[Pages S2439-S2440]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

U.S. FOREIGN ASSISTANCE PRIORITIES IN AFRICA

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I recently received a copy of a speech
delivered February 3 by Brian Atwood, Director of the Agency for
International Development. He outlines several thoughts on directions
for U.S. assistance in Africa.
In light of the current debate over U.S. foreign assistance programs
in general, and particularly in Africa, I thought my colleagues would
find Mr. Atwood's comments useful. I ask that the text of Mr. Atwood's
remarks be included in the Record at this point.
There being no objection, the remarks were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Remarks of J. Brian Atwood, Summit on Africa Aid

I am pleased to be with you today as President Clinton's
representative. I understand that the President has issued a
statement that was shared with you. As you heard, it
underscores the abiding commitment of this Administration to
Africa.
From time to time American ballot boxes produce what are
called revolutions. We know about the revolution sparked by
the Voting Rights Act. Franklin Roosevelt's election created
a revolution. So did Ronald Reagan's.
We are in the early stages of a revolution in Washington
today. And, as in every other time in our history, good can
emerge from the changes this revolution brings.
Congressional reform--the streamlining of the institution,
the increased transparency, open rules--this is all long
overdue. A Gore-Gingrich collaboration to reinvent government
is something the American people welcome. This is not
politics-as-usual, and it can produce positive change.
But in the fervor that accompanies the early stages of a
revolution, incautious positions are often asserted. At the
least, before such positions become the accepted wisdom,
someone must challenge them, civilly, but forcefully. That is
the only way we can keep revolution on a healthy course.
Indeed, that is the way mandates for change are interpreted
and given real meaning.
A case in point is the assertion that we have no national
interests in Africa. That we must reduce or eliminate
development assistance to that continent. That Africa has
neither geopolitical importance for the United States nor
economic value.
With all the force we can muster, we say: That is just
plain wrong.
Let's examine the question objectively. For just a moment,
let's leave out America's humanitarian values. Let's put
aside our historic ties to Africa. Let's
forget sentimentality. Instead, let's talk about hard
economic facts and markets and sales. Let's ask ourselves:
is Africa worth the investment? Is a continent of half a
billion people worth one-half of one-tenth of one percent
of the federal budget, which is what we now spend on it?
Is the three dollars and change that each American family
pays each year to help several dozen sub-Saharan nations a
burden worth the price?
Of course it is. It is not welfare, nor is it charity. It
is an investment we make in other people for our own self-
interest.
How do we build markets? The answer is simple: we do it by
making investments for the future. That is what vision is all
about. That is what practical reality teaches us, too. If we
want to talk economic rationales, then we must look at Africa
as the last great developing market. We must look at it the
way we looked at Latin America and Asia a generation ago.
Consider Latin America; today it is the fastest growing
market for American goods. This is a huge new middle class
market of 350 million people. It got that way because of
investments made during the last forty years--$30.7 billion
in economic assistance from the United States between 1949
and 1993. Yet our exports to all of Latin America in 1993
alone were more than two-and-a-half times that amount--$78
billion. Quite a payoff in jobs and income, and that was just
one year. And the Latin American market is likely to grow
three times larger in the next decade.
Where would we be if John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and
Richard Nixon had not committed themselves to the Alliance
for Progress and the education programs that helped create a
generation of economists and technicians who now lead South
America's impressive growth? What kind of customers would we
have if we had not supported health and education programs
that invested in the human capital of Latin America, an
investment that now is producing an educated, healthy
workforce that can afford to buy our goods and services? What
kind of stability would we have in this market if we had not
supported democracy-building programs that have made military
juntas and coups a thing of the past?
It is an interesting exercise to compare sub-Saharan Africa
today to three of the newest ``Asian Tigers''--Malaysia,
Indonesia, and Thailand--as they were in 1960: African per
capita income is today 80% of what it was in Malaysia,
Indonesia, and Thailand 35 years ago. But Africa today has
four times the number of people Malaysia, Indonesia, and
Thailand had in 1960. Think of the potential of this African
market, even at its current stage of development.
The bottom line is that Africa today is not significantly
behind where the ``Asian Tigers'' were in 1960. In the three
decades since, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand
substantially reduced poverty, their rates of population
growth, infant mortality, and illiteracy. These countries are
now major players in the world economy. We believe Africa can
do as well.
The doubters should not just look at Africa's potential;
the market is already significant, and like other developing
markets, it is growing far faster than our markets in Europe.
In 1992, sub-Saharan Africa imported $63 billion worth of
merchandise from the world. African imports have risen by
around 7.0% per year for the past decade. At this rate, the
African market would amount to $480 billion by the year 2025.
That is approximately $267 billion in today's dollars.
The U.S. currently accounts for nearly 10% of the African
market. Do the arithmetic. Each American family now spends
about $3 annually on aid to Africa. At current growth rates,
that will produce something like $50 billion worth of
American exports to Africa each year in 30 years. In 2025,
the U.S. is projected to have a population of 320 million.
Again, do the arithmetic. $50 billion worth of exports would
work out to about $600 worth of exports per family, annually,
in 2025. And that is if Africa's growth remains at its
current level; if we make the investments Africa needs, and
if African nations implement the kind of policies that have
benefitted Asia and Latin America, the return for each
American family in thirty years could be as much as $2000 per
year.
These are not trivial amounts. They represent millions of
jobs for our children financial health for our nation.
Isn't Africa worth the investments now that we made in Asia
and Latin America? Those who argue against such investments
[[Page S2440]] are shortchanging the next generation of
Americans. There is, of course, no guarantee that our
investment will pay dividends, but it is as good a bet as
most mutual funds. Moreover, the cost of not acting could
overwhelm our treasury, and, I fear, our consciences.
Those who say we have no strategic interest in Africa
should understand that if African nations fail to make
progress, if they descend into chaos and decay, the tragedy
will not take place in a vacuum. Chaos there will affect our
interests here. As long as we remain true to our values--and
there is a strong bipartisan consensus that suggests we will
(even Pat Buchanan supports disaster relief)--the costs of
humanitarian operations will continue to be borne in part by
the United States. If more African nations fail, we will
share the costs of caring for the millions of refugees. We
will shoulder the burdens of dealing with endless famine. And
we will
have to confront the spreading political disorder, the
environmental damage, and the consequent loss of markets
for our goods.
Parts of Africa are living on the edge. Many African
nations face adverse climatic and soil conditions. Each day,
people in these countries face problems of poor health and
malnutrition and illiteracy that few other people confront.
Yet lost in the apocalyptic descriptions of an Africa
seemingly falling apart is genuine reason for encouragement.
The headlines rarely report the many positive developments
and success stories in Africa. Yet in a number of African
nations, democratically-elected, enlightened leaders,
committed to broadening participation and undertaking reforms
necessary for development, are creating an environment for
success. This, too, is the reality of Africa:
USAID today is working in 35 African nations that, in our
judgment, are in various phases of consolidating their
democracies, creating free markets, and implementing serious
economic reforms. Conversely, we have ended our involvement
in several nations where the governments refuse to commit
themselves to reform or to a development partnership with
their own citizens.
A new generation of African leaders is pursuing extensive
economic restructuring programs, including privatization of
state-owned enterprises, reducing government functions and
budgets, stabilizing the economy, and implementing policy
changes that help the private sector expand.
New crops and market liberalization are expanding food
production, raising farmer income and reducing food prices
for consumers.
More children, especially girls, are attending school so
that they can become more productive members of society. And
we know from our own experience that more than any other
factor, improving the education of girls and the status of
women enhances the economy, the environment, and the
prospects of democracy.
Programs to expand immunization and use of oral rehydration
therapy are saving an estimated 800,000 African children each
year.
Fertility is starting to fall as more and more parents use
family planning services.
I am proud that USAID has played a role in every one of
these achievements.
For every Rwanda there is a Ghana--a nation that has begun
revitalizing its economy and is intent on being part of the
worldwide economic expansion.
For every Somalia, there is a South Africa or a Namibia--
nations that have successfully implemented democracy and
peaceful change.
For every Angola, there is a Mozambique, emerging now from
civil conflict.
For every tragedy, there are a half dozen islands of hope.
Progress is still tentative, often fragile. Which is
precisely why we must not hesitate now. But this continent is
no write-off. It is a good investment.
We have learned from the mistakes we made during the Cold
War. We now are concentrating our aid in countries that are
implementing sound economic policies, promoting an open and
democratic society, and investing their own resources in
broad-based development. That is exactly what the Congress
wanted to accomplish with the Development Fund for Africa.
And that is why this Administration strongly supports the
Development Fund for Africa. Under this fund, we have taken a
longer-term approach to Africa's development, systematically
addressing the root causes--economic, social, and political--
of underdevelopment.
In those countries stricken with disaster or famine, we are
treating emergency relief as more than an end in itself.
Rather, we are structuring it to help nations make the
difficult transition from crisis to the path of sustainable
development.
President Clinton's Initiative for the Greater Horn of
Africa is designed to apply the lessons we learned in the
Sahel and Southern Africa is a troubled region that now
consumes nearly half of all African relief. By emphasizing
regional cooperation and planning, by helping nations acquire
the ability to respond to food crises early on, we can
prevent droughts from becoming famines. This Initiative, we
believe, will save lives and resources. The partnerships it
builds will enable the donor community to save billions of
dollars in relief assistance over the next fifteen years and
focus resources instead on recovery efforts and long-term
development.
To prevent more failed nations, the United States must
strengthen our efforts to prevent crisis and to encourage
others to do so as well. While we only provide five percent
of the development assistance that Africa receives, we
provide 30 percent of the relief assistance directed at the
continent's emergencies. It is a lot less expensive to lead
the way on prevention than it is to pay the costs of failure.
I am able to make the case for assistance to Africa today
because USAID has reorganized itself to be an effective
instrument of development. Many of our reforms were pioneered
by the Development Fund for Africa. The DEA forced us to
measure results and now we are going to do this everywhere.
Our work in Africa has been an essential part of our
identity, and must remain so.
So, now we have a fight on our hands. We welcome it. If the
revolution has indeed begun, then each of us must do
everything we can to ensure that the well-being of our
children--and the children of Africa--is advanced by the
vision today's revolution produces. We cannot be silent. We
cannot wring our hands. The case for Africa gives us the
opportunity to be the champions of common sense. This is a
battle well worth waging. Not for African Americans, not for
historical reasons, not even for our humanitarian values,
though we must never forget them. This is a battle worth
waging for America's national interests and the future of our
children. We will wage it. And I am confident that, in the
end, common sense will prevail.

____________________