MuseumDESCRIPTION:
Ambassador Princeton Lyman, Senior Fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations talks with Jerry Fowler about a report on new approaches towards Africa and the situation in Darfur.
TRANSCRIPT:
NARRATOR: Welcome to Voices on Genocide Prevention, a podcasting service of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Your host is Jerry Fowler, director of the Museum’s Committee on Conscience.
JERRY FOWLER: Our guest today is Ambassador Princeton Lyman. He is the Ralph Bunche Senior Fellow for Africa Policy Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. Before joining the Council, he had a long and distinguished career with the State Department which included service as United States Ambassador to Nigeria and to South Africa and Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs. Ambassador Lyman, welcome to the program.
PRINCETON LYMAN: Thank you. Glad to be here.
JERRY FOWLER: You recently directed a blue ribbon, independent task force that examined the issue of United States policy toward Africa, and it released a report called, “More than Humanitarianism: A Strategic U.S. Approach Toward Africa.” That is an interesting phrase, “More than Humanitarianism.” What did you mean by that?
PRINCETON LYMAN: The principal finding of the task force was that we have interests in Africa that go beyond humanitarianism, and in fact, there is a danger in over-emphasizing the humanitarian focus. Not that it is not important. It is very important, but it leads one toward treating Africa more like a charity case then a potential partner. When one recognizes Africa as having a place in a variety of our foreign policy objectives—energy, security, terrorism, trade, etc.—then one comes at the humanitarian issues in a different way, and we argue, in a better way.
JERRY FOWLER: And so what is the way you are suggesting we should approach Africa?
PRINCETON LYMAN: The task force recommends a more comprehensive approach to Africa that recognizes that it is becoming a significant source of energy supplies to the United States, and we have to pay attention to how resources are being used in Africa, and stability in the oil producing areas. We have to worry about security; we have to worry about the threat of terrorism on the continent. And then we have to approach development in that context, as a serious long-term endeavor, not an emergency assistance kind of thing. And even though the world is talking about doubling aid to Africa, the increases in aid to Africa over the last several years have been largely in emergency assistance. There is also a need to integrate Africa into the global economy so it does not continue to be aid dependent. That takes trade reform—the arguments now going on in the Doha Round at Hong Kong and beyond, where Africa really gets the opportunity to export more particularly through agriculture, and move beyond aid dependency. We felt that if you take Africa more seriously, one is more prepared, countries are more prepared, to make those sacrifices to do that. We also felt that the humanitarian approach underplayed what is going on in Africa. The African leaders who are taking strides toward democracy, toward conflict resolution, toward peacekeeping, etc., it is important to treat them as partners, not to assume that the continent is simply a basket case where others outside have to come in and save it.
JERRY FOWLER: That is an interesting point that you raise. I think often we see Africa portrayed in the media as being a basket case, and there definitely are problems there and we will talk about some of those in a minute, but what are the positive signs that you see?
PRINCETON LYMAN: I think one of the positive signs is that over the last ten to fifteen years there has been a significant growth of elected governments. Forty percent of African governments now are rated by Freedom House as free or partially free, are elected democracies. You have an African Union, the regional organization that says it will no longer seat governments that come to power by non-constitutional means. You have in the new partnership for Africa’s development—which the Africans have developed as a kind of core set of principles—commitments to better governments, to human rights, to sub-regional economic cooperation. So you are seeing on the continent of Africa, Africans taking responsibility, moving beyond failed policies in the past, doing a lot of courageous things like in peacekeeping. On the ground, you see people working hard, laughing, going about their lives, yes, struggling under very difficult circumstances, but it is not the continent totally awash in conflict and blood and death.
JERRY FOWLER: One of the things that you mentioned is the need to take Africa more seriously, and you spent your career working in the State Department, primarily on Africa and some important posts. What does that mean from the perspective of the United States government? What has to happen to demonstrate that we are taking Africa more seriously?
PRINCETON LYMAN: I think it starts with the President and the Congress explaining to the public that Africa is really more important than just a humanitarian conscience-driven concern. We are getting now fifteen percent of our oil from West Africa—it will probably go up to twenty or twenty-five percent. We have to take it as seriously as we would take other oil producing areas. Hopefully we have learned from the Middle East and elsewhere is that means we need to be concerned with what is happening to those billions of dollars going into Africa and work with African governments to make sure the money is well used. We have to make clear to the American people that if we really want to combat poverty and the threat of terrorism and unrest in Africa, we have to be more serious about development, we have to commit ourselves to consistent long-term programs, we have to make concessions on trade, we have to open up more opportunities for Africa to grow. That is part of taking Africa more seriously. And also recognizing those leaders who are trying to do the right thing and putting support behind them.
JERRY FOWLER: One issue in Africa that the report focuses on is the increasing role of China which particularly is developing oil resources in Africa. How does that involvement of China in Africa relate to United States strategic concerns?
PRINCETON LYMAN: China’s rising role in Africa, and it is accompanied by the rising role of others in Africa, tells us two things. One, that others think Africa is important, it in not only China—it is India, Malaysia, Brazil, South Korea—feel Africa is important not only as a source of energy and natural minerals, but as trading partners, as investment areas, etc. Second is that particularly China, with its resources and its aggressive outreach to Africa, changes the strategic environment in which we are operating. Countries now have alternatives to the kind of western pressures and influences. The Chinese take pride in the fact that their aid is unconditional whether it is on governance or human rights or anything else. The most egregious example is China in Sudan. China is a forty percent investor in Sudan’s oil industry. It gets seven percent of its oil from Sudan. In spite of what is going on in Darfur, in spite of the outrage, China prevents the United Nation’s Security Council from imposing sanctions on Sudan. But it is subtler than that. China’s relationship with Angola is another example. And Angola is an oil producing country, a country that has just come out of civil war, but it has got serious problems with transparency and the oil sector, and it has had an ongoing negotiation with the International Monetary Fund to sort out those issues. China comes along and gives Angola a two billion dollar soft loan, no conditions except its security against oil. Angola says, “Maybe we do not need the IMF after all.” Now, this is the right of Africa, and China has the right to be a vigorous competitor just like any other country, but it means we have to find new ways of operating on the continent—ways of mobilizing support for good governance, for transparency—and we cannot go around thinking we could do it by threats, if we ever could. We have to find new ways to compete for influence as well as for resources.
JERRY FOWLER: And I suppose an implication is that our concerns with Africa have to be part of our strategic dialogue with China?
PRINCETON LYMAN: I think this is very important, and it is now beginning with the administration. The Deputy Secretary of State, Robert Zoellick, raised with the Chinese specifically in September the problems of Sudan and Zimbabwe where China has been backing very bad regimes. The Assistant Secretary for Africa, Jendayi Frazer, has just started the first regional dialogue with China on Africa. I think this is beginning and I think this is a very good thing. I also should emphasize there are areas for cooperation with China. They are doing a lot in the health field. They are introducing malaria drugs; they are testing a malaria vaccine. They are contributing peacekeepers. We should be talking both about new rules of the road, but also, where can we cooperate?
JERRY FOWLER: You brought up the topic of Sudan, so let us turn to Darfur for a few minutes. You wrote a report in September of 2004 called “Giving Meaning to Never Again,” about dealing with genocidal crises, both Darfur and then beyond Darfur. And one of the points you made there, and I will just read a brief sentence from it, you said, with regard to Darfur, “There is a conflict now between the expressions of moral outrage, charges of genocide, and threat of sanctions on the one hand, and on the other, the need to engage the Sudanese government and all the relevant parties in political negotiations, without which a resolution of the crisis is very likely impossible.” You said that both processes are relevant and justified, but unless they can be made to work in harmony, the crisis will continue and the loss of lives will increase. That was September 2004. Where do we stand on that basic challenge now in the end of 2005?
PRINCETON LYMAN: I think we face the same difficult challenge—and Darfur is not the only case where this comes up where this comes up—where you have a desperate need for a political solution because there is no military solution to the Darfur crisis. But that means dealing with people who are responsible in many cases, for the policies, and in some cases, specific acts of genocide and other crimes against humanity. But on the other side, you want people to be held accountable. I think in Darfur we actually could have the right balance because the International Criminal Court has been charged by the Security Council to investigate the crimes against humanity, the possible acts of genocide. They are having a hard time getting the evidence together. But it is acting to some extent, as an incentive for the Sudanese government to bring this crisis to a close. Now, if we get closer to a political settlement, I think there is going to be a more difficult balance, because some of the contending negotiators might ask for some kind of immunity or amnesty. But I think you have to play both sides, but play them carefully. That is the advantage of the African Union being in charge officially of the negotiations, because they are playing the good cop, if you will, and the United Nations and the ICC, and others and the U.S. can play a little of the bad cop, and as long as the two are working together, it can work. It is when you get the two clashing that it becomes difficult, or where you get the Sudanese playing off one against the other.
JERRY FOWLER: Let me ask you this, setting aside the ICC in particular, with regard to the UN and the U.S. and we could throw into the mix the Europeans, are they playing the bad cop strong enough?
PRINCETON LYMAN: No. I do not think so. I think the referral of the issue to the ICC was good, but the Sudanese government has not experienced any serious sanctions from the United Nations, and they know it, and they can read those resolutions as well as anybody else. And because there have been no serious sanctions, not even an arms embargo, not specific targeted sanctions on some of the individuals, the Sudanese government is really not under the degree of pressure to settle this issue as it should. I think that side of it is weak. As we said in the report then, and as we said it again in this more recent report on United States policy, the United States and the European Union should start imposing more of our own sanctions if we cannot get them through the United Nations, because I think much more pressure is needed on the Sudanese government.
JERRY FOWLER: When you say that the United States and the European Union should impose more of their own sanctions—I supposed the United States has fairly strong sanctions in place—what are the obstacles to getting the European Union to impose sanctions?
PRINCETON LYMAN: I think the European Union is concerned about its relationships with Sudan and with the governments of Africa who are not pushing for sanctions. I think they are thinking about their relationships in the Middle East in general. The Middle Eastern governments complain that most sanctions fall on Arab governments and Middle Eastern governments are very sensitive to that. And it is financially difficult. Let's say one of the areas of sanctions is to put limits on American companies or European companies doing business in Sudan, well there is always counter pressure to doing that. So, the alternative is to support the peacekeepers, support the peace process, but stay away from really tough sanctions. I think the Sudanese government has read it exactly that way.
JERRY FOWLER: Is there something the United States can do to push the European Union to take a stronger stance?
PRINCETON LYMAN: I think we should be pushing the European Union to take a stronger stand, and I think it sends a stronger message to China that they cannot hold this up forever. If the European Union and the United States are going to tougher and tougher sanctions, maybe the Chinese should find a way to support some sanctions, or to put more pressure themselves on the Sudanese government. There is another thing we can do—although I realize you are sort of robbing Peter to pay Paul—but you now have a coalition government in Khartoum that includes the southern part of the country as part of the settlement. The southerners who are about to get very significant amounts of aid to reconstruct the south, some of that aid should be conditioned on their playing a stronger role in bringing about an end to the conflict. I am happy to say that at the peace negotiations now going on right now in Abuja, Nigeria, the SPLM—that is the Southern People’s Liberation Movement—is sitting at the table as part of the government negotiators, the question is how strong of a role will they play in terms of pushing their side to making strong concessions.
JERRY FOWLER: Obviously the negotiations in Abuja are right now the effort to create a political solution, but meanwhile the situation on the ground—by all accounts—seems to be deteriorating. The only mechanism in place right now to protect civilians is a relatively small African Union force. Where do things stand with that and what are the prospects for augmenting that force so that it can provide more protection?
PRINCETON LYMAN: I think the African Union deserves a lot of credit. They stepped up when nobody else was quite prepared to do so. You had the Sudanese saying they were opposed to any military intervention, except Africans. The African Union said, “Ok, we will come up with peacekeepers,” first four thousand, now they have committed to seven thousand. Then they said, by spring in 2006, they would try and raise it up to thirteen thousand. It is very questionable that the African Union can raise the number up to thirteen thousand, and they are already short of equipment, logistics, communications, etc., and they are dependent on outside sources, money for almost everything they are doing. The European Union already provides around three-quarters of the cost now. I think it is very important for the African Union to come to the United Nations and say, “We have done this, we have carried this, but we cannot carry it alone, and we cannot carry the full load, we need a larger, more international force.” And the reason for having the African Union make this gesture is that they bring along the Sudanese. They bring along the Sudanese to say, “We are going to have some non-Africans here.” Very few countries would want to send in forces against the permission of the Sudanese government; then you are at war. That is going to be tough. If you get the Sudanese at least to go along, reluctantly, that is a step forward.
Now the next question is what kind of a force? Most of the thinking along these lines is that you have turned to the United Nations for a peacekeeping force. The only trouble with that is it will take them six to eight months to do it. The alternative, not that it is easy, is to create what is called a Coalition for the Willing, a bridging between now and then, where you get a number of countries to supplement the African Union—you bring it up to twelve or thirteen thousand, Scandinavians, or Pakistanis, or Bangladeshis, or others, paid for again by outside donors—to get forces on the ground quickly. They are not going to end the problem, but they can protect the major camps of the displaced. That is what you need to do now.
JERRY FOWLER: As you have described it though, the linchpin for making that happen is an African Union request, and it sounds like what you are saying is that a prerequisite for an African Union request is agreement by the government of Sudan. What are the prospects for that? How can it be brought about?
PRINCETON LYMAN: I think the first prerequisite is the African Union itself. I know it is being discussed within the African Union. They know they are up against their limits. They do not want to be seen as having failed, and I do not think anyone should see them as having failed. They took on what nobody else would take on, and they have done a remarkable job. There is a very good report out by Brookings Institution, and another one by Refugees International, which shows that the troops on the ground are really trying their best and doing the best they can. But then the African Union has to say, “We have done it this far, we need help.” Once they make that decision, I think it is up to the African Union to put pressure on Sudan and say, “Look we cannot cover for you any longer. You are one of our members, but we got our guys on the ground out there, and this is going badly.” The African Union has to be encouraged to make this decision, then they have to turn to the Sudanese, and then the rest of the international community has to say can we put up the support to get a bridging force in there.
JERRY FOWLER: Stepping back from the immediate problem of Darfur, the idea that there is going to be a need for putting regional or international forces on the ground in trouble spots, is not going to go away. This was addressed in your recent task force report. There is a Global Peace Operations Initiative, called GPOI, and a commitment, at least an ostensible commitment, by the United States and the European Union to train forty thousand peacekeepers in Africa. What are the prospects that that is actually going to come to fruition?
PRINCETON LYMAN: I think it could, but you have to remember that that plan is a five or six year plan. It is based on an African Union objective of having five or six brigades around the continent available for this kind of work. It is going to take a number of years, a lot of money, over a long time, so it is not going to be available in the short-term. One of the problems we have now if you look at the funding is that there is kind of a pull and push between the short-term, immediate needs like Darfur, and investing in these long-term things. I think that is a very good development; I am glad it is approved by the European Union and the United States and it is going to move forward. But what you really want to get at is trying to prevent these situations from developing in the first place, where they need that kind of intervention. It is one of the things that Lakhdar Brahimi addressed in his report some years ago on peacekeeping—the prevention, the anticipation, or the understanding that a situation is likely to evolve in this direction, and moving rapidly on the political front. The United Nations has not instituted all of the reforms Brahimi asked for. The African Union is developing some of them, but we are a long way from there.
JERRY FOWLER: What are the most immediate steps that need to happen to move us towards a greater focus on prevention?
PRINCETON LYMAN: One of the things we have recommended, and we articulated it again in this latest report, is that the United Nations ought to be charged with bringing these types of situations to the attention of the Security Council early on. If you look at the Darfur situation, almost a year went by of reports coming out—one nongovernmental organization would go and another, somebody else would go and say it was not quite that bad, and somebody else—and that is an excuse for inaction, everybody can point to the murkiness. We have suggested that the new special representative for genocide, Mr. Juan Mendez, be charged specifically with pulling those people together early on, saying to the Secretary General, “Look, here is the information that is coming out, let’s not wait forever, you have got enough now to go the Security Council.” That is one step that can be made. The other I think is for improving our own ability—the United States' ability and African ability—to on the ground see these situations evolving and move quicker getting African political support. Africans have stepped in politically to stop a number of these situations. The African leadership on Burundi has been tremendous—the South Africans, the African Union—we could have had another genocide in Burundi, but very, very dedicated African leadership prevented that so far, and that is the kind of thing we need.
JERRY FOWLER: Ambassador Lyman, thank you very much for joining us.
PRINCETON LYMAN: My pleasure and thank you very much.
NARRATOR: You have been listening to Voices on Genocide Prevention, a podcasting service of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. To learn more about the genocide emergency in Darfur, visit our Web site at www.committeeonconscience.org.
