|
 New Hope
for
Africa?
by Christopher Rowan
Roughly three years after Tony Blair described Africa as a “scar on
the conscience of the world” he has announced that he is setting up
an international commission to propose solutions to Africa’s
problems; following a suggestion from Live Aid organiser, Bob Geldof.
Roughly thirty years after the South Commission of the
mid-seventies, world cynics will wonder whether Blair’s Commission
will take as long to accomplish the same amount.
The South Commission was composed of politicians and advisers from
the Third World. However despite current development thinking –
loudly preaching the gospel of partnership and participation – it is
noticeable that the large majority of Blair’s commission comes from
the
First World.
The South African finance minister is there because when it comes to
Africa, this country of Nelson Mandela (and the
First World’s
guilt associated with apartheid) cannot be overlooked. The Prime
Minister of Ethiopia is probably there because Bob Geldof is also
there. And K Y Amaoko is there because, as head of the UN Economic
Commission For Africa, perhaps his contribution depends on the good
will of the
First World,
which pays for and dominates the United Nations. The French
representative Michel Camdessus is a former director of the
International Monetary Fund; another First World controlled
organisation. The United States is there for the same reason it
wants to be anywhere else - no-one can stop it – least of all the UN
as the recent American adventure in Iraq shows. The US may well see
its support of the Commission for Africa as an attempt at redressing
the balance of ill will felt towards it from many parts of the world
and, lets not forget, it controls the economic power of the world.
Britain and France may well be there as strong economic powers and
members of the G8 but perhaps it is more likely that their vestiges
of guilt strike a faint blow to the memory of empire. Clearly the
balance of power has tilted even more in favour of the First World
since the South Commission of the seventies which, for a short
moment, suggested a new international economic order proposed by
countries from the “poor South” when the “rich North” was
“suffering” in the oil crisis.
All these relatively well-paid commissioners have clearly got a lot
in common with the 6,300 Africans who die of AIDS every day, and the
11 million AIDS orphans left behind. Perhaps they share a common
standard of education with the 44 million African children who do
not go to school? Can these people from Europe and America
understand what it’s like for half the population of Africa who
struggle to survive on less than a dollar a day when the average
European cow receives $2.20 a day in subsidies? Still more amazing
is Bob Geldof’s observation: “We spend $17 billion a year in America
and Europe on pet food, which is so improbably repulsive when you
consider we spend $5 billion a year on AIDS prevention.” And as
Blair told his monthly press conference: “Africa is the only
continent to have grown poorer in the last twenty five years, its
share of world trade has halved in a generation and it receives less
than one percent of direct foreign investment.”
However Blair’s Commission for
Africa
may yet produce a bountiful harvest, a fruitful yield in light of
its timing. In 2005 Tony Blair will be the chair of the G8 leaders
and at the same time the UK will hold the European Union presidency.
Gordon Brown, the current British Chancellor, will at the same time
chair the G7 Finance Ministers’ process and the International and
Financial Committee of the IMF. Europe as a whole is the largest aid
donor in the world. Following Tony Blair, the chair of the G8 will
be held by the United States. 2005 is also the 20th
anniversary of Live Aid when Britain led the world in raising
awareness of the Ethiopian famine.
Still on the subject of timing – at first glance the First World
appears to be reacting to the targets of the Millennium Development
Goals set by the UN in 2000 (halving the number of people who earn
less than a dollar a day and have no access to clean water by 2015
amongst others). However, as Truman identified in 1949 when his
inaugural speech gave us “the underdeveloped world”, failed states
or poorly governed countries could prove a danger to themselves and
others. So following the terrorist attacks of 9/11 maybe it is in
the interests of the First World to contribute to African
development.
However as Mr Amoako has noted, despite the cynical vested interests
of the First World, Africans themselves need to be involved in their
own development. “Africa’s message has to be ‘OK you want to help –
this is how and where you can do it’” But the “African solutions to
African problems” approach – known to us all for decades – was
identified as flawed when the Brandt Report in the seventies
commented on the corruption of certain rulers “losing” aid
donations, and what little GNP their county may have made or wasting
it on self-glorification projects. Only occasionally was it spent on
anything the desperately poor members of their population needed,
such as a fleet of Mercedes Benz!
So Mr Blair, the development industry and most importantly Africa,
may be waiting anxiously until Spring 2005 for the Commission for
Africa to deliver a comprehensive review and to propose solutions to
Africa’s problems. But as even this short piece has referred back to
the seventies and the forties I would strongly advise Mr Blair and
others not to hold their breath waiting for the solutions to become
reality.
The author of this article is currently studying African Development
at
Nottingham
University |
May 2004