| Since 1993 when he took office, U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) has sat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and for most of his tenure, on the Subcommittee on African Affairs. When the Democrats took control of the Senate last January, Feingold became the chair of the African subcommittee. At the end of July, the United Nations passed a resolution that will send 22,000 U.N. peacekeepers to the Sudan to protect the people of Darfur where over 200,000 have died and over 2.5 million have been made refugees. Feingold visited Darfur in January 2005 and was appalled by what he saw. "The situation then was already very bad," Feingold observed during a phone interview with The Capital City Hues. "I would say the situation is worse and the Sudanese government has not been even remotely cooperative in trying to stop the problem. In fact, I would say they have not reigned in the so-called 'Jinjaweed,' the militias that have been torturing the people of Darfur. So not only is the situation worse in Darfur, it now is threatening the stability of the entire region. It is destabilizing Chad. It may be destabilizing the Central African Republic. The refugee populations cause dislocations in the other countries. And the political agendas in those countries are very much affected by the refugees. And so, what is already a terrible problem within Sudan may spread to the broader region if we don't get serious." To say the least, Feingold was very disappointed with the U.N. resolution on Darfur that was passed by the Security Council because it watered down the demands that previous resolutions had made on the Sudanese government. "Senator Menendez of New Jersey, Senator Durbin of Illinois and I went to the Senate floor last week to indicate that we did not think the U.N. resolution was adequate," Feingold said. "It did move in the right direction in terms of putting a 26,000-person peacekeeping force in Darfur. But it doesn't have any teeth like earlier resolutions. It removes the language that points out the violations of human rights of the Sudanese government and it takes away the sanctions that would be imposed if Sudan doesn't agree. Some people feel it is good. But I think most people in the international community think it isn't adequate and we're going to have to put far more pressure than that on Sudan to get them to stop the violence and allow the U.N. and the African Union peacekeeping force to be beefed up to give these people extra protection." In the end analysis, Feingold believes that the U.N. gave up too much to get a peacekeeping force into the Sudan. "The Sudanese government accepts the force, but there are so many conditions and they have gone back on their word so many times that I don't think it made sense for the Chinese, others and even us to allow the resolution to be watered down so much," Feingold said. "The Sudanese government has not earned that kind of trust from the international community." Feingold also observed that the Chinese government is taking an increasingly active role in Africa as it seeks to secure the resources it needs to keep its economy booming. While Feingold is fascinated with the level of Chinese involvement in Africa, he is also weary of its intentions. Is it merely bringing gifts to the continent in order to secure its economic interests? Or does it have some neo-colonial ambitions of its own? "What has really been noticeable during my last few visits is that the Chinese have been working hard to invest and get influence in countries all the way from Mali to Zimbabwe to Ethiopia, building huge soccer stadiums for countries," Feingold said. "They are giving enormous loans with low or no interest rates. They are creating giant housing projects. They have enormous interest in places like Sudan and their oil resources. Some of the African leaders are very attracted to this because the Chinese come in and say 'Okay, we're going to give you or loan you this money and you can do whatever you want internally in your country. We have a policy of non-interference even if there are serious human rights violations.'" While the offer may sound good to African leaders whose countries have dealt with centuries of interference by European countries, Feingold is fearful that it is too good to be true. "I had a long talk about this with Prime Minister Meles of Ethiopia when I was there in December," Feingold said. "He said on the plus side, they give them this money and they build roads and infrastructure for them. But he was smart enough to say that what worried him was that as the Chinese come in to Africa and become the most influential country, once they have all of that influence and other countries back off, how will the Chinese treat them. I hope there is some skepticism about what the Chinese's motives are here. Maybe they are just economic. But I feel that we need to stay very aware of China's desire to have a much greater influence in Africa." Although Feingold recognizes that U.S. involvement in Africa is increasing, he is not satisfied with the pace of that involvement. "The discussion about creating an African command as a separate command of our military has some problems, but at least it recognizes that Africa is an important place," Feingold said. "But there isn't enough interest and the emphasis in the administration on all different parts of Africa isn't there. There are parts where there are significant Islamic populations that relates directly to the 9/11 issues that affect our country. But there are also enormous issues relating to the stability of the rest of Africa: poverty issues, disease issues, HIV/AIDS and malaria and corruption issues. So many of those governments could be good trading partners of ours and we could have a great relationship with them if they weren't so affected by corruption. So what I have been trying to do for 15 years is heighten the profile of Africa in the United States. We've made some progress, but we need to make a lot more." While the international community's African focus has primarily been on the Sudan and Darfur, the Great Lakes region of African is once again beginning to destabilize, which could have huge consequences for the entire region. "The region is almost like a Rubik's Cube," Feingold observed. "First you have southern Sudan, which just came out of the civil war with northern Sudan. They are affected by what happens in northern Uganda. In northern Uganda, there is a group called the Lord's Republican Army, which is a very violent group that has terrorized that region. But they are hiding out in a national park in Congo. Meantime, in Congo, you have people from Rwanda and that region who are still fighting the battle that led to the genocide in Rwanda, getting involved in the violence in eastern Congo. Eastern Congo is a critical area for the stability of Congo. All of these situations interrelate across national borders. You can't really evaluate any one place without knowing and working to understand how these cross-border forces are affecting the area. Sudan has been a terrible situation of genocide, but far more people have died in eastern Congo, four million in the last few years. Yet, the world is hardly aware of it." While there are some major areas of instability in Africa, Feingold also observed that there are many stable regions in Africa and progress is being made. "If you look at a map of Africa, there are places like Angola that had significant problems, but they are not at war like they were for 25 years," Feingold said. "South Africa has changed to a peaceful society after apartheid. Mozambique had a terrible civil war. That is no longer happening. So while there still are major conflicts and enormous problems, the number of countries that are in complete collapse is less than there used to be. So we need to stay focused on those that remain serious problems because in the places where there is instability like Congo and Nigeria, problems with corruption in Kenya, these are some of the most critical countries in Africa. These are the lynch pins. So even though some countries are doing all right, they are deeply affected by the instability of political problems in those key, bigger countries." In the future, Feingold wants to see the U.S. develop a relationship of equals with countries in Africa. "That means we ask them for help in combating terrorism, but in return, weunderstand their need for resources and for help in monitoring their borders," Feingold said. "We need to pressure them to deal with their corruption problems, which are severe, but to understand that if they do deal with their corruption problems, we do want to have a genuine, balanced economic relationship. We also have to continue our commitment that has been strong in the past few years for very significant funding to fight the horrible tragedy of AIDS/HIV. So there are many issues, but we need to have a sustained interest, but at the same time, treat these countries with dignity and as equal partners and not as a 'Lost Continent' as some people want to view it." In the end, the future of the U.S. may be closely tied to the future of Africa. And it remains to be seen if the U.S. fully appreciates its vital interests there and can treat Africa's countries as equals. |
 |
| An interview with U.S. Senator Russ Feingold African concerns By Jonathan Gramling |