From: Berhane Habtemariam (Berhane.Habtemariam@gmx.de)
Date: Mon Aug 31 2009 - 08:44:54 EDT
Africa’s big men mess up and pay image cleaners in Washington – it’s that
easy
Due to bad governance and human rights violations, African governments have
sought to enhance their tattered images abroad since it can make the
difference between more and less foreign Aid. In the process, they have paid
millions of dollars to lobby groups at the expense of development and
democracy instead pursuing the most cost-effective way— putting their houses
in order, writes policy analyst Patrick Mutahi
August 31, 2009
http://www.monitor.co.ug/artman/publish/insights/Africa_s_big_men_mess_up_an
d_pay_image_cleaners_in_Washington_it_s_that_easy_90445.shtml
African carriers will have to The Kenyan government has reportedly retained
a top Washington public relations firm to improve its image in the United
States at a reported cost of Sh129 million ($1.7 million) over the next two
years. According to the Paris-based Indian Ocean Newsletter, CLS &
Associates have added the Kenyan Government to their list of clients.
By retaining the firm, Kenya has joined a growing list of countries
including some in Africa that rely on lobbyists to protect and promote their
interests in Washington. This subculture reflects a steady decline and
privatisation of diplomacy and has an impact on growth of democracy in
Africa.
Power and influence are the trademarks of Washington D.C.’s K Street, a
major thoroughfare that is known as a hotbed for over 14,000 lobbyists,
advocacy groups and think tanks who, in 2008, cumulatively made an estimated
$3.30 billion (Sh251 billion). Lobbying, a multi-billion dollar profession,
involves all attempts to influence legislators and officials, whether by
other legislators, constituents, or organised groups.
The strongest lobbies promoting foreign interests are driven by cohesive
ethnic population groups in the United States such as Armenians, Greeks,
Taiwanese and Irish.
Arguably, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is the most
influential and well connected lobby in America whose work is to defend
Israel’s hard line stand on the Palestinians at the same time deflecting
criticism of its military operations in the Palestinian territory especially
when dealing with Hezbollah.
For Africa, there exists the Africa Action group, which is the oldest
organisation in the US working for Africa affairs, lobbying on issues that
fit into the broad goal of political, economic and social justice in Africa.
The fifty-year old African Studies Association – a vocal conglomerate of
people with a scholarly and professional interest in Africa is yet another
African lobby. Lastly is the Trans Africa Forum which advocates human rights
and social justice in the continent.
John Newhouse in the article ‘Diplomacy Inc’ (Foreign Affairs May/June 2009)
argues that advantages of using lobbyists emanate from the fact that they
operate within the system in ways that experienced diplomats cannot. This is
not to negate the work of foreign embassies, but lobbyists can identify with
a domestic ethnic bloc even though the bloc is paid by a foreign government.
Ethnic politics can hence trump corporate interests and, more important,
influence what agencies within the US government may see as the national
interest. Lobbying firms are also able to put forward arguments in ways that
Ambassadors cannot, in part due to the diplomacy rules they operate under.
Compiled fact sheets on Kenya
It has also been argued that even the US government has become so complex
that only insiders, such as former members of Congress or congressional
staff members turned lobbyists, can navigate its confusing structure. In
addition, foreign missions, including those representing African countries,
have limited resources and hence are spread thin, with limited access to the
people and offices that matter. Thus, it becomes necessary to engage
lobbyists who will cover much of the legwork in Congress for the client
country.
Nations retain a specific lobbying firm with an eye to extracting maximum
advantage in areas such as foreign aid, investments and trade matters.
Whatever it is they want, the lobbying firms in Washington help them get it.
In the initial phase of its work, CLS is said to have compiled a series of
eight fact sheets on Kenya for distribution to the US media, government
officials in Washington and American corporate executives.
These brief releases attempt to put a positive spin on Kenya’s efforts at
national reconciliation, its fight against corruption and the country’s
security ties with the United States. The strategy appears to be designed to
highlight considerations that are already at the forefront of President
Barrack Obama administration’s relations with the Kenya’s coalition
government.
Lobbying firms are also expected to deflect criticism against their client
country, when the US Congress takes note, concerning violations of human
rights. Congressional indignation, after all, may lead to partial or total
economic and financial sanctions. However, it is this capability of
lobbyists to shield its client country from human rights accountability and
scrutiny that posses a challenge to Africa’s democracy.
Flipping through the US State Department annual global survey of human
rights for the past four years, it is noticeable that many of the African
countries known as human rights violators have got significant support from
the American government whether military assistance (Egypt), development aid
(Nigeria), or expanded trade opportunities (Angola, Cameroon).
It is also worth noting that most of these countries have natural resources
that they could have appropriated for American support. Nevertheless, even
the best natural resource-endowed regimes need help navigating the
bureaucratic seas of Washington, and it is their great fortune that, for the
right price, countless lobbyists are willing to captain even the foulest of
ships.
During the 2008 US Presidential campaigns, the top adviser to US Senator
John McCain, then prospective Republican Party nominee for president, was
heavily criticised for his work on behalf of former President Daniel arap
Moi of Kenya and other past African leaders accused of human rights abuses.
Repackaged Savimbi
Charles Black Jnr, a longtime Washington power broker, was a well-paid
lobbyist for Kenya’s government in the late 1980s and into the 1990s. A
report by the non-governmental Centre for Public Integrity documented that
Black’s firm, Black, Manafort, Stone and Kelly Public Affairs Co., was paid
about $1.5 million (Sh114 million) by the Kenyan government from 1990 to
1993. The money was intended to win influence for Kenya with the US
Congress, the White House, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund
and an array of Washington-based NGOs.
Black’s firm also helped orchestrate the widely publicised 1989 burning of
$3 million (Sh228 million) worth of poached elephant tusks in Nairobi
National Park by the former President. Moi’s private visit to the United
States in 1990 was in part organised by Mr Black’s firm and it also handled
media relations during the visit, including a press briefing by Foreign
Affairs Minister Dr Robert Ouko, who would be assassinated on returning to
Kenya. Black, Manafort, Stone and Kelly Public Affairs Co. also represented
DR Congo (then Zaire) dictator Mobutu Sese Seko, Nigerian military ruler Gen
Ibrahim Babangida, Somalia strongman Mohamed Siad Barre, and Angola rebel
leader Jonas Savimbi. It greatly helped repackage Savimbi as a valiant
anti-communist “freedom fighter.”
In 2004, six former members of Congress served as “election observers” in
Cameroon and offered positive assessment of President Paul Biya’s
overwhelming re-election victory.
However, it was later found out that the so called observers had been
financed by the firm of Patton Boggs, which worked for and was paid by the
Biya government.
Egypt, historically one of the largest recipients of US foreign aid, has
also mounted a large effort to preserve American funding in a case that
shows the power of well connected lobbyists. Nevertheless, critics have
voiced that American aid has allowed Cairo’s political elite to put off much
needed changes especially in democracy and governance that can spur growth.
Killed anti-Ethiopian bill
In June 2006, the Ethiopia Freedom, Democracy and Human Rights Advancement
Act was introduced by Rep. Christopher Smith (Republican, New Jersey)
proposing to put limits on military aid to Ethiopia — with the exception of
peacekeeping and anti-terrorism programmes — until the government released
all political prisoners and provided fair and speedy trials to other
prisoners held without charges. Most of these political prisoners had been
arrested during the 2005 post-election protests following the re-election of
Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, which also left more than 500 people dead.
The bill swiftly passed the House International Relations Committee with
bipartisan support with the Ethiopian diaspora in America launching letter
and e-mail campaigns to push the legislation in Congress. To counter this
effort, the Ethiopian government hired a well-established law and lobbying
firm, DLA Piper, to protect its interests in Washington at a cost of
$2.3million.
The lobby shop in a memo argued that the bill compromised “the national
security interests of both the United States and Ethiopia.” They also raised
concerns about Somalia that Addis Ababa and the United States shared.
Through numerous meetings and lobbying, eventually the bill never made it to
the House floor. It has been argued that lobbying is undesirable because it
allows people with particular interests and who represent a minority to gain
special access to law-makers and through contributions and favours have
controversial relationships with representatives.
This is a danger to Africa’s democracy including settling its internal
conflicts. A case in point is of Western Sahara which has been fighting for
independence from Morocco — and has been the subject of over 34 UN Security
Council resolutions since 1999.
In late 2007 and 2008, the desert region was a top priority for Morocco’s
hired lobbyists who sought the support of the Congress in the territorial
dispute. In 1991, the United Nations had brokered a cease-fire agreement
between Morocco and the Polisario Front, a group fighting for Western
Sahara’s independence. Part of the terms of that deal included holding a
referendum to determine the territory’s final status.
In 2007, Morocco issued a proposal to grant Western Sahara autonomy within
sovereign Morocco. The US initially welcomed the proposal, and direct talks
began between Morocco and the Polisario with the involvement of Algeria,
which supports self-determination for the Sahrawi tribes from the area.
Behind the scenes was the work of lobbyists for both parties. By the end of
negotiations according to records released by Foreign Agents Registration
Act (FARA), the Algerian government’s lobbyists had 36 contacts with members
of Congress and staff promoting self-determination for the people of Western
Sahara.
The Algerians paid a modest $416,000 (Sh31.6 million) in lobbying fees. By
comparison, lobbyists for the government of Morocco had 305 contacts with
members of Congress and their staff. Morocco paid $3.4 million (Sh258
million) in lobbying expenses — putting it among the top foreign government
spenders for FARA filings in the period.
The intense campaign resulted in a bipartisan group of some 173 House
members signing on to a statement supporting Morocco’s offer of autonomy for
the region without formal independence. President Bush also expressed
support for Morocco’s plan, a decision that has since been reversed by
President Obama who backs a Western Sahara State.
Obama reining in lobbyists
It is due to this power to influence that President Obama made lobbying a
key target of his ethics policies, sharply limiting their access to the
administration and forbidding appointment of former lobbyists in the
government without special waivers. The moves angered many lobbying groups
but it is doubtful if it has made any impact on the booming business on K
Street.
It is not only in America where the lobbyists are based. There are currently
around 15,000 lobbyists in Brussels, the headquarters of European Union,
seeking to influence its legislative process. In Britain, the lobbying
industry has been steadily growing in recent years and was estimated by the
Hansard Society in 2007 to be worth £1.9 billion (Sh234 billion) and employs
14,000 people. The House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee
held an investigation into lobbying, and its 2009 report called for “a
statutory register of lobbying activity to bring greater transparency to the
dealings between Whitehall decision makers and outside interests.”
It is thus clear that lobbyists have gained considerable influence in
Washington and their work is affecting how different Africa countries run
their affairs. Whereas there are some lobbyists who carry out harmless and
good work, others continue to be used by African leaders to stifle the
continent’s democracy.
For the growth of the continent and stronger foreign policy ties, Washington
needs to assist fragile democracies reform and strengthen their institutions
instead of bowing to pressure from lobbyists working for the interests of
the political elite.
At the same time, Africans need to elect strong capable leaders who view
success as delivering development and reducing poverty rather than siphoning
public resources and buying support or rigging elections. This will be an
easier route to take than the power of lobby groups which is a short term
gain mostly for the minority.
Africa Insight is an initiative of the Nation Media Group’s Africa Media
Network Project
----[This List to be used for Eritrea Related News Only]----