---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 22:21:07 -0500
From: APIC <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: USA: Summit Documents, 2
USA: Summit Documents, 2
Date distributed (ymd): 000227
Document reposted by APIC
+++++++++++++++++++++Document Profile+++++++++++++++++++++
Region: Continent-Wide
Issue Areas: +political/rights+ +economy/development+
+US policy focus+
Summary Contents:
Over 5,000 delegates and participants gathered in Washington
February 16-20, 2000 for a "National Summit on Africa." There
were actually at least four related but distinctive gatherings
during the Summit. The first was the high-profile event of
plenaries, receptions and dinners, featuring Presidents Bill
Clinton, Daniel arap Moi and other dignitaries. There was the
deliberative process culminating in a document with 254 policy
recommendations. There were parallel programs on a host of
topics. Perhaps most important if least visible were the
countless informal meetings in and around the conference, in
corridors, restaurants and other venues.
This set of three postings contains material, both official
and critical, primarily relating to the high-profile event --
the only one on which there are now documents available in
electronic format. The National Summit has announced a press
conference on February 29 to present the National Plan of
Action, which is promised to be available later, along with
other materials, on the Summit's web site
(http://www.africasummit.org). Additional news coverage is
available at the Africa News web site
(http://www.africanews.org). APIC will post references to
additional material later as it becomes available.
This posting contains a press release from the Summit
secretariat, a critical statement presented by concerned
delegates at the closing session, and a letter from a former
Summit board member. The other two postings contain remarks by
President Bill Clinton and a round-up article from the
Foreign-Policy-in-Focus project.
+++++++++++++++++end profile++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
National Summit on Africa
Press Release
February 20, 2000
Contact: Sunni Khalid, Director of Communications
202-345-5180 (cell phone); 202-887-9682 #16 (phone);
202-861-8645 (fax)
The National Summit on Africa's Dialogue and Celebration Ends;
Gathering Vows to Make Africa Matter to Americans
Summit Delegates Approve National Policy Plan of Action for
US-Africa Relations
Washington -- The National Summit on Africa adopted its
National Plan of Action and pledged to continue its work to
promote a stronger partnership between the United States and
Africa.
Leonard H. Robinson, Jr., the Summit's president and CEO, and
the Chairman of the Summit's Board Dr. Herschelle Challenor,
told the converence, which was attended by more than 2,000
delegates and 3,000 additional participants, at the closing
plenary session that the organization plans to make an impact
with foreign policymakers, the corporate community and with
national, state and local officeholders across the country.
"We must not give up," said Robinson. "There are thousands of
delegates and participants, thousands of people who have been
affected and inspired by this process. There are thousands of
non-government organizations, church groups and others who
have been working on behalf of Africa all these years. They
must be included in this process to lift up Africa."
Robinson spoke as the Summit's National Plan of Action was
being passed out to some of the 5,100 delegates and
participants who came to Washington this week to attend the
five-day event. Delegates participated in deliberative
sessions on five themes -- peace and security, democracy and
human rights, education and culture, sustainable development
and the environment, and economic development -- and produced
254 policy recommendations for U.S. pollicy towards the
continent.
Among other things, the Summit's plan of action contains
recommendations calling for:
* support for the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act;
* increased funding for AIDS research, education and
prevention;
* The United States to support a ban on landmines;
* An end of sales of small arms;
* The United States to pay its arrears to the United
Nations;
* More financial aid for African refugees and raising the
immigration limit for African refugees;
* Increased support for peacekeeping training and
missions to Africa; and,
* Strengthened economic ties and financial assistance
with Africa.
The complete National Policy Plan of Action will be available
on the Summit's website (http://www.africasummit.org).
The Summit president said that his organization would work
with others to promote stronger ties between the U.S. and
Africa.
"Those organizations that existed long before the Summit was
a twinkle in anyone's eyes -- the Africa America Institute,
TransAfrica, the Constituency for Africa and Africare -- why
can't we work together to make this happen?" asked Robinson.
"As long as The National Summit on Africa has a nickel to
spend, we guarantee that we will work with anybody who has
Africa -- not self-interest -- in mind."
The Summit president told delegates and participants that the
Washington-based organization would work immediately to
implement the National Policy Plan of Action. He said
delegations in the 50 states and the District of Columbia
would be encouraged to inform members of Congress and the Plan
of Action. Delegations will also work to educate participants
in upcoming Republican and Democratic primaries and caucuses
from March to June, parety platform committees and national
party conventions.
"We say to the world, particularly to the United States and
Africa, that we have established a position on Africa because
Africa Matters!" said Robert Cummings, the head of Howard
University Department of African Studies, who also chaired the
Summit's deliberative session on economic development. "We
are about the business of fighting for this document because
we are invested in it."
Summit officials put the total number of participants at this
week's event at 5,100 people. Dignitaries included President
Bill Clinton, as well as Vice President Al Gore, Secretary of
State Madeleine Albright, Assistant Secretary of State Susan
R. Rice, Kenyan President Daniel arap Moi, Ambassador Andrew
Young, the Rev. Leon Sullivan, former Gen. Colin Powell, the
Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, Sr. Judith McHale of the Discovery
Channel, former Congressman Ron Dellums and dozens of African
cabinet ministers of diplomats.
************************************************************
Where is the Dialogue in the National Summit on Africa?
[This statement, drafted by concerned delegates and
distributed for signatures in the final two days of the
summit, was presented at the closing session by Dr. Mojubaolu
Olufunke Okome, a professor at Fordham University who was
co-chair of the New York state delegation, who also spoke of
the responsibility of Chevron for the death of a family member
in the Niger Delta. An open letter by Dr. Okome to the
Nigerian government and to Chevron, dated October 20, 1999, is
available on the Africa Resource Center web site
(http://www.africaresource.com).]
The National Summit on Africa (NSA) has brought together
thousands of individuals and hundreds of organizations to move
forward the dialogue on US-Africa relations. We recognize the
efforts of all those involved. However, we are extremely
concerned that the process has been organized in violation of
many of the core values that motivate and drive our efforts to
promote social, economic, environmental and political justice
in Africa. We protest the use of our names and reputations of
our organizations in ways that violate the following
fundamental principles of democracy, transparency and
accountability:
BALANCED AND OPEN DEBATE: Whereas representation by African
official and privileged sectors is strong and African
diplomatic statements were included in NSA orientation
materials, representation within the official Summit process
by other Africans in the US and by African civil society,
including women's, farmer's, labor, human rights, youth and
other grassroots organizations is woefully inadequate. If the
NSA is about peoples' participation in policymaking, why are
these views and voices not given (at least) equal prominence?
Where are the opportunities for diverse opinions in keynote
addresses and plenary sessions? If the goal of the
deliberative process is to create a Plan of Action on priority
policy issues, why are discussions of current issues affecting
the continent absent? At the so-called Presidential
Candidate's Forum, why were no opportunities provided for
questions regarding the candidates' records and positions on
issues affecting Africa? Where is the balanced dialogue?
DEMOCRATIC AND TRANSPARENT PROCESS: Decision-making and
communication surrounding the NSA process has been
concentrated in a small, centralized group without adequate
consultation with the participants involved - e.g. over
officials invited, fiscal accountability, corporate
sponsorships and the future of the NSA. If the NSA's ideals
are partnership and democracy, why would an African leader who
has a well-documented record of human rights abuses be
honored? Does the prominent role given to Daniel arap Moi
represent the kind of governmental partnership we want
reflected in US-Africa relations? Why were alternative Kenyan
views not given equal visibility? If Moi was invited in the
name of the California delegates, why were most California
delegates unaware of it until their arrival in Washington DC?
Where is the dialogue on good governance?
ECONOMIC JUSTICE: Why are corporate-friendly policies
promoted, while worker- and environment-friendly policies are
ignored? Why is the NSA promoting one particular piece of
legislation -- the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA)--
in its documents and plenaries? Why, given the rise of African
and global social movements for economic justice, has there
not been similar space allocated for their proponents to
examine the role and impacts of the World Bank, the IMF, and
the WTO? Where is the dialogue on fair trade, economic reform
and developmental alternatives?
CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY: Why is the NSA funded by companies
like Monsanto and Chevron, known exploiters of workers,
communities and the environment? How were the decisions to
accept sponsorship arrived at? Did these contributions assure
a privileged position of corporate voices and the absence of
their critics? Where is the dialogue on corporate
accountability?
WORKERS' RIGHT TO ORGANIZE: Whey were functions and delegates
booked at the non-union Grand Hyatt? Where is the union bug on
Summit documents? Why were African trade unionists not
present? What do these anti-union acts tell African workers?
While Al Gore refused to cross a picket line, why were NSA
delegates and activists expected to cross that same picket
line? Where is the dialogue on worker's rights and on
solidarity between workers and unions in the US and in
Africa?
In spite of these issues and failings much has been
accomplished that can be built on over the months and years
ahead. Before any NSA continuation plans can be considered,
however:
* A framework of Guiding Principles that enshrines the above
values must be developed in a transparent and participatory
manner;
* A full evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses to date
must be completed and discussed, taking into account the views
of at-large delegates, marginalized and missing groups, as
well as those who have left or opted out. These discussions
should inform considerations about whether to take forward the
NSA and in what manner.
******************************************************
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of the Board of Directors,
National Summit on Africa
FROM: Salih Booker
RE: Summit Secretariat Proposals on the Future of the National
Summit on Africa
DATE: February 8, 2000
As a former member of the Board I am very concerned about the
proposals for perpetuating the National Summit on Africa that
you are currently contemplating. I believe that these
proposals represent a contradiction of the very Summit process
they purport to continue and a betrayal of the original vision
of the Summit. Nor do these proposals emanate from demands
arising organically from successful subregional summit
meetings during the past three years.
I strongly believe that the proposals to perpetuate the Summit
as a new and permanent organization should be opposed for the
following reasons:
* They contradict the original vision of the Summit process
and prejudge the Summit deliberations themselves;
* They fail to seriously consider the desirability of ending
the NSA, following its intended closure, in favor of
strengthening the organizations that have a proven record of
far more productive and cost-effective work on African
affairs;
* They suggest the creation of an entity dominated by US
Corporations to act as a catalyst for working against the
existing people-centered NGOs and their public education and
public advocacy networking efforts;
* They project a vision of a new vehicle focused on the
corporate community that would itself be a duplication of
other existing corporate-oriented Africa groups;
* They fail to acknowledge that the NSA has not demonstrated
that it has any comparative advantage in any of the areas it
proposes to continue its work. Greater humility and a capacity
for self-criticism would be welcome, as it appears that the
original plans for a serious evaluation of the Summit process
have -- like so many other decisions -- been abandoned;
* These proposals will only lead to a further diminution of
funding possibilities for existing Africa-focused
organizations, especially politically and economically
progressive organizations including African American ones.
BACKGROUND
In 1993 I was contracted by the Ford Foundation and the
Carnegie Corporation to undertake a review of ten American
organizations and programs that focused on African affairs and
to review the changes in US foreign policymaking toward Africa
that were then emerging with the end of the Cold War. This
study has unfortunately never been publicly released.
Principal among its findings was that Africa did not lack a
constituency in the US but rather that there were multiple
constituencies. The report further outlined the potential
convergence between African objectives of attaining security,
democracy and development and those of the US of promoting
global security, enlarging the community of democracies and
increasing economic growth and prosperity in the world. The
report recommended -- inter alia -- working with the existing
leading Africa-focused organizations to build a shared policy
agenda and to develop means to increase public participation
in the policymaking process. It noted that those most
effective in impacting policy had historically been excluded
from foundation funding. The report identified a need for
greater cooperation among existing groups, based on their
unique strengths and focused on a shared agenda, rather than
the creation of new and competing organizations further
draining scarce resources. The Summit was designed to help
build such cooperation within a specific timeframe while
avoiding the creation of a new and permanent diversion of the
limited funds available for Africa work in the US.
In 1995 I was contracted by the Ford Foundation to develop the
concept paper for the National Summit on Africa. That report
was given to Africare as the organization designated by Ford
to develop the concept into a funding proposal and to serve as
a 'midwife' for the creation of the Summit process. In 1996 I
served along with my close colleague Dr. Cherri Waters as a
consultant to Africare to develop the Summit funding proposal.
As the individuals responsible for articulating, in writing,
the vision of the National Summit on Africa necessary for
foundation consideration of the project's merit and
feasibility, we know that the idea of creating a new
organization, especially a hegemonic one, is antithetical to
the original vision of the Summit process.
As you all know, the NSA was modeled on the United Nations
World Conferences model (e.g. the Earth Summit, the Conference
on Women, etc.). A secretariat supported by expert groups
prepared written resource materials designed to inform
democratic debate in a series of preparatory conferences in
each subregion of America. These meetings produced draft plans
of action and elected delegates to the National Summit. The
deliberative process at the Summit is to produce a final plan
of action with recommendations for improving and increasing US
relations with Africa not only in the realm of foreign policy
but among all major sectors of American society. The process
was originally intended to identify priorities in US-Africa
relations and to strengthen those organizations that work
full-time on Africa by facilitating their use of the process
to educate and engage new participants in their various
programs, and to help them shape their programs to meet newly
identified interests. These core organizations were seen as
the institutional vehicles upon which the post-Summit efforts
would depend. Indeed, the Summit process -- as an extended
educational and mobilization campaign -- was intended to help
deliver new people and new resources to those organizations
best able to service the needs of expanded constituencies and
to cooperate with one another on specific work. Though this
approach has consistently been ignored or resisted, it remains
-- in my humble opinion -- the most important and still
salvageable potential outcome of the Summit.
At the start of the Summit process in 1996, myself and others
involved in its creation invested a great deal of personal and
political capital in convincing numerous constituencies that
they should participate in the Summit project and help shape
it through its democratic processes. Progressive
constituencies were often skeptical and claimed that there was
a hidden agenda to create a new organization that would tie
its fortunes to the private sector's narrow profit-making
interests in Africa, and that it would be organized almost
exclusively around elites and big ceremonial functions. We
fought hard against such criticisms and insisted on the
commitment to a people-centered process with transparent
governance and employment practices. We fought to bring
representatives of the Africa-focused groups onto the Board
following their initial exclusion. And we tried to direct the
NSA toward helping strengthen the work of the Africa-focused
organizations.
After two years on the Board of Directors, I resigned in
protest over the poor governance of the process, the poor
management of resources and the absence of an ethical policy
on fundraising. I became convinced that the Summit would not
accomplish its original objectives and that its continuance
would come to represent an enormous opportunity cost while
consuming unprecedented levels of funding in this field of
work. The donors themselves became increasingly skeptical and
though they continued to renew and increase grants to the
Summit they lowered their expectations. One donor said that
the revised objective was that "no-one gets hurt".
CONCLUSION
I now must apologize to the many whom I helped persuade to
support and participate in the Summit, including several of
yourselves. If the Summit perpetuates itself in the form
proposed, many organizations and efforts on African affairs
will indeed be hurt. We all understand that the Summit has
gathered some people together, generated some interest in
Africa, and even created some momentum. But anytime you spend
the kind of money that was available to the Summit it is to be
expected that at a minimum a number of people will respond.
Well meaning constituencies may even momentarily see a need
for a continuation, but the funding available for this kind of
activity has become a zero sum affair. The question that
Summit leaders and leaders in the philanthropical community
must ask is: given the limited resources available for work on
Africa in the United States is this a good investment versus
strengthening the considerable talents - and potential for
cooperation and synergy -- among the existing Africa-focused
organizations. The creation of the Summit itself resulted from
a similar question. We should not ignore the costly lessons of
the past three years.
I appeal to you, Members of the Board, to resist the
temptation to support these proposals.
************************************************************
This material is being reposted for wider distribution by the
Africa Policy Information Center (APIC). APIC's primary
objective is to widen international policy debates around
African issues, by concentrating on providing accessible
policy-relevant information and analysis usable by a wide
range of groups and individuals.
Auto-response addresses for more information (send any e-mail
message): [log in to unmask] (about the Africa Policy
Electronic Distribution List); [log in to unmask] (about APIC).
Documents previously distributed, as well as a wide range of
additional information, are also available on the Web at:
http://www.africapolicy.org
To be added to or dropped from the distribution list write to
[log in to unmask] For more information about reposted material,
please contact directly the source mentioned in the posting.
Africa Policy Information Center,
110 Maryland Ave. NE, #509, Washington, DC 20002.
Phone: 202-546-7961. Fax: 202-546-1545.
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
************************************************************
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
