Notes

First off, a roundup of a few of the 598234091 bloggers/articles who have commented on Obama's speech to Ghana's Parliament.

1. NYU's William Easterly, blogging at Aid Watch. Easterly, as he often does, takes aim at anything that mentions "regional organizations". And rightly so. But he does also praise Obama's emphasis on "Africa's future is up to Africans", which I think is the correct sentiment to have.

2. Chris Blattman's analysis. A bit more emphasis on conflict in this post.

3. From the Times. And the BBC for good measure. Here's the BBC's photo series on Obama's visit; I have to say the photographer in me was quite pleased with the depth-of-field shots.

And time for my own analysis. I watched the speech as it happened this past Saturday on GTV (Ghana Television). Sure, the sound quality was a bit suspect and the visual cut out every few minutes (come on, most of the country was on that channel), but it was definitely special watching it live in Ghana. I have to say that the honourable MPs in attendance were looking quite jubilant and wielding their cameras--or were half asleep. Overall, I liked the speech, but I felt that it was lacking in details--namely, I felt that some of it did sound like the "big promises" of the past and I wanted to hear more about managing the oil revenues , though I did very much appreciate the overall emphasis on Africans taking responsibility for their continent's future.

In the sake of time, my "grades" for Obama's speech will roughly follow the key excerpts picked out by the BBC:

I do not see the countries and peoples of Africa as a world apart; I see Africa as a fundamental part of our interconnected world - as partners with America on behalf of the future that we want for all our children.

[B+]: I think a lot of failures in African development programmes of the past have been due to overall attitudes held in the West. In my experience talking with Ghanaians, Ghanaians want to see themselves as being able to build up their country: they are proud of how far they've come and how much they still can do. In short: they're sick of being seen as the world's poor, helpless continent. This past week we've been holding interviews with various experts, and one was at the Department of (Agricultural) Cooperatives. The expert we met mentioned that farmers are quite used to being in cooperatives; basically, every time an aid agency comes in with a project targeting farmers, farmers are required by these agencies to form cooperatives. However, she couldn't really give us an answer as to why these cooperatives were in any way helpful to these aid programs. In other words, it seemed like the aid agencies were guilty of hinging on a buzz word at the expense of these farmers. And these cooperatives typically last for a couple months before fizzling out.

The key part of the above statement is "partners"--a sentiment I feel is still somewhat mixed in the development aid community. I might be a little bitter when I see Western aid workers staying at fancy hotels, eating at the finest European restaurants and being driven around Accra in their new, shiny Nissan Terranos with the obnoxious side decals. But maybe that's just me.

Development depends upon good governance. That is the ingredient which has been missing in far too many places, for far too long. That is the change that can unlock Africa's potential. And that is a responsibility that can only be met by Africans.

[B] Ah, good governance, another great buzzword of the development community. Don't get me wrong, I think good governance (whatever that means?) would be a great thing, but again the devil is in the details. Many have called for democratic elections in Africa. Have these people seen the process of voter registration in a developing country? The physical distribution and collection of ballots around a country? It's not a pretty sight. There have been plenty of high-profile initiatives to combat corruption at the highest levels, but if people still have to pay off the local policeman or "dash" a small amount of money to the customs officers on a weekly basis, then we're not going to see much increased trust in governments. In Ghana, though, it appears these attitudes at the local level are changing, part of which might be due to the relentless free press. Yay free press.

Obama does get an [A] though for affirming that this is a responsibility that needs to be met by Africans.

As Africans reach for this promise, America will be more responsible in extending our hand. By cutting costs that go to Western consultants and administration, we will put more resources in the hands of those who need it, while training people to do more for themselves. That is why our $3.5bn food security initiative is focused on new methods and technologies for farmers - not simply sending American producers or goods to Africa. Aid is not an end in itself. The purpose of foreign assistance must be creating the conditions where it is no longer needed.

[B] I admit I don't know much about this food security initiative, but already I'm a bit suspicious of it (part of it might be due to how the US farm lobby reacts to it and if these farmers will have access to markets beyond their local villages). I cautiously support new methods and technologies for farmers--I say cautiously because shifting towards more capital-intensive methods of agricultural production will have an effect on labor (namely, you won't need as much), and I question the capacity of many African countries to accommodate these displaced laborers. Granted, a lot of farm labour in Africa is of a temporary or exchange basis, but such issues need to be considered during the implementation: food security isn't exactly food security if people can't buy the food.

However, the last two lines of this excerpt are amongst my favourites in the speech.

Yet because of incentives - often provided by donor nations - many African doctors and nurses understandably go overseas, or work for programs that focus on a single disease. This creates gaps in primary care and basic prevention. Meanwhile, individual Africans also have to make responsible choices that prevent the spread of disease, while promoting public health in their communities and countries.

[A] I refer you to Easterly's commentary on this excerpt. Ghana is particularly praiseworthy for its concerted--almost to the point of hilarity--health campaigns, particularly with respect to STIs. However, one thing that bothers me about the Ghanaian health care system is that attitude that a lot of hospitals have towards patient care. Namely, quality of patient care does not seem to be emphasized, and much time--and consequently, lives--is lost to sheer bureaucracy. I refer you to a story from a post a couple weeks ago.

We welcome the steps that are being taken by organizations like the African Union and ECOWAS to better resolve conflicts, keep the peace, and support those in need. And we encourage the vision of a strong, regional security architecture that can bring effective, transnational force to bear when needed.

[C--] Eh. I wasn't the only one concerned about the African Union's recent unwillingness to work with the ICC regarding Omar al-Bashir, right? It also looks like President Atta Mills tacitly agreed with the rest of the African Union on this one. Has there been any commentary on Atta Mills's role in all this? I would've liked to see Obama take a stronger stand against the AU about this.

~~

Overall, I liked the speech, especially its emphasis on the young people of Ghana. Last year, I had the pleasure of working with several young Ghanaians who were on their "National Service". Many of them were really frustrated with the bureaucracy in the public sector, but they were nonetheless committed to serving their country. This year, at the various print shops I've used to print documents, I have noticed quite a few applications for National Service positions, teaching jobs and so forth. Yes we can, indeed.