As Barack Obama flies to Kenya and Ethiopia this week, much of the media coverage is bound to focus on the personal story of the US president returning to the homeland of his Kenyan-born father. He has delayed his roots trip as president because of the inevitable political circus that will result, with Republican opponents – the casino owner and reality TV star Donald Trump in the lead – still peddling the lie that he was born in Kenya and therefore ineligible to be president. With the end of his presidency in sight, he no longer has to worry.
Elsewhere in Africa, Nigerian commentators have expressed pique that he – as have all his predecessors in the White House – is staying away from the most promising yet most problematic of countries on the continent. In the US, human rights groups are questioning the appropriateness of Mr Obama visiting Kenya, whose president Uhuru Kenyatta has been cleared of charges of crimes against humanity for instigating ethnic violence, and Ethiopia, where the ruling party won every seat in the new parliament. Meanwhile the US Supreme Court’s approval of same-sex marriage has widened the cultural gulf between mainstream African opinion and America.
All these are minor details compared with the economic and demographic realities of Africa. By 2050, Nigeria will be the fourth most populous country in the world, poised to overtake the US, which is in third position. Ethiopia, which many people may remember as a land of famine and death in the 1980s, will also be in the top 10 countries by population. As the population of Africa doubles to 2.2 billion in 2050, it is also home to six of the 10 fastest growing economies in the world.
Former US president George W Bush is a hero in many African countries for deploying vast resources to fight HIV/Aids. Government money and the supply of antiretroviral drugs has slowed the spread of HIV infection, while progress is being made to reduce the scourge of malaria, much of it thanks to philanthropic donors such as the Gates Foundation.
But the continent is moving on. With its population growing fast and aid budgets under strain, only the poorest countries can expect a reliable supply of development aid in years to come.
Just as the world’s leaders are due to approve an ambitious set of sustainable development goals – including the end of poverty worldwide – at a summit in September, the amount of government aid is bound to fall as a proportion of African countries’ budgets. That leaves development increasingly in the hands of African entrepreneurs and the ability of African governments to attract productive investment. Meanwhile, remittances from African workers abroad already exceed aid budgets and arguably are being spent more effectively.
Mr Obama understands this. He held an African leaders’ summit in Washington last year and encouraged a new generation with his Young African Leaders Initiative. Apart from shared concerns about terrorism from Al Shabab in Somalia, the focus of his visit to Kenya is a speech to the Global Entrepreneurship Summit, the first to be held in sub-Saharan Africa. This could be a turning point in how African development is viewed. But so far, as with many of Mr Obama’s policy initiatives, the ones on Africa have been stronger on declaration than achievement.
In short, the goal is to create jobs. The lesson from this summer’s exodus of migrants heading by boat from the shores of North Africa to Europe is clear: many are from Syria, Iraq or other parts of the region racked by war. But a significant proportion are Africans. They come because there are no jobs and no prospects at home.
The lesson that has been internalised is that any poor African family that does not have a son working in Europe to send home money is neglecting its duty. The reality is more complex: many migrants find themselves trapped in semi-slavery by their smugglers on arrival in Italy.
So far, Europe has been faster in opening its markets than the US while China has a high profile in investment. Mr Obama understands the problem.
But there is still one element lacking. Analysts and economists talk up the enticing prospects of African agriculture, even though the continent cannot even feed its current population. Consultants McKinsey and Co calculate that Africa has 600 million hectares, or 60 per cent of the world's uncultivated arable land. Boston University notes that Africa has 25 per cent of the world's arable land, yet it generates only 10 per cent of global agricultural output.
So there is no lack of talk about the prospects for exploiting Africa’s unploughed acres or its reserves of extractable minerals, from iron ore to diamonds. Yet it is rare to hear anyone in the development community speak of African’s one billion human beings as an asset.
When it comes to large-scale agriculture, the peasants on the land are seen as a problem, not a resource, and having no legal title to the land they farm, they are soon forced off it. This causes popular resentment and political problems for the government, particularly if, as in the case of some Chinese investors, they bring their own labour force with them.
It is undeniably easier to kick the subsistence farmers off the land than to train them up to fit them into a 21st century agribusiness chain. But it makes long term sense for local farmers to become suppliers of modern businesses, rather than to be forced to disappear to the cities.
This is not just a development problem but one of good government. It is easier for governments to import food than to create the rural infrastructure required to move towards self-sufficiency. And far more money goes into government coffers – and the pockets of the well placed – with a large-scale mining project than a dozen mango canning factories.
So the future of development has to be human-focused, first on the land but also in the cities. Market-based solutions, involving the mobilisation of huge amounts of private capital, will have to accommodate this need.
Alan Philps is a commentator on global affairs
On Twitter: @aphilps