Gone are the days when Melania Trump traveled to Africa in tropical colonial clothes, showing the complete lack of interest of the United States, led by her husband, in the continent. Since then, official American policy has changed significantly.

Africa is, once again, a continent disputed by the great powers. This dispute results from the new race for raw materials and markets, the search for influence in the world chess, namely African votes in the United Nations, and also the presentation of a social laboratory to show the world which recipe for prosperity works best. : the developmental authoritarian Asian or the liberal western.

All of this, in the context of the new competitive dispute with China, led the United States to once again focus its attention on Africa and place it at the forefront of its foreign policy priorities.

In recent months, American initiatives related to Africa and the trips of high dignitaries have been constant. Vice President Kamala Harris, Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen, First Lady Jill Biden, to mention just the most important recent trips (Harris, March 2023; Yellen, January 2023; Biden , February 2023). Only Joe Biden’s tour is missing to culminate this high-level political-diplomatic offensive.

However, the impression that remains from these trips is that, apart from beautiful speeches, splendid photographic opportunities and some circumstantial financial support, they add nothing to the resolution of African problems and, above all, they do not diminish the supposed Chinese influence, nor do they oppose it.

The problem is in the model adopted by the Americans. It is a model that is not very interactive and does not address African structural problems. Essentially, US leaders distribute smiles and marketing, warn of the Chinese danger, announce small foreign aid and refer the big questions to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), talking with greater or lesser intensity about good governance. Janet Yellen’s visit to Zambia was emblematic of this failure. When Hichilema was elected, he became a sort of poster boy for American good intentions.

However, what is certain is that Zambia has a serious foreign debt problem and has defaulted, finding itself in an endless labyrinth between China and the IMF, which ends up greatly harming the population. It is not enough to say that China is to blame and order the IMF to move forward, which in turn makes everything depend on agreements with China, which is waiting for the country to agree with the other creditors, getting into a tailspin – prolonged pong.

This kind of attitude will only lead to the US being criticized for talking but doing nothing.

The truth is that China’s entry into Africa from the 2000s onwards was not due to any historical relationship, practically irrelevant, but to a void, a void left by the West. Now, it is this void that persists, despite the new rhetoric and the countless initiatives, trips and forums held in the American capital or in Europe.

Africa does not need economists with their Harvard and MIT textbooks, which apply recipes from developed market economies unable to serve African populations and leading to their impoverishment. The manual to be applied must be the previous one, that of the very creation and structuring of economies and markets. Bringing consultants, economists, managers and people of intentions ashore doesn’t help – it only complicates things.

Obviously, to be successful, the North American perspective has to be different, resembling what was done in Europe after the Second World War (1939-1945). In other words, launching their money helicopters over Africa, while creating domestic markets on the continent.

Very simply put, the US will only compete with the Chinese in Africa if it replaces them, if it spends money. Arriving in Africa empty-handed or with promises of future private investment, which may or may not materialize, is no use.

Strictly speaking, if they really want to help Africa, the Americans should start by swapping the Chinese debt, that is, lending financial funds to African governments at lower interest rates and higher maturities, so that governments pay China. In this way it would certainly be possible to introduce competition into the African debt market and remove the monopoly from China.

In the same vein is the financial support for structural projects on the continent, from the massification of electricity and basic sanitation to digitization.

It is clear that the American people may disagree with this option and politicians may not want to embrace it, but the only realistic path is this and not another — this is how the US has gained influence in the past.

Furthermore, in addition to real capital, Africa needs specialists: not economists or consultants, which are in abundance, but professionals in essential areas, such as doctors, nurses, engineers, IT professionals, teachers, etc.

It is necessary to recover the initial spirit of the Peace Corps, idealized by President Kennedy, and massively send to Africa “men and women from the United States qualified for service abroad and available to serve, if necessary under difficult conditions, to help people in areas that help countries meet their needs” (Peace Corps Goals).

Finally, good governance should not focus on the constitutional apparatus, but on something simpler and more fundamental: public administration.

What is essential is to prepare public administrations in African countries to function efficiently and effectively, even if governments do not meet their objectives. Shifting the focus of good governance from the executive to the administration is a structuring element of any functioning society, overcoming disagreements and fears of political interference.

It is evident that only an investment of this type – in capital, in human resources and in qualified training – can allow the United States to leave a real mark of progress in Africa, following a counterpoint strategy to that of China. Otherwise, good intentions will be just that: good intentions without results.

Africa is the belle at a new international ball. Suitors from the East and West are in relentless pursuit, never mind her chequered past. Barely surviving European colonization and shortly thereafter tottering away from the destructive neo-liberal economic policies enforced through the IMF and the World Bank, Africa is no stranger to exploitative “partnerships”. Seemingly the eternal optimist, Africa’s latest expedition to the East has raised alarm bells. Those of us beholden to enormous Chinese loans wonder if she has jumped out of the frying pan into the debt fire.

In a departure from the rest of the region, Kenya’s incumbent government has violently swivelled its foreign policy back to the West. With the firm belief that “Kenya needs more friends”, President William Samoei Ruto is rapidly negotiating the US-Kenya Strategic Trade and Investment Partnership (STIP) which will take the place of the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (Agoa).

The new trade pact reportedly aims to increase investment, promote sustainable and inclusive growth, benefit workers, consumers and businesses and support regional integration. The initial concept of the trade pact had a broad scope which included 11 pillars covering themes such as anti-corruption, good regulatory practices, protecting workers’ rights and supporting the participation of women and youth.

However, the second round of US-Kenya STIP negotiations held in April has whittled down the previous eleven pillars into five areas of “mutual interest”. The five new pillars are: economic prosperity, trade, and investment; defence cooperation; democracy, governance, and civilian security, multilateral and regional issues; and health. The noticeably slimmer STIP is perhaps a strategic nod towards the Chinese style of development investment, a departure from the usual conditional development assistance characteristic of the West. Fewer conditions on corruption, human rights, democracy and environmental protection, indicates a less normatively prescriptive approach to Africa going forward.

Evidencing as a kind of Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) standards “race to the bottom”, the West is working to counter global Chinese influence, garnered through heavy-duty Chinese investment in infrastructure projects which are collectively known as the “Belt and Road Initiative”. Leaning on its strengths, the US counter-offer to China’s modern take on the old Silk Road has taken on the flavour of a corporate takeover.  The US, seemingly less troubled with the “democratic quality” of its new business partner, has taken on a more transactional approach to trade with Kenya, accelerating trade talks and expecting “rapid progress” in the silent observation that the Government of Kenya is ranked 123rd out of a possible 180 in global corruption indices.

There has been extensive discussion on Kenya’s geo-strategic value as an entry point for foreign interests and investment in the region, and the counterbalance of the nature and extent of Kenya’s state capture, an inability to decisively deal with corruption. In the grim reality of Kenya as a syndicate of special interests that benefits from the corruption status quo and decides what is the public interest in a region with an imbedded anti-public interest culture,  who is getting the short end of the trade-deal stick and what it will cost the Kenyan public is a festering concern.

Substantive concerns 

The frenzied enthusiasm of government officials tasked with negotiating the STIP hides the strangled cries of civil society organizations protesting the opaque nature of the substance of the trade negotiations surrounding agriculture, digital trade and regulatory practice provisions. The most controversial of these has been agriculture.

The US government has been clear and unwavering in its intent to infuse “provisions intended to eliminate or reduce non-tariff barriers that can hamper market access for US agricultural products”. In recognition of one of the darker aspects of globalization, the agricultural component of STIP has raised hackles and pitchforks in response to the lifting of a ban on GMO foods and seeds in Kenya.

First, there is concern that smallholder farmers, who account for 78% of total agricultural produce in Kenya, will be unable to compete with the US agricultural corporations who have vast economies and efficiencies of scale. Corn, a competitor to Kenya’s staple maize crop, is likely to have a devastating effect on the local smallholder markets. As a result, smallholder farmers are likely to suffer a fall in farmgate prices, possibly exacerbating poverty.

Secondly, separate from the concerns that the US-produced genetically modified food that is now available to Kenyan consumers may be harmful to human and animal life, the lack of clarity whether GMO seeds are included in the bundle of agricultural products offered by the US government is causing more apprehension in civil and public spaces. GMO seeds have increasingly been packaged as the answer to the perennial drought and famine issues. Climate-related weather events, aggravated further by the inflationary pressures of COVID-19 and the war in Europe have piled on the pressure on food systems.

However, the GMO quick-fix to a local food systems problem might be an example of when foreign solutions add to local problems. It is clear that the push towards GMOs does not take into account other issues that may be limiting food systems such as the grand corruption that has sabotaged many attempts at food security In Kenya, the consistent leak in the policy bucket that dooms most policies and initiatives in the crucial agricultural sector to failure. A historical survey indicates there is no guarantee that a change in food policy will bring any significant benefit to the mwananchi.

The GMO quick-fix to a local food systems problem might be an example of when foreign solutions add to local problems.

In addition, while GMOs are presented as the answer to the food security problem, there is little discussion of the failure of GMO seeds in other small-scale contexts. The effects of GMO seed adoption on secondary agricultural input markets such as patented seeds, costly fertilizers and pesticides (sourced also from US multinationals) is enough to question if Kenya’s slice of the trade cake will even be fractionally worth it. Finally, the erosion of traditional food culture through the adoption of GMOs, which has kept modern lifestyle diseases such as obesity relatively at bay, feels conspicuously like a kind of American cultural imperialism—a costly one.

Thirdly and perhaps most disquieting, is the potential loss of national sovereignty that might result from the STIP. In an increasingly tumultuous global economy, in addition to the residual impact of COVID-19, and sustained and escalating global conflict, it might be increasingly difficult for Kenya to protect its domestic food supplies after the implementation of the FTA.  If American corn, for example, floods the Kenyan maize market, there is a strong farmgate price incentive for Kenyan small-scale farmers to change to more profitable crops, effectively allowing the monopoly of American corn. Subsequently, if there are fluctuations in the dollar, and American corn becomes more expensive, then Kenyan consumers are exposed to inflationary pressures and possibly shortages. Simply, American supply disruptions become our stability-threatening problems.

Process concerns 

it is important to point out that the removal of the GMO ban in Kenya was the necessary pre-requisite for the agricultural component of the STIP to be realized. However, how the ban was lifted augurs poorly for the people of Kenya and their democratic processes. In a cabinet meeting chaired by President Ruto, the executive revoked the ten-year ban on the importation and cultivation of GMO products.

The Constitution of Kenya 2010 requires that citizens be involved in decision-making processes at all levels of government as part of the conduct of public affairs, either directly or through freely chosen representatives. The executive decision to lift the GMO ban did not meet the constitutionally required threshold of meaningful public participation. If subordinate policies and their instruments must submit to the process of public participation, it is unclear why the decision to lift the GMO ban was exempt. Exhibiting a level of executive dominance that any champions of democracy should be uncomfortable with, the Ruto administration has shoved GMO Food down our collective throat without asking.

While GMOs are presented as the answer to the food security problem, there is little discussion of the failure of GMO seeds in other small-scale contexts.

I have previously discussed why the public interest in Kenya is often overrun by political and foreign interests and this is one manifestation of the same inherited pattern. Specifically, the biggest beneficiaries of the lifting of the ban are likely the corporations that are part of the American agricultural industrial complex. Those firms that produce GMO food products and seeds will now have a captive market through the STIP.

Known for their teleopathic pursuit of profit, is it wise to entrust our food supply to American multinational corporations? In the hyper-capitalist society that Is the United States where Big Pharma profits from medical emergencies, the military-industrial complex profits from war, I shudder to think how Big Agriculture will seek to maximize profits in Kenya and East Africa.

The ongoing FDI standards race to the bottom where Western countries re-define democratic values for the sake of trade access, the proliferating anti-public interest culture in Kenya and a distinctly totalitarian tilt to the Ruto administration are creating the perfect imperialist storm. The new scramble and partition of Africa is gaining momentum and food might be the final frontier.

To our credit as a country, freedom of religion is one area that has enjoyed relatively few hardships, with persons being allowed to practice their faith unhindered. There have been no major penalties and disabilities hampering the freedom of religion. As a result, we have had exponential growth, particularly in evangelical churches, owing to a relatively free operating environment.

The result of the spreading number of churches has been the mushrooming of unregulated churches, sprouting in virtually every corner of the country. With these many churches, we have had persons of questionable morals and ethics appear and claim the mantle of pastoral authority.

The protection of the exercise of free religion is undoubtedly an essential aim of the Constitution’s religion clauses. The fervor that religious belief excites is powerful and indeed, a significant number of people care profoundly about their religious beliefs and practices. The passion for religion and faith is such that a good number would feel that their religious obligations supersede duties to the state in the event of a conflict between the two. Hence the need for the state to tread cautiously in matters of faith by avoiding interference in so far as reasonable circumstances demand.

However, the recent discovery of bodies in a mass grave at Shakahola forest, the dead believed to be adherents of a church headed by a controversial Pastor Paul Mackenzie, raises the dire prospect of heightened regulation of churches. The lax regulatory structure governing churches has been blamed for unfortunate incidents such as the Malindi mass grave surrounding Pastor Mackenzie.  The approach has been termed by Professor H. Kwasi Prempeh as ‘socially disastrous and no longer desirable’.

The realities of life today call for the regulation of churches and indeed all faith institutions in some form. It can no longer be business as usual considering the unfortunate happenings. We have experienced several bad apples who have taken advantage of the liberalized to not only enrich themselves but to take advantage of vulnerable citizens. The Constitution certainly expects state intervention in its protective capacity whenever the life and limb of persons are at risk. The state must take decisive action and engage church leadership in finding a solution. It can no longer be business as usual.

The state must also resist the temptation of overacting and overreaching when dealing with unfortunate cases such as what happened in Shakahola. The state, in dealing with these serious concerns, must always stay on the path of constitutionalism and the rule of law. Arbitrariness and knee-jerk reactions will not assist Kenya resolve the myriad of problems we face as a country.

Church leaders must join hands with the state in tackling the challenges that are presented by the rogue elements within their ranks. The onus on the church leaders is to ensure that the image and the moral force that faith should hold are not jeopardized by bad apples within their ranks. The leadership of the church and indeed all religious leaders in Kenya, those that serve in truth and are genuine in their calling, must see the Shakahola incident as a wake-up call for urgent reforms and regulation. The traditional resistance to accountability and regulation is no longer tenable. The time for regulation and reform has drawn nigh. Our condolences to the families of the bereaved persons. We hope that there shall never be a repeat of the Shakahola incident.

–

This article was first published by The Platform.