Richard Dowden argues that we need to understand the people and politics of this continent, before we attempt to save it

Sunday January 9, 2005
The Observer

Gordon Brown wants a Marshall Plan to save Africa, just as America 'saved' Europe at the end of the Second World War. His speech last Thursday at the National Gallery in Edinburgh was full of missionary zeal to end poverty and disease.
It's good that he cares, but he has failed to ask why Africa is poor. He seems to think a lack of aid is the cause. The sad truth is that Africa has had a Marshall Plan several times in the past 50 years and has little to show for it. Until we understand why, Brown could be raising expectations for Africa yet again - and making things worse by failing to deliver.
The analogy between Europe in 1945 and Africa today is false. At the end of the war, Europe had peace and a highly skilled population. The job was rebuilding - all that was missing was finance. The US provided $13 billion over three-and-a-half years (about $76bn at today's prices) to buy American food and goods to rebuild Europe. If distributed equally, every European would have received $49, or $293 at today's prices.
Africa has had about a trillion dollars in aid in the past 50 years, roughly $5,000 for every African living if distributed at today's prices. If aid were the solution to Africa's problems, it would be a rich continent by now.
Africa has been made poor by unstable politics. The ruling class has failed to create viable states that provide health, education and economic opportunity. As a result, literacy rates are low and civil services are weak. Until the politics is right, huge amounts of aid would make things worse.



Brown wants to double aid to Africa, with an extra $50bn through his International Finance Facility. But which countries would he give it to? Lumping the whole continent together does Africa no service. Many countries are doing well - South Africa and Botswana, for example; others, such as Congo, have fallen apart and have no capacity to handle aid; and some - Mozambique, Ghana, Uganda - are already receiving most of their budgets in aid with no sign that they will become self-reliant in the near future.
The Chancellor wants to write off debt for African countries regardless of their governments' corruption record. But debt relief should be targeted at countries which have been committed to getting their economies going and spending more on medicines than Mercedes. Where rulers still pocket aid or spend it on guns, debt relief simply rewards bad government. Would Brown really write off the debts of extravagant oil-rich countries such as Angola or Nigeria in the vague hope the cash would relieve poverty?
Countries need to earn their living in a fair system of international trade. Here, Brown is right - agricultural subsidies in the rich world prevent Africa from competing and dumping subsidised food in Africa destroys local economies. Ending agricultural subsidies, tariffs and import regulations in the rest of the world are key to Africa's economic success, but can Brown persuade his G8 partners to do this in 2005?
Africa's poverty is a symptom of its malaise, not the cause. The cause is politics. If we want to help Africa, we must try to understand it but Brown does not think you need to understand people in order to save them. His cuts in Whitehall have substantially reduced the number of political analysts in the Foreign Office, so fewer know the difference between Mali and Malawi. Thanks to Brown, our ability to understand Africa, and therefore to help it, is diminishing.
· Richard Dowden is director of the Royal African Society

Ask Aristotle
Gordon Brown

Do they care about Africa?

Alex Callinicos

THE BBC traditionally fills the time between Christmas and the new year with programmes reviewing the state of world politics. There was one on Radio Four on New Year’s Day by leading BBC journalists.

Much of it focused on the triangle that dominates British global policy—the US, the European Union (EU), and the Middle East. But one of the BBC’s Africa correspondents was also included.

This was odd—Africa isn’t usually deemed worthy of discussion by the BBC’s big beasts. The solution to this puzzle is simple. There will be a general election this year, probably in May. The main prong of New Labour’s campaign is security—the “war on terrorism� plus law and order. Hence David Blunkett’s disappearance in a cloud of belligerent self-pity just before Christmas was a severe blow for Tony Blair.

But Blair isn’t completely ignoring his left flank. He plans to use the Group of Eight (G8) summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, to project himself as the saviour of Africa. He wants to be seen as the world leader who doesn’t just fight “terrorism� in Iraq but seeks to address its causes in poverty and oppression.

We are consequently seeing the start of a massive goverment-orchestrated media campaign. That’s why the BBC has suddenly remembered Africa.

Playing up Africa is one issue on which Blair and Gordon Brown agree. Indeed, the rivalry between the dysfunctional duo at the top of New Labour may focus this year on which of them is the real saviour of Africa.

Last week the Financial Times carried two reports on Africa and the G8 on successive days. The first was about the delivery of a petition by Make Poverty History to 10 Downing Street, and the second about Brown's tour of Africa.


Make Poverty History is a coalition of major non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that is seeking to use the G8 summit to put pressure on the leading powers seriously to address the plight of the global poor. It has called a mass demonstration in Edinburgh during the summit.

But Make Poverty History isn’t exactly getting tough with the government. This is symbolised by the fact that its celebrity front man, Bono, spoke on the platform of the Labour Party conference, lavishing praise on Blair and Brown.

Both politicians are carefully cultivating the mainstream NGOs. Brown made a major speech hosted by Cafod, the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development, last month. Justin Forsyth, head of policy at Oxfam, has been appointed as Blair’s special adviser on international development.

This courtship reflects the complex relationship between the NGOs and the government. Often seen as part of “civil society� autonomous of the state, the big NGOs are in fact heavily dependent on government funding.

But at the same time they seek to put pressure on the state to take on global poverty. Oxfam, for example, makes many excellent demands such as for the cancellation of Third World debt and for more generous aid programmes.

But it now also supports trade liberalisation, pointing to the scandalous subsidies that, for example, the US and the EU give their farmers. But, as campaigners such as Walden Bello point out, the “level playing field� created by free trade would simply make it easier for the multinationals of the North to dominate producers and markets in the South.The NGOs run the risk therefore of playing into the hands of Blair and Brown.

They can give credibility to New Labour’s neo-liberal economic agenda, and help a government discredited by the war in Iraq rebuild a progressive image. Africa, global poverty, and the G8 are likely to be a major theme in domestic British politics this year. The radical left, which has succeeded in mounting a powerful challenge to Blair on Iraq, needs to make its voice heard in this debate as well.

And we need to be in Scotland in July. The Financial Times reports,“a mammoth security operation, estimated to cost £150 million, is planned ahead of the Gleneagles summit� because of fears of protests on the scale of Seattle in 1999 and Genoa in 2001. Let’s help make these fears a reality.

[size=3]
Why would those who played such a major part in the creating the state of affairs they claim to care about, and who, driven by their greed have actually attained massive financial gains (and continue to do so) from said state of affairs...WANT TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT THEM?

Blair, Brown and all the vultures in the West can stuff their 'we care about world poverty' rhetoric cr*p and serve Africa best by staying out of it's affairs. But no, they would never do that voluntarily because so much of the 'WEALTH' of the West depends on having a major stake in Africa's 'poverty'.

How does it come to be that one of the richest regions in the world in terms of mineral wealth and natural resources ends up being part of the 'Third Word' and ravished by 'Poverty'?...............Corrupt African politicians they would have you believe. Yet who, time and time again, have done their best to ensure that the non-corrupt ones who really have Africa and African people's interest at heart are thwarted, frustrated or simply removed one way or the other?

'Understand the people and the politics of the region' says
Richard Dowden, sprouting the biggest load of dog's do I have read in a long time. He should try more to understand the politics and the people who have a heavily vested interest in Africa's 'poverty' before he attempts to suggest what it is Africa needs.

Respect

Absolutely agree with you Backatya. Brown is taking the bleeding-heart approach as though Africans are solely responsible for their own poverty which exists in a vacuum. An approach completely divorced from the historic role of the now-subjugated populations/regions in European economic development; and European/first world defense of its spoils via international capital and it's allies: the international economic institutions (IMF, WB, WTO, G8, Paris Club, UN Security Council).

Basic consideration: the overwhelming majority of aid is conditional on the recipient government accepting neoliberal programs. Time and again it has been acknowledged that these programs do not help poor people. Everyone knows this. Numerous UN, NGO and independent research attests to the futility of neoliberal socio-economic policies for the Third World, and for the poor in rich countries.

Brown is being deliberately obtuse; his job is conditional on sprouting modified neoliberal dogma. Instead of blaming the poor for their poverty outright, Brown's noble position is to: blame their so-called ignorance, offer a little "handout" (that is how Neoliberal logic sees it) to get the Africans started on the road to progress (read: consumption) and then rigidly evaluate according to the protestant ethic. A recipe that has worked well to do this day.

Then when the consumption falls off, as it inevitably does in this formula, begin the process again because as the ideology explains:

'Obviously those stupid natives just didn't get it right with all their corrupt leadership, shunning of proper western education, and over-sexed populations producing children they can't afford to feed; (long-suffering sigh), let's be patient and try again - afterall, they aren't as smart as we are'.

Even though many of the privileged/leaders in African/Black countries were educated in elite western universities, western countries mount overt and covert intervention in Third World politics/governments to support neoliberal economics, and land/food that could be used to feed the local population is diverted toward enriching foriegn interests. The charade makes one tired.

Check out these self-aggrandizing a**holes: http://www.clubdeparis.org/en/. Cancelling some debt to extremely poor countries so that the country is able to continue paying very high debt at shocking rates of interest which results in the poor country having repaid the initial debt many times over, even while that country's population starves. The Paris Club are a bunch of loans sharks. Bob Marley would call them vampires.

[size=3]@ G N T

Spot on! clp)clp)clp)

Respect

@G.N.T

clp)clp)clp)clp)clp)

OK, lets take emotion out of the equation and approach this logically.First, I think we all can agree that Africa is in need of an influx of capital.That being said the distribution and method of that distribution can be debated infitinum.

Next the aid can be sent why? I say let the African Union determine the need.Now that is easier said than done because of regional and religious differences on the continent.I doubt Tunisia or Algeriawould be for aid going to say Benin.The continent is just too largefor its problems to be handled from the outside.

One thing that needs to happen the continent must have more control over its resources.Its appalling that Nigeria has the barrels of oil per day output of Kuwait (about 2 million per day) but the everyday Nigerian is forced to pay high prices for fuel in hours long lines.The multinational oil companies should be approached with some sort of system that loosens the stranglehold over domestic crude.The will happen to Angola,Cameroon and others when their supplies are brought to market.

Lastly Africaon a by-nation basis must have a say-so in this.

Africa: Multilateral Debt Cancellation

AfricaFocus Bulletin
Jan 18, 2005 (050118)
(Reposted from sources cited below)

Editor's Note

"Given the urgency and need for immediate action, we urge the G8 to
begin immediately and in particular for G7 finance ministers to
reach agreement on 100 percent multilateral debt relief at their
February 4th meeting," African finance ministers said in Cape Town
after concluding a meeting with British finance minister Gordon
Brown. But despite Brown's high-profile African visit, accompanied
by pledges of debt cancellation and increased aid, debt campaigners
still have questions about the details of Britain's plan and the
will of other rich countries to act.

A new briefing for the Debt and Development Coalition Ireland,
excerpted below, noted that "various proposals for multilateral
debt cancellation have now been put on the table by G7 countries -
the UK and US. ... Whilst this is very encouraging, in some ways
these proposals are an extension of the discredited HIPC initiative
and suffer from some of the same limitations such as limited
country lists and the lack of a fair and transparent procedure to
deal with all unpayable debt."

Another AfricaFocus Bulletin sent out today contains statements on
debt from the African Social Forum in December and from a
submission by the UK Jubilee Debt Campaign to Prime Minister Tony
Blair's Commission for Africa. For related news on debt, see
]http://allafrica.com/debt');]http://allafrica.com/debt[/url]. For previous AfricaFocus Bulletins on the topic, see
]http://www.africafocus.org/debtexp.php');]http://www.africafocus.org/debtexp.php[/url].

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++

Thanks to those subscribers who have already sent in a voluntary
subscription payment this year to support AfricaFocus Bulletin. And
a reminder to all that this free resource depends on voluntary
support from subscribers. For details, please visit
]http://www.africafocus.org/support.php');]http://www.africafocus.org/support.php[/url]

++++++++++++++++++++++end editor's note+++++++++++++++++++++++

Multilateral Debt Cancellation: a Briefing by Sony Kapoor

Jubilee Research at the New Economics Foundation For Debt and
Development Coalition Ireland

December 2004

[Excerpts. Full text, including graphs, available at
]http://www.debtireland.org/resources/');]http://www.debtireland.org/resources/[/url]
papers-briefing-Multilateral-Debt-Cancellation.htm (type URL on one
line)]

African Social Forum
Lusaka, Zambia

14 December 2004

[http://www.cadtm.org/article.php3?id_article=1011]

The following statement, in response to the news that the U.K. andthe U.S. goverments are offering different proposals aimed at 100% multilateral debt cancellation, was circulated at the African Social Forum in Lusaka, Zambia.

The endorsements below were gathered in a few hours; more will undoubtedly be forthcoming as the statement's circulation broadens.

We Demand Full Multilateral Debt Cancellation for Africa and the Global South

Drop the Debt 100%--All Impoverished Countries--No Economic Conditions!.

As civil society organizations from across the continent of
Africa, we are confronted every day by the devastating reality of
the crisis of debt. Debt payments to wealthy institutions like the
IMF and World Bank rob our countries of resources we desperately
need to provide health care, fight HIV/AIDS, provide education,
and make available clean water. Debt is a tool of domination used
by rich country governments and creditors like the IMF and World
Bank. Conditions attached to debt relief and loans are devastating
our economies and undermining our choices as sovereign nations.

For impoverished nations, multilateral creditors--in particular the IMF and World Bank--are the largest creditors. They are also the most powerful: because of their "preferred creditor" status, countries must pay their dbts back first to these institutions. If countries do not pay, they are penalized and excluded from most forms of aid and assistance.


The Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative was launched
by the World Bank in 1996 to provide a "robust exit" to the crisis
of debt faced by impoverished nations. Eight years on, the program
has failed to achieve this goal. HIPC has provided too little
relief, to too few countries, with devastating conditions. It is
time to move beyond the failed HIPC Initiative towards another
approach: Full (100%) multilateral debt cancellation for all
impoverished nations, without harmful conditions.

We are aware of discussions going on now within the G-7 (in
particular proposals by the UK and US governments), the IMF and
World Bank, and other forums about possibilities for 100% (full)
multilateral debt cancellation. We are encouraged that after many
years of half-measures, full cancellation is being discussed at
these levels. However, we must be clear about the principles for
such discussions to meet the goals and aspirations of African
civil society.

First, 100% multilateral debt cancellation is critical. Attempts
to determine a "sustainable" level of debt for impoverished
nations desperately trying to address the crises of HIV/AIDS and
economic injustice should be rejected. For impoverished nations
struggling to meet the human needs of their peoples, full 100%
multilateral debt cancellation is the only option.

Second, this cancellation must come without any economic
conditionalities. The HIPC program and PRSPs are riddled with
conditions such as privatization, indiscriminate trade
liberalization, opening up markets, fiscal and monetary targets.
These conditions have devastated our economies long enough. Debt
cancellation must come without any economic conditions attached.
Moreover, we reject and find that the IMF's Poverty Reduction and
Growth Facility (PRGF) must be dismantled and abolished. The PRGF
is not a force for development in our countries; the conditions
attached to loans from this facility have devastated our
economies. It is time to end the role of the IMF in poor
countries once and for all; closing the PRGF is a critical first
step towards doing this.

Third, multilateral debt cancellation must apply to all
impoverished nations, not just the 42 HIPC nations. We reject
proposals which only address countries that have reached HIPC
"completion point." Many countries would be excluded from this
approach. Moreover, non-HIPC countries must be included in efforts
towards 100% debt cancellation. Countries including Haiti,
Jamaica, and Nigeria are not part of HIPC, despite their extreme
indebtedness.

Finally, we think that the multilateral financial institutions
should do their fair share, and should contribute the bulk of the
resources to finance debt cancellation. The IMF and World Bank are
two of the richest financial institutions in the world. The IMF
sits atop more than $30 billion in gold which currently serves no
productive purpose. The IMF could sell this gold and use proceeds
to cover debt owed to the World Bank and other multilaterals. The
IBRD could easily mobilize more than $10 billion in accumulated
profits and reserves and could commit a share of its annual
multi-billion dollar profit to debt cancellation. The IMF should
close down the PRGF facility and use its resources to cancel IMF
debt. These are wealthy institutions; it is high time for them to
do their fair share and by paying for debt cancellation, begin to
acknowledge their role and responsibility in the debt crisis.

We do not believe that concerns about the "additionality" of debt
cancellation should be allowed to postpone the full cancellation
of the multilateral debt. Cancellation is significantly more valuable to our peoples than additional aid. Aid comes with its own conditions, and often creates more debt.

The resources realized from debt cancellation can be used as governments -- with
ample interventions from civil society -- see fit. Aid is a
promise we have seen broken far too often; cancellation's benefits
would be lasting.

Endorsed by the following debt campaigners:

Tafadzwa Muropa -Zimbabwe

Sy Koumbo S. Gale -Chad

Constancia de Pina -Cape Verde

James Kazhiki _Zambia

Godfrey Mfiti Malawi

Rev, Lumu Shabani Democratic Republic of Congo (Kinshasa)

Benoit Essiga CGT Liberte-Cameroon

Hassan Sayouty-Espace Associatif Maroc--Morocco

Demba Moussa Dembele Forum for African Alternatives-Sengegal

Taoufik BenAbdallah-ENDA-Sengegal

Engudat Bekele-PAC-Ethiopia

Bakary Fofana-CECIDE-Guinea

Archinson Mhlata-PCO-South Africa

Pat Dooms-Orange Farm Vision-South Africa

Dao Dounantie- Jublie 2000/CAD-Mali

Kone Solange -FNDP/ASAPSU--Cote de'Ivoire

Dieng Amady Aly -Forum de Tiers Monde -Senegal

Seydou Ndiaye -ACAPES-Senegal

Abubacar Ndiaye, RADI- Senegal