By Scott A Morgan

While Most Advocates for African Issues and Pundits were focused on other things such as the Visit to Africa by Secretary Clinton and the Comprehensive Policy Review towards Sudan,an Internal Investigation by the State Department into the Bureau of African Affairs revealed some unique and chilling remarks.

What did this report reveal about what the Bureau that will be dealing with what will be the next test in US Foreign Policy? This Department is underfunded, facing staffing shortfalls, burdened with demands, has a public diplomacy program that in the words of the report is “failed”, and has questions regarding the priorites of long term planning. Despite these shortcomings the report by the State Department Inspector General Praised the Work of the Bureau.

The evaluation into the Bureau took place between April 20th and June 9th of this year. It should be noted that Johnnie Carson who was nominated by President Obama to this post assumed this position while review was underway. Before Mr. Carson took over Philip Carter III was the acting Undersecretary. The review viewed that the time under the stewardship of Mr. Carter was a time of “renewal”. The report sees Mr. Carson as a Strong Leader for this position.

Some of the lowlights that were also revealed in this report were that Several Unnamed Embassies have significant morale, staffing and leadership issues. There was also a lack of communication from the regional desks to the front office and disinterest in all posts but those that deal with Crisis Situations. All in all this does not bode well for the Secretary of State but could adversely affect decisions made by the President as well.

The Lack of foresight in planning affects several aspects of US African Policy. One glaring example was in Food Aid. Quoting the report” The United States feeds Africa,it is not focusing as it might (should) on helping Africans feed themselves.” Another example was in the fight against HIV/AIDS.
The US funds programs that focus more on medication than on prevention of the Spread of this Deadly Disease. The Main function of most humanitarian programs centered around PEPFAR and little if any resources were allocated for education and combating HIV/AIDS.

Another point of controversy is AFRICOM. This newest command of the US Military was resented by members of the Bureau. More often than not the reason was that the Military was getting More Money allocated to it then their State Department Counterparts. For Example A Military Information Support Team dealing with Somalia received $ 600,000 while the State Department got $ 30,000. It should be noted that the Military has resources that State either dreams about or resents. The IG also suggested that the Peacekeeping Training and Support Programs be transferred to AFRICOM if the funding does not increase.

The IG report found that AGOA (Africa Growth and Opportunity Act) has had margainal success due to several factors including poor infrastructure, lack of credit and not meeting the goal imposed by Washington. It also found that within the Bureau that Somalia is the hot button issue but in the grassroots here in the US the Militia Activites are a rising concern as well.

This report is a good news/bad news for the Administration. Africa does have high hopes and expectations of the President. The Military Command is better funded for some missions. Morale is low but the job is increasingly become more and more crucial on a daily basis. Nothing changes poor morale like having some successes. Clearly the State Department needs some when it comes to Africa.

(The author can be reached at [email protected])