U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

25–458PDF 2017

U.S. INTERESTS IN AFRICA

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 18, 2017

Serial No. 115–33

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL M. DONOVAN, JR., New York 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

BRIAN J. MAST, Florida 

FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida 

BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

THOMAS A. GARRETT, JR., Virginia 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

AMI BERA, California 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

NORMA J. TORRES, California 

BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York 

ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York 

TED LIEU, California

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

General William E. Ward, USA, Retired, president and chief operating officer, 

SENTEL Corporation (former Commander, U.S. Africa Command) ............... 4

Mr. Bryan Christy, explorer and investigative reporter, National Geographic 

Society ................................................................................................................... 10

Mr. Anthony Carroll, adjunct professor, School of Advanced International 

Studies, Johns Hopkins University .................................................................... 20

The Honorable Reuben E. Brigety II, dean, Elliott School of International 

Affairs, The George Washington University (former U.S. Representative 

to the African Union, U.S. Department of State) .............................................. 29

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

General William E. Ward, USA, Retired: Prepared statement ........................... 6

Mr. Bryan Christy: Prepared statement ................................................................ 12

Mr. Anthony Carroll: Prepared statement ............................................................ 23

The Honorable Reuben E. Brigety II: Prepared statement .................................. 31

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 80

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 81

The Honorable Daniel Donovan, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York: Material submitted for the record ............................................... 83

The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress from the 

Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement .............................................. 85

(1)

U.S. INTERESTS IN AFRICA 

THURSDAY, MAY 18, 2017

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o’clock a.m., in 

room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward Royce 

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Chairman ROYCE. This hearing will come to order if all of the 

members will take their seats. Today we are going to focus on U.S. 

interests on the continent of Africa. As members know, this committee has been in the lead of U.S.-Africa policy for many, many 

years. Last Congress was no different, with several laws passed, 

and I will just remind the members we passed: The Electrify Africa 

Act, which will bolster power in electricity projects across the continent, it will spur a lot of economic growth. 

We passed the END Wildlife Trafficking Act, which combats the 

threat of illegal poaching and the trafficking of elephants and 

rhinos, and we closed down the ivory trade with this legislation. 

The profits here were linked to extremist groups which was another important point. 

The Global Food Security Act improves our ability to respond to 

food emergencies, and we also successfully reauthorized the African 

Growth and Opportunity Act to expand opportunities for increased 

trade and investment. 

Not too long ago, the committee fought to establish landmark 

programs like PEPFAR and the Millennium Challenge Corporation. 

As this work was done in a bipartisan way over the last few years, 

we operate the same way today. I would like to thank Ranking 

Member Engel, Chairman Smith, and Ranking Member Bass for 

their leadership on these issues. 

Africa has 1 billion consumers. That is one way to look at it, 1 

billion consumers. It has a huge potential as a trading partner and 

as a U.S. job creator. Some of the fastest growing economies in the 

world are in Africa, including six of the top 13 countries that grew 

the fastest over the last 3 years. This makes our economic engagement on the continent critical. But according to a recent news report, Chinese engagement with the continent ‘‘may be the largest 

global trade and investment spree in history.’’ Simply put: The U.S. 

cannot get caught watching from the sidelines here. 

Our efforts to combat Islamist extremism is not confined to the 

Middle East. ISIS affiliates and Al Shabaab in Somalia, Boko 

Haram in northern Nigeria, and the al-Qaeda affiliate throughout 

2

the Maghreb have to be addressed head-on through counterterrorism initiatives in support for our partners in Africa. One witness 

today will tell us about his exploits fighting wildlife traffickers, and 

many of these wildlife traffickers today are linked to terrorists. Efforts to strengthen democratic institutions and government capabilities must go hand-in-hand with our efforts to address these 

challenges. Unfortunately, tragically, too many African countries 

are off the democratic track. 

Critical situations require immediate leadership and direction 

from the U.S. Government. With three famines looming on the continent, deliberate deprivation of humanitarian aid by South Sudan’s political leaders, and ongoing political instability in the 

Democratic Republic of the Congo, the U.S. must remain active and 

remain engaged. And I want to thank again those members that 

are traveling to the region in the next few weeks addressing these 

issues. 

I am pleased also by last week’s nomination of Ambassador Mark 

Green to lead USAID. We look forward to working with this former 

committee member to continue to provide communities with lifesaving aid from the American people. AID also helps open African 

markets to sell U.S. goods and services. However, I am concerned 

by the delay in appointing an Assistant Secretary for Africa at the 

State Department, and the Department needs to demonstrate how 

the administration’s proposed budgets don’t put the progress we 

have made in jeopardy. 

As we will hear today, our engagement with Africa is in the strategic interest of the U.S. not only to address urgent humanitarian 

needs there in Africa across the continent, but also to advance our 

critical economic interests, our political interests, our security interests. Now is not the time to pull back. And so I will now go to 

our ranking member, Mr. Engel of New York. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for convening 

this hearing. And to our witnesses welcome to the Foreign Affairs 

Committee. We are grateful for your time and for your expertise. 

The region that we are focused on today, sub-Saharan Africa, 

holds tremendous importance for the United States and for other 

emerging global powers. If we don’t give Africa the focus it deserves those strategic opportunities will slip away at great cost to 

the United States and I believe to countries across the continent. 

In recent years, American policy has played a major role in driving political, economic, and security progress in sub-Saharan Africa. For the most part, these policies have won strong bipartisan 

support. They have also shown good results. Working together we 

have helped to promote economic opportunity through the African 

Growth and Opportunity Act, what we call AGOA, and the Electrify Africa Act. 

We have improved access to lifesaving health care through the 

President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, PEPFAR, and through 

the American response to the Ebola crisis in West Africa in 2014. 

And we have worked to tackle the problem of wildlife trafficking, 

which is tied to so many other criminal activities, through the END 

Wildlife Trafficking Act. 

These initiatives are great examples of how doing good for other 

people also does good for America’s interests. If we can help proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:05 Jun 28, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Z:\WORK\_FULL\051817\25458 SHIRL
3

vide access to reliable power or health care we should. It is the 

right thing to do. At the same time we make these investments we 

are helping communities and countries become more stable and 

more prosperous. It adds up over time and we end up with stronger 

partners on the world stage and populations who view the United 

States as a friend. 

But these efforts, as worthwhile as they are, haven’t made a dent 

in other challenges facing many African countries. For example, 

conflict and climate change have given rise to massive humanitarian crises including an ongoing famine in South Sudan and the 

risk of famine in Somalia and northeastern Nigeria. The victories 

we have achieved are fragile and a lot of work remains to meet remaining challenges. 

So I am worried that after robust engagement during both the 

Bush and Obama administrations, United States’ policy toward Africa has suddenly gone adrift. Part of this is due to some diplomatic missteps. In April, Secretary Tillerson invited the chair of 

the African Union Commission to meet in Washington, then at the 

last minute canceled the meeting. 

In March, the African Global Economic and Development Summit took place in California. Not a single citizen of an African country was granted a visa by the State Department to attend this 

event. I have to ask, would the Secretary of State brush off the European foreign policy chief? When we hosted the APEC Summit in 

2011, how many citizens of Asian countries did we turn away? 

Mistakes like this send an unfortunate message. What sends an 

even clearer message and will do real harm to people across Africa 

is the administration’s proposed international affairs budget cut. If 

we cut by nearly a third our investment in diplomacy and development, we put at risk all the work we have done to foster good governance, economic growth, and counterterrorism efforts. 

And I am happy and I am pleased to say that when we held 

hearings in this committee, people on both sides of the aisle spoke 

out against these horrific budget cuts. Cutting USAID initiatives 

and support for U.N. organizations will put lives at risk. The appalling reinstatement and expansion of the Global Gag Rule will 

have an outsized impact on African countries, cutting off vulnerable communities, especially women and girls, from needed health 

care. 

Scaling back the Peace Corps will undermine one of our most 

cost effective tools of providing assistance in building relationships 

with other cultures. And expanding the American military engagement on the continent just doesn’t make sense if we are not also 

working on a parallel track to address the drivers of political instability. 

The good news is that Congress decides how much we invest in 

foreign affairs and where we put that money to use. We have the 

power of the purse. So I am confident as we move forward we will 

continue to give our initiatives in Africa the resources they need 

and that we will do more to address the range of unmet challenges. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the best way 

forward on these issues. I again thank Chairman Royce and Ms. 

Bass for all her work on this and I yield back. 

4

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Engel. This morning we are 

pleased to be joined by a very distinguished panel. General Kip 

Ward served as the first commander of the U.S. Africa Command 

Forces. He served there from 2007 to 2011. 

We have Mr. Bryan Christy, an investigative journalist from the 

National Geographic, specializing in wildlife trafficking and the 

ivory trade and in conservation. 

We have Mr. Tony Carroll, adjunct professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. He served on the 

Africa advisory board at the EXIM Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and the Millennium Challenge Corporation, 

and he got his start as a Peace Corps volunteer in sub-Saharan Africa. 

Ambassador Reuben Brigety served as the U.S. representative to 

the African Union. The Ambassador also served as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of African Affairs. 

And without objection, the witnesses’ full prepared statements 

will be made part of the record, here, and members are going to 

have 5 calendar days to submit any statements or any questions 

that they might have for the witnesses or any extraneous material 

into the record. 

We will start with General Ward and we will ask all of you, if 

you could, to summarize your remarks. General Ward, please. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL WILLIAM E. WARD, USA, RETIRED, 

PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, SENTEL CORPORATION (FORMER COMMANDER, U.S. AFRICA COMMAND) 

General WARD. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members 

of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on the important nexus between security and development on 

the African continent and how interconnected they are from a philosophical standpoint, but also operationally between the Department of Defense and USAID in particular but other U.S. Government agencies that promote development and good governance. 

Proudly wearing the cloth of our nation, I was privileged to be 

the inaugural commander of the United States Africa Command, 

and having previously served in the Balkans as the commander of 

the NATO Force in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in the Middle 

East as a U.S. security coordinator for Israel and Palestinian authority. In each of these three critical environs I was able to witness firsthand that American security is well served when nations 

take and are supported in taking positive steps to advance their 

economic sector to better serve their populations and inroads are 

made such that governance issues are advanced in service to their 

people. 

I have submitted a written statement and in it I describe this notion of creating societal stability by providing a horizon of hope. 

When this happens, fragile societies are less susceptible to the conditions that foster instability and reduce the prevalence of failing 

or fragile state scenarios easily exploited by terrorists, criminals, 

and other negative actors. 

When the United States provides developmental support to fragile states, our national security interests are served and our national security is enhanced. Development is the long term guarVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:05 Jun 28, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Z:\WORK\_FULL\051817\25458 SHIRL
5

antor of stability. No amount of bullets or bombs can do that. As 

was the case for post conflict Europe and Asia where the United 

States made strategic developmental investments, this is no less 

true for Africa. 

The African continent is three and a half times the size of the 

continental United States with vast resources, markets, and agricultural potential. Population growth in Africa exceeds that occurring anywhere else on the globe. Burgeoning youth populations, 

huge potential for a rising middle class, and its demands for goods 

and services reinforce the importance of programs that advance 

health, literacy, and access to a better life, lest these populations 

create burdens on other regions of the global commons and, as importantly, create safe havens for the export of terrorism and illegal 

activities requiring huge resources to counter. Preventing this from 

occurring is a far better and much less costly alternative than having to react to the negative impact of these ills. 

Our national support to these vital developmental projects and 

programs led by the United States Agency for International Development and other developmental entities are modest investments 

proportionately speaking that serve our national security interests 

more efficiently than having to react to crises as voids are created 

and gaps exist. To make a difference over time we must sustain our 

engagement—including developmental engagement, diplomatic engagement, and security engagement—over time. 

Thank you, sir, and I am prepared to respond to your questions 

and comments to the best of my ability. 

[The prepared statement of General Ward follows:]

6


25458a-1.eps
7


25458a-2.eps
8


25458a-3.eps
9


25458a-4.eps
10

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, General Ward. Thank you very 

much for agreeing to testify here today. We are going to go to Mr. 

Bryan Christy, but I understand that Mr. Christy has a 1-minute 

video that he would like us to contemplate here. 

STATEMENT OF MR. BRYAN CHRISTY, EXPLORER AND 

INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY 

Mr. CHRISTY. Yes, sir. We are National Geographic so we come 

with our toys. 

[Video shown.] 

Mr. CHRISTY. Chairman Royce. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Christy, you have our attention. 

Mr. CHRISTY. I can never live up to the technics of National Geographic film crews. 

Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel, distinguished members of the committee, I would like to thank you for holding this 

important hearing today to explore ways to strengthen U.S. ties 

with African countries. The leadership of this committee on enhancing this bond is critical and I am grateful for the opportunity 

to share my expertise to assist with your mission. 

My name is Bryan Christy. I am a journalist with National Geographic Society Explorer. My specialty is international wildlife 

crime. For the past 7 years I have focused almost exclusively on investigating the killing of elephants and rhinos for their ivory and 

horns. I do not come to this field as a biologist specializing in animals, I come to it as a lawyer turned investigator specializing in 

transnational crimes with strategic significance. 

Illegal wildlife trade amounts to billions of dollars per year inspiring corruption, murder, the destabilization of governments, the 

spread of disease, the devastation of species, and the destruction of 

ecosystems. The negative impact of the ivory and rhino horn trade 

is so great it warrants classifying elephants and rhinos as global 

strategic resources. 

This morning, however, I would like to draw the committee’s attention to the people on the ground who protect wildlife in protected areas—park rangers, game wardens, and other local crime 

fighters—who find themselves in a battle that extends well beyond 

wildlife, a battle against transnational criminal enterprises including terrorist and extremist groups which underscores America’s interest in Africa and its wildlife. 

Many of the most violent terrorist and extremist groups operating in Africa today have sought or currently find refuge in parks 

or protected areas—Boko Haram in Sambisa Forest, Nigeria; Joseph Kony and his Lord’s Resistance Army in Garamba National 

Park in the Democratic Republic of Congo; the FDLR; the Rwandan 

Hutu rebel militia in Virunga National Park, DRC, the perpetrators of the ’94 Rwandan genocide in which 800,000 people died. 

This list goes on. 

Many of these groups traffic ivory or rhino horn for arms and 

other needs including the LRA, the FDLR, Seleka, and al-Qaeda 

linked groups operating in Mali where three al-Qaeda linked Islamic extremist groups have recently merged. Other groups such as 

Al Shabaab in Somalia and FDLR in the Congo exploit forest resources to finance themselves, taxing charcoal for example. These 

11

groups are responsible for massive destabilization across the continent. Boko Haram has been implicated in the murder of 15,000 

people and the displacement of more than 2 million. Kony’s LRA 

has abducted over 7,000 people and killed more than 3,000 others. 

Park rangers are often their victims. In 2014, Virunga’s chief 

ranger Emmanuel de Merode was shot four times in the stomach 

and legs. This extraordinary champion for economic development 

and conservation in the Congo continues his work running the 

most dangerous park in the world to be a park ranger where he 

has lost more than 40 men under his command. 

Two weeks ago, a section of his park was overrun by about 300 

suspected ADF, Ugandan jihadist militia, and Mai-Mai militia. 

Losses have been reported on both sides and they engaged again 

on Monday. These groups are using forests as hideouts and to exploit villages for their food, shelter, water, and medicines. They 

rape, murder, they kidnap children, they compromise the security 

of forests where doctors and researchers might investigate emerging disease such as Ebola and the Marburg virus. 

In this environment, park rangers operate as a first line of defense not just for animals but also for people. In many cases, park 

rangers are the only legitimate law enforcement to protect and stabilize these communities, and what happens to communities in this 

part of the world all too often happens for these countries as well. 

This is not a call for indiscriminate militarization. When soldiers 

bring weapons into the bush they tend to use them, decimating 

species and exacerbating wildlife and resource trafficking. 

But by addressing the needs of park rangers and other stewards 

on the ground in Africa, by facilitating networking among rangers 

around the world, by training prosecutors and judges regarding 

wildlife crime, by supporting a free press, by working to reduce demand for threatened wildlife, and by engaging at a diplomatic level 

with government leaders across the continent regarding wildlife 

crime and violent extremism, the United States has an opportunity 

to advance its interests in national security, health, human rights, 

the environment, and wildlife. 

I would again like to thank Chairman Royce, Ranking Member 

Engel, and the full committee for allowing me to submit testimony 

today. Your legislation, the END Wildlife Trafficking Act signed 

into law in 2016, is exactly the kind of leadership the world needs. 

I look forward to working further to advance these goals and am 

happy to take your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Christy follows:]

12


25458b-1.eps
13


25458b-2.eps
14


25458b-3.eps
15


25458b-4.eps
16


25458b-5.eps
17


25458b-6.eps
18


25458b-7.eps
19


25458b-8.eps
20

Chairman ROYCE. Well, thank you, Mr. Christy. We go now to 

Mr. Carroll. 

STATEMENT OF MR. ANTHONY CARROLL, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF ADVANCED INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, 

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY 

Mr. CARROLL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This month marks the 

17th anniversary of the signing into law of AGOA. That historic 

legislation would not have been enacted without the efforts of yourself and other members in this room, along with those members no 

longer in Congress including Jim McDermott, Phil Crane, Charlie 

Rangel, Bill Thomas, Don Payne, and Bill Archer. 

Since AGOA’s passage, the economic landscape in Africa has 

changed dramatically. First, as you noted in your introductory remarks, between 2008 and ’14 Africa’s GDP grew an average of 5 

percent, with some countries exceeding 8 percent annual GDP 

growth. The most dynamic growth is Africa’s burgeoning services 

sector. Second, overseas development assistance, including from the 

U.S., has fallen behind foreign direct investment and remittances 

and volume of financial flows into Africa. And last, as you noted 

earlier, China is now Africa’s largest trading partner at $172 billion in annual trade last year, twice that of the United States, and 

Africa’s investment patterns have followed suit. 

I will devote my testimony to the examination of the relationship 

between trade investment and identify the ways in which the U.S. 

and Africa can benefit from an expanding relationship. AGOA has 

produced a modicum of success. Two-way trade between Africa and 

the United States is approximately $80 billion a year. From 2000 

to 2016, non-petroleum imports from AGOA countries have shown 

strong growth of 75 percent over the same period, mostly concentrated in automobiles, apparel, and agricultural products. 

China’s trade has been criticized as being unbalanced and defined by the export of raw commodities from Africa and the import 

of finished goods from China to Africa. In contrast, AGOA trade includes sophisticated products such as luxury automobiles and fine 

wine from South Africa; fashion apparel from Lesotho, Mauritius, 

and Kenya; cut flowers from Kenya and Ethiopia; and gem diamonds from Botswana and Namibia. Some of those aren’t captured 

in trade data as they are sent through third countries. Indeed, the 

United States purchases over one-third of Africa’s diamonds. 

At the same time, U.S. trade balances with AGOA countries has 

improved significantly since 2000. Focusing on non-petroleum 

trade, U.S. trade balances improved from a 1.3 billion trade deficit 

in 2000 to an 831 million trade surplus in 2016. U.S. exports to the 

AGOA countries have grown by a greater percentage since 2000, up 

130 percent, than have U.S. imports from the same countries, up 

75 percent. This is a winning program for U.S. jobs. 

Although job creation statistics in Africa are at best estimates, 

it is widely believed that AGOA has created hundreds of thousands 

of new direct and indirect jobs in Africa and the United States. In 

South Africa alone, it is estimated that 60,000 direct jobs have 

been created by AGOA and another 100,000 indirect. In investment, the U.S. remains a major investor in Africa. Blue Chip companies not only bring, U.S. companies bring money, but they also 

21

bring best operating global practices, technology, and training. In 

2016, the U.S. invested just under $4 billion in Africa. 

Indeed, there is a relationship between investment and trade. 

For example, GE invested in a locomotive manufacturing plant in 

South Africa in accordance with local content, and most of those 

imports are coming from the United States. The China experience 

has been noted before. Clearly, China’s growth not only in trade 

but in investment has grown to $60 billion, $36 billion last year, 

and with the FOCAC and One Belt, One Road conferences recently 

being convened that is going to expand dramatically. 

Trade capacity development has been a partner to U.S. increased 

AGOA imports. The U.S. development agencies have spent nearly 

$500 million in trade capacity development, and this trade has 

been run through the various trade hubs in Africa. These trade 

hubs have supported $854 million in African exports to the United 

States and elsewhere and $195 million in leveraged investments. 

Because of the interest among Africans to increase U.S. investment 

into Africa and not just development assistance, these Hubs have 

broadened their mandate to include new capabilities in fostering 

links between U.S. investors and African opportunities at the firm, 

project, and sectoral level. Just this month, USAID led a group of 

pension investors to Africa and will organize a reverse mission 

later in the year. 

Africa is the population center of the world in the next two generations. And while that presents an opportunity in providing labor 

surplus and opportunities for manufacturing, it is also a challenge 

because if not harnessed well it could create the opportunities for 

terrorism and massive immigration as we have seen. 

So some of the recommendations that I have in terms of expanding U.S. investment relations with Africa are continued efforts to 

increase market size. Many American companies eschew opportunities in investing in Africa because African markets are relatively 

small at the national level. 

We should continue our efforts to expand African regional integration. Enhance U.S. investment in infrastructure. The Millennium Challenge Corporation has created a new model that requires 

greater accountability and partnership with our African partner 

countries. However, one of the absences in MCC is the growth of 

subnational debt instruments. I believe MCC should devote—as I 

recommended 4 years ago—in terms of regional funds MCC should 

consider expending a portion of their funds to subnational infrastructure projects, because I believe that is often the greater and 

stronger relationship to build infrastructure. 

We need to continue to strengthen Africa’s innovation in enabling 

business environments. That includes measures such as IPR protection, but also tax and financial incentives to really give Africa’s 

innovation communities the opportunity to grow. I believe that the 

U.S. in sharing at almost a firm level fostering exchanges such as 

the Global Entrepreneurship Forum, AGOA Forum, and others are 

an opportunity for us to expand at a firm to firm and innovator to 

innovator way and opportunity for U.S. investment to flow. 

Let me close by saying that—and Congressman Yoho was going 

to testify or present at the Center for Global Development the 

other day, so I thought it was appropriate for me to mention that 

22

I believe that the instrumentalities and instruments provided by 

OPIC, EXIM, and TDA are important to continue and deepen our 

trade and investment relationships with Africa. Much to the contrary I believe OPIC is a fundamental tool to really engender and 

gain the interest of small and medium enterprises of the United 

States, whereas because only 8 percent of its services are used by 

Fortune 500 companies I believe that OPIC and EXIM can provide 

a platform to improve and increase our trade investment. 

And lastly, I think it would be remiss for me not to mention the 

important work of the U.S. Foreign Commercial Service, the Foreign Agricultural Service, and domestic U.S. Department of Commerce offices to not only broadcast but even inform business communities about the myriad opportunities of trade and investment 

in Africa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carroll follows:]

23


25458c-1.eps
24


25458c-2.eps
25


25458c-3.eps
26


25458c-4.eps
27


25458c-5.eps
28


25458c-6.eps
29

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Tony. 

Ambassador Brigety? 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE REUBEN E. BRIGETY II, 

DEAN, ELLIOTT SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, THE 

GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY (FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE TO THE AFRICAN UNION, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF STATE) 

Ambassador BRIGETY. Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel, 

Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Bass, distinguished members of 

the committee, good morning. My name is Ambassador Reuben 

Brigety. I am the dean of the Elliott School of International Affairs 

at the George Washington University. Thank you very much for inviting me to testify this morning regarding U.S. interests in Africa. 

In my view, the bases of U.S. engagement with Africa in the near 

future should largely remain what they have been over the last 

three decades over both Republican and Democratic administrations. They include a commitment to broadening democratic governance, cooperating on matters of mutual security, strengthening 

healthcare systems, and supporting economic development. I have 

elaborated at length about U.S. priorities in Africa in an article entitled, ‘‘The New Pan-Africanism: Implications for U.S. Policy in Africa,’’ which was published in the journal, Survival, in the summer 

of 2016. I submit this article for the record. 

Chairman ROYCE. Without objection. 

Ambassador BRIGETY. However, I would like to use the bulk of 

my testimony this morning to emphasize that U.S. objectives in Africa cannot be realized with the dramatic and draconian cuts to the 

U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International 

Development which have been proposed by the Trump administration. In the Office of Management and Budgets’ document, America 

First: A Budget Blueprint to Make America Great Again, President 

Trump proposes ‘‘deep cuts to foreign aid.’’

The President’s 2018 budget request for the Department of State 

and USAID proposed a staggering 28 percent reduction from the 

2017 annualized continuing resolution level. Recent media reports 

suggest that Secretary of State Tillerson plans to have a reduction 

of 2,300 foreign and civil service officers, or nearly 10 percent of 

the State Department’s professional work force, within the next 2 

years. 

Mr. Chairman, let me say clearly and emphatically that such 

deep cuts to the Department of State and USAID budgets will 

cause unavoidable damage to African partners and to American interests on the continent. The presumption by the White House and 

the Secretary of State that the ranks of the Foreign Service can be 

dramatically reduced without harming the national interests of the 

United States is incorrect, particularly as it relates to Africa. 

As a former United States Ambassador to the African Union and 

former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Africa, I can attest 

to the fact that diplomacy in Africa is a retail business, perhaps 

more so than in other parts of the world. Engaging directly and repeatedly with government officials, business people, and civic leaders is essential for building trust, gathering information, and advancing policies. 

30

It is self-evident that decreasing the number of diplomats available to serve in U.S. Embassies abroad, to include Africa, will decrease our ability to shape events and advance our interests on the 

continent. This is made all the more problematic because U.S. Embassies in Africa are already understaffed relative to our diplomatic 

missions in Europe. 

From Nouakchott to Nairobi, many circumstances exist to a 

greater or lesser degree at U.S. Embassies across sub-Saharan Africa where a relatively small number of diplomats compared, for 

example, to our diplomatic footprint in Riga or Berlin, must work 

exceptionally hard to develop the relationships needed to advance 

U.S. interests. Whether it be finding a way to end the fighting in 

South Sudan or facilitating an eventual political transition in 

Zimbabwe, it is impossible to foresee how decreasing our diplomatic 

presence in Africa can contribute to those and other important objectives. 

The problem is perhaps even more tangible as it relates to proposed cuts to the USAID budget. With the breadth of challenges 

and scope of opportunities on the continent today, cutting the 

USAID budget will inevitably harm African partners and hurt 

American interests. It is self-evident that massive cuts to the 

USAID budget, inevitably leading to the closure of USAID missions 

and the depletion of vital programs, will cripple our ability to respond to these and other pressing challenges. 

Mr. Chairman, when I served as the U.S. Ambassador to the African Union, I proudly often said that the United States was ‘‘the 

natural partner of choice for Africa.’’ If such draconian cuts to the 

Department of State and USAID are allowed to proceed, then we 

will abdicate our position of principled partnership with African 

governments. We will, in effect, have gift-wrapped the continent 

and handed it to China. We must not cede our position of partnership to China, which would surely happen if the Trump administration’s damaging budget proposals are adopted. 

In conclusion, I commend the committee for examining the important issue of U.S. interests of Africa, and let me say as well that 

maintaining the capacity of USAID and the State Department to 

continue to engage is squarely in the interest of our country. Thank 

you very much. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Brigety follows:]

31


25458d-1.eps
32


25458d-2.eps
33


25458d-3.eps
34


25458d-4.eps
35


25458d-5.eps
36


25458d-6.eps
37


25458d-7.eps
38


25458d-8.eps
39


25458d-9.eps
40


25458d-10.eps
41


25458d-11.eps
42


25458d-12.eps
43


25458d-13.eps
44


25458d-14.eps
45


25458d-15.eps
46


25458d-16.eps
47


25458d-17.eps
48


25458d-18.eps
49


25458d-19.eps
50


25458d-20.eps
51


25458d-21.eps
52


25458d-22.eps
53


25458d-23.eps
54

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Ambassador Brigety. 

I am going to ask maybe three questions here dealing with 

poaching, dealing with trade, dealing with terrorism as it relates 

to State Department budget and USAID. These are programs that 

we have authored here, put into effect just to look at the results 

of them. The first I will mention to Mr. Christy here. 

If we looked at the headlines 6 weeks ago, we saw China had 

taken the lead here on shutting down the ivory market in China. 

The headline was, Elephants Get Reprieve-Demand for Ivory 

Drops, and what was happening was the worldwide demand for 

ivory as a consequence of that decision, which they made after we 

passed the legislation, did give the species a reprieve in the sense 

that it dried up the demand. 

Part of our legislation, besides helping on the ground with the 

park rangers, is the naming and shaming of those governments. 

You say that Sudan is a poaching ‘‘super-state’’ and Sudan doesn’t 

have elephants of its own. Explain the role they are playing and 

what other countries you would name and shame as we put that 

list together, because the State Department is going to roll that 

out. 

Mr. CHRISTY. Sudan’s role as a poaching ‘‘super-state’’—I use 

that phrase to describe what is happening with groups supported 

by President Omar al-Bashir, who is wanted for war crimes and 

crimes against humanity. His Janjaweed, whom he supports, leave 

on horseback from Darfur and sweep across the continent killing 

elephants all the way across from Chad all the way across to, in 

2012, the massive killing of 650 elephants in Cameroon’s Bouba 

N’djida Forest. 

He has given home and sustenance to Joseph Kony and the 

Lord’s Resistance Army operating in the Kafia Kingi enclave section of Darfur. The Sudanese Armed Forces are also poachers in 

Garamba National Park. And so unlike any other state that I am 

familiar with, this is government-sanctioned poaching that funds 

arms to these extremist groups and it is in a country that has no 

elephants, so it is preying upon the rest of Africa. 

The naming and shaming of countries is practice that has—I 

don’t use that phrase. But it is a practice that has achieved important results in the ivory trafficking world. 

The so-called gang of eight countries that were named as ivory 

trafficking hotspots at the Convention on International Trade in 

Endangered Species had enormous effect in pressuring those countries to make a difference. 

I would include those countries—I won’t walk through them because I am doubtless going to miss one or two, but to them I would 

certainly add or include Laos, Vietnam, Thailand, and Myanmar, 

these countries that will take the place of China as transit countries into China as China does the admirable act of shutting down 

its ivory industry, I would look very significantly toward those demand countries. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. And that brought up a question 

that we should go to General Ward about and that is Joseph Kony 

and his Lord’s Resistance Army and terrorism, the terrorization of 

civilians across Uganda and South Sudan and Central Africa. What 

is your assessment? We passed legislation here some years ago givVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:05 Jun 28, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Z:\WORK\_FULL\051817\25458 SHIRL
55

ing you and giving our U.S. military the mission of assisting in 

this. Give us a quick assessment if you will. 

General WARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The assistance that 

we provided to Uganda in particular, as well as other countries in 

the region, absolutely proved essential and provided a boost to the 

ability to limit the Lord’s Resistance Army and Joseph Kony’s ability to influence that region. It has paid off, I believe, in some very 

positive terms because his reach has been limited. His ability to 

wreak havoc in that region has been severely restricted. 

It is not over. It is not done. He still is there, but his ability to 

do what he had been doing—especially when you look at the time 

frame 2008, ’09, ’10 and ’11—has been severely reduced as a result 

of the support that has been provided to the African military and 

security forces operating in that region. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, General. I had one last question 

for Mr. Carroll. This goes to the trade issue. We passed the Electrify Africa Act here. What have you seen on the continent as far 

as a lack of electricity and how it impacts economic growth and 

how this can reverse that situation on the ground? 

Mr. CARROLL. Well, I think it is of course always dangerous to 

make overgeneralizations. Certain countries have done a better job, 

a more coherent job in developing their power infrastructure, 

whereas other countries have fallen woefully short of the mark. 

Clearly, if Africa wants to expand its opportunities in manufacturing, in the growth of services sectors, which I believe it can aspire to, power is going to be an essential component of that. Power 

certainly alongside human resource development will be, I think, 

important elements of Africa’s economic future. 

So your efforts to not only expand U.S. corporate interests, but 

also—and I think it is important that we mention this, Mr. Chairman—to inspire Africans to take measures themselves to enhance 

and to incentivize investment in their power sector is certainly, I 

think, an essential step in their economic development. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. We go to Ranking Member Karen 

Bass of California. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for holding this 

hearing and also for all of the witnesses and your work over the 

years. You know, one of the things that I have appreciated over the 

last couple of years in this committee is legislation like you mentioned, Electrify Africa, and also Feed the Future, which I believe 

begins to change the paradigm toward Africans doing for themselves. 

And in that regard I wanted to ask a question both to General 

Ward and Ambassador Brigety. In terms of AFRICOM and U.S. 

military assistance to African countries, to African militaries in the 

AU, to increase the continent’s capacity to defend itself and peacekeeping and also, you know, in a situation like what happened in 

Mali a couple of years ago when there was coup and they had to 

call in the former colonial power, they had to call in France, and 

so I wanted to know an assessment as to where we are and what 

more you think we need to do in terms of the U.S. military’s assistance to the AU as well as African countries. And that is for both 

Ward and Brigety. 

56

General WARD. Thank you, Congresswoman Bass. It is great to 

see you again. And thank you for all that you do recognizing our 

interests in Africa as well. I appreciate that. With respect to the 

role of U.S. security assistance and military assistance to the African security forces, it has made a difference. It has caused many 

nations on the continent to increase their professionalism and, as 

importantly, to improve how they operate as militaries and civilian 

societies abiding by the rule of law and acting in ways that are in 

keeping with our democratic principles with respect to the proper 

role of a military in a civilian society. 

It is not perfect. It is not perfect. And our efforts to continue to 

reinforce the training that we provide, the work that is done to 

cause that additional professionalism to be present is certainly important. I use the term ‘‘sustained security engagement.’’ These 

militaries weren’t created in the way we were overnight and they 

won’t be corrected, i.e., righted in a way that we would——

Ms. BASS. Thank you. 

General WARD [continuing]. Like them to be overnight as well. 

So our sustained security engagement—just as is the case for sustained developmental engagement and sustained diplomatic engagement—are essential elements to continue the path that is a 

positive trajectory now that we see. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. Thank you. And for Ambassador Brigety? 

Ambassador BRIGETY. Thank you, Congresswoman, again good to 

see you. From the diplomatic perspective, the most challenging aspect of African institutions providing for their own security has not 

been their will. Frankly, African forces have taken extraordinary 

risks to engage the enemy in Somalia, in the Central African Republic, and what not. The more difficult problem has been their desire and their capacity to fund themselves as well as, frankly, the 

politics surrounding their own particular arrangements for their 

own collective security. 

And to answer your question about what the United States may 

do to further enhance that I would say two things. The good news 

is that as of the last AU Summit at Kigali last summer, the AU 

has adopted formally a number of mechanisms to help fund its own 

operations, broadly speaking, and then also as it relates to peacekeeping. 

One of the initiatives, as you and other members of the committee will know, toward the end of the Obama administration was 

to partner with the African Union, which the African Union would 

commit within 5 years to fund 25 percent of its own peacekeeping 

operations so long as the United Nations would fund another 75 

percent for those peacekeeping operations that were authorized by 

the U.N. Security Council. This is a watershed development and I 

would urge both Congress and the Trump administration to continue it, because in the long run it is both in the interest of the 

United States as well as in the interest of Africans. 

The second problem set has had to do with, frankly, the political 

arrangements surrounding the African Standby Force, which as 

you will know consists of a series of five regional brigades. Politically, the difficulty within the African Union of advancing it has 

been some concerns among some African states that such a standVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:05 Jun 28, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Z:\WORK\_FULL\051817\25458 SHIRL
57

ing force could frankly be used as a method of regime change 

against other African countries. 

And my own view is that the best way the United States can 

support that effort is to stay out of it, which is to say to let the 

Africans resolve that process themselves, but when they do to let 

them know that the United States and other organizations to 

which we belong, like NATO, will stand ready to be in full partnership with them to develop their military capabilities to address 

their own issues on the continent. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. And I ran out of time, but I would just like 

to ask the other two panelists maybe you could get back to me in 

writing, Mr. Carroll, in terms of our trade hubs, how they are 

working, and where else you think they need to be. 

And then, Mr. Christy, you referenced the legislation that was 

passed last year on wildlife trafficking. I would like to know how 

that is working and what more you think we could do here. Thank 

you very much, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Congresswoman Bass. We go to 

Chris Smith of New Jersey. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Chairman, and thank you to 

all of our very distinguished witnesses for your service and for your 

testimonies today. It is very, very helpful to all of us. 

Since we only have a limited amount of time, General Ward, I 

would like to just discuss a couple things with you. Thank you 

again for being the inaugural commander, your leadership at 

AFRICOM. We have spoken before and it is great to see you again. 

I would like to ask you just two questions, two areas. The first is 

on the training of individuals; Leahy vetted individuals, military 

men and women. 

In my subcommittee, the Africa Subcommittee, we tried for years 

to promote the training of the Nigerian military. Greg Simpkins 

and I, our staff director, traveled twice to Abuja. We went to Jos, 

where a lot of the churches have been firebombed, with Archbishop 

Kaigama. Long story short, there was this reluctance, and more reluctance to aggressively train in counterinsurgency those men and 

women that the Nigerians wanted to. 

I held a number of hearings on it. In one particular hearing we 

found out that 187 Nigerian units and 173 police units would be 

fully Leahy-vetted. They were clear and could be trained, and again 

I asked question after question about that. We had full committee 

hearings on it as well, all because we wanted the Nigerians who 

have a very capable military to have that very special training to 

take it to Boko Haram and defeat that insidious enemy. I am always wondering, you know, again, what the interface is with 

AFRICOM on that because I know when we would meet with the 

military people in Abuja they were gung-ho. They can take it to 

them and they can defeat them, and obviously Boko Haram got 

worse and worse by the year and stronger and stronger. 

Secondly, on the issue of trafficking, in the year 2000 I wrote the 

Trafficking Victims Protection Act, our landmark law on combating 

trafficking. We wrote into it the standards that judge countries as 

to how poorly or well they are doing on combating trafficking, how 

well their militaries are doing. We contacted the Bush administration in 2001. He stood up a zero-tolerance policy. Combatant comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:05 Jun 28, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Z:\WORK\_FULL\051817\25458 SHIRL
58

manders are to have people, as you know so well, that work on 

trafficking. 

And my question would be, and we have talked about this before, 

how is AFRICOM able to promote aggressively the idea of zero-tolerance in trafficking in the militaries of Africa? 

It seems to be, you know, the peer to peer contact more than 

anybody at State or anybody in Congress could have a very effective impact on they taking up those best practices that the U.S. 

military has honed so well. General? 

General WARD. Thank you, Congressman, and I will be brief as 

I respond to your two points here. Firstly, with respect to the reluctance of Nigeria to do what it did, on the one hand our association 

with the Nigerian military such that they are responding to their 

civilian authorities works. And therein lies, from my perspective, 

where the problem was, because the political environment prohibited the Nigerian military from doing all that those leaders and 

others that you indicated would certainly want to do. 

It even had an impact on my ability to engage during my time 

as commander there in Nigeria because of a political environment 

that just restricted our presence and our involvement, so in my estimation that was the problem at that time. I am happy to say that 

that is no longer the case as it was and the level of interaction is 

enhanced and improving, and I believe that the training that we 

can offer, support, the training assistance, is in fact the training 

assistance that makes sense for them. 

And therein lies into the second question with respect to trafficking. The more we are engaged and involved, our U.S. service 

members, be they sailors, soldiers, airmen, marines, are true Ambassadors for America. And when our young women and men are 

with the military and security forces of these other nations, they 

tend to adopt more or less our habits, if you will, and those are 

habits that respect the rights of individuals where those militaries 

have seen as protectors of their people across the gamut. And the 

issue of zero-tolerance in trafficking is seen as it is not something 

we do, we are here to protect our people as opposed to oppressing 

them and the more we are engaged, to include the programs like 

IMET, which is that long-term engagement, help to reinforce those 

ideals amongst the military members of our partner friends. 

Mr. SMITH. Out of time, but thank you so very much, General. 

And thank you, all of you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Chairman Smith. We now go to 

Brad Sherman of California. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Carroll, our economy is about seven times the 

size of France, yet they export 11⁄2 dollars’ worth of goods to Africa 

for each dollar we export. What are they doing or we are doing 

wrong, and in particular are our Embassies doing as much as they 

should to promote American exports? I would note that Germany 

even exports more to Africa than we do. France may have an advantage because of its prior colonial status. Germany has no such 

advantage. How do we export more? 

Mr. CARROLL. Well, with reference to France, Mr. Congressman, 

you of course do mention that there are many historical relationships of a commercial nature. One thing that struck me about observing the French relationship with Africa at a commercial sense 

59

is they take it at a very, very high level even to the office of the 

President. There has been a historic relationship between the presidency and their former African colonies, and as you know the 

French system of corporations tends to run very closely along political lines. So there are many, many, shall we say, buttons to push 

that engage and enlarge that Franco-African relationship. I could 

talk a lot about that but I will just say that it is an historic one. 

I think that we could do more at the Embassy level. I was certainly encouraged over the expansion of the U.S. Commerce Department’s offices and presence in Africa, because I believe that 

these Foreign Commercial Service offices can really go out and 

identify not only market opportunities but also play a particularly 

strong role, Mr. Sherman, in assisting strong and medium enterprise U.S. companies that may not have——

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Carroll, I have to go on to another question. 

Mr. CARROLL. Okay. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. SHERMAN. It has just been my experience that foreign ministries of other countries put a lot more political pressure and effort 

into exports than our State Department. 

And Ambassador, we are seeing a humanitarian disaster in 

South Sudan. Some of have suggested an arms embargo but that 

might just leave the Nuer at the tender mercies of President Kiir. 

Often when you can’t create an atmosphere of peace you can at 

least create a balance of power and separation of warring parties. 

What can we do so that we don’t see a slaughter of the Nuer people 

and that we restore peace to South Sudan? 

Ambassador BRIGETY. Congressman, thank you for the question. 

First of all, as you know, very briefly, almost all of our normal 

interventions have failed, not only those of ourselves but also those 

of IGAD, the regional economic community, and others. And to be 

frank, the leaders of both the government and the opposition have 

become masters at manipulating the outside negotiators and they 

are not serious about peace nor are they, frankly, serious about the 

welfare of their own people. 

In my view, Congressman, the leaders of South Sudan have lost 

their legitimacy and also lost their right to sovereignly govern their 

country. If ever there were a place in the world that were ripe for 

renewed U.N. trusteeship, it is South Sudan. 

Mr. SHERMAN. That being the case, is this a matter of creating 

a balance of power between two forces led by evil men or is this 

something where we can’t accomplish anything unless we can, we 

with our allies in Africa, can go in on the ground and restore order? 

Ambassador BRIGETY. I believe that the current leadership of 

South Sudan must be replaced. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Got you. 

Ambassador BRIGETY. Preferably with indictments in front of the 

ICC. And——

Mr. SHERMAN. I would point out though that I don’t see any 

country with the stomach to—it is one thing to indict in Europe at 

the ICC, it is another thing to serve those indictments on the leaders of the two sides in South Sudan and to compel their attendance 

and I don’t know if the world has a willingness to send troops in 

to achieve that. 

60

I have just a few more seconds and I want to make a point that 

not only do we see a terrible budget, as you indicated, but there 

is a complete failure to appoint anybody. As I understand it, we 

don’t have any Assistant Secretary for Africa and we don’t have an 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Africa, really, because the person we 

have filling that job doesn’t have the qualifications, the technical 

legal qualifications to even be called acting assistant. Anything we 

can do to get some people over there? 

Ambassador BRIGETY. We might ask the Trump administration 

to appoint someone yesterday because it is vital that we move 

quickly in this regard. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes. And I point out these are not appointments 

pending in the Senate. These are appointments they just haven’t 

gotten to, and if they just perhaps let the Secretary of State make 

these appointments we could go forward rather than having the 

White House personnel office deal with them. And I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go now to Dana Rohrabacher of California. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. And let me just note 

that our chairman has taken an interest in Africa since he came 

here. I remember I was surprised. We both come from Orange 

County, California, and I was surprised when he came here that 

he became so dedicated to making sure that Africans’ needs were 

met and that we were paying attention to what was going on there. 

And he has been doing that for 20 years now, so there you go. 

I would like to bring up an issue that perhaps it touches on everything we have been saying, but it is something that nobody 

seems to ever look at. We have here a situation where you have 

millions of people living, millions, tens of million, hundreds of millions of people living in abject poverty. 

The level of human suffering as compared to other places on the 

planet is probably the worst, if not—probably the worst human suffering that is going on is in Africa. And yet, Africa is a continent 

that is so rich in resources. I mean it is—obviously there is a vast 

wealth associated with the fundamentals of resources in Africa, but 

yet hundreds of millions of people living desperate lives. 

And I will have to say that it is not their fault obviously, it is 

the fault of a system, and what part of the system now, what we 

haven’t really talked about and what people don’t talk about is 

what I happen to believe is an important part of the system in a 

way, and without it all these maladies, the bad guys that are exploiting and causing this deprivation of so many people would not 

be able to succeed without this element, and here it is. 

All of these things what you said, our friend from the National 

Geographic Society, Mr. Christy, your video showed all these guys 

with the ivory and such. Don’t they have to have a bank to put that 

money into? Aren’t these leaders, these various leaders in these 

countries and the various political people there, stealing money and 

putting it in Western banks? 

Isn’t the financial community in some way responsible when it 

takes billions of dollars of graft, of ivory money, and of money from 

people who are stealing it from these poor countries, the leaders of 

those countries? Aren’t we talking about the global financial system here? What responsibility do they play in this? And that is my 

61

question for the whole panel. I would go first with our friend 

Christy because I mentioned him. 

Mr. CHRISTY. Thank you very much, Congressman. For the worst 

groups, the most violent groups operating in Central Africa, they 

operate primarily on a barter system so they are trading ivory for 

arms. And in the case of the LRA and the Janjaweed, to the extent 

there is a money face to that, that is really going to Khartoum, 

Sudan, the Sudanese Government. But you are absolutely right. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right, but even if they are trading for arms, 

eventually somebody is paying for those arms, right? 

Mr. CHRISTY. Right. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I mean we are talking about a system here. 

And the system, I believe, ends up with billions of dollars in somebody’s bank where they are able to use that money for whatever 

bankers use it for. 

Mr. CHRISTY. As a criminal investigator I look for weak nodes. 

So I look for places where if you are moving product you have to 

bring it up in a port. You can take it out of a jungle, we can’t find 

you there. You can sell it to a consumer in the Chinese market, we 

can’t find you there. But we can find you at the port where it has 

to emerge. 

And the financial system is a similar opportunity. You are putting your finger on financial crimes and the END Wildlife Trafficking Act gets to some of this appropriately. There is a financial 

aspect, a money laundering aspect, and it is worth exploring. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Anybody else have a comment? I have 9 seconds left. 

Well, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest, and I know this is a very 

delicate thing, but I think we need to have some focus in a hearing 

on the role that international financial institutions are playing in 

problems like this, because I believe the people of Africa are being 

robbed and their accomplices in this crime are Western banks. 

Chairman ROYCE. I think, if the gentleman would yield? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. 

Chairman ROYCE. I remember a conversation I had with a bank 

executive where I raised this issue in Europe about money that 

was held by Charles Taylor and I made the allegation that $30 million was held in that particular institution. And I remember this 

executive saying, ‘‘It is not $30 million, we have $23 million,’’ which 

astounded me, but nevertheless we gave that information to the 

Treasury Department. 

But it is certainly the case that if we could create more transparency, and I would say that this most applies to heads of state 

and to senior government officials, cabinet officials and so forth. If 

we had that kind of transparency out of the financial system where 

at a certain level that information became available, I think it 

would be a disincentive all over the world for those involved in bad 

governance. 

At that point it is probably better if you are the head of state 

or an executive to go ahead and slap your name on a hospital and 

build that for your people rather than transfer it out of the country 

with the knowledge that that might be exposed and taken from 

you. It is probably a better legacy to at least spend it internally in 

the country. 

62

And I think moving forward the gentleman raises a good point. 

We should work with the international community on a strategy 

that creates disincentives with respect to kleptocracy. We go now 

to Mr. Gregory Meeks of New York. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to agree with Mr. 

Rohrabacher on two things. One, what you are talking about with 

reference to the banks; but two, the extraordinary dedication and 

focus you have had, Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the subcommittee at one point and now as chairman of the committee. You 

have taken a number of us over to visit and you have had a real 

focus and attention on Africa and I want to thank you for that. 

And of course the extraordinary contributions that the ranking 

member of the subcommittee has had on Africa. And, you know, 

and somebody mentioned two names that need to be mentioned 

anytime that I think of Africa, long before I came to Congress, I 

mean that is Congressman Charles Rangel and Congressman Donald Payne, Senior, and surely we miss them. 

But I know and just want to make sure the extraordinary work 

that Congresswoman Bass has made, because we thought that it 

was going to be a huge vacuum when we lost them, but she has 

made sure that that has not happened and I want to thank her for 

her focus. 

Let me also thank all of the panelists, particularly, well, all of 

you, but particularly to General Ward for your service to the 

United States of America and what you have done and the commitment that you have made to this country, and to Ambassador 

Brigety because I couldn’t agree with you more. You know, when 

we look at the State Department it is tremendously important to 

our foreign affairs. And in fact I would say, for the military and 

the State Department, it is the balance of the scale that makes foreign policy work. With one without the other we are in deep—I 

won’t say the word. But I just wanted to thank you so much for 

that. 

So let me just ask two quick questions, one to Ambassador 

Brigety. I couldn’t agree more with your opening statement. Maybe 

you could articulate the dangers of some of the programs that you 

think that would be devastated that are so important for our State 

Department with reference to working with Africa, and maybe you 

can articulate a few of those programs. 

Ambassador BRIGETY. Thank you, Congressman. So the budget 

document that was submitted by the President says that there 

would be no decrease in funding for health and particularly for 

PEPFAR, neither would there be any decrease in humanitarian accounts. 

So if one suggests that proposition, but then also suggests that 

there has to be some massive cuts somewhere if you want to 

achieve that objective there are two accounts that I am particularly 

worried about. The first is with regard to our democracy and governance accounts, particularly both of those accounts, per se, but 

also our economic support funds that can be used, broadly speaking, to support that. 

The African continent, with 54 sovereign members that are recognized by the U.N., 55 when you include Western Sahara, could 

be the largest democratic region in the world both because of the 

63

number of countries there as well as because of the commitment 

to democracy in pan-African documents themselves. 

But as the chairman noted, there are democracies under assault 

across the continent and if the United States does not step up to 

be a partner with pan-African institutions as well as national governments, there is not another major partner in the world that will 

be similarly positioned both in terms of resources it can apply and 

also in terms of its value set to continue to support the march toward democracy at a time when the Chinese and others are suggesting to other Africans elites that there is an alternative model 

for governance, namely, essentially, various forms of authoritarianism, which would be tragic. 

The second thing I am really worried about is the Mandela 

Washington Fellowship Program, or YALI, which has been an incredible tool in the very short period of time it has existed, both 

to identify young African talent and also to find ways to encourage 

that young African talent to engage in their own countries and to 

teach them and to help expose them to means of Western governance, Western political engagement, and what not. 

And I can promise you, in an environment where young Africans 

are looking for ways to fill their aspirations we want them to be 

looking toward us and not elsewhere. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you. I also just want you to know that you 

must have been great at the State Department. I have had 

Madelina Young-Smith now with me for awhile and she is excellent 

too. 

Mr. Carroll, I want to ask you a quick question. What investment 

opportunities that may be going unrealized for U.S. firms, what 

would you look at and say that there is other opportunities that we 

may be able to be taking advantage of but they are not currently 

taking advantage of? 

Mr. CARROLL. Well, I will just mention two, sir, I think in the 

area of engineering and design services. I think the U.S. firms have 

an awful lot to offer and I think they are often in the second-tier 

firms that might have real strengths in providing those services to 

Africa. So I do think in the design and engineering and architectural field I think there are a lot of service opportunities in Africa. 

But also in agribusiness, sir, I do believe that Africa is at a pivot. 

I think its future will be to have to modernize, to learn some of the 

lessons of the Green Revolution of India. And I think American agribusiness companies, particularly those that offer technologies 

such as irrigation systems, inputs of, you know, farm and herd 

management solutions, are going to find Africa to be a massive opportunity because Africa has the largest percentage of undeveloped, 

arable land in the entire globe. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go now to Mike McCaul, Chairman Mike 

McCaul of Texas. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I chair the Homeland 

Security Committee and one thing I have found time and time 

again is that terrorism thrives in failed states, in poverty, in safe 

havens. Unfortunately, Africa has many of those as we look at 

Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, al-Qaeda, and the Maghreb. And I think 

we have made some progress. The Millennium Challenge Corporation has been helpful. The Gates Foundation, I have met with Bill 

64

Gates. The ONE Campaign is trying to move forward in this development of Africa. 

My first question, General, is to you. I visited Camp North in the 

Sinai Peninsula where ISIS is prevalent, then went to Tunisia and 

visited with the Libyan team. Libya is still very much a strong 

threat to the homeland in terms of the numbers of ISIS, as is 

Sinai. General Haftar in the east, and then you have General alSarraj in Tripoli, it seems to me if the military can’t get it together 

then you can’t have governance, and if you can’t have governance 

then you have terrorism. 

Can you tell us where we are with that and what can we do more 

to foster a unified government in Libya? 

General WARD. Thank you, Congressman McCaul. And obviously 

my understanding of it is from a position of afar, not directly involved these days. However, there are some things that I think are 

substantially important in moving along in these regions that you 

have described. To be sure, fragile states, failing states, are breeding grounds for nefarious activities of all sorts—human trafficking, 

narcotics trafficking—certainly terrorist havens for training and exporting that violence globally. 

Where we as the United States of America are involved in a sustained way to, one, help security forces who are responsible for 

their territories be better prepared to do that makes a difference. 

Equally important is our engagement and from a developmental 

perspective to cause those who are living in those areas to see what 

I call this horizon of hope. Because where they are, there are 

things being done for them by their government, and by those who 

would support their attempts to have things provided from a literacy perspective, from a health perspective, that will help increase 

their ability to live the way that we as any human beings would 

want to live. 

Mr. MCCAUL. And I agree. But how do we get these two generals 

to work it out? I mean that seems to be the key problem in Libya 

to me. 

General WARD. I would be happy to have a private conversation 

with you about that. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Okay. We have a SCIF in the Capitol. 

General WARD. But the essence, sir, is causing their behavior to 

change, similar to what we see in South Sudan. And unless and 

until that happens, making progress will be very, very difficult, so 

causing their behavior to change so that they are less selfishly motivated and motivated for the good of the country opposed to not. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you. 

Mr. Christy, so terrorist financing, this is really quite horrific. 

They are using ivory to finance terrorism in Africa, and I commend 

what you have done to try to track this down. Can you tell us 

about the wildlife trafficking bill that this committee passed, how 

that is helping in this effort and what more can we do to shut that 

down. And we know that there is cocaine coming in from South 

America, you know, on the west coast of Africa to funnel in and finance this as well, but tell us about the impact of that legislation 

and what more we can do? 

Mr. CHRISTY. Thank you, Congressman. I think, you know, all of 

this takes more time than we want. That bill, the law was signed, 

65

I think, in October of ’16, so it is really too early to tell the impact. 

Certainly identifying the countries is the next step, the problem 

countries as traffickers, and that has proved in the ivory world to 

be significant. 

So to take it the next step and identify countries that are linked 

with extremist groups and the trafficking in these materials—

ivory, rhino horn, et cetera—will be significant. The world needs 

diplomatic pressure on these countries to address these problems. 

These groups, I mean one of the things where we could make a big 

improvement is to look at the ways we have siloed these problems. 

So we tend to look at wildlife trafficking as a wildlife problem 

and we think it is the aegis of biologists to address. We don’t do 

that with cocaine. We don’t put botanists in charge of the cocaine 

trafficking problem. If we move out of the biologist mindset and 

move to a law enforcement mindset, we begin to change how we 

think about these problems. 

So as an example, I was in Garamba National Park which has 

been under siege from South Sudanese poachers, LRA, all these 

bad guys in this area, and I looked at the maps that they had for 

tracking the poaching groups and very detailed maps that they pin 

every day to update. And I had the opportunity to fly over to Central African Republic and spend time with the African Union forces 

there and I noticed they had similar maps and they overlapped and 

they had pins in those maps with different poacher and extremist 

group movements. 

And I said do you guys talk to each other? No. And so I introduced them and they began talking and they had suspicions about 

the activities of the other. The park ranger suspected the Uganda 

military was poaching from helicopters. So two things happened, 

one, we were able to clear that up to their satisfaction; and two, 

they could begin exchanging intel. And that sort of intelligence 

sharing is critically important. 

Mr. MCCAUL. I am well beyond my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CHRISTY. Sorry. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. We go now to Mr. David Cicilline 

of Rhode Island. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too want to thank 

you for your longtime commitment to Africa and the great leadership you have provided, and also acknowledge the extraordinary 

passionate and effective leadership of our ranking member of the 

subcommittee, Karen Bass, who has made her work in this area 

known not only throughout our country but throughout the region, 

and I really want to thank her for that. 

General Ward, I want to ask you. There are currently nine U.N. 

peacekeeping missions deployed to various parts of the African continent constituting more than 82 percent of all U.N. peacekeepers 

serving in the field. Peacekeeping operations, as you know, are 

some of the most visible and consequential activities undertaken by 

the U.N. and play a very important role in advancing peace and 

security. 

And I am interested, you know, given your experience as 

AFRICOM’s commander, you know, what you would say in terms 

of the role of peacekeepers in terms of peace and security in Africa 

66

and particularly in your experience what makes some peacekeeping 

operations more successful than others and are there best practices 

that we should be analyzing and incorporating to future missions 

so that we can even enhance the effectiveness of peacekeeping missions further? 

General WARD. Thank you, Congressman. Two critical elements 

to effective peacekeeping, one is obviously being resourced and 

trained appropriately in order to conduct a mission. The second has 

to do with the will of the government that provides the peacekeeping forces and how that is infused into the conduct of those 

peacekeeping forces as they execute their mission. 

When you have those two—and obviously it is all underwritten 

by a mandate that allows what needs to be done to in fact be done. 

But if those forces are resourced and trained adequately and the 

government will to accomplish the mission is there, then peacekeeping forces are effective. And there were varying degrees of that 

that I witnessed across the continent. 

I would also add, Congressman, while we are talking about that, 

peacekeeping in and of itself is one dimension of providing that stability and security. If it is not accompanied by a healthy dose of developmental support, such that the peacekeeping void if it is not 

filled can be filled by something that makes sense to the people, 

then that peacekeeping effort goes on and on and on, which we also 

see. 

So peacekeeping in and of itself is one piece of it, one aspect of 

it, but the void, the requirements for development assistance, support, progress and that certainly has the underlying effect of governance as well so that those things support it, will, forces that are 

trained, resources are important. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you very much. That sort of gets to my 

next question and this is for you, Mr. Carroll. In recent years we 

have witnessed a narrowing of political space in countries like the 

Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Uganda, Burundi, and the 

Republic of the Congo. This has been coupled with efforts by many 

of these leaders to extend their tenures in power through constitutional coups which eliminate term limits for the incumbent. 

What are the concrete measures the State Department and 

USAID should be taking to support democratic institutions and 

help reverse this worrying trend; and a related question, how 

should African leaders’ amendment or circumvention of constitutional term limits impact U.S. bilateral aid in your judgment? 

Mr. CARROLL. Well, I think we should continue to work with institutions in the countries that we can work with. They could include the media. They could include the legislative branch. They 

could include civil society organizations that we believe can bring 

domestic as well as external leverage, because I think it has to be 

not just us, we have to have domestic sources in the fight. 

But from a business perspective, if you don’t mind, Mr. Congressman, I find that unpredictability in the business environment is 

one of the greatest discouragements to foreign direct investment. 

And I think we in the business community and through perhaps 

our local counterparts and business associations need to carry that 

message that if you are going to want to do business with us, if 

you are going to want to attract technology and investment we 

67

need to have a measure of predictability in these countries. Congo 

is a perfect case in point, a country with vast mineral and agricultural potential that largely goes undeveloped because of this issue 

of unpredictability. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Great, thank you so much. 

I want to ask just one last question for you, Mr. Ambassador. 

One very concerning trend during political protests and elections in 

sub-Saharan Africa is that the governments have shut down access 

to the internet and other forms of communication in order to limit 

dissent. This has recently occurred in Ethiopia, Gabon, Cameroon, 

Uganda, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, making it very 

difficult for citizens and journalists to report human rights violations or electoral irregularities. 

I would be interested to know what actions you think our Government should take to mitigate this threat to the freedom of information and legitimate political expression in the sub-Saharan Africa. 

Ambassador BRIGETY. Thank you, Congressman. Very briefly, the 

first obvious one is for robust engagement with those governments 

to demonstrate to them why it is crucially important, notwithstanding political differences, to continue to have open media 

space. Because at the end of the day, if people are not allowed to 

air their grievances peacefully they will do so forcefully, and I 

think that clearly is the lesson in Ethiopia, for example. 

And then secondarily, depending on the situation there are obviously tools and techniques that are resident within USAID and 

also at civil affairs units to be able to make access to internet 

available on a sort of more regional or smaller scale basis. But even 

those things, as I said in my testimony, require resources and I 

think it is important to continue to fund those things. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you so much. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. We go to Ted Yoho from Florida. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, panel, for 

being here, very engaging and I really appreciate it. And I know 

a lot of the talk has focused on cutting foreign aid and I was one 

of those ones when I came up here 4 years ago to get rid of foreign 

aid, but I have become much more learned in my 4 years here. 

And, you know, I realize and I agree with Secretary Mattis, who 

says if you cut foreign aid save that money and buy ammunition 

with it, and I truly believe that. But I bring that up because we 

are in a financial crisis in this country that is going to get worse 

if we don’t deal with the underlying problem which is mandatory 

spending and we have to address those things. And if not, what 

you are seeing today is a sign. It is a tremor. 

I got a report at the beginning of the year that said our seniors 

in Social Security were going to get a 25 percent cut across the 

board on Social Security checks within 12 years. And when it 

comes down to our seniors or foreign aid, you know where it is 

going to go. So I say that because you guys are the ones that need 

to make sure that our money on the ground is doing the work it 

is supposed to be doing. 

And our goal, my goal is to transition all of our countries that 

we are giving foreign aid to, to go from a model of aid to trade, and 

68

that is why I am so excited about the OPIC models and the MCC. 

They have accountability. They have metrics in place. And as good 

as they are we need to make them better. If we look at our top 15 

trading partners, 12 of those were recipients of foreign aids. I think 

South Korea is a great example and we can look at country after 

country that has done the same thing. 

And so with that several questions came up. What is the major 

impediment in these developing countries to build out their infrastructure? We went to the Congo with Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel. And if you look at the whole continent of Africa 

it is approximately 1.11 billion people. This is the 21st century; 650 

million people do not have electricity. And we were strong proponents of Electrify Africa, the Global Food Initiative, and the 

other bills that Chairman Royce spoke about. Six hundred and fifty 

million people don’t have electricity. 

And you look at the billions and billions of dollars this nation has 

invested of these people’s monies out here and the trillions of dollars around the world, what is that major impediment that you see 

that prevents a country from taking care of their own people instead of taking care of the rulers? How do we change that too, so 

the impediment and what do you see? 

Ambassador Brigety, if you would? 

Ambassador BRIGETY. Congressman, thank you very much. Let 

me begin by saying that as a taxpayer myself of course I obviously 

believe very much in the effective stewardship of American taxpayer dollars and as with every program there are obviously ways 

in which they can continue to be refined and efficiencies found and 

things of that nature. 

But at the same time one also has to make sure that we are 

making effective investments for not only for——

Mr. YOHO. Absolutely. 

Ambassador BRIGETY [continuing]. The major of our security, but 

also for the growth of our partners. With regard to infrastructure 

investments, broadly speaking, I think it goes something to what 

my colleague Tony Carroll said which is, one, infrastructure are 

long term and big picture investments. And as one senior investor 

once told me, capital is cowardly. It does not want to go to places 

where there is substantial insecurity. So in this sense, the nature 

of good governance to ensure both a stable sort of peaceful environment as well as a stable regulatory environment is vital toward attracting the long term capital necessary to build infrastructure. 

The second also is, frankly, having willing investors that are prepared to take risk, notwithstanding what I just said about insecurity, and the Chinese have proven that it can be done. The Ethiopians have proven that it can be done in terms of, you know, marshalling capital for the Grand Renaissance Ethiopian Dam. I am 

one who happens to believe that the future of Africa’s next chapter 

of their history will be defined by private sector-led economic development. 

And as somebody who is a diplomat who constantly thinks 

through foreign policy implications, I can also tell you that we simply cannot be able to maintain our position with partnership with 

the continent without the robust involvement of the American private sector and particularly as it relates to American——

69

Mr. YOHO. Well, and that is what I like about OPIC because they 

put the metrics and they will fund those organizations or the private sector. And if you look at 1961, the majority of the foreign investment in countries was foreign governments. Today that is only 

9 percent. The rest is coming from the private sector. 

And Mr. Carroll, you were talking about—oh, shoot. I forgot 

what I was going to say. You were talking about the investment 

with OPIC and how we can make that more effective in those countries. Can you expound just a little bit? I have only 4 seconds, so 

I guess you can’t. 

Mr. CARROLL. We have 2 seconds. I think we can do more 

leveraging with domestic capital. I think there are many pension 

funds and other institutions on a national and regional level that 

OPIC could do more work for and do a little bit more leveraging. 

We can have a separate discussion or I can respond to other questions in a longer discussion. 

Mr. YOHO. Great, thank you. Appreciate your time, thank you 

all. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go now to Dr. Ami Bera of California. 

Mr. BERA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will echo the statements of many of my colleagues in the leadership that the chairman of the full committee and certainly the leadership of the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Africa and Human Rights has 

shown. 

This morning I had the opportunity to address the Meridian 

International Center’s global dialogue with African women leaders 

and in the conversation that we had, the importance of recognizing 

the global interconnectedness that you know, we can no longer 

think of ourselves as isolated. 

I look at this from the perspective as a physician. You have public health crises that occur in Africa, they clearly matter to what 

happens here in the United States. From that public health perspective you don’t wait until it hits our shores, you make those investments and you go to the epicenter and address that. So, I was 

listening to my colleague Mr. Yoho’s comments and I agree with 

them that we have to be fiscally sound and make sure we are making the right investments, but the return on investments are also 

incredibly important. 

In that sense, when we think about our three planks of our foreign policy, it has three legs on it. Not just defense, but it has diplomacy and development. And that development component often 

is overlooked because, yes, you might be spending $1 today, but 

what you are doing is potentially avoiding $10 in defense costs or 

public health costs, or the tolls. How do you put a price on a 

human life? So, I applaud President Bush and his initiatives, and 

PEPFAR had huge returns, huge returns on the saving of life. 

Ambassador Brigety, you served in the State Department during 

the 2011 famine in East Africa and also as our representative to 

the African Union during the 2013 Ebola crisis. You have touched 

on how this is not the time for the United States to change its priorities and withdraw from a region, and I would be curious knowing that we are facing another potentially devastating crisis and 

famine and loss of life in the coming years what would you advise 

us at this juncture? 

70

Ambassador BRIGETY. Well, Congressman, thank you very much 

for the thoughtful question. There is both I think, an obvious and 

then a less obvious answer. The obvious answer is that we clearly 

need to be continuing to support our health accounts and our humanitarian assistance accounts for the sorts of interventions that 

were necessary, for example, to respond to the 2011 famine in Somalia as well as the 2014 Ebola crisis. 

But the less obvious component is that there are profound diplomatic interventions that make that kind of response possible. Let 

me give you an example. During the 2014 Ebola crisis I lost years 

off my life in helping to respond to that crisis because by the summer of 2014 we were seriously looking at epidemiological curves 

that would say we would have 1 million dead Africans within 6 

months, by January, unless we were able to flood the zone of Liberia, Guinea, Conakry, and Sierra Leone with healthcare workers to 

actually respond to the crisis. 

So we did a lot of behind the scenes diplomatic work to get the 

African Union in the fight so that by December of that year they 

had nearly 1,000 healthcare workers from across the continent that 

converged on those three countries to provide direct patient support 

to people that were affected. Now the Africans deserve enormous 

credit for stepping up, but frankly it would have taken at a minimum a lot longer to do so had we not done a lot of depth diplomacy behind the scenes that nobody ever saw. 

And we are already at the next time with regard to Ebola in the 

DRC and as to regards to the three unfolding famines on the continent, which is why it so critical for us to be able to maintain that 

capability to develop the kind of trust that is necessary with our 

African partners so we can respond to these crises. 

Mr. BERA. Wonderful. I think of America as a great nation, but 

it is also that idea of America, those values that we represent. And 

a great nation—when they see famine and when they see public 

health crisis—doesn’t retreat from the world, a great nation leads 

with our moral values. We see the humanitarian crisis. We see the 

public health crisis and we lead. And it is that idea of America that 

we have to hold onto. That idea of American leadership that for 

generations folks have believed in. 

As I listened to these African women leaders, that is what their 

worry is that yes, we have domestic challenges here, but you know 

what, it is that idea of who we are as a nation, that greatness we 

can’t let that disappear. Thank you and I will yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go now to Dan Donovan of New York. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for my tardiness, I had another matter, but some of these questions may 

have been asked already. I am a member of the subcommittee that 

deals with Africa and global health of our larger committee. And 

maybe because 2 weeks after I was elected to this office, at 58 

years old, I had my very first baby—her mother actually calls her 

my very last baby—but I got this great interest. I am honored to 

serve on this committee that deals with global health about women 

and children who are dying from preventable diseases, things that 

we have vaccinations for that for some reason or another are either 

unavailable or we can’t get to mothers and babies who are sufVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:05 Jun 28, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Z:\WORK\_FULL\051817\25458 SHIRL
71

fering in African countries. I understand we have gotten better at 

it over the years, but there still seems to be some obstacles. 

And I don’t know who the proper person on the panel is to answer this question, but if somebody could just give me some insight 

on how successful you feel we have been and what we could do to 

be even further along in our success in helping mothers and babies 

in Africa. 

Mr. CARROLL. If I might jump in here because I have done a fair 

amount of work with the Gates Foundation—polio in Nigeria—and 

continue to do a lot of work with Merck, the world’s largest vaccine 

company and their projects in Africa. I think it can’t happen without building the health infrastructure in these countries. Many of 

these countries spend $4 to $6 per person per year on their health. 

Without developing a fulsome health infrastructure, any vaccination campaign, any type of preventive mechanism will not be successful, and it has to be led from leaders within that country, not 

just an externally-led foreign assistance program. 

But I think it can happen. Certainly the success in polio eradication in Nigeria is an ongoing battle, but they have achieved a lot 

of success. In Rwanda they instituted an HPV vaccine program in 

Rwanda that produced incredible adherence among Rwandan 

women. I believe that cervical cancer is among the two largest killers of women in Africa and the only magic bullet we have in the 

world of vaccines is the HPV vaccine, which is extremely effective. 

They made a commitment to build out their infrastructure. They 

made a commitment from the top down that this is an important 

program. 

So we have to engage leadership in getting the message. We have 

to help them build the infrastructure to staff and implement these 

programs. And we are not going to get it done if we are cutting the 

Fogarty Center and other CDC programs that are absolutely 

linchpins to these programs in Africa. We have to be able to be at 

their side, but it still has to be led from those countries. So thank 

you for that opportunity. 

Ambassador BRIGETY. Congressman, if I may add to that and I 

am grateful for your passion on this issue. The issue with regard 

to building healthcare infrastructure in Africa is that it is not like 

building a bridge. I mean once it is built it is done and you can 

walk away. They are more like sort of living organisms in the sense 

that you have to continue to train new healthcare workers, one has 

to continue to deal with access and extension services in the rural 

areas or what not. 

And this is why it is critically important for the United States 

to be able to maintain its capacity to help develop the long term 

infrastructure of healthcare systems in African countries. The 

Ebola crisis, I think, is very instructive in this regard. So we had 

been involved for many years in helping to develop the healthcare 

infrastructure in Liberia, for example, which is focused not only on 

primary care but also in helping to address HIV/AIDS. 

With the advent of the Ebola crisis and its coming to Monrovia, 

the healthcare system in Liberia was devastated, and by that we 

mean doctors, nurses, in which we had invested many years, died 

and were no longer there. So the ability for us to continue to help 

train and educate and provide more and more healthcare officials 

72

not only is something that has to be sustained over time, but sustaining it is clearly in our own national interest in addition to what 

it does for, you know, mothers and children in those countries. Because the next time there is another major pandemic on the continent we can’t just insert a healthcare infrastructure, one has to 

develop it over time. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Mr. Ambassador, could you—I don’t know what 

some of the questions—do we find that the governments in the African countries are cooperative as well or are there people, are 

there regimes and governments that are trying to prevent their 

citizens from receiving the aid that we are so willing to provide? 

Ambassador BRIGETY. Congressman, I am not aware of any African country that is not willing to partner on matters of health. In 

most places it is a matter of resources, to be frank, and it also may 

be a matter of a prioritization of those resources. So it might be, 

for example, the decision of whether or not you concentrate health 

services in the capital city versus extension services in rural areas, 

or focusing more on primary care as opposed to care for tertiary 

diseases like diabetes or cancer or other sorts of things. 

General WARD. Mr. Donovan, a quick postscript if I might, Mr. 

Chair. Healthcare facilities on the continent of Africa are not the 

Walter Reed National Military Center of Bethesda. A quick example, in Comoros, where the USAID had a program where they were 

training local medical providers, we were able to partner with our 

USAID counterparts and using Department of Defense engineers, 

build a concrete block structure whereby medical practice could be 

accomplished. And providing clean water to that facility facilitated 

the provision of a health service that community did not have previously and changed the whole dynamic in that community. 

And these are the things that this 1 percent of our national 

budget that goes to promoting our international systems abroad. It 

creates feelings, creates a sentiment, creates the result that pays 

dividends on and on and on and helps to stabilize those environments. 

Mr. DONOVAN. That is a great example of our successes. 

The last thing I just want because my time is way over as well, 

my colleague was talking about investment in Africa, private investment. I met with a group, and my staff can supply you with 

their information, yesterday, called Rendezvous, who are developing planned communities in seven African countries, so I would 

just offer that to you if you would like to hear more about it. 

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield whatever time I have left. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Donovan. We go to Norma 

Torres from California. 

Ms. TORRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our 

guest panelists here today. General Ward, in your testimony you 

made a very compelling case for why U.S. engagement in Africa is 

in our national interest and I very much agree with you on that. 

Ambassador Brigety, you have also made a point and I want to 

share with you that the point that you have made on the Ebola crisis, you know, this point was driven home for many of our constituents during the Ebola crisis in 2014 and 2015. We have had a really great conversation here. I am new to the committee and I am 

73

trying to wrap my hands around all of these issues we have talked 

about, ivory being used to finance terrorism and these civil wars. 

The one thing that we have not talked about, unfortunately, is 

how rape is being used also against women, against very young 

women in this continent. Projected U.S. global health funding for 

2017 is an estimated $9.5 billion, all of which is subject to President Trump’s Global Gag Rule, so let’s talk about that for a little 

bit. 

Every year, despite increased access to safe abortion procedures, 

6 million African women end their pregnancies unsafely and 1.6 

million are treated for complications. So when we talk about safety 

and we talk about saving, you know, these wonderful animals, 

what are we doing to help our young women in Africa and how are 

we helping to ensure that there is a healthcare system in place to 

help them get the necessary procedures that they need, whether 

that is family planning or what are we doing to teach them how 

to protect themselves from these abusers? 

Ambassador BRIGETY. Congresswoman, thank you very much for 

that very important question. Both as a Deputy Assistant Secretary and also as an Ambassador I could spend days telling you 

about stories that I have encountered meeting women who are rape 

victims in Eastern Congo, refugee women in northern Kenya, et 

cetera, that have experienced exceptional trauma. And I have been 

very proud of the types of assistance that the United States has 

provided over time to address rape as a war crime, to provide services to help rape victims recover from these challenges. 

With regard to your question about the Global Gag Rule let me 

say, Congresswoman, that I understand that the question of abortion is an incredibly sensitive one with deep feelings on both sides 

of the debate, one that we will not resolve here. But one thing that 

is absolutely accurate is that the nature of the Global Gag Rule as 

articulated and its expansion under the Trump administration will 

have negative, harsh, unintended consequences for women who 

desperately need gynecological care. 

And it seems to me that if one is morally motivated with regard 

to the protection of life and compassion for those that are suffering, 

one would try at a minimum to find a way as you address these 

incredibly challenging moral questions that one does not harm 

those women that are desperately in need of the kinds of services 

that we provide. 

Ms. TORRES. They are victims in two separate ways. 

Mr. CHRISTY. May I add? 

Ms. TORRES. Please. 

Mr. CHRISTY. So one of the things that I was excited about bringing to the fore today was that when we are talking about these 

wildlife crime issues there is an opportunity to leverage that to do 

something more important or bigger. These rangers are on the 

ground in rural and remote areas and they represent the only law 

and order in those areas. In many of the worst areas in terms of 

violence these rangers are part of a public-private partnership. African Parks is one organization that brings together very disciplined guys to work with the local wildlife authorities to bring 

order, and the villagers in these places said to me they are my protector. 

74

And some of the most dangerous forces in these remote areas are 

military, U.N. workers, as we know, and to have these smaller 

groups that are trained specifically and are working with Americans in many circumstances, you have an opportunity to address 

that. 

Ms. TORRES. My time has expired. 

General Ward, I hope to be able to have a conversation with you 

outside of these four walls. I think there is so much work to continue to do and I am really happy to help in any way that I can, 

Congresswoman Bass. The bigger humanitarian crisis that I am interested in helping in the region is how these policies are impacting 

women that have been raped, their children, who is taking care of 

them, and the LBGT community is another issue that we have not 

addressed here today, so I yield back my expired time. 

Chairman ROYCE. Okay. Let’s go to Lois Frankel of Florida. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Ms. Bass. And 

thank you to the witnesses. As a member of this committee I have 

had an opportunity to be in Africa a number of times, different 

countries. I left this meeting. We have so many meetings going on 

at the same time, but the reason I left the meeting a few minutes 

ago was to meet with a group of African women who are in a leadership program. Many of them are in Parliament in different areas 

of Africa. They are just a lot of different, wonderful leaders, so that 

is where I was. 

So it was interesting, because I wanted to ask them about a topic 

that Representative Torres brought up which is important not only 

to them, but I think to women all over the world and that is being 

able to be in control of your own body and to decide if and when 

you want to have a family because there is nothing that changes 

your life like having a family, right. I think everybody who has had 

a child knows that. 

What I think is also important and I learned this—I was in Malawi last year in one of the villages and one of the things they were 

stressing was the need to get women into the economy. And that 

seems to be another worldwide issue—when you get women into 

the economy, you can double your productivity. 

It is very, very hard, difficult, sometimes impossible for women 

to become part of the economy and to sustain themselves in an 

economy if they cannot be in control of their own ability to plan 

their family, so it is why this Global Gag Rule that President 

Trump has brought back is very, very worrisome. I know Representative Torres asked you about that. 

And I just, I talked to these women just a few minutes ago and 

the word that I got back from them was cruel, it is cruel. Part of 

the cruelty is not just what it could potentially do to a woman’s 

health, because this is just not all about abortion but this gag rule 

is a chilling effect to any healthcare provider who may use their 

own money to either perform an abortion or save a woman who has 

gone and had an illegal abortion which is apparently very prominent in Africa, so you have this chilling effect. 

And what they said is, you know, if you are going to do this, 

which they of course they say, you know, why are you doing this, 

why don’t you give us enough notice so that there is not a gap in 

services? But what I would like—I know you have commented with 

75

Representative Torres on this issue. What I would like for you two 

is talk about, if you can, the importance of women’s involvement 

in the economy and how important it is to keep them healthy and 

vibrant. 

Mr. CARROLL. Let me just offer an observation on the economic 

inclusion of women. There are many societies that have de facto 

and de jure constraints about women owning a title to land, being 

able to establish a business, their of course being able to obtain 

business licenses, getting the training necessary. I think there is 

certainly a trend among these organizations such as those that you 

have met today to try to level the playing field so that women can 

play a more formal role in their economies. So I think this is a 

process that people have their eye on. 

I won’t comment on the gag order because I know there are people here that can talk at greater depth about that than I am, but 

I do think this idea of women inclusiveness in the economy is an 

issue that is being worked on. 

General WARD. Congresswoman Frankel, I was in Africa last 

year, I believe, with the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition where we 

had a chance to visit with various activities that had some sponsorship put on that was part of our U.S. foreign assistance. In particular, we visited a farm that was owned by a woman and she and 

her children were doing things that were beyond any scope that 

that program had been designed to take care of, making huge, huge 

progress, but not just for her and her family. 

She had also gathered and had caused other women to be a part 

of that co-op, if you will, creating a dynamic in that community 

that led to stability because their sons weren’t being turned into 

terrorists. It led to increased health because they were producing 

products that were good for increasing their overall local health 

and the products were of such quality that they are being exported, 

bringing revenue into that community. Women—when they are allowed and empowered through health or through sponsorship and 

promotion to be entrepreneurs—definitely make a difference, a 

positive difference. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you. Thank you very much, and I yield 

back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. And I would just note that Congresswoman Lois Frankel kept with the goal which was yielding 

back time when there is time still to yield back. 

We go now to Ted—it still sets a new record. We now go to Ted 

Deutch of Florida. 

Mr. DEUTCH. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, there 

is strong bipartisan support in Congress for expanding our assistance to Africa and I know that we will put up a fight when the administration tries to cut U.S. support there in its 2018 budget. 

What worries me in the short term is the damage the President 

and his team have already done to our relationships with African 

leaders. 

Secretary Tillerson invited the chair of the African Union to visit 

Washington and then blew him off. All 60 African leaders who 

were invited to an African trade conference in California had their 

visas denied by Trump’s State Department, and the same State Department has no appointees to run offices and bureaus that oversee 

76

our work in Africa. We know the President wants to shutter one 

third of USAID’s 100 missions and cut 30 percent of its budget, 

which would certainly mean cuts in Africa where the agency does 

the largest share of its work. 

The signal from the Trump administration seems to be pretty 

clear that the United States doesn’t respect African leaders, doesn’t 

want to do the work of partnering with African nations, and doesn’t 

value U.S. engagement on the continent. Now in Africa, every inch 

that we withdraw, countries like China are ready to step in, in 

ways that are damaging to U.S. interests and the long term wellbeing of the people of Africa. 

Now Ambassador Brigety, I ask whether you worry that even before we begin this budget debate whether serious damage has already been done to our relationships with partners and friends in 

Africa, and also what is at stake if we abandon America’s tradition 

of engagement and partnership with Africa in favor of what appears to be a rather incoherent and short-sighted withdrawal from 

Africa? 

Ambassador BRIGETY. Congressman, thank you very much for 

the question. I just 2 weeks ago attended the World Economic 

Forum Africa in Durban, South Africa, and what I can tell you is 

in any number of conversations I had on the margins of that meeting with African business people, elected officials and what not, 

there is profound concern about the continued nature of American 

engagement in Africa under the Trump administration for reasons 

that you just articulated. I think that the way in which Chairperson Faki was treated was seen incredibly negatively not only by 

the African Union Commission but by African leaders across the 

continent. It is worth noting that to his great credit Secretary 

Tillerson subsequently had a phone call with Chairman Faki on 

May 8th to invite the chairperson to Washington, DC, for the next 

round of the U.S.-Africa strategic dialogue. One hopes that happens 

and that one can make up for those mistakes. 

But as an outsider looking in that mistake and the mistake, for 

example, Rwandan President Paul Kagame, who is one of the most 

prominent leaders on the continent, was here in Washington about 

a little over a month ago, nobody from the administration met with 

him, neither anyone from the White House nor anyone in the State 

Department. 

And this suggests either one of two things, either this administration has decided that Africa is not a strategic priority and that 

is what explains these various sorts of things, or what I believe is 

a more likely explanation is that the absence of senior leadership 

in the White House or at the State Department that is focused on 

Africa has helped abet at making what I think are, quite frankly, 

rookie mistakes with regard to engagement with the continent. And 

this is why I think it is so vital for the administration to move with 

alacrity to appoint senior people at the State Department, in the 

White House, and also at senior ambassadorships across the continent. 

Mr. DEUTCH. I thank you, Ambassador. If you are right and we 

can chock this up to rookie mistakes as we wait for them to figure 

it out, as we wait for these positions to be filled, General Ward, 

77

what impact does that have from a national security standpoint 

and on U.S. forces? 

General WARD. Congressman, we have to continue to cause our 

presence and our interests to be felt and realized in other areas 

until that day, then, does come. And so therefore we are not going 

to wring our hands, we are going to just reinforce our efforts in 

other areas. For example, next month the U.S.-Africa Business 

Summit will be here in DC hosted by the Corporate Council on Africa and certain African leaders will be in attendance. 

And how support is rallied around to show that in spite of whatever else may be going on, there is still support for the continent 

and we do it through those sorts of programs and showing support, 

participating in and endorsing in ways that then as they return, 

based on a relationship that was established here, the word will be 

spread that it is not over and we have to just double down on our 

efforts to cause that to be the case. 

Mr. DEUTCH. I appreciate that. Thanks to all the witnesses for 

being here today. 

Chairman ROYCE. Would the gentleman yield just on a point? 

Mr. DEUTCH. Of course. 

Chairman ROYCE. Because I think we are in concurrence on a lot 

of issues, but I just wanted to address this issue of President Paul 

Kagame, because to bring this up without explaining that one of 

the reasons we did not on this committee ask for meetings with 

President Paul Kagame was because of several assassinations of 

political opponents outside his own country in a third country. On 

top of that we had the problem with his suppression of freedom of 

expression and the human rights abuses. 

So once you have situations where you have assassinations, admitted assassinations, I think we could argue the point, but certainly that point was defended, you could understand why we 

weren’t anxious to orchestrate a meeting while he was here in the 

first months of the new administration. So I think sometimes disclosing all of the factors in a situation like that would be important. That said, I want to thank our witnesses here today. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Yes. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Just before I yield back, I appreciate what you said. 

I would just add though that if we have a valid concern, if what 

is driving decisions like that is suppression of freedom of expression and concern about human rights, I would respectfully suggest 

that the President of the United States had no business meeting 

and welcoming President Erdogan to the White House. But I yield 

back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Listen. Yes, I think—and you will see my 

statements on that point as well. But what I am trying to point 

out, I am trying to establish some objectivity when it comes to this 

debate because many of the points that we are raising here are 

points that we need to raise as a committee, but at the same time 

we have to be objective in terms of our choice of examples and not 

mislead. 

And I think it is clear that as we are discussing the challenges 

that we want to see met in Africa, and there are many of the challenges that we have discussed here—the fact that some governVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:05 Jun 28, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Z:\WORK\_FULL\051817\25458 SHIRL
78

ments are kleptocratic in nature, the weak institutions that we 

spoke to, the Islamist extremists that are a problem for many governments, the wildlife trafficking and the way that that feeds into 

terror as well as the elimination, potentially, of the populations of 

elephants and certainly of the rhinoceros. I mean the very well 

likelihood that in our lifetime the rhinoceros will be an extinguished species if we don’t turn this around. 

And all of that draws people, if we can get sustainable development, draws people to see that magnificent continent and it supports the people in that continent, but there are also these tremendous opportunities. There is that great resource that Africa has 

which is the people of Africa. And the young people that I have had 

the opportunity to meet over many years of travel to the region in 

which our panel are all too familiar with, they want a better future. They want it and I believe that they will get it. 

I believe it will help if we can work in a bipartisan way here to 

make sure that they get it. I think the United States has a stake 

in their future. I think supporting the growth of healthier, more 

stable communities in Africa serves our diplomatic, our economic, 

our humanitarian, and our security interests. 

I think U.S. engagement can help prevent the spread of diseases. 

One of the issues is Ebola where this crosses borders and, frankly, 

can cross our own border. It can help prevent and address insecurity before extremism takes hold on these young minds, and it can 

help open new markets that will create opportunities for Americans 

as well as help communities in Africa grow their own way out of 

poverty. 

So U.S. engagement with Africa is smart and essential, and I 

look forward to working with the administration and my colleagues 

here in Congress to ensure that we get this right. 

And I thank again our panel. We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(79)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

80

f


25458n.eps
81


25458m-1.eps
82

f


25458m-2.eps
83

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE DANIEL DONOVAN, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK


25458e-1.eps
84

f


25458e-2.eps
85


25458f-1.eps
86

Æ


25458f-2.eps