The United States and Africa: Cybernetic Foreign Policy, Continental Decline

Abstract

A broad divergence between rhetoric and reality characterizes U.S. Africa policy through time. Given Africa's relatively marginal place in U.S. global strategy, a policy of minimum risk/minimum expense is considered sufficient for American interests. Africa is important only in so far as instability on the continent assists America's enemies and contributes to global terror. Secondarily, Africa is seen to be an untapped market for U.S. goods and services, but this is more potential than real. In consequence, a relatively unoriginal package of aid 'products' is available to the continent: money for peacekeeping, HIV/AIDS, good governance, education and health, regional peace and security. Where problems increase or persist, a bit more money is made available. This I label “cybernetic foreign policy making”, a heuristic meant to impart a sense of the virtually automatic way in which U.S. policy reacts to events on the continent. It is the central argument of this essay that such policy making and practice does more harm than good. This is because the underlying assumption - that liberal politics and economics can be pushed simultaneously - runs against historical fact. There are positive policy options available - debt forgiveness, access to U.S. markets - but these run counter to American grand strategy. U.S. Africa policy therefore contributes to continental instability, but as long as this is 'low level', a policy based largely on containment is all that should be expected.