US Aid to Africa is Not Interest Free

This article by Andrew Natsios contends that soon to be former President George W. Bush's approval rating in Africa is so high because of humanitarian and economic aid he directed into the country. Despite the extreme political tension that pervades globally and especially in the Middle East and Central Asia, Bush has left a long lasting legacy in Africa that the author contends is due to his overwhelming generosity and the numerous campaigns he has launched to provide social services and spur economic growth on the continent.
However, upon news that the US plans to give $1 BILLION in aid to Georgia in the midst of a highly politicized and violent conflict with Russia, the allocation of $5 billion in aid to the whole continent of Africa, somehow dwarfs in comparison.
African countries have always viewed the US in a positive light. And President Bush has made it a point to publicly esteem African leaders who he had a vested interest in, in order to maintain positive and friendly diplomatic relations. President Mugabe and Bush have had a quite volatile relationship, but that was due to Mugabe's public outing of Bush as a dictator and exploiter in his own right.
I would argue that many citizens who "appreciate" Bush's efforts are unaware of the economic capacity of the US and would probably be insulted by the level of aid handouts from developed countries thus far, if they were aware of how much money was spent on the occupation of Iraq and what was just pledged to Georgia for their reconstruction over two years.
A country like Liberia, which was ravaged by civil war almost a decade ago is still lacking in basic infrastructure. Running water, consistent electricity, fully paved roads are still largely absent in the capital city of Monrovia. I use Liberia as an example, not because of the brutal civil war that the country suffered from, or even the fact that though their governance has dramatically strengthened- basic services are still not fully available, but because the US founded the country! The US can't even offer adequate support to a former colony, but within a heartbeat will pledge to aid in the complete restoration of a political ally.
So you see, the US hasnt done anything that it can't do or shouldnt have done- for that matter- for Africa, but the little it has done has made Africans grateful. So, unlike Mr. Natsios, I wouldn't confuse thanks with adoration for President Bush, but for all of America. Because as much and for how long foreigners have exploited and continue to exploit Africans, minimal acts of kind are a welcomed relief. And Im sure you'll find the same level of appreciation expressed towards Bush as it would be towards an everyday humanitarian aid worker. And I guarantee that regardless of the amount of humanitarian aid allocated by the next administration, there will be a mutual level of respect and gratitude for any assistance that is offered.
And more importantly, as much as America is now doing for Africa, let's not forget what Africa has and continues to do for America. Putting the obvious implications of slavery and colonization aside, today the US is faced with a serious shortage of oil and the favorability of Nigeria and other oil producing African nations have increasingly become more valuable. Also, the never ending war on terrorism has increased the number of US funded democracy initiatives, in an effort to prevent Al Queda from using Africa as a breeding ground and hub for global attacks.
Ultimately, though a great deal of the US' aid to Africa is genuine, we cannot ignore the increasing value that Africa has on US interest, nor the fact that US contributions are only a smidgen of its true capabilities.
But with all of this being said... I'm rebutting a claim from a man that doesnt even believe that Africans know how to tell time... so of course he would overlook the political and economic implications of US aid to Africa. As far as he's concerned, they'd be hopeless without it...