Africa and the Upcoming G-8 meetings

Real Audio of Briefing

        MODERATOR: (The briefer) will start with a statement, and then we'll take your questions. I'll call on the questioners and, as usual, please take the time to wait for the mike and introduce yourself by name and organization. Thank you.

       SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Good afternoon.

       We have had a very big week this -- big week for Africa policy for the administration. As you know, there was a major dinner last night, the Sullivan dinner, in which the president laid out his comprehensive vision for our policy and spoke specifically about the challenges that this administration sees for a strategic partnership with Africa, focusing on education, focusing on the challenge of HIV/AIDS, focusing on trade, and conflict and terror on the continent.

       The president announced several of the initiatives, including the Millennium Challenge Account, which was announced at Monterrey, but also the new initiatives announced this week on mother-to-child transmission to deal with HIV/AIDS and the education initiative to address specifically providing access to girls through scholarships, providing textbooks and teacher training. The mother-to-child transmission was the Novaripine treatment to stop the transmission of HIV/AIDS to children, but also, and as important, building a health infrastructure for Africa so that, on a sustainable basis, treatment and care can be provided.

       In addition, on the conflict resolution side, the president talked about his approach to conflict, working particularly with African leaders, African mediation and European allies, to support regional peace initiatives, and highlighted several of the conflicts, the Congo, Burundi, Sierra Leone, Angola, and a particular emphasis on Sudan.

       As you know, we're taking this very comprehensive agenda into the G-8 meetings next week, and the second full day will be on Africa. We think that the -- we welcome the participation of African leaders to present the NPAD plan. And we have been, from when they presented it at the G-8 last year in Genoa, very supportive of NPAD and look forward to the dialogue that we will have with those African heads of state.

       And I'll take questions.

       MODERATOR: (Off mike.)

       Q Hi. Pierre Steyn, Media 24, South Africa. As regards the president's speech last night, do we know which countries in Africa he will be visiting next year?

       SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Oh, I'm exactly one hour away from knowing that decision. (Laughs.) We're meeting on it this afternoon to look at the countries. It would be my hope that he would travel to each of the sub-regions, particularly west, south and east.

       MODERATOR: (Off mike.)

       Q My name is Adu-Asare, AfricaNewscast.com. I've looked at the transcript of the amount of monies that the president is going to -- has talked about, and like all things, one would have wished it was a little more than it is.

       Now my question is, how is this amount going to be distributed and utilized? Is it going to be given out to the African governments to supervise and misapply through acts of corruption? Or is it going to be supervised by an agency like, say, USAID, on the ground? And there are some other suggestions, if possible, some of us can talk about.

       SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: I'm not sure which specific initiatives you're talking about, but I can go over all of them, if you'd like.

       First, I would start with, I think, what is a major increase in our development assistance through the Millennium Challenge Account, which was already announced. That increases up to $5 billion annually, so it's doubling, almost, our development aid. And so you have to keep the initiatives announced this week in perspective with that initiative as well. So that was a 5 billion additional commitment of development aid.

       On the mother-to-child transmission, it's 500 million that was announced over 16 months. That is in addition to the 500 million that we already put into the global fund and the approximately 1 billion that we provide for global HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment and care, in addition to the 2.5 billion that we provide for research and development of drugs and treatment.

       So comprehensively, the United States is, of course, contributing more than anyone else, any other government, to the challenge of global HIV/AIDS.

       I would also say, though, on the education initiative, on the funding, it's $200 million. It's an additional hundred over what the president announced last July, and that brings the total up to about $600 million for basic education in Africa.

       So that's the exact funding for the current initiative. And then again, $55 million that he's asked from the Hill for counterterrorism.

       I would say, however, that the focus, unfortunately, I think, has been too much on the dollar amount and not sufficiently on the substance of the initiative, which is what really matters here. Throwing money at a problem is not going to solve the problem. Tremendous amounts of money have already been thrown at poverty alleviation, education and health improvement in Africa. What matters is can we get the projects right, can we get the policies right, can we get the programs right. Once we can get those right, then the money will come. We should then provide additional assistance. But if you immediately go out and say, "Okay, I've got this challenge and I'm going to throw $7 billion or $2 billion a it," a lot of that money is going to be wasted. Why not test the effectiveness of the programs first, and when you know that you've got the right answer, then put the money on it? And that's the president's vision.

       I can tell you that to measure a commitment by dollar amounts is a very skewed approach. What's necessary is to measure commitment by the willingness to ask the hard questions and make sure that what you're doing actually works. The other is simply symbol. But to really try to make it work is what this president is trying to do. And so he has committed to providing additional resources both for HIV/AIDS and for education, as we have the projects and the programs that demonstrate effectiveness.

       As far as how the money will be distributed, some of it will go to NGOs -- a lot of it will go to NGOs. On the education initiative, in particular, with the girls' scholarships, we have an infrastructure in place in which we normally have local NGOs and international NGOs identify potential recipients of the scholarship. And so that -- you know, and we can distribute the money to those NGOs to provide to the girls.

       On the Millennium Challenge account money, which is the bigger pot that's there, that approach is still being discussed. I think it would make sense to have a diversified approach rather than a single. I don't think it should just go to NGOs, and I don't think it should just go to governments. But I think we need to have a mix of approaches, depending on the initiative itself.

       On the mother-to-child transmission, both AID and HHS, through the Centers for Disease Control, the Health and Human Services, will provide programs in 12 different countries. AID normally works with communities and NGOs. CDC, the Centers for Disease Control, often works with governments, ministries of health, and hospitals. And you'll see the distribution along both of those lines. And I think that that's most effective to have a comprehensive approach.

       MODERATOR: Sir?

       Q Charles Cobb with AllAfrica.com. On the G-8, as I recall, at the Genoa meeting, the G-8 themselves were going to come up with a plan for Africa for this Canada meeting. Is NPAD that plan, or is there a separate set of plans that you will put on the table, in addition to considering the NPAD in Canada?

       And somewhat related to that, I'd like your analysis, since the G-8 in Canada will be followed by the Africa Union meetings in South Africa, what exactly do you understand the relationship of NPAD to the African Union to be in terms of actual on-the-ground programming?

       SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Yes, the Genoa communique specifically says that the G-8 countries will appoint Africa personal reps who will respond to the NPAD plan. That's the language that's written there. I looked at it very carefully. Now, in responding to the NPAD plan, the G-8 APRs, Africa personal reps, have come up with a plan that's their response to the NPAD plan. It's not a separate plan as such, it's a response to the NPAD plan. That's what they will table. They will say to the African leaders, on that second day: We were charged with responding; here's our response to you. And so that's what will be delivered a Kananaskis.

       As far as the relationship between NPAD and the AU, the Africa Union, that's really an issue best left to the African leaders themselves, a question that they should be able to answer.

       We are simply watching. They're involved in internal dynamics, internal dialogue, and I -- and we are not necessarily privy to all of the conversations that are being had. But my understanding, although I think it's best that they are in a better position to answer that, my understanding is the Africa Union is an organization that is transforming the OAU, the Organization of African Unity. And so, it is an organization, a structure, whereas NPAD is a program of action. So, it's the substantive program for implementation.

       Now, whether NPAD is a program of action owned by the AU, as such, that's a relationship I'm not sure of. I do know that when it was the Organization of African Unity, they had a head-of-state meeting that blessed the NPAD approach. At that point, they didn't actually have a plan tabled, a fully developed plan tabled. But whether that was a provisional blessing, whether that was an adoption as a, you know, a formal program of action for this institution, that's where the Africans have to answer that question themselves.

       Q Priscilla Hough (sp) with South African Broadcasting. Clearly, with the increase in development aid and the new programs that have been announced, there's been a change of heart in the Bush administration and across the Republican Party towards Africa. What is the administration looking to hear from Thabo Mbeki and the other leaders coming to G-8? Is there something that they want to hear? Is there going to be some skepticism? Is there the possibility that the money is going to sit on the table if they're not hearing or seeing programs that work?

       SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Yes, there's been no change of heart of the Bush administration towards Africa. We've always considered Africa an extremely important region. We've always sought extensive engagement from the outset of the administration.

       And I think that that's reflected in the fact that Secretary Powell was the earliest secretary of State to ever travel to Africa for any administration, U.S. government administration, when he went in May. It's also reflected in the fact that you've had more Cabinet secretaries than any previous administration travelling to Africa, from Secretary Powell, the first U.S. trade rep to ever travel to Africa, Ambassador Zoellick, the secretary of Health and Human Services, Thompson, and now the secretary of Treasury, O'Neill. And I suspect that you'll have at least one other Cabinet secretary traveling to Africa this year. And then the president, in his announcement last night, is going to be the first U.S. government president to travel to Africa in his first term. And had there not been 9/11, he would have travelled there this year.

       And so I think that there's been extensive engagement. It's also reflected in the number of heads-of-state meeting the president has has had. He's actually met with -- he's held 17 different heads-of- state meetings in a year and a half of the administration. That's more than any other president. And so there has not been a change of heart

       Our policy also for what we're listening for from the African leaders that will be at the G-8, we're listening for a common view, a common vision for Africa. And we said from the outset of this administration that we are going to engage those African countries that are very serious about good governance, about open trade, free trade, political freedom and ending war. And that's what we're looking for from the African -- that's how we're going to devote our resources. We've been very clear from the outset. Those principles are articulated in the Millennium Challenge account.

       And those principles re based both on our own vision and our own heart, but also in the dialogue that's taken place in these heads-of- state meeting and in these visits. We've already heard this message from President Mbeki. When Secretary Powell went there in May, he went to South Africa, he met with President Mbeki, he met with Foreign Minister Zuma. They were the ones that talked about NPAD. They were the ones who talked about a new vision for Africa of good governance. They were the ones who talked about a peer review mechanism in which they were going to hold themselves accountable.

       And we've heard the message. We have a common message. Now we have to actually live up to that through our actions. And so the question is, will they actually be able -- I mean, let's be honest, there's 54 countries in Africa, and how does one operationalize good governance as a collective? Is this peer review mechanism going to actually say that there are certain countries that are not living up to the standard? That's a hard issue that they really need to face, because I think the political tradition in Africa is one of inclusiveness and collectivity, but with 54 countries, if you're really going to have standards, everyone can't be in the standard if they're not. So we would want to encourage all to be in it, but the discrimination, really saying that certain countries are not living up to the standard, is going to be extremely important and there's a willingness to recognize it and act on it.

       Q John Ibitson (ph), the Globe and Mail of Canada. What, as specifically as you can, has Prime Minister Chretien been asking of Mr. Bush and the administration and the other G-8 leaders?

       What has his agenda been, and to what extent is Mr. Bush in accord with that agenda, and to what extent does the administration differ?

       SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: I think that all of the G-8 leaders share the view I just laid out about the need for performance-based criteria for providing assistance. So I think that that's a common approach of all of the G-8 leaders and in fact of the African leaders, at least of the NPAD leaders that will be there.

       I think that there's also a desire to allocate a certain percentage of one's budget to development assistance, a 50 percent percentage or some particular earmark. And that's, I think, one agenda item.

       I think there's a desire to have greater debt relief -- topping up, as such. That's on the agenda.

       There are a number of issues like that, that are on the agenda -- a desire to commit to shorter time lines for achieving results. All of that is on the agenda.

       I think that our approach going into it will be that whatever commitments we're making, we're actually prepared to live up to them. We're actually prepared to meet them. And it doesn't do much for Africa policy to make (laudy ?) commitments that no one is ever going to actually match, just so that we can say we said we're going to do something. What we want is realizable goals, achievable goals and goals that will actually have an impact on people's lives. And so our approach going into the G-8 for the Africa action plan and for -- as our response to NPAD is to say let's not say something that we're not going to actually do.

       Q What of those agenda items that you've just listed came from the Canadian government, were led by the -- if any, by the Canadian government, and then what were the American responses to those specific initiatives?

       SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: It's hard for me to answer that question, because this process has been going on since last year, and it's been such a back-and-forth, back-and-forth. And there is such a broad set of -- I think everybody agrees on the same issues. It's a matter of how do you approach -- debt relief was brought to the table by the Canadians, but by the Americans, by the French, by the Brits. Everybody has, you know -- commitment to education is on the table.

       So it's hard for me to say this is a Canadian-exclusive agenda item, because I actually think there's -- everyone agrees on what the set of agenda items should be, it's a matter of what is the approach.

       Q Jeff Morrisey (sp), Subequatorial Africa Defense Monitor. You mentioned conflict resolution. And people around town have been talking about the death of ACRI for the last few months. I'm wondering if this is going to be on the agenda and if any new approaches are going to be coming from this meeting?

       SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: No, ACRI hasn't died, ACRI is being transformed, hopefully into a more effective program. Peace and security is on the agenda. And our approach has been to push for greater coordination, in particular, greater coordination of exercises, peacekeeping training, harmonization of our approaches. There's also been a common view that we need to build the capacity of sub-regional organizations, and I think probably give greater attention to the conflicts in the Congo, in Angola, and in Sudan in particular. I think that there's common agreement that we need to move on all of those fronts.

       Q Jean Pierre Romaldi (ph), Italian News Agency, ANSA. A few months ago, the administration was paying a lot of attention to Somalia. There is now a special place for Somalia in the African region of President Bush?

       SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Is there a special place for Somalia?

       Q (Off mike.)

       SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: That's a very difficult question. Somalia, for this administration, really came to the forefront after 9/11, quite frankly. We looked at -- when we looked at the major conflicts in Africa, we could see a way ahead for five. The sixth, being Somalia, was quite difficult to see how to end the warlordship, I should say.

       It's hard to -- normally, we think of a civil war; there's three combatants, four combatants, five combatants. Well, there's multiple parties in Somalia. But our attention was, you know -- and so, you try to do what you can do. So, that's why we're looking at the other conflict areas. Now, Somalia, because of the counterterrorism threat and its location, has gotten much more attention. And so, where Somalia fits in our vision, it fits right into that effort to try to prevent territories becoming safe havens for terrorists.

       Q (Off mike) -- last night in speaking said that trade barriers by both rich nations and African nations are a great barrier to development. Does -- is it in the president's thinking that there's an equivalency between trade barriers in Africa and the kind of trade barriers that exist in a rich industrialized nation? And will he -- does he have some proposals in mind, because he didn't elaborate on them last night, about tackling this issue of trade barriers which African nations have been complaining about very loudly as of late?

       SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Yes. The president's answer to trade barriers are in the agreements reached in Doha. It's in -- he announced that he's trying to negotiate a free trade agreement with the SACU countries in Southern Africa. And we are always establishing TIFA agreements with African countries. We have one with COMESA; we have one with WAEMU. And so, that's our approaches. Where we can see opportunities to establish free trade agreements and understandings to reduce trade barriers, lower tariffs, we will.

       In fact, AGOA is the approach of this administration to that issue for Africa. And under AGOA, over 90 percent of African imports come in duty free. And so, we feel that our market is virtually 100 percent access. It's over 90 percent access for those countries that are AGOA-eligible, and at this point, there's approximately 36 or (3)7 AGOA-eligible out of 48 countries in Africa. And we're always hoping that others will become eligible. And so, the issue of trade access for African goods for the United States is almost a non-issue. That's really an issue for African states, I think more so with Europe, but AGOA is our mechanism for lowering trade barriers.

       The president also talks about, and he spoke, I think, in the speech, about the trade barriers between African countries, and that those need to be lowered as well.

       Q (Inaudible.) On the question of conflict resolution, what -- does it not seem that Rwanda, a tiny country in Central Africa, is dictating the terms of the direction of a resolution in the Great Lakes?

       And if it is, what is U.S. view on Rwanda's position in that regard?

       And if I can ask a second question --

       MODERATOR: (Off mike.)

       Q Yeah. What has been your experience with working with NGOs when it comes to distribution of resources?

       SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: I'll answer the first question.

       Rwanda needs to withdraw from the Congo. That is our position. It's critical to end the war in the Congo. Too many lives have been lost. This administration supports the Lusaka Peace Accord. We're supportive of the inter-Congolese dialogue. And we see that peace in the Congo requires two -- has two elements. One is the withdrawal of foreign forces, and secondly is the establishment of a government of national unity or transitional -- government of national unity for transition to an elected government, essentially. And our approach is, what can we do to facilitate that outcome, facilitate the outcome of foreign troops withdrawing, and creating this internal reconciliation process?

       Key to Rwanda withdrawing is the security threat that's posed by the ex-FAR and Interahamwe or ALIR that still do exist in the Congo. We are trying to take pragmatic steps toward eliminating that security threat. And last week or the week before last, our ambassador for war crimes, Pierre Prosper, went to the region and launched an awards program for $5 million to apprehend the genocidir (ph) leadership. We feel that as you apprehend that leadership, the rank and file will be willing to put down their arms, to reintegrate, resettle or repatriate to Rwanda or settle in the Congo, as the case may be. And so that's just one piece of it.

       Another piece of it is that, to the degree that Rwanda has RCD- Goma as an ally, that they need to encourage and pressure RCD-Goma to negotiate an internal settlement, a government of national unity.

       And so our stance is unequivocal, and that is that there has to be withdrawal of foreign forces from the Congo. And that's Rwanda, that's Uganda, in particular because they weren't invited, but that also probably is Zimbabwe.

       But it's a little -- under the Lusaka Accord, it clearly states it's all foreign forces, which would include Zimbabwe as well. But Zimbabwe and Congo can make an argument about being invited in by the government there.

       MODERATOR: Thank you very much.

       SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Yes, thank you.

       MODERATOR: And I would like to remind you, this was a background briefing attributable to a "senior administration official." Thank you very much. Thanks for your good questions.