The significance of the maiden African tour by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, who is threading America�s familiar African route through Mali, South Africa, Kenya and Uganda, may lie more in its symbolism than pushing Washington�s interest in Africa any further than where the Clinton administration left off.

In his last year in office and second trip to Africa, President Bill Clinton pressed the Obasanjo government in Nigeria to increase oil production, while ignoring ongoing human rights violations in the Niger delta. That U.S. interest in Nigeria was confined to the cheap supply of oil and regional policing, while Africa�s largest country was struggling to build a democracy under the weight of debt, was telling.

With the current U.S. President, George W. Bush, and Vice President Dick Cheney, both big oil men�Cheney recently served as CEO of Haliburton, the world�s largest oil services company�some observers have begun to refer to the administration as an "Oiligarchy". Indeed, oil is likely to top the list of American interests in Africa as defined by the Bush team, and they likely will concentrate on helping oil industry friends reap maximum profits with minimum constraints.

This interest in oil is the only area that Washington currently faces a dilemma, especially in its policy on Sudan. The dilemma is on the Bush government�s inability to digest the mixture of oil, religion and human rights. The debate touches big oil and the religious right, two of the Republican government�s core constituencies.

Church groups, lawmakers and human rights activists all clamor for tougher action against Khartoum�s National Islamic Front government. Lobbyists range from right-wing Christian fundamentalists through mainstream churches, Black Americans and others angered by charges of slavery and other human rights abuses and exiled Sudanese activists.

While the oil majors hold their fire�leaving it to retired diplomats and other foreign policy professionals to suggest a new approach, amid speculation about Sudan�s oil reserves�Washington finds itself losing ground to its two main "villains" on the continent�Sudan and Libya. Sudan was recently voted into the United Nations Human Rights Commission while the United States was voted out, an international blow to U.S. human rights credibility.

On another diplomatic front, Libya has gained enormously by championing the cause of the African unity with the Sirte Declaration that will formally help launch the African Union. It is arguable if the timing of Gen. Powell�s visit would not clash with activities marking the launch of African Union, or what perspective Gen. Powell�s presence on the continent would bring to the transformation of the Organization of African Unity (OAU).

The Nairobi-based African Liberation Initiative (ALI) has already chided Gen. Powell for trying to disrupt African celebrations with his trip coming around the May 25 observance of African Liberation Day. Claiming that there has been a history of "political and economic manipulation of the continent" by successive U.S. governments that have scuttled African liberation struggles, ALI says it "rejects the view that Gen. Powell�s racial background is of any significance with regard to the African cause."

The organization charges that Gen. Powell�s implicit mission is to entrench the U.S. hold on Africa�s resources and peoples, adding that the tour would be a "sad reminder of Africa�s losses incurred as a result of the enslavement of African peoples."

During the presidential campaign, Mr. Bush and his advisors repeatedly stressed that Africa did not "fit into the national strategic interests" of America. During the televised debates, he said Africa was not a priority, and that he wouldn�t intervene to prevent or stop genocide in Africa should such a threat�as occurred in Rwanda in 1994�develop.

George Bush�s very first foreign policy action, four days after he was sworn-in�and one in which it appears the Secretary of State was not consulted�was to de-fund international public health and family planning services by withdrawing U.S. money from service providers who also provide reproductive health education and abortion services using money from other sources. In light of the HIV/AIDS pandemic in Africa, this action meant withdrawing funds from programs that were geared toward HIV/AIDS prevention in Africa.

Mr. Bush�s next action was to place under review the Clinton Executive Order (May 2000) that supports African rights to import or produce generic versions of HIV/AIDS medications that are still under U.S. patent. This action gave greater encouragement to western drug companies in South Africa that had initiated a lawsuit to prevent the South African government from implementing a law designed to make essential medicines more affordable. The drug companies finally abandoned that effort in April, three years and 400,000 lives later.

In a superficial show of solidarity with Africa, a continent worst hit by HIV/AIDS, Pres. Bush recently announced a U.S. grant of $200 million in support of the global effort in tackling the pandemic. Although this leaves a colossal deficit of more than $8 billion in the recommended war-chest to combat AIDS, Gen. Powell capitalized on it as an example of the Bush administration�s interest in Africa�s human development.

Responding to the White House�s $200 million dollars contribution for the proposed $10 billion U.N. fund, Salih Booker, executive director of the Washington-based Africa Action, said: "In the face of what will soon be the worst plague in human history, it�s tragic that the richest country in human history is unwilling to contribute its fair share to finance the solution!

"Under-funding this U.N. initiative means writing off the lives of millions of Africans and others living with HIV and AIDS, but signing death sentences especially for Black people is nothing new to this president!" Mr. Booker added.