Abdelkader Messahel, minister delegate for Maghreb and Africans Affairs from the Algerian Foreign Ministry, told Xinhua in Maputo, capital of Mozambique, that what the United States is doing for Africa is not enough. He wanted Bush to open the US market to African countries in order to prove his commitment to help poor Africans.

Botswana Foreign Minister Mompati Merafhe told Xinhua that his country has a high profile about Bush's visit to Botswana so that Botswana can sell itself to the world as a proper investment and tourist destinations.

South African Deputy Foreign Minister Aziz Pahand said that Africans are suffering from HIV/AIDS epidemic disease and he expressed his hope that Bush will increase his support in the battle against the disease.

Two ambassadors from Benin, who declined to identify themselves in the Convention Center in Maputo, said that they hope the US government will stop agricultural subsidiary because African farmers are suffering a lot from the US subsidiary.

Manuel Lubisse, spokesman for the ongoing African Union (AU) summit, expressed his hope that the United States will provide financial and logistic assistance in ceasing conflicts on the African continent.

Obviously, there is no excitement building up in the African soil but prudent responses and even skeptical reactions to the visit by President Bush from July 7 to 12.

Some diplomats complained that the United States had never had real interest in poor Africa. Bush is pursuing his own interests in the African tour. What he wants is oil resources in Africa, American interest after the September 11, and black people's support during his presidential election campaign.

Some African political specialists noted that Bush's African trip has nothing to do with the welfare of ordinary Africans. Even Botswana Foreign Minister Mompati Merafhe noted, "it is unrealistic that Bush will pull money from his pocket to Africa."

Salih Booker, executive director of Africa Action, said that apparently compassionate US initiatives for Africa such as the promise of 15 billion US dollars to help fight HIV/AIDS are "at this moment, fictitious, because they remain unfunded," noting that Bush's forthcoming African trip is "lacking in substance."

Mills Soko, a doctoral candidate in the politics and international studies department at the University of Warwick, said that 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; as lapping of 30 percent tariffs on imported steel; an implementation of the most generous subsidies scheme for its farmers in the US history; and a shredding of arms control treaties.

He said 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 into excessively parochial national interests, the United States, like the European Union, has lost an opportunity to help African trade.

Take, for instance, the case of hefty subsidies enjoyed by US cotton farmers. The International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development says these subsidies threaten to wipe out the livelihoods of 10 million west Africans reliant on cotton production. At 4 billion US dollars, US cotton subsidies alone surpass by 60 percent the gross domestic product of Burkina Faso.

The steady collapse in world prices induced by subsidization 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 recordeda 31 percent decrease in cotton export revenue even though its production rose by 14 percent.

It is estimated that the decline in cotton prices has cost west Africa about 200 million dollars, 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 15 billion dollars 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 Organization (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 United States has always taken the lead in championing the integration of developing economies into the multilateral economicregime.

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 meetingin Mexico.

Failure to end the Doha talks successfully will have dire consequences for the world economy. More significantly, it will reinforce the marginalization 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. The problem is whether he will rise to the challenge.

(Xinhua News Agency July 8, 2003)