[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
U.S. INTERESTS IN AFRICA
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 18, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-33
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
25-458PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida BRAD SHERMAN, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas KAREN BASS, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina AMI BERA, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
PAUL COOK, California TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
RON DeSANTIS, Florida ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
TED S. YOHO, Florida DINA TITUS, Nevada
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois NORMA J. TORRES, California
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois
DANIEL M. DONOVAN, Jr., New York THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
Wisconsin TED LIEU, California
ANN WAGNER, Missouri
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
THOMAS A. GARRETT, Jr., Virginia
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
General William E. Ward, USA, Retired, president and chief
operating officer, SENTEL Corporation (former Commander, U.S.
Africa Command)................................................ 4
Mr. Bryan Christy, explorer and investigative reporter, National
Geographic Society............................................. 10
Mr. Anthony Carroll, adjunct professor, School of Advanced
International Studies, Johns Hopkins University................ 20
The Honorable Reuben E. Brigety II, dean, Elliott School of
International Affairs, The George Washington University (former
U.S. Representative to the African Union, U.S. Department of
State)......................................................... 29
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
General William E. Ward, USA, Retired: Prepared statement........ 6
Mr. Bryan Christy: Prepared statement............................ 12
Mr. Anthony Carroll: Prepared statement.......................... 23
The Honorable Reuben E. Brigety II: Prepared statement........... 31
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 80
Hearing minutes.................................................. 81
The Honorable Daniel Donovan, a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York: Material submitted for the record....... 83
The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress
from the Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement.......... 85
U.S. INTERESTS IN AFRICA
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 18, 2017
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o'clock a.m.,
in room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward Royce
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Chairman Royce. This hearing will come to order if all of
the members will take their seats. Today we are going to focus
on U.S. interests on the continent of Africa. As members know,
this committee has been in the lead of U.S.-Africa policy for
many, many years. Last Congress was no different, with several
laws passed, and I will just remind the members we passed: The
Electrify Africa Act, which will bolster power in electricity
projects across the continent, it will spur a lot of economic
growth.
We passed the END Wildlife Trafficking Act, which combats
the threat of illegal poaching and the trafficking of elephants
and rhinos, and we closed down the ivory trade with this
legislation. The profits here were linked to extremist groups
which was another important point.
The Global Food Security Act improves our ability to
respond to food emergencies, and we also successfully
reauthorized the African Growth and Opportunity Act to expand
opportunities for increased trade and investment.
Not too long ago, the committee fought to establish
landmark programs like PEPFAR and the Millennium Challenge
Corporation. As this work was done in a bipartisan way over the
last few years, we operate the same way today. I would like to
thank Ranking Member Engel, Chairman Smith, and Ranking Member
Bass for their leadership on these issues.
Africa has 1 billion consumers. That is one way to look at
it, 1 billion consumers. It has a huge potential as a trading
partner and as a U.S. job creator. Some of the fastest growing
economies in the world are in Africa, including six of the top
13 countries that grew the fastest over the last 3 years. This
makes our economic engagement on the continent critical. But
according to a recent news report, Chinese engagement with the
continent ``may be the largest global trade and investment
spree in history.'', end quote. deg. Simply put: The
U.S. cannot get caught watching from the sidelines here.
Our efforts to combat Islamist extremism is not confined to
the Middle East. ISIS affiliates and Al Shabaab in Somalia,
Boko Haram in northern Nigeria, and the al-Qaeda affiliate
throughout the Maghreb have to be addressed head-on through
counterterrorism initiatives in support for our partners in
Africa. One witness today will tell us about his exploits
fighting wildlife traffickers, and many of these wildlife
traffickers today are linked to terrorists. Efforts to
strengthen democratic institutions and government capabilities
must go hand-in-hand with our efforts to address these
challenges. Unfortunately, tragically, too many African
countries are off the democratic track.
Critical situations require immediate leadership and
direction from the U.S. Government. With three famines looming
on the continent, deliberate deprivation of humanitarian aid by
South Sudan's political leaders, and ongoing political
instability in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the U.S.
must remain active and remain engaged. And I want to thank
again those members that are traveling to the region in the
next few weeks addressing these issues.
I am pleased also by last week's nomination of Ambassador
Mark Green to lead USAID. We look forward to working with this
former committee member to continue to provide communities with
lifesaving aid from the American people. AID also helps open
African markets to sell U.S. goods and services. However, I am
concerned by the delay in appointing an Assistant Secretary for
Africa at the State Department, and the Department needs to
demonstrate how the administration's proposed budgets don't put
the progress we have made in jeopardy.
As we will hear today, our engagement with Africa is in the
strategic interest of the U.S. not only to address urgent
humanitarian needs there in Africa across the continent, but
also to advance our critical economic interests, our political
interests, our security interests. Now is not the time to pull
back. And so I will now go to our ranking member, Mr. Engel of
New York.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for convening
this hearing. And to our witnesses welcome to the Foreign
Affairs Committee. We are grateful for your time and for your
expertise.
The region that we are focused on today, sub-Saharan
Africa, holds tremendous importance for the United States and
for other emerging global powers. If we don't give Africa the
focus it deserves those strategic opportunities will slip away
at great cost to the United States and I believe to countries
across the continent.
In recent years, American policy has played a major role in
driving political, economic, and security progress in sub-
Saharan Africa. For the most part, these policies have won
strong bipartisan support. They have also shown good results.
Working together we have helped to promote economic opportunity
through the African Growth and Opportunity Act, what we call
AGOA, and the Electrify Africa Act.
We have improved access to lifesaving health care through
the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, PEPFAR, and
through the American response to the Ebola crisis in West
Africa in 2014. And we have worked to tackle the problem of
wildlife trafficking, which is tied to so many other criminal
activities, through the END Wildlife Trafficking Act.
These initiatives are great examples of how doing good for
other people also does good for America's interests. If we can
help provide access to reliable power or health care we should.
It is the right thing to do. At the same time we make these
investments we are helping communities and countries become
more stable and more prosperous. It adds up over time and we
end up with stronger partners on the world stage and
populations who view the United States as a friend.
But these efforts, as worthwhile as they are, haven't made
a dent in other challenges facing many African countries. For
example, conflict and climate change have given rise to massive
humanitarian crises including an ongoing famine in South Sudan
and the risk of famine in Somalia and northeastern Nigeria. The
victories we have achieved are fragile and a lot of work
remains to meet remaining challenges.
So I am worried that after robust engagement during both
the Bush and Obama administrations, United States' policy
toward Africa has suddenly gone adrift. Part of this is due to
some diplomatic missteps. In April, Secretary Tillerson invited
the chair of the African Union Commission to meet in
Washington, then at the last minute canceled the meeting.
In March, the African Global Economic and Development
Summit took place in California. Not a single citizen of an
African country was granted a visa by the State Department to
attend this event. I have to ask, would the Secretary of State
brush off the European foreign policy chief? When we hosted the
APEC Summit in 2011, how many citizens of Asian countries did
we turn away?
Mistakes like this send an unfortunate message. What sends
an even clearer message and will do real harm to people across
Africa is the administration's proposed international affairs
budget cut. If we cut by nearly a third our investment in
diplomacy and development, we put at risk all the work we have
done to foster good governance, economic growth, and
counterterrorism efforts.
And I am happy and I am pleased to say that when we held
hearings in this committee, people on both sides of the aisle
spoke out against these horrific budget cuts. Cutting USAID
initiatives and support for U.N. organizations will put lives
at risk. The appalling reinstatement and expansion of the
Global Gag Rule will have an outsized impact on African
countries, cutting off vulnerable communities, especially women
and girls, from needed health care.
Scaling back the Peace Corps will undermine one of our most
cost effective tools of providing assistance in building
relationships with other cultures. And expanding the American
military engagement on the continent just doesn't make sense if
we are not also working on a parallel track to address the
drivers of political instability.
The good news is that Congress decides how much we invest
in foreign affairs and where we put that money to use. We have
the power of the purse. So I am confident as we move forward we
will continue to give our initiatives in Africa the resources
they need and that we will do more to address the range of
unmet challenges.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the best
way forward on these issues. I again thank Chairman Royce and
Ms. Bass for all her work on this and I yield back.
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Engel. This morning we are
pleased to be joined by a very distinguished panel. General Kip
Ward served as the first commander of the U.S. Africa Command
Forces. He served there from 2007 to 2011.
We have Mr. Bryan Christy, an investigative journalist from
the National Geographic, specializing in wildlife trafficking
and the ivory trade and in conservation.
We have Mr. Tony Carroll, adjunct professor at the Johns
Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. He served on
the Africa advisory board at the EXIM Bank, the Overseas
Private Investment Corporation, and the Millennium Challenge
Corporation, and he got his start as a Peace Corps volunteer in
sub-Saharan Africa.
Ambassador Reuben Brigety served as the U.S. representative
to the African Union. The Ambassador also served as a Deputy
Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of African Affairs.
And without objection, the witnesses' full prepared
statements will be made part of the record, here, and members
are going to have 5 calendar days to submit any statements or
any questions that they might have for the witnesses or any
extraneous material into the record.
We will start with General Ward and we will ask all of you,
if you could, to summarize your remarks. General Ward, please.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL WILLIAM E. WARD, USA, RETIRED, PRESIDENT
AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, SENTEL CORPORATION (FORMER
COMMANDER, U.S. AFRICA COMMAND)
General Ward. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of
the committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide
testimony on the important nexus between security and
development on the African continent and how interconnected
they are from a philosophical standpoint, but also
operationally between the Department of Defense and USAID in
particular but other U.S. Government agencies that promote
development and good governance.
Proudly wearing the cloth of our nation, I was privileged
to be the inaugural commander of the United States Africa
Command, and having previously served in the Balkans as the
commander of the NATO Force in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in
the Middle East as a U.S. security coordinator for Israel and
Palestinian authority. In each of these three critical environs
I was able to witness firsthand that American security is well
served when nations take and are supported in taking positive
steps to advance their economic sector to better serve their
populations and inroads are made such that governance issues
are advanced in service to their people.
I have submitted a written statement and in it I describe
this notion of creating societal stability by providing a
horizon of hope. When this happens, fragile societies are less
susceptible to the conditions that foster instability and
reduce the prevalence of failing or fragile state scenarios
easily exploited by terrorists, criminals, and other negative
actors.
When the United States provides developmental support to
fragile states, our national security interests are served and
our national security is enhanced. Development is the long term
guarantor of stability. No amount of bullets or bombs can do
that. As was the case for post conflict Europe and Asia where
the United States made strategic developmental investments,
this is no less true for Africa.
The African continent is three and a half times the size of
the continental United States with vast resources, markets, and
agricultural potential. Population growth in Africa exceeds
that occurring anywhere else on the globe. Burgeoning youth
populations, huge potential for a rising middle class, and its
demands for goods and services reinforce the importance of
programs that advance health, literacy, and access to a better
life, lest these populations create burdens on other regions of
the global commons and, as importantly, create safe havens for
the export of terrorism and illegal activities requiring huge
resources to counter. Preventing this from occurring is a far
better and much less costly alternative than having to react to
the negative impact of these ills.
Our national support to these vital developmental projects
and programs led by the United States Agency for International
Development and other developmental entities are modest
investments proportionately speaking that serve our national
security interests more efficiently than having to react to
crises as voids are created and gaps exist. To make a
difference over time we must sustain our engagement--including
developmental engagement, diplomatic engagement, and security
engagement--over time.
Thank you, sir, and I am prepared to respond to your
questions and comments to the best of my ability.
[The prepared statement of General Ward follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Chairman Royce. Thank you, General Ward. Thank you very
much for agreeing to testify here today. We are going to go to
Mr. Bryan Christy, but I understand that Mr. Christy has a 1-
minute video that he would like us to contemplate here.
STATEMENT OF MR. BRYAN CHRISTY, EXPLORER AND INVESTIGATIVE
REPORTER, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY
Mr. Christy. Yes, sir. We are National Geographic so we
come with our toys.
[Video shown.]
Mr. Christy. Chairman Royce.
Chairman Royce. Mr. Christy, you have our attention.
Mr. Christy. I can never live up to the technics of
National Geographic film crews.
Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel, distinguished members
of the committee, I would like to thank you for holding this
important hearing today to explore ways to strengthen U.S. ties
with African countries. The leadership of this committee on
enhancing this bond is critical and I am grateful for the
opportunity to share my expertise to assist with your mission.
My name is Bryan Christy. I am a journalist with National
Geographic Society Explorer. My specialty is international
wildlife crime. For the past 7 years I have focused almost
exclusively on investigating the killing of elephants and
rhinos for their ivory and horns. I do not come to this field
as a biologist specializing in animals, I come to it as a
lawyer turned investigator specializing in transnational crimes
with strategic significance.
Illegal wildlife trade amounts to billions of dollars per
year inspiring corruption, murder, the destabilization of
governments, the spread of disease, the devastation of species,
and the destruction of ecosystems. The negative impact of the
ivory and rhino horn trade is so great it warrants classifying
elephants and rhinos as global strategic resources.
This morning, however, I would like to draw the committee's
attention to the people on the ground who protect wildlife in
protected areas--park rangers, game wardens, and other local
crime fighters--who find themselves in a battle that extends
well beyond wildlife, a battle against transnational criminal
enterprises including terrorist and extremist groups which
underscores America's interest in Africa and its wildlife.
Many of the most violent terrorist and extremist groups
operating in Africa today have sought or currently find refuge
in parks or protected areas--Boko Haram in Sambisa Forest,
Nigeria; Joseph Kony and his Lord's Resistance Army in Garamba
National Park in the Democratic Republic of Congo; the FDLR;
the Rwandan Hutu rebel militia in Virunga National Park, DRC,
the perpetrators of the '94 Rwandan genocide in which 800,000
people died. This list goes on.
Many of these groups traffic ivory or rhino horn for arms
and other needs including the LRA, the FDLR, Seleka, and al-
Qaeda linked groups operating in Mali where three al-Qaeda
linked Islamic extremist groups have recently merged. Other
groups such as Al Shabaab in Somalia and FDLR in the Congo
exploit forest resources to finance themselves, taxing charcoal
for example. These groups are responsible for massive
destabilization across the continent. Boko Haram has been
implicated in the murder of 15,000 people and the displacement
of more than 2 million. Kony's LRA has abducted over 7,000
people and killed more than 3,000 others.
Park rangers are often their victims. In 2014, Virunga's
chief ranger Emmanuel de Merode was shot four times in the
stomach and legs. This extraordinary champion for economic
development and conservation in the Congo continues his work
running the most dangerous park in the world to be a park
ranger where he has lost more than 40 men under his command.
Two weeks ago, a section of his park was overrun by about
300 suspected ADF, Ugandan jihadist militia, and Mai-Mai
militia. Losses have been reported on both sides and they
engaged again on Monday. These groups are using forests as
hideouts and to exploit villages for their food, shelter,
water, and medicines. They rape, murder, they kidnap children,
they compromise the security of forests where doctors and
researchers might investigate emerging disease such as Ebola
and the Marburg virus.
In this environment, park rangers operate as a first line
of defense not just for animals but also for people. In many
cases, park rangers are the only legitimate law enforcement to
protect and stabilize these communities, and what happens to
communities in this part of the world all too often happens for
these countries as well. This is not a call for indiscriminate
militarization. When soldiers bring weapons into the bush they
tend to use them, decimating species and exacerbating wildlife
and resource trafficking.
But by addressing the needs of park rangers and other
stewards on the ground in Africa, by facilitating networking
among rangers around the world, by training prosecutors and
judges regarding wildlife crime, by supporting a free press, by
working to reduce demand for threatened wildlife, and by
engaging at a diplomatic level with government leaders across
the continent regarding wildlife crime and violent extremism,
the United States has an opportunity to advance its interests
in national security, health, human rights, the environment,
and wildlife.
I would again like to thank Chairman Royce, Ranking Member
Engel, and the full committee for allowing me to submit
testimony today. Your legislation, the END Wildlife Trafficking
Act signed into law in 2016, is exactly the kind of leadership
the world needs. I look forward to working further to advance
these goals and am happy to take your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Christy follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Chairman Royce. Well, thank you, Mr. Christy. We go now to
Mr. Carroll.
STATEMENT OF MR. ANTHONY CARROLL, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF
ADVANCED INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
Mr. Carroll. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This month marks the
17th anniversary of the signing into law of AGOA. That historic
legislation would not have been enacted without the efforts of
yourself and other members in this room, along with those
members no longer in Congress including Jim McDermott, Phil
Crane, Charlie Rangel, Bill Thomas, Don Payne, and Bill Archer.
Since AGOA's passage, the economic landscape in Africa has
changed dramatically. First, as you noted in your introductory
remarks, between 2008 and '14 Africa's GDP grew an average of 5
percent, with some countries exceeding 8 percent annual GDP
growth. The most dynamic growth is Africa's burgeoning services
sector. Second, overseas development assistance, including from
the U.S., has fallen behind foreign direct investment and
remittances and volume of financial flows into Africa. And
last, as you noted earlier, China is now Africa's largest
trading partner at $172 billion in annual trade last year,
twice that of the United States, and Africa's investment
patterns have followed suit.
I will devote my testimony to the examination of the
relationship between trade investment and identify the ways in
which the U.S. and Africa can benefit from an expanding
relationship. AGOA has produced a modicum of success. Two-way
trade between Africa and the United States is approximately $80
billion a year. From 2000 to 2016, non-petroleum imports from
AGOA countries have shown strong growth of 75 percent over the
same period, mostly concentrated in automobiles, apparel, and
agricultural products.
China's trade has been criticized as being unbalanced and
defined by the export of raw commodities from Africa and the
import of finished goods from China to Africa. In contrast,
AGOA trade includes sophisticated products such as luxury
automobiles and fine wine from South Africa; fashion apparel
from Lesotho, Mauritius, and Kenya; cut flowers from Kenya and
Ethiopia; and gem diamonds from Botswana and Namibia. Some of
those aren't captured in trade data as they are sent through
third countries. Indeed, the United States purchases over one-
third of Africa's diamonds.
At the same time, U.S. trade balances with AGOA countries
has improved significantly since 2000. Focusing on non-
petroleum trade, U.S. trade balances improved from a 1.3
billion trade deficit in 2000 to an 831 million trade surplus
in 2016. U.S. exports to the AGOA countries have grown by a
greater percentage since 2000, up 130 percent, than have U.S.
imports from the same countries, up 75 percent. This is a
winning program for U.S. jobs.
Although job creation statistics in Africa are at best
estimates, it is widely believed that AGOA has created hundreds
of thousands of new direct and indirect jobs in Africa and the
United States. In South Africa alone, it is estimated that
60,000 direct jobs have been created by AGOA and another
100,000 indirect. In investment, the U.S. remains a major
investor in Africa. Blue Chip companies not only bring, U.S.
companies bring money, but they also bring best operating
global practices, technology, and training. In 2016, the U.S.
invested just under $4 billion in Africa.
Indeed, there is a relationship between investment and
trade. For example, GE invested in a locomotive manufacturing
plant in South Africa in accordance with local content, and
most of those imports are coming from the United States. The
China experience has been noted before. Clearly, China's growth
not only in trade but in investment has grown to $60 billion,
$36 billion last year, and with the FOCAC and One Belt, One
Road conferences recently being convened that is going to
expand dramatically.
Trade capacity development has been a partner to U.S.
increased AGOA imports. The U.S. development agencies have
spent nearly $500 million in trade capacity development, and
this trade has been run through the various trade hubs in
Africa. These trade hubs have supported $854 million in African
exports to the United States and elsewhere and $195 million in
leveraged investments. Because of the interest among Africans
to increase U.S. investment into Africa and not just
development assistance, these Hubs have broadened their mandate
to include new capabilities in fostering links between U.S.
investors and African opportunities at the firm, project, and
sectoral level. Just this month, USAID led a group of pension
investors to Africa and will organize a reverse mission later
in the year.
Africa is the population center of the world in the next
two generations. And while that presents an opportunity in
providing labor surplus and opportunities for manufacturing, it
is also a challenge because if not harnessed well it could
create the opportunities for terrorism and massive immigration
as we have seen.
So some of the recommendations that I have in terms of
expanding U.S. investment relations with Africa are continued
efforts to increase market size. Many American companies eschew
opportunities in investing in Africa because African markets
are relatively small at the national level.
We should continue our efforts to expand African regional
integration. Enhance U.S. investment in infrastructure. The
Millennium Challenge Corporation has created a new model that
requires greater accountability and partnership with our
African partner countries. However, one of the absences in MCC
is the growth of subnational debt instruments. I believe MCC
should devote--as I recommended 4 years ago--in terms of
regional funds MCC should consider expending a portion of their
funds to subnational infrastructure projects, because I believe
that is often the greater and stronger relationship to build
infrastructure.
We need to continue to strengthen Africa's innovation in
enabling business environments. That includes measures such as
IPR protection, but also tax and financial incentives to really
give Africa's innovation communities the opportunity to grow. I
believe that the U.S. in sharing at almost a firm level
fostering exchanges such as the Global Entrepreneurship Forum,
AGOA Forum, and others are an opportunity for us to expand at a
firm to firm and innovator to innovator way and opportunity for
U.S. investment to flow.
Let me close by saying that--and Congressman Yoho was going
to testify or present at the Center for Global Development the
other day, so I thought it was appropriate for me to mention
that I believe that the instrumentalities and instruments
provided by OPIC, EXIM, and TDA are important to continue and
deepen our trade and investment relationships with Africa. Much
to the contrary I believe OPIC is a fundamental tool to really
engender and gain the interest of small and medium enterprises
of the United States, whereas because only 8 percent of its
services are used by Fortune 500 companies I believe that OPIC
and EXIM can provide a platform to improve and increase our
trade investment.
And lastly, I think it would be remiss for me not to
mention the important work of the U.S. Foreign Commercial
Service, the Foreign Agricultural Service, and domestic U.S.
Department of Commerce offices to not only broadcast but even
inform business communities about the myriad opportunities of
trade and investment in Africa. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carroll follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Tony.
Ambassador Brigety?
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE REUBEN E. BRIGETY II, DEAN, ELLIOTT
SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, THE GEORGE WASHINGTON
UNIVERSITY (FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE TO THE AFRICAN UNION,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE)
Ambassador Brigety. Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel,
Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Bass, distinguished members of
the committee, good morning. My name is Ambassador Reuben
Brigety. I am the dean of the Elliott School of International
Affairs at the George Washington University. Thank you very
much for inviting me to testify this morning regarding U.S.
interests in Africa.
In my view, the bases of U.S. engagement with Africa in the
near future should largely remain what they have been over the
last three decades over both Republican and Democratic
administrations. They include a commitment to broadening
democratic governance, cooperating on matters of mutual
security, strengthening healthcare systems, and supporting
economic development. I have elaborated at length about U.S.
priorities in Africa in an article entitled, ``The New Pan-
Africanism: Implications for U.S. Policy in Africa,'' which was
published in the journal, Survival, in the summer of 2016. I
submit this article for the record.
Chairman Royce. Without objection.
Ambassador Brigety. However, I would like to use the bulk
of my testimony this morning to emphasize that U.S. objectives
in Africa cannot be realized with the dramatic and draconian
cuts to the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Agency for
International Development which have been proposed by the Trump
administration. In the Office of Management and Budgets'
document, America First: A Budget Blueprint to Make America
Great Again, President Trump proposes ``deep cuts to foreign
aid.''
The President's 2018 budget request for the Department of
State and USAID proposed a staggering 28 percent reduction from
the 2017 annualized continuing resolution level. Recent media
reports suggest that Secretary of State Tillerson plans to have
a reduction of 2,300 foreign and civil service officers, or
nearly 10 percent of the State Department's professional work
force, within the next 2 years.
Mr. Chairman, let me say clearly and emphatically that such
deep cuts to the Department of State and USAID budgets will
cause unavoidable damage to African partners and to American
interests on the continent. The presumption by the White House
and the Secretary of State that the ranks of the Foreign
Service can be dramatically reduced without harming the
national interests of the United States is incorrect,
particularly as it relates to Africa.
As a former United States Ambassador to the African Union
and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Africa, I
can attest to the fact that diplomacy in Africa is a retail
business, perhaps more so than in other parts of the world.
Engaging directly and repeatedly with government officials,
business people, and civic leaders is essential for building
trust, gathering information, and advancing policies.
It is self-evident that decreasing the number of diplomats
available to serve in U.S. Embassies abroad, to include Africa,
will decrease our ability to shape events and advance our
interests on the continent. This is made all the more
problematic because U.S. Embassies in Africa are already
understaffed relative to our diplomatic missions in Europe.
From Nouakchott to Nairobi, many circumstances exist to a
greater or lesser degree at U.S. Embassies across sub-Saharan
Africa where a relatively small number of diplomats compared,
for example, to our diplomatic footprint in Riga or Berlin,
must work exceptionally hard to develop the relationships
needed to advance U.S. interests. Whether it be finding a way
to end the fighting in South Sudan or facilitating an eventual
political transition in Zimbabwe, it is impossible to foresee
how decreasing our diplomatic presence in Africa can contribute
to those and other important objectives.
The problem is perhaps even more tangible as it relates to
proposed cuts to the USAID budget. With the breadth of
challenges and scope of opportunities on the continent today,
cutting the USAID budget will inevitably harm African partners
and hurt American interests. It is self-evident that massive
cuts to the USAID budget, inevitably leading to the closure of
USAID missions and the depletion of vital programs, will
cripple our ability to respond to these and other pressing
challenges.
Mr. Chairman, when I served as the U.S. Ambassador to the
African Union, I proudly often said that the United States
was, quote, deg. ``the natural partner of choice for
Africa.'' If such draconian cuts to the Department of State and
USAID are allowed to proceed, then we will abdicate our
position of principled partnership with African governments. We
will, in effect, have gift-wrapped the continent and handed it
to China. We must not cede our position of partnership to
China, which would surely happen if the Trump administration's
damaging budget proposals are adopted.
In conclusion, I commend the committee for examining the
important issue of U.S. interests of Africa, and let me say as
well that maintaining the capacity of USAID and the State
Department to continue to engage is squarely in the interest of
our country. Thank you very much. I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Brigety follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Ambassador Brigety.
I am going to ask maybe three questions here dealing with
poaching, dealing with trade, dealing with terrorism as it
relates to State Department budget and USAID. These are
programs that we have authored here, put into effect just to
look at the results of them. The first I will mention to Mr.
Christy here.
If we looked at the headlines 6 weeks ago, we saw China had
taken the lead here on shutting down the ivory market in China.
The headline was, Elephants Get Reprieve-Demand for Ivory
Drops, and what was happening was the worldwide demand for
ivory as a consequence of that decision, which they made after
we passed the legislation, did give the species a reprieve in
the sense that it dried up the demand.
Part of our legislation, besides helping on the ground with
the park rangers, is the naming and shaming of those
governments. You say that Sudan is a poaching ``super-state''
and Sudan doesn't have elephants of its own. Explain the role
they are playing and what other countries you would name and
shame as we put that list together, because the State
Department is going to roll that out.
Mr. Christy. Sudan's role as a poaching ``super-state''--I
use that phrase to describe what is happening with groups
supported by President Omar al-Bashir, who is wanted for war
crimes and crimes against humanity. His Janjaweed, whom he
supports, leave on horseback from Darfur and sweep across the
continent killing elephants all the way across from Chad all
the way across to, in 2012, the massive killing of 650
elephants in Cameroon's Bouba N'djida Forest.
He has given home and sustenance to Joseph Kony and the
Lord's Resistance Army operating in the Kafia Kingi enclave
section of Darfur. The Sudanese Armed Forces are also poachers
in Garamba National Park. And so unlike any other state that I
am familiar with, this is government-sanctioned poaching that
funds arms to these extremist groups and it is in a country
that has no elephants, so it is preying upon the rest of
Africa.
The naming and shaming of countries is practice that has--I
don't use that phrase. But it is a practice that has achieved
important results in the ivory trafficking world.
The so-called gang of eight countries that were named as
ivory trafficking hotspots at the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species had enormous effect in pressuring
those countries to make a difference.
I would include those countries--I won't walk through them
because I am doubtless going to miss one or two, but to them I
would certainly add or include Laos, Vietnam, Thailand, and
Myanmar, these countries that will take the place of China as
transit countries into China as China does the admirable act of
shutting down its ivory industry, I would look very
significantly toward those demand countries.
Chairman Royce. Thank you. And that brought up a question
that we should go to General Ward about and that is Joseph Kony
and his Lord's Resistance Army and terrorism, the terrorization
of civilians across Uganda and South Sudan and Central Africa.
What is your assessment? We passed legislation here some years
ago giving you and giving our U.S. military the mission of
assisting in this. Give us a quick assessment if you will.
General Ward. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The assistance that
we provided to Uganda in particular, as well as other countries
in the region, absolutely proved essential and provided a boost
to the ability to limit the Lord's Resistance Army and Joseph
Kony's ability to influence that region. It has paid off, I
believe, in some very positive terms because his reach has been
limited. His ability to wreak havoc in that region has been
severely restricted.
It is not over. It is not done. He still is there, but his
ability to do what he had been doing--especially when you look
at the time frame 2008, '09, '10 and '11--has been severely
reduced as a result of the support that has been provided to
the African military and security forces operating in that
region.
Chairman Royce. Thank you, General. I had one last question
for Mr. Carroll. This goes to the trade issue. We passed the
Electrify Africa Act here. What have you seen on the continent
as far as a lack of electricity and how it impacts economic
growth and how this can reverse that situation on the ground?
Mr. Carroll. Well, I think it is of course always dangerous
to make overgeneralizations. Certain countries have done a
better job, a more coherent job in developing their power
infrastructure, whereas other countries have fallen woefully
short of the mark. Clearly, if Africa wants to expand its
opportunities in manufacturing, in the growth of services
sectors, which I believe it can aspire to, power is going to be
an essential component of that. Power certainly alongside human
resource development will be, I think, important elements of
Africa's economic future.
So your efforts to not only expand U.S. corporate
interests, but also--and I think it is important that we
mention this, Mr. Chairman--to inspire Africans to take
measures themselves to enhance and to incentivize investment in
their power sector is certainly, I think, an essential step in
their economic development.
Chairman Royce. Thank you. We go to Ranking Member Karen
Bass of California.
Ms. Bass. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for holding this
hearing and also for all of the witnesses and your work over
the years. You know, one of the things that I have appreciated
over the last couple of years in this committee is legislation
like you mentioned, Electrify Africa, and also Feed the Future,
which I believe begins to change the paradigm toward Africans
doing for themselves.
And in that regard I wanted to ask a question both to
General Ward and Ambassador Brigety. In terms of AFRICOM and
U.S. military assistance to African countries, to African
militaries in the AU, to increase the continent's capacity to
defend itself and peacekeeping and also, you know, in a
situation like what happened in Mali a couple of years ago when
there was coup and they had to call in the former colonial
power, they had to call in France, and so I wanted to know an
assessment as to where we are and what more you think we need
to do in terms of the U.S. military's assistance to the AU as
well as African countries. And that is for both Ward and
Brigety.
General Ward. Thank you, Congresswoman Bass. It is great to
see you again. And thank you for all that you do recognizing
our interests in Africa as well. I appreciate that. With
respect to the role of U.S. security assistance and military
assistance to the African security forces, it has made a
difference. It has caused many nations on the continent to
increase their professionalism and, as importantly, to improve
how they operate as militaries and civilian societies abiding
by the rule of law and acting in ways that are in keeping with
our democratic principles with respect to the proper role of a
military in a civilian society.
It is not perfect. It is not perfect. And our efforts to
continue to reinforce the training that we provide, the work
that is done to cause that additional professionalism to be
present is certainly important. I use the term ``sustained
security engagement.'' These militaries weren't created in the
way we were overnight and they won't be corrected, i.e.,
righted in a way that we would----
Ms. Bass. Thank you.
General Ward [continuing]. Like them to be overnight as
well. So our sustained security engagement--just as is the case
for sustained developmental engagement and sustained diplomatic
engagement--are essential elements to continue the path that is
a positive trajectory now that we see.
Ms. Bass. Thank you. Thank you. And for Ambassador Brigety?
Ambassador Brigety. Thank you, Congresswoman, again good to
see you. From the diplomatic perspective, the most challenging
aspect of African institutions providing for their own security
has not been their will. Frankly, African forces have taken
extraordinary risks to engage the enemy in Somalia, in the
Central African Republic, and what not. The more difficult
problem has been their desire and their capacity to fund
themselves as well as, frankly, the politics surrounding their
own particular arrangements for their own collective security.
And to answer your question about what the United States
may do to further enhance that I would say two things. The good
news is that as of the last AU Summit at Kigali last summer,
the AU has adopted formally a number of mechanisms to help fund
its own operations, broadly speaking, and then also as it
relates to peacekeeping.
One of the initiatives, as you and other members of the
committee will know, toward the end of the Obama administration
was to partner with the African Union, which the African Union
would commit within 5 years to fund 25 percent of its own
peacekeeping operations so long as the United Nations would
fund another 75 percent for those peacekeeping operations that
were authorized by the U.N. Security Council. This is a
watershed development and I would urge both Congress and the
Trump administration to continue it, because in the long run it
is both in the interest of the United States as well as in the
interest of Africans.
The second problem set has had to do with, frankly, the
political arrangements surrounding the African Standby Force,
which as you will know consists of a series of five regional
brigades. Politically, the difficulty within the African Union
of advancing it has been some concerns among some African
states that such a standing force could frankly be used as a
method of regime change against other African countries.
And my own view is that the best way the United States can
support that effort is to stay out of it, which is to say to
let the Africans resolve that process themselves, but when they
do to let them know that the United States and other
organizations to which we belong, like NATO, will stand ready
to be in full partnership with them to develop their military
capabilities to address their own issues on the continent.
Ms. Bass. Thank you. And I ran out of time, but I would
just like to ask the other two panelists maybe you could get
back to me in writing, Mr. Carroll, in terms of our trade hubs,
how they are working, and where else you think they need to be.
And then, Mr. Christy, you referenced the legislation that
was passed last year on wildlife trafficking. I would like to
know how that is working and what more you think we could do
here. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Congresswoman Bass. We go to
Chris Smith of New Jersey.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Chairman, and thank you to
all of our very distinguished witnesses for your service and
for your testimonies today. It is very, very helpful to all of
us.
Since we only have a limited amount of time, General Ward,
I would like to just discuss a couple things with you. Thank
you again for being the inaugural commander, your leadership at
AFRICOM. We have spoken before and it is great to see you
again. I would like to ask you just two questions, two areas.
The first is on the training of individuals; Leahy vetted
individuals, military men and women.
In my subcommittee, the Africa Subcommittee, we tried for
years to promote the training of the Nigerian military. Greg
Simpkins and I, our staff director, traveled twice to Abuja. We
went to Jos, where a lot of the churches have been firebombed,
with Archbishop Kaigama. Long story short, there was this
reluctance, and more reluctance to aggressively train in
counterinsurgency those men and women that the Nigerians wanted
to.
I held a number of hearings on it. In one particular
hearing we found out that 187 Nigerian units and 173 police
units would be fully Leahy-vetted. They were clear and could be
trained, and again I asked question after question about that.
We had full committee hearings on it as well, all because we
wanted the Nigerians who have a very capable military to have
that very special training to take it to Boko Haram and defeat
that insidious enemy. I am always wondering, you know, again,
what the interface is with AFRICOM on that because I know when
we would meet with the military people in Abuja they were gung-
ho. They can take it to them and they can defeat them, and
obviously Boko Haram got worse and worse by the year and
stronger and stronger.
Secondly, on the issue of trafficking, in the year 2000 I
wrote the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, our landmark law
on combating trafficking. We wrote into it the standards that
judge countries as to how poorly or well they are doing on
combating trafficking, how well their militaries are doing. We
contacted the Bush administration in 2001. He stood up a zero-
tolerance policy. Combatant commanders are to have people, as
you know so well, that work on trafficking.
And my question would be, and we have talked about this
before, how is AFRICOM able to promote aggressively the idea of
zero-tolerance in trafficking in the militaries of Africa?
It seems to be, you know, the peer to peer contact more
than anybody at State or anybody in Congress could have a very
effective impact on they taking up those best practices that
the U.S. military has honed so well. General?
General Ward. Thank you, Congressman, and I will be brief
as I respond to your two points here. Firstly, with respect to
the reluctance of Nigeria to do what it did, on the one hand
our association with the Nigerian military such that they are
responding to their civilian authorities works. And therein
lies, from my perspective, where the problem was, because the
political environment prohibited the Nigerian military from
doing all that those leaders and others that you indicated
would certainly want to do.
It even had an impact on my ability to engage during my
time as commander there in Nigeria because of a political
environment that just restricted our presence and our
involvement, so in my estimation that was the problem at that
time. I am happy to say that that is no longer the case as it
was and the level of interaction is enhanced and improving, and
I believe that the training that we can offer, support, the
training assistance, is in fact the training assistance that
makes sense for them.
And therein lies into the second question with respect to
trafficking. The more we are engaged and involved, our U.S.
service members, be they sailors, soldiers, airmen, marines,
are true Ambassadors for America. And when our young women and
men are with the military and security forces of these other
nations, they tend to adopt more or less our habits, if you
will, and those are habits that respect the rights of
individuals where those militaries have seen as protectors of
their people across the gamut. And the issue of zero-tolerance
in trafficking is seen as it is not something we do, we are
here to protect our people as opposed to oppressing them and
the more we are engaged, to include the programs like IMET,
which is that long-term engagement, help to reinforce those
ideals amongst the military members of our partner friends.
Mr. Smith. Out of time, but thank you so very much,
General. And thank you, all of you.
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Chairman Smith. We now go to
Brad Sherman of California.
Mr. Sherman. Mr. Carroll, our economy is about seven times
the size of France, yet they export 1\1/2\ dollars' worth of
goods to Africa for each dollar we export. What are they doing
or we are doing wrong, and in particular are our Embassies
doing as much as they should to promote American exports? I
would note that Germany even exports more to Africa than we do.
France may have an advantage because of its prior colonial
status. Germany has no such advantage. How do we export more?
Mr. Carroll. Well, with reference to France, Mr.
Congressman, you of course do mention that there are many
historical relationships of a commercial nature. One thing that
struck me about observing the French relationship with Africa
at a commercial sense is they take it at a very, very high
level even to the office of the President. There has been a
historic relationship between the presidency and their former
African colonies, and as you know the French system of
corporations tends to run very closely along political lines.
So there are many, many, shall we say, buttons to push that
engage and enlarge that Franco-African relationship. I could
talk a lot about that but I will just say that it is an
historic one.
I think that we could do more at the Embassy level. I was
certainly encouraged over the expansion of the U.S. Commerce
Department's offices and presence in Africa, because I believe
that these Foreign Commercial Service offices can really go out
and identify not only market opportunities but also play a
particularly strong role, Mr. Sherman, in assisting strong and
medium enterprise U.S. companies that may not have----
Mr. Sherman. Mr. Carroll, I have to go on to another
question.
Mr. Carroll. Okay. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Sherman. It has just been my experience that foreign
ministries of other countries put a lot more political pressure
and effort into exports than our State Department.
And Ambassador, we are seeing a humanitarian disaster in
South Sudan. Some of have suggested an arms embargo but that
might just leave the Nuer at the tender mercies of President
Kiir. Often when you can't create an atmosphere of peace you
can at least create a balance of power and separation of
warring parties. What can we do so that we don't see a
slaughter of the Nuer people and that we restore peace to South
Sudan?
Ambassador Brigety. Congressman, thank you for the
question. First of all, as you know, very briefly, almost all
of our normal interventions have failed, not only those of
ourselves but also those of IGAD, the regional economic
community, and others. And to be frank, the leaders of both the
government and the opposition have become masters at
manipulating the outside negotiators and they are not serious
about peace nor are they, frankly, serious about the welfare of
their own people.
In my view, Congressman, the leaders of South Sudan have
lost their legitimacy and also lost their right to sovereignly
govern their country. If ever there were a place in the world
that were ripe for renewed U.N. trusteeship, it is South Sudan.
Mr. Sherman. That being the case, is this a matter of
creating a balance of power between two forces led by evil men
or is this something where we can't accomplish anything unless
we can, we with our allies in Africa, can go in on the ground
and restore order?
Ambassador Brigety. I believe that the current leadership
of South Sudan must be replaced.
Mr. Sherman. Got you.
Ambassador Brigety. Preferably with indictments in front of
the ICC. And----
Mr. Sherman. I would point out though that I don't see any
country with the stomach to--it is one thing to indict in
Europe at the ICC, it is another thing to serve those
indictments on the leaders of the two sides in South Sudan and
to compel their attendance and I don't know if the world has a
willingness to send troops in to achieve that.
I have just a few more seconds and I want to make a point
that not only do we see a terrible budget, as you indicated,
but there is a complete failure to appoint anybody. As I
understand it, we don't have any Assistant Secretary for Africa
and we don't have an Acting Assistant Secretary for Africa,
really, because the person we have filling that job doesn't
have the qualifications, the technical legal qualifications to
even be called acting assistant. Anything we can do to get some
people over there?
Ambassador Brigety. We might ask the Trump administration
to appoint someone yesterday because it is vital that we move
quickly in this regard.
Mr. Sherman. Yes. And I point out these are not
appointments pending in the Senate. These are appointments they
just haven't gotten to, and if they just perhaps let the
Secretary of State make these appointments we could go forward
rather than having the White House personnel office deal with
them. And I yield back.
Chairman Royce. We go now to Dana Rohrabacher of
California.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much. And let me just note
that our chairman has taken an interest in Africa since he came
here. I remember I was surprised. We both come from Orange
County, California, and I was surprised when he came here that
he became so dedicated to making sure that Africans' needs were
met and that we were paying attention to what was going on
there. And he has been doing that for 20 years now, so there
you go.
I would like to bring up an issue that perhaps it touches
on everything we have been saying, but it is something that
nobody seems to ever look at. We have here a situation where
you have millions of people living, millions, tens of million,
hundreds of millions of people living in abject poverty.
The level of human suffering as compared to other places on
the planet is probably the worst, if not--probably the worst
human suffering that is going on is in Africa. And yet, Africa
is a continent that is so rich in resources. I mean it is--
obviously there is a vast wealth associated with the
fundamentals of resources in Africa, but yet hundreds of
millions of people living desperate lives.
And I will have to say that it is not their fault
obviously, it is the fault of a system, and what part of the
system now, what we haven't really talked about and what people
don't talk about is what I happen to believe is an important
part of the system in a way, and without it all these maladies,
the bad guys that are exploiting and causing this deprivation
of so many people would not be able to succeed without this
element, and here it is.
All of these things what you said, our friend from the
National Geographic Society, Mr. Christy, your video showed all
these guys with the ivory and such. Don't they have to have a
bank to put that money into? Aren't these leaders, these
various leaders in these countries and the various political
people there, stealing money and putting it in Western banks?
Isn't the financial community in some way responsible when
it takes billions of dollars of graft, of ivory money, and of
money from people who are stealing it from these poor
countries, the leaders of those countries? Aren't we talking
about the global financial system here? What responsibility do
they play in this? And that is my question for the whole panel.
I would go first with our friend Christy because I mentioned
him.
Mr. Christy. Thank you very much, Congressman. For the
worst groups, the most violent groups operating in Central
Africa, they operate primarily on a barter system so they are
trading ivory for arms. And in the case of the LRA and the
Janjaweed, to the extent there is a money face to that, that is
really going to Khartoum, Sudan, the Sudanese Government. But
you are absolutely right.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right, but even if they are trading for
arms, eventually somebody is paying for those arms, right?
Mr. Christy. Right.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I mean we are talking about a system here.
And the system, I believe, ends up with billions of dollars in
somebody's bank where they are able to use that money for
whatever bankers use it for.
Mr. Christy. As a criminal investigator I look for weak
nodes. So I look for places where if you are moving product you
have to bring it up in a port. You can take it out of a jungle,
we can't find you there. You can sell it to a consumer in the
Chinese market, we can't find you there. But we can find you at
the port where it has to emerge.
And the financial system is a similar opportunity. You are
putting your finger on financial crimes and the END Wildlife
Trafficking Act gets to some of this appropriately. There is a
financial aspect, a money laundering aspect, and it is worth
exploring.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Anybody else have a comment? I have 9
seconds left.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest, and I know this is a
very delicate thing, but I think we need to have some focus in
a hearing on the role that international financial institutions
are playing in problems like this, because I believe the people
of Africa are being robbed and their accomplices in this crime
are Western banks.
Chairman Royce. I think, if the gentleman would yield?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
Chairman Royce. I remember a conversation I had with a bank
executive where I raised this issue in Europe about money that
was held by Charles Taylor and I made the allegation that $30
million was held in that particular institution. And I remember
this executive saying, ``It is not $30 million, we have $23
million,'' which astounded me, but nevertheless we gave that
information to the Treasury Department.
But it is certainly the case that if we could create more
transparency, and I would say that this most applies to heads
of state and to senior government officials, cabinet officials
and so forth. If we had that kind of transparency out of the
financial system where at a certain level that information
became available, I think it would be a disincentive all over
the world for those involved in bad governance.
At that point it is probably better if you are the head of
state or an executive to go ahead and slap your name on a
hospital and build that for your people rather than transfer it
out of the country with the knowledge that that might be
exposed and taken from you. It is probably a better legacy to
at least spend it internally in the country.
And I think moving forward the gentleman raises a good
point. We should work with the international community on a
strategy that creates disincentives with respect to
kleptocracy. We go now to Mr. Gregory Meeks of New York.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to agree with
Mr. Rohrabacher on two things. One, what you are talking about
with reference to the banks; but two, the extraordinary
dedication and focus you have had, Mr. Chairman, as chairman of
the subcommittee at one point and now as chairman of the
committee. You have taken a number of us over to visit and you
have had a real focus and attention on Africa and I want to
thank you for that.
And of course the extraordinary contributions that the
ranking member of the subcommittee has had on Africa. And, you
know, and somebody mentioned two names that need to be
mentioned anytime that I think of Africa, long before I came to
Congress, I mean that is Congressman Charles Rangel and
Congressman Donald Payne, Senior, and surely we miss them.
But I know and just want to make sure the extraordinary
work that Congresswoman Bass has made, because we thought that
it was going to be a huge vacuum when we lost them, but she has
made sure that that has not happened and I want to thank her
for her focus.
Let me also thank all of the panelists, particularly, well,
all of you, but particularly to General Ward for your service
to the United States of America and what you have done and the
commitment that you have made to this country, and to
Ambassador Brigety because I couldn't agree with you more. You
know, when we look at the State Department it is tremendously
important to our foreign affairs. And in fact I would say, for
the military and the State Department, it is the balance of the
scale that makes foreign policy work. With one without the
other we are in deep--I won't say the word. But I just wanted
to thank you so much for that.
So let me just ask two quick questions, one to Ambassador
Brigety. I couldn't agree more with your opening statement.
Maybe you could articulate the dangers of some of the programs
that you think that would be devastated that are so important
for our State Department with reference to working with Africa,
and maybe you can articulate a few of those programs.
Ambassador Brigety. Thank you, Congressman. So the budget
document that was submitted by the President says that there
would be no decrease in funding for health and particularly for
PEPFAR, neither would there be any decrease in humanitarian
accounts.
So if one suggests that proposition, but then also suggests
that there has to be some massive cuts somewhere if you want to
achieve that objective there are two accounts that I am
particularly worried about. The first is with regard to our
democracy and governance accounts, particularly both of those
accounts, per se, but also our economic support funds that can
be used, broadly speaking, to support that.
The African continent, with 54 sovereign members that are
recognized by the U.N., 55 when you include Western Sahara,
could be the largest democratic region in the world both
because of the number of countries there as well as because of
the commitment to democracy in pan-African documents
themselves.
But as the chairman noted, there are democracies under
assault across the continent and if the United States does not
step up to be a partner with pan-African institutions as well
as national governments, there is not another major partner in
the world that will be similarly positioned both in terms of
resources it can apply and also in terms of its value set to
continue to support the march toward democracy at a time when
the Chinese and others are suggesting to other Africans elites
that there is an alternative model for governance, namely,
essentially, various forms of authoritarianism, which would be
tragic.
The second thing I am really worried about is the Mandela
Washington Fellowship Program, or YALI, which has been an
incredible tool in the very short period of time it has
existed, both to identify young African talent and also to find
ways to encourage that young African talent to engage in their
own countries and to teach them and to help expose them to
means of Western governance, Western political engagement, and
what not.
And I can promise you, in an environment where young
Africans are looking for ways to fill their aspirations we want
them to be looking toward us and not elsewhere.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you. I also just want you to know that you
must have been great at the State Department. I have had
Madelina Young-Smith now with me for awhile and she is
excellent too.
Mr. Carroll, I want to ask you a quick question. What
investment opportunities that may be going unrealized for U.S.
firms, what would you look at and say that there is other
opportunities that we may be able to be taking advantage of but
they are not currently taking advantage of?
Mr. Carroll. Well, I will just mention two, sir, I think in
the area of engineering and design services. I think the U.S.
firms have an awful lot to offer and I think they are often in
the second-tier firms that might have real strengths in
providing those services to Africa. So I do think in the design
and engineering and architectural field I think there are a lot
of service opportunities in Africa.
But also in agribusiness, sir, I do believe that Africa is
at a pivot. I think its future will be to have to modernize, to
learn some of the lessons of the Green Revolution of India. And
I think American agribusiness companies, particularly those
that offer technologies such as irrigation systems, inputs of,
you know, farm and herd management solutions, are going to find
Africa to be a massive opportunity because Africa has the
largest percentage of undeveloped, arable land in the entire
globe.
Chairman Royce. We go now to Mike McCaul, Chairman Mike
McCaul of Texas.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I chair the Homeland
Security Committee and one thing I have found time and time
again is that terrorism thrives in failed states, in poverty,
in safe havens. Unfortunately, Africa has many of those as we
look at Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, al-Qaeda, and the Maghreb. And
I think we have made some progress. The Millennium Challenge
Corporation has been helpful. The Gates Foundation, I have met
with Bill Gates. The ONE Campaign is trying to move forward in
this development of Africa.
My first question, General, is to you. I visited Camp North
in the Sinai Peninsula where ISIS is prevalent, then went to
Tunisia and visited with the Libyan team. Libya is still very
much a strong threat to the homeland in terms of the numbers of
ISIS, as is Sinai. General Haftar in the east, and then you
have General al-Sarraj in Tripoli, it seems to me if the
military can't get it together then you can't have governance,
and if you can't have governance then you have terrorism.
Can you tell us where we are with that and what can we do
more to foster a unified government in Libya?
General Ward. Thank you, Congressman McCaul. And obviously
my understanding of it is from a position of afar, not directly
involved these days. However, there are some things that I
think are substantially important in moving along in these
regions that you have described. To be sure, fragile states,
failing states, are breeding grounds for nefarious activities
of all sorts--human trafficking, narcotics trafficking--
certainly terrorist havens for training and exporting that
violence globally.
Where we as the United States of America are involved in a
sustained way to, one, help security forces who are responsible
for their territories be better prepared to do that makes a
difference. Equally important is our engagement and from a
developmental perspective to cause those who are living in
those areas to see what I call this horizon of hope. Because
where they are, there are things being done for them by their
government, and by those who would support their attempts to
have things provided from a literacy perspective, from a health
perspective, that will help increase their ability to live the
way that we as any human beings would want to live.
Mr. McCaul. And I agree. But how do we get these two
generals to work it out? I mean that seems to be the key
problem in Libya to me.
General Ward. I would be happy to have a private
conversation with you about that.
Mr. McCaul. Okay. We have a SCIF in the Capitol.
General Ward. But the essence, sir, is causing their
behavior to change, similar to what we see in South Sudan. And
unless and until that happens, making progress will be very,
very difficult, so causing their behavior to change so that
they are less selfishly motivated and motivated for the good of
the country opposed to not.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you.
Mr. Christy, so terrorist financing, this is really quite
horrific. They are using ivory to finance terrorism in Africa,
and I commend what you have done to try to track this down. Can
you tell us about the wildlife trafficking bill that this
committee passed, how that is helping in this effort and what
more can we do to shut that down. And we know that there is
cocaine coming in from South America, you know, on the west
coast of Africa to funnel in and finance this as well, but tell
us about the impact of that legislation and what more we can
do?
Mr. Christy. Thank you, Congressman. I think, you know, all
of this takes more time than we want. That bill, the law was
signed, I think, in October of '16, so it is really too early
to tell the impact. Certainly identifying the countries is the
next step, the problem countries as traffickers, and that has
proved in the ivory world to be significant.
So to take it the next step and identify countries that are
linked with extremist groups and the trafficking in these
materials--ivory, rhino horn, et cetera--will be significant.
The world needs diplomatic pressure on these countries to
address these problems. These groups, I mean one of the things
where we could make a big improvement is to look at the ways we
have siloed these problems.
So we tend to look at wildlife trafficking as a wildlife
problem and we think it is the aegis of biologists to address.
We don't do that with cocaine. We don't put botanists in charge
of the cocaine trafficking problem. If we move out of the
biologist mindset and move to a law enforcement mindset, we
begin to change how we think about these problems.
So as an example, I was in Garamba National Park which has
been under siege from South Sudanese poachers, LRA, all these
bad guys in this area, and I looked at the maps that they had
for tracking the poaching groups and very detailed maps that
they pin every day to update. And I had the opportunity to fly
over to Central African Republic and spend time with the
African Union forces there and I noticed they had similar maps
and they overlapped and they had pins in those maps with
different poacher and extremist group movements.
And I said do you guys talk to each other? No. And so I
introduced them and they began talking and they had suspicions
about the activities of the other. The park ranger suspected
the Uganda military was poaching from helicopters. So two
things happened, one, we were able to clear that up to their
satisfaction; and two, they could begin exchanging intel. And
that sort of intelligence sharing is critically important.
Mr. McCaul. I am well beyond my time. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Christy. Sorry.
Chairman Royce. Thank you. We go now to Mr. David Cicilline
of Rhode Island.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too want to thank
you for your longtime commitment to Africa and the great
leadership you have provided, and also acknowledge the
extraordinary passionate and effective leadership of our
ranking member of the subcommittee, Karen Bass, who has made
her work in this area known not only throughout our country but
throughout the region, and I really want to thank her for that.
General Ward, I want to ask you. There are currently nine
U.N. peacekeeping missions deployed to various parts of the
African continent constituting more than 82 percent of all U.N.
peacekeepers serving in the field. Peacekeeping operations, as
you know, are some of the most visible and consequential
activities undertaken by the U.N. and play a very important
role in advancing peace and security.
And I am interested, you know, given your experience as
AFRICOM's commander, you know, what you would say in terms of
the role of peacekeepers in terms of peace and security in
Africa and particularly in your experience what makes some
peacekeeping operations more successful than others and are
there best practices that we should be analyzing and
incorporating to future missions so that we can even enhance
the effectiveness of peacekeeping missions further?
General Ward. Thank you, Congressman. Two critical elements
to effective peacekeeping, one is obviously being resourced and
trained appropriately in order to conduct a mission. The second
has to do with the will of the government that provides the
peacekeeping forces and how that is infused into the conduct of
those peacekeeping forces as they execute their mission.
When you have those two--and obviously it is all
underwritten by a mandate that allows what needs to be done to
in fact be done. But if those forces are resourced and trained
adequately and the government will to accomplish the mission is
there, then peacekeeping forces are effective. And there were
varying degrees of that that I witnessed across the continent.
I would also add, Congressman, while we are talking about
that, peacekeeping in and of itself is one dimension of
providing that stability and security. If it is not accompanied
by a healthy dose of developmental support, such that the
peacekeeping void if it is not filled can be filled by
something that makes sense to the people, then that
peacekeeping effort goes on and on and on, which we also see.
So peacekeeping in and of itself is one piece of it, one
aspect of it, but the void, the requirements for development
assistance, support, progress and that certainly has the
underlying effect of governance as well so that those things
support it, will, forces that are trained, resources are
important.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you very much. That sort of gets to my
next question and this is for you, Mr. Carroll. In recent years
we have witnessed a narrowing of political space in countries
like the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Uganda, Burundi,
and the Republic of the Congo. This has been coupled with
efforts by many of these leaders to extend their tenures in
power through constitutional coups which eliminate term limits
for the incumbent.
What are the concrete measures the State Department and
USAID should be taking to support democratic institutions and
help reverse this worrying trend; and a related question, how
should African leaders' amendment or circumvention of
constitutional term limits impact U.S. bilateral aid in your
judgment?
Mr. Carroll. Well, I think we should continue to work with
institutions in the countries that we can work with. They could
include the media. They could include the legislative branch.
They could include civil society organizations that we believe
can bring domestic as well as external leverage, because I
think it has to be not just us, we have to have domestic
sources in the fight.
But from a business perspective, if you don't mind, Mr.
Congressman, I find that unpredictability in the business
environment is one of the greatest discouragements to foreign
direct investment. And I think we in the business community and
through perhaps our local counterparts and business
associations need to carry that message that if you are going
to want to do business with us, if you are going to want to
attract technology and investment we need to have a measure of
predictability in these countries. Congo is a perfect case in
point, a country with vast mineral and agricultural potential
that largely goes undeveloped because of this issue of
unpredictability.
Mr. Cicilline. Great, thank you so much.
I want to ask just one last question for you, Mr.
Ambassador. One very concerning trend during political protests
and elections in sub-Saharan Africa is that the governments
have shut down access to the internet and other forms of
communication in order to limit dissent. This has recently
occurred in Ethiopia, Gabon, Cameroon, Uganda, and the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, making it very difficult for
citizens and journalists to report human rights violations or
electoral irregularities.
I would be interested to know what actions you think our
Government should take to mitigate this threat to the freedom
of information and legitimate political expression in the sub-
Saharan Africa.
Ambassador Brigety. Thank you, Congressman. Very briefly,
the first obvious one is for robust engagement with those
governments to demonstrate to them why it is crucially
important, notwithstanding political differences, to continue
to have open media space. Because at the end of the day, if
people are not allowed to air their grievances peacefully they
will do so forcefully, and I think that clearly is the lesson
in Ethiopia, for example.
And then secondarily, depending on the situation there are
obviously tools and techniques that are resident within USAID
and also at civil affairs units to be able to make access to
internet available on a sort of more regional or smaller scale
basis. But even those things, as I said in my testimony,
require resources and I think it is important to continue to
fund those things.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you so much. And thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Royce. Thank you. We go to Ted Yoho from Florida.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, panel,
for being here, very engaging and I really appreciate it. And I
know a lot of the talk has focused on cutting foreign aid and I
was one of those ones when I came up here 4 years ago to get
rid of foreign aid, but I have become much more learned in my 4
years here.
And, you know, I realize and I agree with Secretary Mattis,
who says if you cut foreign aid save that money and buy
ammunition with it, and I truly believe that. But I bring that
up because we are in a financial crisis in this country that is
going to get worse if we don't deal with the underlying problem
which is mandatory spending and we have to address those
things. And if not, what you are seeing today is a sign. It is
a tremor.
I got a report at the beginning of the year that said our
seniors in Social Security were going to get a 25 percent cut
across the board on Social Security checks within 12 years. And
when it comes down to our seniors or foreign aid, you know
where it is going to go. So I say that because you guys are the
ones that need to make sure that our money on the ground is
doing the work it is supposed to be doing.
And our goal, my goal is to transition all of our countries
that we are giving foreign aid to, to go from a model of aid to
trade, and that is why I am so excited about the OPIC models
and the MCC. They have accountability. They have metrics in
place. And as good as they are we need to make them better. If
we look at our top 15 trading partners, 12 of those were
recipients of foreign aids. I think South Korea is a great
example and we can look at country after country that has done
the same thing.
And so with that several questions came up. What is the
major impediment in these developing countries to build out
their infrastructure? We went to the Congo with Chairman Royce
and Ranking Member Engel. And if you look at the whole
continent of Africa it is approximately 1.11 billion people.
This is the 21st century; 650 million people do not have
electricity. And we were strong proponents of Electrify Africa,
the Global Food Initiative, and the other bills that Chairman
Royce spoke about. Six hundred and fifty million people don't
have electricity.
And you look at the billions and billions of dollars this
nation has invested of these people's monies out here and the
trillions of dollars around the world, what is that major
impediment that you see that prevents a country from taking
care of their own people instead of taking care of the rulers?
How do we change that too, so the impediment and what do you
see?
Ambassador Brigety, if you would?
Ambassador Brigety. Congressman, thank you very much. Let
me begin by saying that as a taxpayer myself of course I
obviously believe very much in the effective stewardship of
American taxpayer dollars and as with every program there are
obviously ways in which they can continue to be refined and
efficiencies found and things of that nature.
But at the same time one also has to make sure that we are
making effective investments for not only for----
Mr. Yoho. Absolutely.
Ambassador Brigety [continuing]. The major of our security,
but also for the growth of our partners. With regard to
infrastructure investments, broadly speaking, I think it goes
something to what my colleague Tony Carroll said which is, one,
infrastructure are long term and big picture investments. And
as one senior investor once told me, capital is cowardly. It
does not want to go to places where there is substantial
insecurity. So in this sense, the nature of good governance to
ensure both a stable sort of peaceful environment as well as a
stable regulatory environment is vital toward attracting the
long term capital necessary to build infrastructure.
The second also is, frankly, having willing investors that
are prepared to take risk, notwithstanding what I just said
about insecurity, and the Chinese have proven that it can be
done. The Ethiopians have proven that it can be done in terms
of, you know, marshalling capital for the Grand Renaissance
Ethiopian Dam. I am one who happens to believe that the future
of Africa's next chapter of their history will be defined by
private sector-led economic development.
And as somebody who is a diplomat who constantly thinks
through foreign policy implications, I can also tell you that
we simply cannot be able to maintain our position with
partnership with the continent without the robust involvement
of the American private sector and particularly as it relates
to American----
Mr. Yoho. Well, and that is what I like about OPIC because
they put the metrics and they will fund those organizations or
the private sector. And if you look at 1961, the majority of
the foreign investment in countries was foreign governments.
Today that is only 9 percent. The rest is coming from the
private sector.
And Mr. Carroll, you were talking about--oh, shoot. I
forgot what I was going to say. You were talking about the
investment with OPIC and how we can make that more effective in
those countries. Can you expound just a little bit? I have only
4 seconds, so I guess you can't.
Mr. Carroll. We have 2 seconds. I think we can do more
leveraging with domestic capital. I think there are many
pension funds and other institutions on a national and regional
level that OPIC could do more work for and do a little bit more
leveraging. We can have a separate discussion or I can respond
to other questions in a longer discussion.
Mr. Yoho. Great, thank you. Appreciate your time, thank you
all.
Chairman Royce. We go now to Dr. Ami Bera of California.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will echo the
statements of many of my colleagues in the leadership that the
chairman of the full committee and certainly the leadership of
the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Africa and Human
Rights has shown.
This morning I had the opportunity to address the Meridian
International Center's global dialogue with African women
leaders and in the conversation that we had, the importance of
recognizing the global interconnectedness that you know, we can
no longer think of ourselves as isolated.
I look at this from the perspective as a physician. You
have public health crises that occur in Africa, they clearly
matter to what happens here in the United States. From that
public health perspective you don't wait until it hits our
shores, you make those investments and you go to the epicenter
and address that. So, I was listening to my colleague Mr.
Yoho's comments and I agree with them that we have to be
fiscally sound and make sure we are making the right
investments, but the return on investments are also incredibly
important.
In that sense, when we think about our three planks of our
foreign policy, it has three legs on it. Not just defense, but
it has diplomacy and development. And that development
component often is overlooked because, yes, you might be
spending $1 today, but what you are doing is potentially
avoiding $10 in defense costs or public health costs, or the
tolls. How do you put a price on a human life? So, I applaud
President Bush and his initiatives, and PEPFAR had huge
returns, huge returns on the saving of life.
Ambassador Brigety, you served in the State Department
during the 2011 famine in East Africa and also as our
representative to the African Union during the 2013 Ebola
crisis. You have touched on how this is not the time for the
United States to change its priorities and withdraw from a
region, and I would be curious knowing that we are facing
another potentially devastating crisis and famine and loss of
life in the coming years what would you advise us at this
juncture?
Ambassador Brigety. Well, Congressman, thank you very much
for the thoughtful question. There is both I think, an obvious
and then a less obvious answer. The obvious answer is that we
clearly need to be continuing to support our health accounts
and our humanitarian assistance accounts for the sorts of
interventions that were necessary, for example, to respond to
the 2011 famine in Somalia as well as the 2014 Ebola crisis.
But the less obvious component is that there are profound
diplomatic interventions that make that kind of response
possible. Let me give you an example. During the 2014 Ebola
crisis I lost years off my life in helping to respond to that
crisis because by the summer of 2014 we were seriously looking
at epidemiological curves that would say we would have 1
million dead Africans within 6 months, by January, unless we
were able to flood the zone of Liberia, Guinea, Conakry, and
Sierra Leone with healthcare workers to actually respond to the
crisis.
So we did a lot of behind the scenes diplomatic work to get
the African Union in the fight so that by December of that year
they had nearly 1,000 healthcare workers from across the
continent that converged on those three countries to provide
direct patient support to people that were affected. Now the
Africans deserve enormous credit for stepping up, but frankly
it would have taken at a minimum a lot longer to do so had we
not done a lot of depth diplomacy behind the scenes that nobody
ever saw.
And we are already at the next time with regard to Ebola in
the DRC and as to regards to the three unfolding famines on the
continent, which is why it so critical for us to be able to
maintain that capability to develop the kind of trust that is
necessary with our African partners so we can respond to these
crises.
Mr. Bera. Wonderful. I think of America as a great nation,
but it is also that idea of America, those values that we
represent. And a great nation--when they see famine and when
they see public health crisis--doesn't retreat from the world,
a great nation leads with our moral values. We see the
humanitarian crisis. We see the public health crisis and we
lead. And it is that idea of America that we have to hold onto.
That idea of American leadership that for generations folks
have believed in.
As I listened to these African women leaders, that is what
their worry is that yes, we have domestic challenges here, but
you know what, it is that idea of who we are as a nation, that
greatness we can't let that disappear. Thank you and I will
yield back.
Chairman Royce. We go now to Dan Donovan of New York.
Mr. Donovan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for my
tardiness, I had another matter, but some of these questions
may have been asked already. I am a member of the subcommittee
that deals with Africa and global health of our larger
committee. And maybe because 2 weeks after I was elected to
this office, at 58 years old, I had my very first baby--her
mother actually calls her my very last baby--but I got this
great interest. I am honored to serve on this committee that
deals with global health about women and children who are dying
from preventable diseases, things that we have vaccinations for
that for some reason or another are either unavailable or we
can't get to mothers and babies who are suffering in African
countries. I understand we have gotten better at it over the
years, but there still seems to be some obstacles.
And I don't know who the proper person on the panel is to
answer this question, but if somebody could just give me some
insight on how successful you feel we have been and what we
could do to be even further along in our success in helping
mothers and babies in Africa.
Mr. Carroll. If I might jump in here because I have done a
fair amount of work with the Gates Foundation--polio in
Nigeria--and continue to do a lot of work with Merck, the
world's largest vaccine company and their projects in Africa. I
think it can't happen without building the health
infrastructure in these countries. Many of these countries
spend $4 to $6 per person per year on their health. Without
developing a fulsome health infrastructure, any vaccination
campaign, any type of preventive mechanism will not be
successful, and it has to be led from leaders within that
country, not just an externally-led foreign assistance program.
But I think it can happen. Certainly the success in polio
eradication in Nigeria is an ongoing battle, but they have
achieved a lot of success. In Rwanda they instituted an HPV
vaccine program in Rwanda that produced incredible adherence
among Rwandan women. I believe that cervical cancer is among
the two largest killers of women in Africa and the only magic
bullet we have in the world of vaccines is the HPV vaccine,
which is extremely effective. They made a commitment to build
out their infrastructure. They made a commitment from the top
down that this is an important program.
So we have to engage leadership in getting the message. We
have to help them build the infrastructure to staff and
implement these programs. And we are not going to get it done
if we are cutting the Fogarty Center and other CDC programs
that are absolutely linchpins to these programs in Africa. We
have to be able to be at their side, but it still has to be led
from those countries. So thank you for that opportunity.
Ambassador Brigety. Congressman, if I may add to that and I
am grateful for your passion on this issue. The issue with
regard to building healthcare infrastructure in Africa is that
it is not like building a bridge. I mean once it is built it is
done and you can walk away. They are more like sort of living
organisms in the sense that you have to continue to train new
healthcare workers, one has to continue to deal with access and
extension services in the rural areas or what not.
And this is why it is critically important for the United
States to be able to maintain its capacity to help develop the
long term infrastructure of healthcare systems in African
countries. The Ebola crisis, I think, is very instructive in
this regard. So we had been involved for many years in helping
to develop the healthcare infrastructure in Liberia, for
example, which is focused not only on primary care but also in
helping to address HIV/AIDS.
With the advent of the Ebola crisis and its coming to
Monrovia, the healthcare system in Liberia was devastated, and
by that we mean doctors, nurses, in which we had invested many
years, died and were no longer there. So the ability for us to
continue to help train and educate and provide more and more
healthcare officials not only is something that has to be
sustained over time, but sustaining it is clearly in our own
national interest in addition to what it does for, you know,
mothers and children in those countries. Because the next time
there is another major pandemic on the continent we can't just
insert a healthcare infrastructure, one has to develop it over
time.
Mr. Donovan. Mr. Ambassador, could you--I don't know what
some of the questions--do we find that the governments in the
African countries are cooperative as well or are there people,
are there regimes and governments that are trying to prevent
their citizens from receiving the aid that we are so willing to
provide?
Ambassador Brigety. Congressman, I am not aware of any
African country that is not willing to partner on matters of
health. In most places it is a matter of resources, to be
frank, and it also may be a matter of a prioritization of those
resources. So it might be, for example, the decision of whether
or not you concentrate health services in the capital city
versus extension services in rural areas, or focusing more on
primary care as opposed to care for tertiary diseases like
diabetes or cancer or other sorts of things.
General Ward. Mr. Donovan, a quick postscript if I might,
Mr. Chair. Healthcare facilities on the continent of Africa are
not the Walter Reed National Military Center of Bethesda. A
quick example, in Comoros, where the USAID had a program where
they were training local medical providers, we were able to
partner with our USAID counterparts and using Department of
Defense engineers, build a concrete block structure whereby
medical practice could be accomplished. And providing clean
water to that facility facilitated the provision of a health
service that community did not have previously and changed the
whole dynamic in that community.
And these are the things that this 1 percent of our
national budget that goes to promoting our international
systems abroad. It creates feelings, creates a sentiment,
creates the result that pays dividends on and on and on and
helps to stabilize those environments.
Mr. Donovan. That is a great example of our successes.
The last thing I just want because my time is way over as
well, my colleague was talking about investment in Africa,
private investment. I met with a group, and my staff can supply
you with their information, yesterday, called Rendezvous, who
are developing planned communities in seven African countries,
so I would just offer that to you if you would like to hear
more about it.
Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield whatever time I have left.
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Donovan. We go to Norma
Torres from California.
Ms. Torres. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
guest panelists here today. General Ward, in your testimony you
made a very compelling case for why U.S. engagement in Africa
is in our national interest and I very much agree with you on
that.
Ambassador Brigety, you have also made a point and I want
to share with you that the point that you have made on the
Ebola crisis, you know, this point was driven home for many of
our constituents during the Ebola crisis in 2014 and 2015. We
have had a really great conversation here. I am new to the
committee and I am trying to wrap my hands around all of these
issues we have talked about, ivory being used to finance
terrorism and these civil wars.
The one thing that we have not talked about, unfortunately,
is how rape is being used also against women, against very
young women in this continent. Projected U.S. global health
funding for 2017 is an estimated $9.5 billion, all of which is
subject to President Trump's Global Gag Rule, so let's talk
about that for a little bit.
Every year, despite increased access to safe abortion
procedures, 6 million African women end their pregnancies
unsafely and 1.6 million are treated for complications. So when
we talk about safety and we talk about saving, you know, these
wonderful animals, what are we doing to help our young women in
Africa and how are we helping to ensure that there is a
healthcare system in place to help them get the necessary
procedures that they need, whether that is family planning or
what are we doing to teach them how to protect themselves from
these abusers?
Ambassador Brigety. Congresswoman, thank you very much for
that very important question. Both as a Deputy Assistant
Secretary and also as an Ambassador I could spend days telling
you about stories that I have encountered meeting women who are
rape victims in Eastern Congo, refugee women in northern Kenya,
et cetera, that have experienced exceptional trauma. And I have
been very proud of the types of assistance that the United
States has provided over time to address rape as a war crime,
to provide services to help rape victims recover from these
challenges.
With regard to your question about the Global Gag Rule let
me say, Congresswoman, that I understand that the question of
abortion is an incredibly sensitive one with deep feelings on
both sides of the debate, one that we will not resolve here.
But one thing that is absolutely accurate is that the nature of
the Global Gag Rule as articulated and its expansion under the
Trump administration will have negative, harsh, unintended
consequences for women who desperately need gynecological care.
And it seems to me that if one is morally motivated with
regard to the protection of life and compassion for those that
are suffering, one would try at a minimum to find a way as you
address these incredibly challenging moral questions that one
does not harm those women that are desperately in need of the
kinds of services that we provide.
Ms. Torres. They are victims in two separate ways.
Mr. Christy. May I add?
Ms. Torres. Please.
Mr. Christy. So one of the things that I was excited about
bringing to the fore today was that when we are talking about
these wildlife crime issues there is an opportunity to leverage
that to do something more important or bigger. These rangers
are on the ground in rural and remote areas and they represent
the only law and order in those areas. In many of the worst
areas in terms of violence these rangers are part of a public-
private partnership. African Parks is one organization that
brings together very disciplined guys to work with the local
wildlife authorities to bring order, and the villagers in these
places said to me they are my protector.
And some of the most dangerous forces in these remote areas
are military, U.N. workers, as we know, and to have these
smaller groups that are trained specifically and are working
with Americans in many circumstances, you have an opportunity
to address that.
Ms. Torres. My time has expired.
General Ward, I hope to be able to have a conversation with
you outside of these four walls. I think there is so much work
to continue to do and I am really happy to help in any way that
I can, Congresswoman Bass. The bigger humanitarian crisis that
I am interested in helping in the region is how these policies
are impacting women that have been raped, their children, who
is taking care of them, and the LBGT community is another issue
that we have not addressed here today, so I yield back my
expired time.
Chairman Royce. Okay. Let's go to Lois Frankel of Florida.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Ms. Bass. And
thank you to the witnesses. As a member of this committee I
have had an opportunity to be in Africa a number of times,
different countries. I left this meeting. We have so many
meetings going on at the same time, but the reason I left the
meeting a few minutes ago was to meet with a group of African
women who are in a leadership program. Many of them are in
Parliament in different areas of Africa. They are just a lot of
different, wonderful leaders, so that is where I was.
So it was interesting, because I wanted to ask them about a
topic that Representative Torres brought up which is important
not only to them, but I think to women all over the world and
that is being able to be in control of your own body and to
decide if and when you want to have a family because there is
nothing that changes your life like having a family, right. I
think everybody who has had a child knows that.
What I think is also important and I learned this--I was in
Malawi last year in one of the villages and one of the things
they were stressing was the need to get women into the economy.
And that seems to be another worldwide issue--when you get
women into the economy, you can double your productivity.
It is very, very hard, difficult, sometimes impossible for
women to become part of the economy and to sustain themselves
in an economy if they cannot be in control of their own ability
to plan their family, so it is why this Global Gag Rule that
President Trump has brought back is very, very worrisome. I
know Representative Torres asked you about that.
And I just, I talked to these women just a few minutes ago
and the word that I got back from them was cruel, it is cruel.
Part of the cruelty is not just what it could potentially do to
a woman's health, because this is just not all about abortion
but this gag rule is a chilling effect to any healthcare
provider who may use their own money to either perform an
abortion or save a woman who has gone and had an illegal
abortion which is apparently very prominent in Africa, so you
have this chilling effect.
And what they said is, you know, if you are going to do
this, which they of course they say, you know, why are you
doing this, why don't you give us enough notice so that there
is not a gap in services? But what I would like--I know you
have commented with Representative Torres on this issue. What I
would like for you two is talk about, if you can, the
importance of women's involvement in the economy and how
important it is to keep them healthy and vibrant.
Mr. Carroll. Let me just offer an observation on the
economic inclusion of women. There are many societies that have
de facto and de jure constraints about women owning a title to
land, being able to establish a business, their of course being
able to obtain business licenses, getting the training
necessary. I think there is certainly a trend among these
organizations such as those that you have met today to try to
level the playing field so that women can play a more formal
role in their economies. So I think this is a process that
people have their eye on.
I won't comment on the gag order because I know there are
people here that can talk at greater depth about that than I
am, but I do think this idea of women inclusiveness in the
economy is an issue that is being worked on.
General Ward. Congresswoman Frankel, I was in Africa last
year, I believe, with the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition
where we had a chance to visit with various activities that had
some sponsorship put on that was part of our U.S. foreign
assistance. In particular, we visited a farm that was owned by
a woman and she and her children were doing things that were
beyond any scope that that program had been designed to take
care of, making huge, huge progress, but not just for her and
her family.
She had also gathered and had caused other women to be a
part of that co-op, if you will, creating a dynamic in that
community that led to stability because their sons weren't
being turned into terrorists. It led to increased health
because they were producing products that were good for
increasing their overall local health and the products were of
such quality that they are being exported, bringing revenue
into that community. Women--when they are allowed and empowered
through health or through sponsorship and promotion to be
entrepreneurs--definitely make a difference, a positive
difference.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you. Thank you very much, and I yield
back.
Chairman Royce. Thank you. And I would just note that
Congresswoman Lois Frankel kept with the goal which was
yielding back time when there is time still to yield back.
We go now to Ted--it still sets a new record. We now go to
Ted Deutch of Florida.
Mr. Deutch. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, there
is strong bipartisan support in Congress for expanding our
assistance to Africa and I know that we will put up a fight
when the administration tries to cut U.S. support there in its
2018 budget. What worries me in the short term is the damage
the President and his team have already done to our
relationships with African leaders.
Secretary Tillerson invited the chair of the African Union
to visit Washington and then blew him off. All 60 African
leaders who were invited to an African trade conference in
California had their visas denied by Trump's State Department,
and the same State Department has no appointees to run offices
and bureaus that oversee our work in Africa. We know the
President wants to shutter one third of USAID's 100 missions
and cut 30 percent of its budget, which would certainly mean
cuts in Africa where the agency does the largest share of its
work.
The signal from the Trump administration seems to be pretty
clear that the United States doesn't respect African leaders,
doesn't want to do the work of partnering with African nations,
and doesn't value U.S. engagement on the continent. Now in
Africa, every inch that we withdraw, countries like China are
ready to step in, in ways that are damaging to U.S. interests
and the long term well-being of the people of Africa.
Now Ambassador Brigety, I ask whether you worry that even
before we begin this budget debate whether serious damage has
already been done to our relationships with partners and
friends in Africa, and also what is at stake if we abandon
America's tradition of engagement and partnership with Africa
in favor of what appears to be a rather incoherent and short-
sighted withdrawal from Africa?
Ambassador Brigety. Congressman, thank you very much for
the question. I just 2 weeks ago attended the World Economic
Forum Africa in Durban, South Africa, and what I can tell you
is in any number of conversations I had on the margins of that
meeting with African business people, elected officials and
what not, there is profound concern about the continued nature
of American engagement in Africa under the Trump administration
for reasons that you just articulated. I think that the way in
which Chairperson Faki was treated was seen incredibly
negatively not only by the African Union Commission but by
African leaders across the continent. It is worth noting that
to his great credit Secretary Tillerson subsequently had a
phone call with Chairman Faki on May 8th to invite the
chairperson to Washington, DC, for the next round of the U.S.-
Africa strategic dialogue. One hopes that happens and that one
can make up for those mistakes.
But as an outsider looking in that mistake and the mistake,
for example, Rwandan President Paul Kagame, who is one of the
most prominent leaders on the continent, was here in Washington
about a little over a month ago, nobody from the administration
met with him, neither anyone from the White House nor anyone in
the State Department.
And this suggests either one of two things, either this
administration has decided that Africa is not a strategic
priority and that is what explains these various sorts of
things, or what I believe is a more likely explanation is that
the absence of senior leadership in the White House or at the
State Department that is focused on Africa has helped abet at
making what I think are, quite frankly, rookie mistakes with
regard to engagement with the continent. And this is why I
think it is so vital for the administration to move with
alacrity to appoint senior people at the State Department, in
the White House, and also at senior ambassadorships across the
continent.
Mr. Deutch. I thank you, Ambassador. If you are right and
we can chock this up to rookie mistakes as we wait for them to
figure it out, as we wait for these positions to be filled,
General Ward, what impact does that have from a national
security standpoint and on U.S. forces?
General Ward. Congressman, we have to continue to cause our
presence and our interests to be felt and realized in other
areas until that day, then, does come. And so therefore we are
not going to wring our hands, we are going to just reinforce
our efforts in other areas. For example, next month the U.S.-
Africa Business Summit will be here in DC hosted by the
Corporate Council on Africa and certain African leaders will be
in attendance.
And how support is rallied around to show that in spite of
whatever else may be going on, there is still support for the
continent and we do it through those sorts of programs and
showing support, participating in and endorsing in ways that
then as they return, based on a relationship that was
established here, the word will be spread that it is not over
and we have to just double down on our efforts to cause that to
be the case.
Mr. Deutch. I appreciate that. Thanks to all the witnesses
for being here today.
Chairman Royce. Would the gentleman yield just on a point?
Mr. Deutch. Of course.
Chairman Royce. Because I think we are in concurrence on a
lot of issues, but I just wanted to address this issue of
President Paul Kagame, because to bring this up without
explaining that one of the reasons we did not on this committee
ask for meetings with President Paul Kagame was because of
several assassinations of political opponents outside his own
country in a third country. On top of that we had the problem
with his suppression of freedom of expression and the human
rights abuses.
So once you have situations where you have assassinations,
admitted assassinations, I think we could argue the point, but
certainly that point was defended, you could understand why we
weren't anxious to orchestrate a meeting while he was here in
the first months of the new administration. So I think
sometimes disclosing all of the factors in a situation like
that would be important. That said, I want to thank our
witnesses here today.
Mr. Deutch. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Royce. Yes.
Mr. Deutch. Just before I yield back, I appreciate what you
said. I would just add though that if we have a valid concern,
if what is driving decisions like that is suppression of
freedom of expression and concern about human rights, I would
respectfully suggest that the President of the United States
had no business meeting and welcoming President Erdogan to the
White House. But I yield back.
Chairman Royce. Listen. Yes, I think--and you will see my
statements on that point as well. But what I am trying to point
out, I am trying to establish some objectivity when it comes to
this debate because many of the points that we are raising here
are points that we need to raise as a committee, but at the
same time we have to be objective in terms of our choice of
examples and not mislead.
And I think it is clear that as we are discussing the
challenges that we want to see met in Africa, and there are
many of the challenges that we have discussed here--the fact
that some governments are kleptocratic in nature, the weak
institutions that we spoke to, the Islamist extremists that are
a problem for many governments, the wildlife trafficking and
the way that that feeds into terror as well as the elimination,
potentially, of the populations of elephants and certainly of
the rhinoceros. I mean the very well likelihood that in our
lifetime the rhinoceros will be an extinguished species if we
don't turn this around.
And all of that draws people, if we can get sustainable
development, draws people to see that magnificent continent and
it supports the people in that continent, but there are also
these tremendous opportunities. There is that great resource
that Africa has which is the people of Africa. And the young
people that I have had the opportunity to meet over many years
of travel to the region in which our panel are all too familiar
with, they want a better future. They want it and I believe
that they will get it.
I believe it will help if we can work in a bipartisan way
here to make sure that they get it. I think the United States
has a stake in their future. I think supporting the growth of
healthier, more stable communities in Africa serves our
diplomatic, our economic, our humanitarian, and our security
interests.
I think U.S. engagement can help prevent the spread of
diseases. One of the issues is Ebola where this crosses borders
and, frankly, can cross our own border. It can help prevent and
address insecurity before extremism takes hold on these young
minds, and it can help open new markets that will create
opportunities for Americans as well as help communities in
Africa grow their own way out of poverty.
So U.S. engagement with Africa is smart and essential, and
I look forward to working with the administration and my
colleagues here in Congress to ensure that we get this right.
And I thank again our panel. We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Daniel Donovan, a
Representative in Congress from the State of New York
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]