Reflection Paper A Review of a Lecture Given by the Republican Senator of Georgia, and the ranking member of the Senate

Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on African Affairs, Johnny Isakson By Damian Niolet

The views expressed in this paper belong solely to the author and do not reflect the views of the USAF.

I attended a lecture given by the Republican Senator of Georgia, Johnny Isakson, who is also the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on African Affairs. The lecture was hosted by the School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), of Johns Hopkins University (JHU), and was attended by persons from a wide variety of backgrounds. The senator kept his lecture brief and concise, trying to highlight key aspects of U.S. engagement in the continent without embroiling the attendees in too many hotly debated and sensitive issues. During the question portion of the event, passions for the continent and specific nations began to surface as attendees pressed the Senator for greater detail on U.S. policy in the near future. It seems that the Senators approach of avoiding hot button issues had the opposite effect and inflamed people more than if he had spoken at length on contested matters. In a way, his approach during the lecture may mirror the U.S.s approach towards establishing policy on engagement in Africa on the whole. Senator Isakson began his lecture by emphasizing that Africa will be the most important continent in the coming decades because of its strategic location and abundant resources. He highlighted the fluctuations occurring in Africa presently and underlined the importance of U.S. involvement in the process as a fully committed supporter. Other areas seeing violent upheaval were not discussed, since there is little to no U.S. involvement in the process. Instead the Senator transitioned into pinpointing successes, either through foreign aid or foreign investment, in African nations where there is no precedence for political or ethnic clashes. Here it became clear, perhaps to everyone in the room, that the U.S. is only interested in helping those nations that long ago demonstrated trends towards democratization, such as Rwanda, Botswana, and Nigeria, but in areas that are hotspots the U.S. will only help if called upon and even then there is no guarantee.

Several attendees pressed the Senator to justify the contradiction in policy; they wanted to understand why the U.S. became involved in Libya and yet remain inactive in Cote dIvoire, as an example. The Senator did not mince words here; although it seemed he thought twice about his response after having given it, he did say quite frankly, Congress has to make decisions based on strategic interests or national security concerns. That area must not have any interests or concerns for the U.S. While this statement would lead one to believe the U.S.s policy of engagement in Africa is a solely self-serving one, at several other occasions the Senator described the U.S.s approach towards Africa as mostly altruistic promoting human rights, freedoms under democracy, civil society via rule of law, and transparency in governments for the greater good of the international society. He came back to these ideals frequently, even when addressing the audience members concerns over the U.S.s apparent contradictory and selfserving policy towards Africa. Ultimately, after reading between the lines of the Senators lecture, the U.S.s policy towards Africa is going to depend on a great many things and will probably always appear twofaced. U.S. policy overall in Africa is to provide support to those areas where it can do the most good in terms of altruism, but begin with those countries that are showing strides towards democratizing. Areas that are hotspots for political or ethnic violence are not going to yield as favorable of results and are therefore avoided. However, if at the core of the clashes in those areas is a movement towards democratization, then the U.S. should consider involvement, especially if there are interests or concerns in those areas. Or, if the U.S. is called upon to intervene, even when at the core of the clashes there is no movement towards democracy nor are there interests or concerns, the U.S. should none-the-less consider intervening as there is potential for strengthening the U.S.s image in other areas throughout the world.

The Senators lecture overall mirrored this approach. He highlighted the U.S.s altruistic successes in non-hotspot areas, U.S. involvement in democratic revolutions and/or areas of interest or concern, and only spoke to hotspot areas (not democratizing nor of interest or concern) when called upon to do so. Yes, impassioned individuals, which were tied to the neglected countries in some way, immediately caught on to this tactic and demanded their fair share. The Senator was obliged to provide them with a more equitable response, but is the U.S. obliged to provide more equitable assistance to their countries? Absolutely not. The U.S.s policy towards engagement in Africa is more than appropriate considering the times. Yes, the U.S.s approach could be a bit more refined and pragmatic, but at least the U.S. is doing something, otherwise, there may be more frequent genocides, more aggressive authoritarian regimes, and a greater likelihood that less altruistic foreign countries would take advantage of Africa.