Action Alert: Act Now on Africa Growth and Opportunity Bill
Association of Concerned Africa Scholars
March 9, 1998
To: ACAS Members
From: Bill Martin, Co-Chair
Date: March 9, 1998
Re: Act Now on Africa Growth and Opportunity Bill
I am writing to urge ACAS members to ask their members of Congress to vote against the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act that the House of Representatives is expected to consider this coming Wednesday, March 11.
In principle, supporters of Africa should welcome the new attention to Africa represented by this legislative initiative and President Bill Clinton’s upcoming trip to Africa. But the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (H.R. 1432) provides few tangible benefits to the majority of African countries that are too poor to take advantage of the bill’s purported trade and investment benefits. Furthermore, the legislation entrenches the positions of U.S. multinationals, reinforces failed structural adjustment programs, and imposes onerous new strictures for debt relief.
ACAS, together with TransAfrica, several unions, and Ralph Nader’s consumer organization Public Citizen, has openly and jointly opposed the act as currently proposed. We urge you to write your Congressional representative in opposition to the legislation as currently formulated. The House vote is scheduled for this Wednesday, March 11 and the legislation will then go to the Senate. Equally important, we urge you to consider writing op-ed pieces and letters to the editor of your local newspaper, arguing for an alternative partnership between the U.S. and Africa. Among the points we believe should be considered in developing this alternative are:
* Structural adjustment programs, so harshly imposed on African states, have failed and should be abandoned–as is being considered for Asian states confronted by economic crisis. SAPs in Africa to date have exacerbated income inequalities, forced a defunding of education and social programs, and brought broad-based growth to only a small number of African states at best;
* African trade unions, church groups, women’s organizations and a broad coalition of groups representing civil society have raised serious questions about the economic provisions enshrined in this legislation. Organizations representing these African forces have persuaded the World Bank to engage in a joint, two year long study of the effect of these programs in four African countries to better understand and critique the consequences of these programs;
* Most African countries are dependent on a relatively small number of primary commodity exports, and will thus see few tangible benefits from the provisions of this legislation, while multinationals are given further control over African markets and products;
* Debt relief–often contracted by US-installed and supported dictators–remains a priority for Africa, where 50 percent of the population of Africa as defined by the World Bank are living in poverty;
* Continuing and protected levels of U.S. foreign assistance to Africa remain a critical priority for U.S. foreign policy in the region. But the current Clinton administration proposals do not contain specific protected levels of assistance to Africa –although assistance is protected to the countries of the former Soviet Union and Israel/Egypt.
ASSOCIATION OF CONCERNED AFRICA SCHOLARS
8 March 1998
