|
Get AfricaFocus Bulletin by e-mail!
Print this page
|
Note: This document is from the archive of the Africa Policy E-Journal, published
by the Africa Policy Information Center (APIC) from 1995 to 2001 and by Africa Action
from 2001 to 2003. APIC was merged into Africa Action in 2001. Please note that many outdated links in this archived
document may not work.
|
USA: Africa Trade Documents, 1
USA: Africa Trade Documents, 1
Date distributed (ymd): 990307
Document reposted by APIC
+++++++++++++++++++++Document Profile+++++++++++++++++++++
Region: Continent-Wide
Issue Areas: +economy/development+ +US policy focus+
Summary Contents:
This posting contains two documents on current bills
before Congress concerning U.S. economic relations with
Africa: (1)a press release (Feb. 4) from the Subcommittee on
Trade of the House Committee on Ways and Means on H.R. 434,
the "African Growth and Opportunty Act," (2) testimony
presented on Feb. 9 by the Washington Office on Africa on
behalf of the Africa Trade Policy Working Group and (3) a
press release from Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (Feb. 23, 1999)
introducing H.R. 772, the "Hope for Africa Act of 1999."
The full text of the bills, as of the end of February, is
available by sending a blank e-mail message to
hr434@africapolicy.org (HR434, 57K) or to
hr772@africapolicy.org (HR772, 73K). A commentary from the
Washington Office on Africa is in the next posting, as well as
links to sites for additional background, commentary, and
action alerts for groups mobilizing in favor of the Hope for
Africa Act.
+++++++++++++++++end profile++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS Subcommittee on Trade
http://www.house.gov/ways_means/trade/106cong/tr-1.htm
February 4, 1999 No. TR 1-A
Crane Announces Subcommittee Action on H.R. 434, the "African
Growth and Opportunity Act"
Congressman Philip M. Crane (R-IL), Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means,
today announced that on Wednesday, February 3, 1999, the
Subcommittee ordered favorably reported to the full Committee,
without amendment, H.R. 434, the "African Growth and
Opportunity Act," by a recorded vote of 14-0.
DESCRIPTION OF H.R. 434 AS APPROVED:
H.R. 434, the "African Growth and Opportunity Act," would
authorize a new trade and investment policy toward the
countries of sub-Saharan Africa.
The bill states that the United States would seek to
facilitate market-led economic growth in the countries in
sub-Saharan Africa. To this end, H.R. 434 contains a statement
of policy that Congress would support economic self-reliance
for sub-Saharan African countries, particularly those
committed to economic and political reform; market incentives
and private sector growth; the eradication of poverty; and
the importance of women to economic growth and development.
The bill would require the President to identify individual
countries in sub-Saharan Africa that have established, or are
making continual progress toward establishing, a market-based
economy consistent with the criteria outlined. After
consulting with the governments of eligible countries, H.R.
434 would require the President to establish a United
States-sub-Saharan Africa Trade and Economic Cooperation
Forum, not later than 12 months after the date of enactment,
for the purpose of convening annual high-level meetings
between U.S. Government officials and officials of
participating sub-Saharan African countries.
H.R. 434 would also declare that a United States-sub-Saharan
Africa Free Trade Area should be established, or free trade
agreements entered into, to serve as the catalyst for
increasing trade between the United States and sub-Saharan
Africa and for increasing private sector development in the
region. To this end, the bill would require the President to
develop a plan for entering into one or more trade agreements
with eligible sub-Saharan African countries, and report to
Congress within 12 months of enactment.
The bill would also require the United States to eliminate the
existing quotas on textile and apparel exports to the United
States from Kenya and Mauritius within 30 days of those
countries adopting visa systems to guard against unlawful
transshipments of textile and apparel goods and the use of
counterfeit documents. In addition, the provision would
require the President to continue the existing policy of not
imposing quotas on textile and apparel exports to the United
States from other sub-Saharan African countries. The bill
would also impose several provisions to guard against unlawful
transshipment.
The bill would extend duty-free treatment under the
Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) for beneficiary
countries in sub-Saharan Africa that are eligible to
participate in the Act until June 30, 2009. In addition, the
bill would authorize the President to grant duty-free
treatment to products from eligible sub-Saharan African
countries that are currently excluded from the GSP program, if
he receives advice from the U.S. International Trade
Commission that imports of those products are not import
sensitive in the context of imports from sub-Saharan Africa.
The bill would also provide that the competitive need limits
in the GSP program do not apply to imports from sub-Saharan
African countries and would allow up to 15 percentage U.S.
content of an article to count toward the 35 percent local
content requirement of the GSP program. Moreover, the bill
would allow imports from eligible sub-Saharan African
countries to qualify for duty-free treatment under the GSP
program if 35 percent of the value of the product is added in
any eligible sub-Saharan African country.
H.R. 434 would direct the President to maintain a position of
Assistant United States Trade Representative for Africa within
the Office of the United States Trade Representative to focus
on trade issues relating to sub-Saharan Africa.
Finally, the bill would require the President to submit to
Congress a report on the comprehensive trade and investment
policy of the United States for sub-Saharan Africa and on the
implementation of the Act, not later than one year after the
date of enactment, and not later than the end of each of the
next six one-year periods thereafter.
The Africa Trade Policy Working Group
c/o The Washington Office on Africa
212 East Capitol Street
Washington, D.C. 20003, U.S.A.
Phone: 202/547-7503; Fax: 202/547-7505
E-Mail: woa@igc.org;
Web: www.woaafrica.org
The U.S. Stake in Trade and Investment in Africa
Written testimony submitted to the Subcommittee on Africa of
the Committee on International Relations of the U.S. House of
Representatives on behalf of the Africa Trade Policy Working
Group by Leon P. Spencer, Executive Director, Washington
Office on Africa Tuesday, February 9th, 1999
As a coalition of religious and non-profit organizations, the
Africa Trade Policy Working Group has been engaged in
advocating a just and mutually-beneficial American trade
policy toward Africa since 1996. We welcome this opportunity
to share our hopes and concerns for Africa trade legislation
in this Congress.
We consider that there are certain values that are crucial to
the meaningfulness and effectiveness of any U.S. trade policy
toward Africa. Legislation needs to meet these touchstones:
- being mutually-beneficial - any policy that seeks only a
U.S. advantage and neglects the concerns and aspirations of
Africa is a flawed and ultimately counter-productive policy;
- respecting the integrity of Africa to discern and implement
economic policies appropriate to the needs of their people,
such discernment including the active participation of African
civil society;
- recognizing that international trade must be juxtaposed with
continuing development aid and with international debt relief
if the social and economic hopes of Africa are to be realized;
and
- affirming the need for benefits to accrue not merely to
those functioning as a business elite but also to those in
Africa living in poverty - trade policy demonstrating a
concern in particular for the role of women and labor and for
environmental integrity.
We affirm the potential for both the African Growth and
Opportunity Act (H.R. 434) and the Human Rights, Opportunity,
Partnership and Empowerment for Africa Act [later introduced
as H.R. 772] to address these values. We have not yet had an
opportunity to examine the latter, but in any Africa trade
bill, we would hope that the following specific matters would
be addressed:
- Any eligibility criteria to gain access to the benefits of
trade legislation should avoid specific proscriptions. Given
African economic realities, any Africa trade bill is
necessarily a developmental trade bill. We need to
acknowledge the tremendous inequities in U.S.-Africa economic
capacities and the potential negative impacts of both
International Monetary Fund policies and World Trade
Organization proceedings upon developing nations. Demands
that African nations open their doors to uncontrolled foreign
investment, for example, simply make a very unequal
partnership worse. For the U.S. to encourage economic reform
that will strengthen and sustain Africa economically (thereby
serving U.S. interests as well) is one thing; to require the
adoption by African nations of policies detrimental to the
social needs of Africa's peoples is quite another.
- The affirmation of development assistance as critical to
economic growth is an important one to make in any Africa
trade bill, and this H.R. 1432 at least attempted to do. We
are puzzled by the removal of Sec. 5 of H.R. 1432, dealing
with assistance under the Development Fund for Africa (DFA),
in H.R. 434. That is not to say, however, that we were
satisfied with that section in H.R. 1432. We believe that
emphasis should be placed upon the development of an increased
capacity to engage in international trade, and that would
involve investments in human resources, including women social
economic and political development, and implementation of fair
market policies, including policies to improve food security
and health care. Specifically, we call for (1) the DFA
earmark for Africa to be reinstated and to be funded at an
annual level not less than 1994; and (2) increased assistance
through the African Development Foundation, which represents
an important support for grassroots African civil society
initiatives.
- The need for immediate international debt relief for Africa
is as important as development assistance in an Africa trade
bill. The sense of Congress is useful in H.R. 434, but
specific legislation governing debt remission not bound by the
Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative is essential
if this stunning burden upon African economies is to be
removed.
- We believe there needs to be an ongoing structure by which
U.S. trade officials can hear African finance and trade
officials and by which African civil society can participate
in determining African economic policy. We therefore
appreciate the intent of Sec. 5 in H.R. 434, both for a Forum
and for annual meetings of NGOs parallel to the Forum. This
opportunity for African civil society to be engaged in the
discussion will not happen, however, unless (1) African NGOs
are identified by other than governmental entities; (2)
funding for African NGOs is provided; and (3) structures are
established ensuring an active inter-relationship between the
NGO meetings and the Forum. We are similarly concerned that
the advisory committees of the Overseas Private Investment
Corporation (OPIC) and the Export-Import Bank include
representatives from African civil society, and that there be
a similar oversight committee of OPIC to administer equity and
infrastructure funds.
- Expansion of U.S.-Africa trade must be mutually-beneficial,
and therefore goods and services must be exchanged. We are
uneasy about the provisions in section 14 of H.R. 434, dealing
with the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service. Section 14(c)
is regrettably entirely one-directional, calling for an
identification of U.S. goods and services for export to Africa
and speaking only of the entrance by U.S. businesses into
Africa. If there is a genuine commitment to mutuality in this
or any Africa trade bill, then we urge that a similar effort
be undertaken, perhaps by the Asst. U.S. Trade Representative
for African Affairs, to identify African manufactured goods
already being produced that have the potential to become a
meaningful export industry, and to identify complementary
small and minority business in the United States and Africa
for private sector and trade development. We also appreciate
the negative impact upon Africa of claims of intellectual
property rights and regret the presence of that reference in
section 14(c)(2).
- We need for attention to be directed more broadly upon the
varied goods and services that now or in the near future will
define U.S.-Africa trade. The preoccupation with textiles in
H.R. 434, especially given the end, five years from now, of
international textile quotas, lessens attention to oil
exploration and extraction in Africa, for example, which at
this moment is causing serious environmental and social
consequences, especially in Nigeria. Mining also raises
difficult economic, political and social questions. Rather
than move forward with plans for a Free Trade Area, as H.R.
434 does, we urge legislation to replace the specifics of a
Free Trade Area with a process toward increased trade that
acknowledges the asymmetries of economic power between
developed and developing nations. We need a process which
calls for fair labor standards and environmental protection
and, ultimately, economic relations that evidence respect for
the needs of the African people. This can be done by
mandating a plan for the purpose of entering into one or more
trade agreements.
Introducing H.R. 772 "The HOPE For Africa Act Of 1999"
02/23/99 Press Release
INTRODUCING H.R. 772, "THE HOPE FOR AFRICA ACT OF 1999"
Statement By Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr.
Tuesday, February 23, 1999
To overcome a nearly 400 year legacy of unregulated business
and investment that gave us slavery, colonialism and
widespread human and economic exploitation, today we introduce
H.R. 772, "The HOPE for Africa Act of 1999," based on Human
Rights, Opportunity, Partnership and Empowerment as the basis
for a new respectful and mutually beneficial human and
economic relationship.
Unregulated business and investment, structural adjustment
programs built on debt service, is the status quo or worse.
This status quo formula has given Africa: wealth in the hands
of a few; followed inevitably by civil wars (both ethnic and
tribal) over food and economic security; undemocratic regimes;
and economic and political instability.
We support bilateral, multilateral and international trade. We
are not economic isolationists or economic protectionists. By
introducing this legislation today, we seek to establish a new
principle that should underlie every trade bill in the United
States -- that the benefits of trade must be shared widely by
the majority of the common working people in every
participating society, not just benefit the business and
financial interests of an elite few.
We support business and investment in Africa. Indeed, our
business development and trade provisions are more expansive
than the provisions in Rep. Phil Crane's African Growth and
Opportunity Act. HOPE for Africa insures that the average
African worker will be paid a minimum wage; has the right to
organize for their own protection and economic security; has
the right to work in safe and healthy working conditions; can
produce goods and protect the environment at the same time so
business development and economic growth can be sustained
indefinitely; and so the common people of Africa might be able
to work their way out of their poverty and underdeveloped
condition with dignity.
The HOPE for Africa legislation provides trade remedies that
can be embraced by both working Americans and working Africans
because it raises the living standards of both. It does not
raise some African living standards at the expense of lowering
some American living standards. It is also good for long-term
business development and economic investment because average
workers on both continents will be able to buy the goods and
services that they produce and, in the process, build a fairer
and more perfect economic world.
First, H. R. 772 affirms each African nation's right to
economic self-determination. The HOPE for Africa legislation
is built on the principles and goals developed by African
finance ministers in cooperation with the Organization for
African Unity, and with input by African workers'
organizations such as COSATU in South Africa.
Second, H.R. 772 offers a solution to Sub-Saharan Africa's
crushing $230 billion debt -- unconditional, comprehensive
debt forgiveness. Excluding South Africa, with upwards of 20
percent of Sub-Saharan nations' export earnings going to debt
service, few resources are left to devote to development and
urgent local needs.
Third, H.R. 772 addresses the AIDS crisis by replenishing and
targeting assistance from the Development Fund for Africa for
AIDS education and treatment programs; making it U.S. policy
to assist Sub-Saharan African countries in efforts to make
needed pharmaceuticals and medical technologies widely
available; and prohibiting the use of U.S. funds to undermine
African intellectual property and competition policies that
are designed to increase the availability of medications.
Since the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, 83 percent of AIDS
deaths have occurred in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Fourth, H.R. 772 restores Africa's budget line item for
foreign aid with a set guaranteed amount, not to decline below
1994 levels. This would restore parity for Africa with U.S.
foreign aid treatment of other vital regions. Currently,
Africa is the only region not a line item in the budget.
Finally, President Clinton says we must put a new and human
face on trade -- and I agree. But the new face must be based
on a new foundation. The policies regarding Africa that the
Congress sets now will deeply affect the economic future of
the continent and, thus, the future of the African people for
decades to come. With such high stakes, it is vital that we
get the initial policy right. With this in mind, I submit H.R.
772, which has the broad-based support of African and U.S.
development, trade and economic experts and also organizations
in Africa and the U.S., representing the interests of the
majority of the people who will be affected.
This material is being reposted for wider distribution by the
Africa Policy Information Center (APIC). APIC's primary
objective is to widen the policy debate in the United States
around African issues and the U.S. role in Africa, by
concentrating on providing accessible policy-relevant
information and analysis usable by a wide range of groups and
individuals.
|
