By Cornell Overfield, Blogger for African Affairs
Two presidential inaugurations grabbed headlines on January 19 and 20. One was a pomp-filled celebration of peaceful power transitions, played out before a mix of politicians, spectators and ground-tarps. The other was furtively conducted in an embassy in the face of a defiant incumbent who clung to power despite loosing both the popular vote domestically and political legitimacy internationally. Yet, it was the tenuous handover of power in the Gambia that left observers hopeful for the future of democracy, while the peaceful transition in the United States has left that nation divided and foreign policy experts concerned and uncertain.
On December 1, Gambians went to polls for what should have been a de rigeur election. Yahya Jammeh had developed a reputation for both strongman tactics and preposterous boasts during a 22 year presidency, which he suggested could last “a billion years.” The other name on the ballot was Adama Barrow, a realtor who represented Gambia's opposition coalition and promised political reforms for the media and judiciary. In a signal that 2016 should perhaps be called the Year of the Property Developer, results surprised the world by indicating that Barrow had scored a victory. Jammeh initially compounded the shock by conceding defeat, however, on December 10, he made an about-face and rejected the results while Barrow fled into exile in Senegal.
Countries and institutions around the world were quick to denounce Jammeh's obstinacy, but his most determined critic was none other than the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), to which the Gambia belongs. ECOWAS quickly convened a meeting of regional heads of state and implemented a series of escalating measures designed to coax Jammeh out of the presidential palace. This process culminated in the unprecedented step of authorizing an invasion to force Jammeh to recognize the results, at which point he fled. The effective application of military force by regional leaders to protect democracy has raised hopes that ECOWAS and other regional intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) will, in the future, be more active when members flagrantly flaunt or rig election results. Some authors at South African universities have already called for the South African Development Community to take similar action to end the farce of Zimbabwean elections under the nonagenarian Robert Mugabe. [1]
While president-elect Jammeh hung his hopes for vindication on IGOs, his fellow president-elect in the United States had harsh words for the biggest IGO of them all, the United Nations. On December 26th, Trump denounced the United Nations as ineffective and a mere forum for talk shortly after the Security Council denounced Israeli settlements. The African Union might be a better target for his disapproval, as evidenced by everything ranging from the organization’s inability to agree on a leader for over the last six months (on January 30 2017, Moussa Faki of Chad was finally elected Chairman of the AU Commission) to the almost decade-long failure of the AMISOM mission in Somalia to construct a functioning national regime. In the lead-up to this week's AU summit, some diplomats acknowledged that the meeting's agenda was largely pointless and simply an excuse to schedule private, informal meetings between various heads of states and foreign ministers. [2]
The United States' Congressional Budget Justification for FY 2017 calls for $2.4 million to support African Union projects that advance economic stability and counter-narcotics operations, as well as another $3 million for rapid military deployment capabilities and a portion of the $110 million allocated for peacekeeping spending in Somalia. Meanwhile, increasingly effective regional organizations, such as ECOWAS and SADC, simply are not mentioned, although the U.S. Congress budgets money for development, economic stability and health programs on both national and regional levels. [3]
In the past, American security, economic and health cooperation programs in Africa engaged with the AU, individual governments and regional organizations. In FY 2007, for example, the State Department's CBJ requested roughly $1 million for strengthening economic and military cooperation within SADC, ECOWAS and COMESA. USAID still funds agricultural programs with COMESA and ECOWAS, but U.S. government policy towards Zimbabwe limited security cooperation with SADC, for example. [4][5] Now, in FY 2017, international military education (IMET) funding is only earmarked for security cooperation programs with individual countries, rather than for any of the regional organizations.
As President Trump embarks on his much-trumpeted reordering of American foreign policy commitments, the State Department should consider increased engagement with increasingly relevant and demonstrably effective regional African organization. If President Trump truly values IGOs based on efficacy, he should be a huge fan and a big-league supporter of this change. ECOWAS has proven its military might, while SADC and COMESA are enjoying success in growing intra-regional trade. Funding to the AU may naturally decrease if the AMISOM mission is reduced or ended due to Kenyan or Burundian withdrawal, but other funding should also be drawn down and redirected to the regional organizations for more than simply agricultural programs. Through economic aid, the United States exerts pressure on recipients, be they other countries or international organizations. Unfortunately, the current status of U.S. funding to regional African bodies leaves American diplomats with only bilateral ties to accomplish foreign policy objectives.
In the Gambia, ECOWAS demonstrated a strong commitment to what was right even in the absence of American leadership- a heartening sign at a time when the United States seems eager to free itself of that responsibility. However, the United States should further its mission to promote human rights by investing in its relationships with Africa's regional organizations and shaping them into strong defenders of democracy. A few tens of millions dollars is a small price for the U.S. to pay for a more stable and prosperous Africa.
In general, President Trump's distaste for international organizations is horribly misguided. However, this presidential transition should seize upon the success of regional organizations in Africa and the clear shortcomings of the African Union to shift America's diplomatic engagement towards those organizations, which, in the coming years, promise to be the new centers of power and growth in Africa.
Cornell Overfield is junior at UPenn, where he studies History and International Relations.
Sources
[1] www.news24.com/Africa/News/what-southern-africa-can-learn-from-west-africa-about-dealing-with-despots-20170124
[2] http://www.voanews.com/a/au-summit/3697437.html
[3] https://www.state.gov/s/d/rm/rls/ebs/2017/pdf/index.htm
[4]https://www.usaid.gov/west-africa-regional/fact-sheets/regional-agriculture-partner-economic-community-west-african-states
[5] http://www.comesa.int/usaid-and-comesa-sign-77-million-partnership-agreement-to-strengthen-regional-development/
