AS EXCITEMENT builds up ahead of the visit to Africa by US President George Bush, it is worth asking if there is cause to be sanguine about his much-vaunted foreign policy foray into the continent.
A brief reminder of the Bush administration's track record in global affairs is required. It has presided over a unilateral abandonment of the Kyoto protocols on climate change; a slapping of 30% tariffs on imported steel; an implementation of the most generous subsidy scheme for its farmers in US history; and a shredding of arms control treaties.
By waging war against Iraq without United Nations authority, it has mortally damaged the edifice of multilateral global governance that underpinned the post-1945 settlement.
The fallout from the Iraq war has heightened tensions not only between the US and the European Union (EU), but also between industrialised and developing countries.
The use by US and EU leaders of the recent Group of Eight summit in Evian to settle geopolitical scores, rather than declare an irrevocable commitment to the success of the current Doha round of trade talks, has underlined starkly a paucity of visionary global leadership.
And the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, coupled with revelations that the US and British governments doctored intelligence reports to justify military action against Iraq, can only accentuate the animosity of the international community, especially the Arab world, towards these countries' foreign policies.
In sum, under the Bush administration the world has become extremely dangerous and unstable.
Given this grim backdrop to the US international agenda, cynics can be forgiven for dismissing Bush's visit as yet another vacuous African safari.
For it is Africa that stands to lose most from the present US-sponsored world dispensation. If Bush wants to be regarded as a true friend of Africa he must use his visit to tackle at least three pressing continental problems caused by his government's policies.
First, he must commit his administration to the abolition of US agricultural subsidies that continue to undercut African trade. By caving in to excessively parochial national interests, the US, like the EU, has lost an opportunity to help Africa trade its way out of poverty.
Take, for instance, the case of hefty subsidies enjoyed by US cotton farmers. The International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development says these subsidies threaten to wipe out the livelihoods of 10-million west Africans reliant on cotton production. At 4bn, US cotton subsidies alone surpass by 60% the gross domestic product of Burkina Faso.
The steady collapse in world prices induced by subsidisation has reversed the sterling success achieved by poor west and central African countries to make their cotton industries among the most competitive in the world.
Thanks to subsidies, in the past four years the region recorded a 31% decrease in export revenue even though its production rose by 14%.
It is estimated that the decline in cotton prices has cost west Africa about $200m, far in excess of what it receives in US aid and debt relief.
Second, Bush must put pressure on US pharmaceutical companies to work towards a positive solution to the wrangle over access by poor countries to life-saving drugs.
Although the US administration deserves praise for its pledge to spend 15bn in five years to combat AIDS in Africa, this laudable initiative runs the risk of being negated by the current stalemate in public health talks at the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
At the behest of its powerful domestic pharmaceutical industry, the US government has foiled a deal designed to make much-needed medicines available in poor countries.
This action flies in the face of a commitment made by rich countries at Doha in 2001 to make the addressing of public health problems in developing countries a key priority.
Third, he must use the authority of his office to restore confidence to the troubled Doha round of trade talks. This means committing his country to multilateralism and broad-based international economic development.
It was the vision of post-war US policymakers that laid the foundations of an international economy based on open and integrated markets. This thinking has informed, to varying degrees, the approach of successive US presidents to global economic problems.
By generously providing access to its vast market, the US has always taken the lead in championing the integration of developing economies into the multilateral economic regime.
Sadly, under the Bush administration this practice has been severely eroded; pandering to myopic national interests has become the norm rather than the exception. Unsurprisingly, this has cast doubts on the prospects of the forthcoming WTO ministerial meeting in Cancún, Mexico.
Failure to end the Doha talks successfully will have dire consequences for the world economy. More significantly, it will reinforce the marginalisation of poor African countries in the global trading system on which they rely for their economic welfare.
By his leadership Bush can help Africa avert such a dire possibility. But only if he refrains from allowing the White House to be held to ransom by isolationist and protectionist interests within and outside his government.
Bush's African visit provides him with an auspicious opportunity to demonstrate unequivocally to African leaders that the continent matters to US foreign economic policy. Will he rise to the challenge?
Soko is a doctoral candidate in the politics and international studies department at the University of Warwick.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. NoNonsense English offers this material non-commercially for research and educational purposes. I believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner, i.e. the media service or newspaper which first published the article online and which is indicated at the top of the article unless otherwise specified.