Watch the forum

US President George W Bush has pledged to work towards bringing stability across Africa.

Speaking in South Africa after talks with President Thabo Mbeki on the second day of his tour, Mr Bush said his administration would help resolve Africa's crises, from the civil war in Liberia to the Aids epidemic in southern Africa.

President Bush reiterated his pledge to spend $15bn on fighting AIDS over the next five years throughout the continent.

The trip is giving President Bush a close-up view of some of the continent's protracted crises, and he has been dogged by the question of whether to send US peacekeepers to Liberia.

The tour includes Senegal, South Africa, Botswana, Uganda and Nigeria.

What do Africans think of the American president's visit? Can the US really make a difference in Africa?

You put your questions to James Oporia-Ekwaro from the Centre for Africa Public Policy Studies, and to Alex Vines, a former member of the United Nations panel of experts on Liberia and head of the Africa Programme at the Royal Institute of International Affairs.

Duncan Kennedy:
Hello and welcome to this BBC News Interactive forum. I'm Duncan Kennedy. The US President, George W Bush, has pledged to work towards bringing stability across Africa. He's currently on a five day tour of the continent, visiting Senegal, South Africa, Botswana, Uganda and Nigeria. The president has also committed $15 billion to help tackle Africa's deadliest enemy - Aids. But will the visit really make a difference?

You've sent in your many questions and here to help answer them are James Oporia-Ekwaro from the Centre for Africa Public Policy Studies and Alex Vines, a former member of the United Nations panel of experts on Liberia and head of the Africa programme at the Royal Institute of International Affairs. Gentlemen welcome and thank you for joining us.

We'll start with you first of all James, a very general question first of all. James Mboriundo, from Sudan has written in to us and said: President Bush is repeating the same route made by former President Clinton. What is the policy behind this Presidential visit?

James Oporia-Ekwaro:
I think by my rating I would put it this way: 15% towards Africa, 85% mainly towards America. I think the main point about this visit is to play to the audience at home in view of next year's elections.

Duncan Kennedy:
As cynical as that?

James Oporia-Ekwaro:
Yes, I would say so. I take a look at what he has done. We are halfway now through the visit - what is new? The sum of $15 billion is being recycled since May - it's not new. Take the millennium challenge funds and so on - this has been there since March last year. So there has been really no new funding or no new commitments to Africa thus far - I think I can say that quite clearly.

Duncan Kennedy:
Alex do you share that view? We've got a couple of e-mails here saying - one anonymous caller from Egypt has said: why is the USA suddenly interested in Africa?

Do you share that view of James here?

Alex Vines:
Well no - Africa is increasing also it's strategic value to the United States. The three letter word - oil - is important here. The US already had started to try and diversify its oil supplies during the Clinton administration - this is a continuation of that and also you have the war against terrorism. Post September 11, countries in Africa become potentially much more strategic to the USA - the logic being that failing or failed states could be festering grounds for terrorism and that's an important issue for Mr Bush - that overarches every other priority in the Bush administration.

Duncan Kennedy:
Is that why states like Rwanda, Zimbabwe, DRC, just don't get a look-in here - they are just not part of that overall strategic aim and strategic thrust that Bush is trying to push here?

Alex Vines:
Well one of the reasons why Mr Bush is going to Uganda isn't just about HIV/Aids, although that of course is extremely important. But it's also about the position of Uganda next to the great lakes and also the peace process that's taking place in Sudan at the moment. So that's why that particular country has been chosen.

Duncan Kennedy:
In the past of couple of hours or so, Mr Bush has arrived in Botswana. We've got pictures to show of him arriving with his wife Laura. They've arrived in the past couple of hours. This of course is his third stopover in his five state visit in four days - he's whipping around these countries. He's made a pledge already to fight against Aids and that is really the subject of the next few questions that we've had sent in. Mr Bush of course promising this magical figure of $15 billion which was welcome at the time he made it several months ago but has come under some criticism since his arrival in Africa from various quarters.

If we take a question from one of our American participants - a Jason McVay from the United States who says: President Bush is relying on his $15 billion Aids deal to promote good relations in Africa. Has this entire visit been a public relations ploy?

James Oporia-Ekwaro:
On that one I must say there is a statement of good intention. We must immediately however qualify it in terms of the kind of legislation because it's coming under the emergency legislation which is not starting until next year. So the funding will not be immediately available despite the nomenclature of saying it is emergency funding. So that's the first qualification.

The second is - in fact Congress is not sure that it can approve all the funding. And the third is, the first $2 billion may be available only next year and the next $3.8 billion may be available only in 2008 by which time maybe Mr Bush is not there. As I said the intention is very clear - it's positive. I did not like the politics of it when it was announced as if it were to say to Europe - up whatever - you might put it in other ways. But that was the competitive attitude towards European initiatives. We shouldn't subject this kind of serious commitment to that kind of global politics. I would have liked it to be a collective G8 statement. However, just as it is - we can begin from there.

Duncan Kennedy:
It's a pretty good start Alex isn't it? $15 billion - I know it's getting some trouble in Congress but do you see it as a PR exercise?

Alex Vines:
No - James, I think, is absolutely right. There is a degree of altruism here. I think Colin Powell believes passionately in this. I think Condolezza Rice probably also supports it. This is a good initiative, especially if the money is forthcoming as we're led to believe. Africa desperately needs assistance to deal with HIV/Aids. It is probably the greatest threat that's developing in that continent at the moment. So I can this as probably maybe the main legacy of the Bush administration to Africa if this money is forthcoming.

Duncan Kennedy:
Although continuing with you there Alex. We've got a Rex Beesley from Kenya saying: Malaria and famine are a far bigger killers than HIV/Aids and will continue to be so. So why the emphasis on Aids?

Alex Vines:
That's the case at the moment but the figures coming out of Africa are really scary. Mr Bush has just arrived in the most Aids affected country in the world - Botswana. Over 35% of the population are HIV positive there. The figures that are projected from Africa are just dreadful and they will pale into insignificance long term against some of the problems that we are confronted with in Africa today if this isn't dealt with.

Duncan Kennedy:
James, your view on malaria and these other diseases being far more important than Aids?

James Oporia-Ekwaro:
I would certainly agree with what Alex has said. The figures do show that the future will depend, in terms of public health, on how we tackle the Aids epidemic - there's no doubt about that.

Duncan Kennedy:
An even more immediate crisis, for some people at least, is the on-going civil war in Liberia. George Bush again coming back to it time and time again - making reference to the problems of that particular country and the need to get rid of the leader, Charles Taylor. He spoke about it in South Africa yesterday during his visit there to visit President Mbeki. This is what President had to say on the issue:

US President Bush: "In Liberia, the United States strongly supports the ceasefire agreement signed last month. President Taylor needs to leave Liberia so that his country can be spared further grief and bloodshed. Yesterday, I talked with President Kufuor of Ghana who leads ECOWAS. I shared with the president (Mbeki) our conversation. I assured him that the United States will work closely with ECOWAS and the United Nations to maintain the ceasefire and to enable a peaceful transfer of power."

Duncan Kennedy:
Lots of talk there of ceasefires and a potential American role but nothing concrete yet. We've got a very simple question from M Osman in Sudan about this: In the light of the US increasing interest in Africa, what role do you expect it to play in resolving conflicts in Sudan, Liberia etc?

Do you think the Americans are going to play a much more pro-active role or leave it to the local states - to the UN - to deal with this?

James Oporia-Ekwaro:
I think we have to begin with the statement about a certain principle that African states have established, vis-�-vis, interference in internal affairs. They've said, where regime security of any one regime in Africa appears to negate people's welfare, then it is imperative upon African states to intervene. Any other effort from outside should be invited, should be negotiated by Africa. So aid will be welcome - material, financial, even military - but on terms which do not undermine the integrity of that principle. That is, an African determined initiative and then Britain or America can come in and back that effort. I think that's the way to look it.

Duncan Kennedy:
Alex, in many of these African conflicts it doesn't seem to be possible for the African states to resolve their own problems. We've got the issue of Zimbabwe which we'll come to shortly - we've currently got the issue of Liberia. We have a question here from Nakamura, Japan who says: Why is it difficult for the US to remove African dictators such as Mugabe and Taylor?

Alex Vines:
Well the United States has been badly burnt last time it intervened in Africa as part of a humanitarian intervention. That was 10 years ago in Mogadishu. Since then the US has been much more reluctant to be involved in this way.

I think with the case of Liberia, the West African states would like some sort of logistic support from the US and I think that's probably what we'll see. But a decision on that won't be made until Mr Bush is back at home after his Africa trip.

As for Mr Mugabe, the issue there will be mediation by neighbours, such as Zimbabwe and probably help from Nigeria and internal pressures to convince Mr Mugabe that it's time to find retirement in some way.

Duncan Kennedy:
Let's just stick with Liberia for a moment because we've had an e-mail as we've been on air from a Jackie Sayer, who says: How can South Africa's President Mbeki say to President Bush that Liberia is an African problem and therefore Africans will deal with it? James, that picks up on your point - but again past history suggests that the Africans haven't been able to deal with their own problems.

James Oporia-Ekwaro:
I think they've done in the former Zaire - that's a very important statement and they considered it a pan-African obligation that the African states go into Zaire and remove the dictatorship of Mobutu - that's a big plus of the third largest country in Africa. So building on with that experience, they are saying, we may be weak in the immediate but we need to determine the circumstances and the principles along which any kind of intervention will come in, otherwise you open it up and you have a Pandora's Box. So the idea is not to negate US intervention but to say come and help us to resolve this under certain rules - we can work this out together.

Duncan Kennedy:
Just on that point Alex, do you actually think the Americans are going to offer any kind of concrete help in this?

Alex Vines:
I think so. Let's look at Liberia - the importance of Liberia is that there was a West African peacekeeping force in there some 10 years ago - ECOMOG - which originally was very well welcomed but then became eventually part of the problem. The importance I think this time around is to have a West Africa force, which indeed has already been committed - the West African grouping, ECOWAS, has said they'll send 1,000 troops there, but to also have an international component. So US support through logistical and maybe technical ways - that will also indicate that there's a break from the past and lessons of the past, particularly in Liberia, can be learnt, then I think we may be able to stabilise the situation in Liberia pretty quickly.

Duncan Kennedy:
Can you see American combat troops coming to Africa?

James Oporia-Ekwaro:
Yes I can see that and as Alex says, I think in that infamous word - capacity building as it were - to back up African capacity, to be able to train them as it were on the job to give a favourable aspect to African peacekeeping, African positive intervention to solve African problems - that is the big challenge.

Duncan Kennedy:
That leads us on to the Zimbabwe question because similar themes arise in both cases. We have a couple of questions here. The first is from Polach Grant in Zimbabwe who asks: After Colin Powell's strong stance, why did Bush seem to crumble in regards to Mugabe?

The second question is from Betsy, Zimbabwe who asks: Is President Bush capable of doing anything to help Zimbabwe?

James Oporia-Ekwaro:
I think on Zimbabwe the issue has been very much posed, in my view, falsely. The issues posed as between Tsangarai and Mugabe. I think that's the wrong way to look at it. There are in fact others in civil society - democratic forces - those are particularly important to nurture now in view of the long-term. I think the short-term is a much more pessimistic outlook in my view because of the politicisation, as it were, and Mugabe has given it a very sharp military aspect - using the military to suppress people. This is immensely undemocratic. That for me is a very difficult one. But in the long-term, we must build the civil basis for a long-term development of democracy - there I am much more optimistic.

Duncan Kennedy:
But Alex, the similar themes of President Taylor and President Mugabe - you get one response from the United States for Taylor and a different response it seems for President Mugabe. Why are they playing a double game there?

Alex Vines:
Both countries are a bit different actually. Mr Taylor has been very negatively involved in his neighbourhood in a way that I don't think you could say that Mr Mugabe has been meddling in Mozambique or South African domestic affairs in quite the same way.

I think James is absolutely right - one of the key issues is to empower and to provide oxygen to civil society, to human rights groups, to independent voices for the transition that is going to come. The planning really now has to happen about what's going to happen post-Robert Mugabe. It may not be Morgan Tsvangirai, it may be somebody else but we need to be looking at what happens in this transition period for Zimbabwe because the country can still bounce back fairly quickly if proper planning and proper thought in nurturing the democratic roots that are still there and fairly vibrant inside Zimbabwe.

Duncan Kennedy:
Let's move on. Let's turn our attention to the issue of terrorism. Paul Kamara, Sierra Leone asks: The terrorist attacks in Kenya and Tanzania purposely targeted US interest abroad, but most of the casualties were the locals. How can the Americans help poor nations prevent such future crisis?

James Oporia-Ekwaro:
Two or three things: first, America must define the issue - at least in the case of Africa - that terrorism is not only in a place where American assets or people are the target. The example of Kenya is very, very poignant. In fact I would have expected Bush to visit Kenya - two times a target of terrorism, two times a target of American interests in Kenya and no visit from an American president. That amazes me.

Duncan Kennedy:
Interesting Alex that isn't it?

Alex Vines:
Yes, I was a little bit surprised but I think it may be to do with pressure on the great lakes at the moment and also the Sudan peace process. That maybe why Bush has chosen Uganda rather than Kenya. It is also a very new government in Kenya - maybe they wanted to give it a bit more time.

Duncan Kennedy:
Let's bring it full circle to a general point to end with. We've got Liv, Canada saying: The United States can - and most certainly will - make a difference in Africa. The only question is, will it be for the better?

James Oporia-Ekwaro:
The key issues issue will be oil and terrorism - those two issues are defining American attitudes towards Africa. It is whether Bush is able to listen to Africa - that is the real bottom line as it were.

Alex Vines:
Yes, the importance is whether Mr Bush takes away lessons from Africa having seen it at first hand now properly and whether that then enacts into policy in the Bush administration. We'll have to see - five days is a very short time for a visit to Africa and let's place judgement when we see some action.

Duncan Kennedy:
Do you share James's opening element of cynicism at the beginning, that this is going to be playing more for the next year's American presidential election than for anything he can possibly do in Africa in five days?

Alex Vines:
Absolutely. The first speech that Mr Bush made wasn't coincidental - he chose Senegal and the slave island of Goree because he wanted to make a speech that was aimed at the African American population in the US. Remember they gave Bush less than 10% of their votes last time round. He really needs to try and improve that in next year's elections if he's to be more secure in the White House, I think.

Duncan Kennedy:
Alex Vines and James Oporia-Ekwaro, many thanks indeed for coming in. And also thank you to the many people who've written in with their e-mails and phoned us and got in contact with us in all the many ways that you do. From me Duncan Kennedy, goodbye.