Bush speaksThe 2008 State of America`s Union
President Bush delivered his State of the Nation address early this week which some regard as one of the best in the history of his nation.
Days and hours before the speech, there was some apprehension as to what the tone of it would be. This being his last year in office, it could be as tame as in “lame duck” some thought. As it turned out, however, it was bolder than many had anticipated. This was true with regard to what he had to say about Africa and the rest of the Third World.
“Protecting our nation from the dangers of a new century requires more than good intelligence and a strong military.” President Bush said.
The understanding was he should know more than most about the threats that America faced during his tenure in the White House and would continue to face after he had left office.
But Bush, in his speech, responded to these threats in a manner that was novel; at least so it would seem to those who see him as a “cowboy”, ready to shoot from the hip instead of appreciating or understanding the nuances imbedded in these threats.
His proposal to Congress called for a peaceful approach to a particular aspect of America's foreign policy that has been overshadowed by the turmoil in Iraq; one of compassion for the afflicted and the down-trodden, an approach that, consequently, should deserve a hearty applause from those whom it would benefit.
But be sure to hear soon from the “nuanced” community that this new approach "is still vintage Bush"; a simplistic, silly policy rather than something that should require years of reading and thinking before implementation.
In reality, the policy behind it could be described as hard ball, something akin to the Bush we should know. The only difference this time was that he was not proposing to use America's military might only.
The philosophy behind the new Bush policy could be described as simple only in the sense that it “requires changing the conditions that breed resentment and allow extremists to prey on despair," as he said. And, of course, an approach that consequentially, he hoped, would free America from the wrath of suicide-bomber recruiters.
All the same, this proposal should carry huge benefits for many in Africa.
One aspect of the benefits would be Bush's Millennium Challenge Account (MCA), an account aimed to aid needy countries and from which Ghana gained over half a billion US dollars for developmental projects in 2005 alone. To put this in perspective, the Clinton administration's grant to fight global HIV/AIDS in the 90s amounted to a paltry $200 million.
As Bush appealed to Congress, the MCA “strengthens democracy, transparency, and the rule of law in developing nations, and I ask you to fully fund this important initiative.”
Would those who were vocal against his use America's military might in Iraq be silent about this benevolent intent now?
Expect some to describe Bush's stance on foreign policy so far as a classic “carrot and stick” approach; or something more sinister. But considering the problems he delineated in his speech, what would be the best alternatives and who was it that was offering them?
"America is leading the fight against global hunger. Today, more than half the world's food aid comes from the United States. And tonight, I ask Congress to support an innovative proposal to provide food assistance by purchasing crops directly from farmers in the developing world, so we can build up local agriculture and help break the cycle of famine,” Bush said.
A very huge proposal considering the possible impact it could have on farmers in places like Africa; a highly innovative way to help farmers in Africa and the Third World compete fairly in a global market that has so far not treated them fairly. It could also mean that America would not be subsidizing her own farmers to produce crops that others in Ghana or Africa could grow cheaply.
Frankly, this “crop purchase approach” could mean the unraveling of subsidies to farmers in Europe and America.
Bush used his speech to call on America to exercise her “influence to build a freer, more hopeful, and more compassionate world” because doing so would be a “reflection of our national interest; it is the calling of our conscience.”
Hence, he asked Congress to double the “initial commitment to fighting HIV/AIDS by approving an additional $30 billion over the next five years.” His administration has already spent 18 billion on the same project between 2003 and 2008.
Of course, Bush's detractors also heard in his speech something that would exercise their angst when he called on Americans to oppose “genocide in Sudan….support freedom in countries from Cuba and Zimbabwe to Belarus and Burma.”
But the boldest part of his speech came with the appeal for $30 billion to fight HIV/AIDS and Malaria, two harbingers of misery and death in Africa. The pleasant part was that the fund would target 17 hard hit countries in the world, eleven of which could be found in Africa.
E. Ablorh-Odjidja, Publisher www.ghanadot.com, Washington, DC, January 29, 2008