negative impact on stifling pro-democracy movements across the continent ("The Moral Hazard of U.S. Policy in Africa - Part I). We are fans of the writer and share his tireless advocacy for a legitimately elected government in Ethiopia. So we offer the following response, not for the sake of being disagreeable, but rather to pinpoint some inconsistencies in the piece. And, most importantly, to engage in an open discussion on this very important topic in order to find common ground on how to pressure the administration moving forward. We can do much better than bashing President Obama from the sidelines. That's the easy part. We need to engage the White House and influence policy in Africa - only if we can master a collective will and joint front to do so.

In the article, Professor Alemayehu gives Uncle Sam a deserving failing grade for continuing to provide "the safety net of foreign aid" to dictators, allowing them to perpetually extend their life-line, resulting in severe consequences for the African people - including "a mismanaged economy, debilitating corruption and proliferating poverty." The writer's concern is also supported by a majority of Americans who think that foreign aid is a big waste of taxpayers money. In an exclusive online opinion piece published on the Times this week, the Pulitzer Prize winning author, Tina Rosenberg, cites a Bloomberg National Poll that shows "that more than 7 in 10 Americans think that Congress can find major savings in the federal budget by slashing foreign aid. It’s a new poll, but this is old news." According to the story, "Americans have always vastly overestimated how much we spend on foreign aid. A 2010 survey asked Americans what percentage of the federal budget went to foreign aid. The median response was 25 percent. When asked what percentage would be appropriate, the answer was 10 percent. Polls going back at least a decade show similar responses. In fact, foreign aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget."

However, one percent or not, Professor Alemayehu points out: "The moral hazard in Western policy comes not just from the fact that they provide fail-safe insurance to repressive regimes but also from the rewards of increasing amounts of aid and loans to buffer them from a tsunami of democratic popular uprising. As we have recently seen with Ben Ali in Tunisia, Hosni Mubark in Egypt and Gadahafi in Libya, supporting “strongmen” in Africa will at best produce the illusion of stability, control and permanence for the West. But turning a blind eye to gross human rights violations and complicity in the denial of democratic rights to African peoples is irrefutable evidence of moral bankruptcy."

We wish Professor Alemayehu had also proposed a more constructive, alternative solution because "The truth is, much of foreign aid works," writes Rosenberg. "Hundreds of millions of people around the world are better off because wealthy countries pay to vaccinate children, dig wells, build roads and buy schoolbooks."
Rosenberg adds: "But some foreign aid is wasted, stolen or spent on projects that don’t really help people. But let’s talk about on-the-ground practical solutions, The Center for Global Development has an intriguing idea that might help. It could make some forms of foreign aid more effective, less corrupt and more responsive to what people need. And in doing so, it could capture more public support for something that improves, and often saves, the lives of millions. The idea is called Cash on Delivery: instead of rich countries paying for all the little pieces that go into a poor country’s program, they pay only when something good comes out. Aid would get transferred when there are measurable, provable results." We wonder what Professor Alemayehu thinks of this idea?

Professor Alemayehu reserves his harshest criticism for Barack Obama, whom he argues played the 'The pied piper of change' during his candidacy in 2008. In this case, the author says, the victims were Ethiopian-Americans and other African immigrants who are naturalized American citizens that were duped into voting for Obama because he projected a perception of kinship and sympathy for their dreams and aspirations for a better Africa. Fair enough. Except that the writer indulges in exaggeration to make the point.

The Professor writes:

"In 2008, when then-Senator Obama was campaigning for the presidency, his advisor on Africa, Witney W. Schneidman, laid out the candidate’s fundamental policy objectives for Africa. Schneidman argued that “Barack Obama understands Africa and its importance to the United States” and “to strengthen our common security, we must invest in our common humanity.” Unquestionably, Senator Obama was a man of little talk and lots of action. He aggressively promoted human rights and accountability throughout the continent. He co-sponsored major legislation to help end genocide in Darfur (Darfur Peace and Accountability Act of 2006), vigorously advocated for a no-fly zone in Darfur (not so in Libya today), secured funds to facilitate free and fair elections in the Democratic Republic of the Congo... In America, Senator Obama made a “strong effort to reach out to first, second and third generation Africans who have become American citizens to encourage them to be part of the effort that will elect Barack Obama president of the United States.” He actively sought the support of Ethiopians. His campaign specifically called on the “10,000 Ethiopian-Americans in Virginia to help turn that state blue on November 4th.”. On November 4, 2008, Ethiopian Americans came out by the tens of thousands and helped turn Virginia blue. "

It is true that Ethiopian Americans in fact contributed in helping to turn Virginia from a Red State into a Blue State in 2008, but not entirely for the reasons articulated by Professor Alemayehu. Indeed, Barack Obama was propelled to victory by a coalition of young voters, suburbanites, and minorities - segments of the U.S. electorate which certainly include Ethiopian-Americans and other African immigrants who are naturalized American citizens. "Two-thirds of voters from 18 to 29 years old favored Obama, a 12 percentage-point increase from 2004's presidential vote," according to Bloomberg News. "Obama also attracted votes from two out of three Hispanics, the fastest-growing demographic group, making the difference in Florida, Colorado and other states with significant Hispanic populations." And according to MSNBC, in Virginia Obama received 52 percent of the vote, which no Democrat had carried since 1964. Black voters (including African immigrants), who comprised 20% of voters broke 92% in favor of Obama. Voters citing the ECONOMY as their top concern, who comprised 58% of voters delivered 54% their vote for Obama. Independent voters, who comprised 27% of voters went Obama's way by 49%. And Voters under age 40, who comprised 41% handed Obama 56% of their vote.

It is fair to say that a large number of Obama supporters within the African community had high hopes for the African continent under the Obama presidency. However, it is a bit of a stretch to suggest that African immigrants (those who are naturalized citizens) supported Obama/Biden in 2008 on the basis of Obama's future African policy alone. Some might have done so, but it defies logic to place the larger African community (including Ethiopian Americans) in one basket as casting their vote strictly on foreign policy. That's akin to saying the two out of three Hispanics, who also voted for Obama, did so on the basis of his future policy towards Latin America. They did not. In fact, two years into his presidency, Obama remains very popular in these communities. According to La Opinión, a Spanish-language newspaper, which cites a poll conducted by its parent company ImpreMedia and Latino Decisions, despite having fallen short on economic and immigration promises he made to Latino voters before he was elected, Obama's approval ratings among Latino voters increased to 70% last month. Among blacks, which includes Ethiopian Americans and other Africans, the President's approval rating is even higher - over 91%. The numbers show that the state of U.S. foreign policy towards Africa is not much of a factor on how Africans in the United States view Obama, because not all agree that he is doing a bad job. The assumption itself discounts the fact that the African community (which includes Ethiopian Americans) is very diverse. Simply put, the connection between Africans and Obama does not rest on Africa. It's much more than that.

Similar to other ethnic communities in U.S., the African Diaspora is also a heterogeneous one, made up of people who come from diverse cultural backgrounds with differences of language, opinion, political affiliation, wealth, educational levels, professional experiences, etc. Even within the Ethiopian-American population, political loyalties (both here and at home) cover the whole gamut, including Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Greens, pro-opposition voices, anti-government activists, pro-democracy advocates, human rights lawyers, OLF supporters, government sympathizers, you name it. They are just as concerned about issues at home as they are here in the states. There can be no doubt that the historic and symbolic nature of Obama's candidacy in 2008 had an added influence in galvanizing the African community as well. But that's not the whole story. At the same time, African immigrants are just as equally affected as everyone in this country by the high cost of health care, rising college tuition, lack of good teachers in public schools, crime in their neighborhoods, lack of good-paying jobs, as well the overall performance of the American economy. The Ethiopian-American cab-driver and his shopkeeper wife in Washington, D.C. are just as likely to worry, as is their Kenyan American insurance-agent, about gas prices, mortgage payments and safe parks for their children in D.C., as they do about the political situation in Ethiopia and Kenya. Even America's military adventures has an impact in our community. It is no longer unusual, for example, to encounter an Ethiopian American family, or Nigerian-American family, who has a son, daughter, husband, wife, brother or sister serving in the U.S. military. The issues that most affect these families, such as veterans benefits or the war in Afghanistan, may not necessarily carry the same weight for other Ethiopians or Nigerians who are more attuned to the problems facing their home countries, and vice versa. In the same token, the unemployed Ethiopian-American engineer in Virginia can not be faulted if he/she is more focused on the economy and jobs as opposed to foreign policy. The young Ethiopian American banker on Wall Street might care less about what Obama does in Africa than he does about financial regulation in this country.

Whether we like it or not, these are reflections of the fast-evolving African demographics in the United States. To ignore the diversity is to bury our head in the sand.

Lastly, Professor Alemayehu alludes to the ongoing debate about Libya and President Obama's reluctance to use military force to finish-off Gadhafi. It would have been helpful to readers had the author also included the other side of the argument. The question that most were asking is that even enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya involves risks. Why should American soldiers be the only ones to pay by their blood? How many countries are willing to put real skin in the action? Will Western military intervention be counterproductive? Will it provoke anger against the United States for interfering in a homegrown political movement? These are serious questions that needed to be cleared-up. The good news is that the United Nations Security Council (with big push by Susan Rice, the American Ambassador to the UN) has approved a measure authorizing “all necessary measures” to protect Libyan civilians from Gaddafi's brutality. The measure goes even further than a no-fly zone, allowing any measures short of a ground invasion. In the mean time, we know that the U.S. is closely working with the opposition to speed up not only Gadhafi's end, but also the formation of post-Gadhafi government (Libya 2.0). Hillary Clinton has already started direct talks with the leaders. Obama has said that "By any measure, Moammar Gaddafi's government has violated international norms and common decency and must be held accountable." To that end, he has frozen all assets in the United States held by Gaddafi and four of his children. He has also abandoned the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli. The administration is assisting the U.N. and other agencies in compiling a legal case against senior Gaddafi advisers for future prosecution in an international criminal court. Still, some point out that he is losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the Arab street protesters. He is "failing to bind the United States." Acknowledging the irony of Obama's dilemma, a senior administration official was recently quoted as saying: "There is a desire for Obama - not the American president, but Obama - to speak to their aspirations," but "his first job is to be the American president."

The writers are Ethiopian Americans. They live and work in Washington, D.C. They can be reached at shiferaw.sara@gmail.com.