The Hindu Business Line : Making aid to Africa work

It is Africa's actions and leadership that will be the most important determinant of progress in generating an economic resurgence, advancing living standards and taking forward the fight against poverty. The more effective the action taken by Africa itself, the stronger the case for support from outside it. Partnership must be constructed around Africa's leadership.

THE FIRST question to ask is: Why Africa, when there is a crying need to help other equally poor regions of the world? The answer can be divided into two broad spheres; the first being somewhat long-term and the second rather short. The long-term view is dominated by what the British Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair, said was the perception of Africa as a "scar on the conscience of the world", entailing the baggage of history and all that. (According to one estimate, between 30,000-50,000 Africans die every day due to poverty and treatable diseases.)

The short-term perspective, according to some observers, is dominated by Mr Blair's need to rehabilitate his battered post-Iraq image, and what better subject to pick on than assistance to Africa — an emotive issue on which, apart from the world's politicians, the planet's entertainers are certain to unite, as in fact they have done in the past and on the present occasion.

To say this is not to suggest in any way that aid to Africa is not an appropriate subject to focus on at this point of time.

Indeed, it is one of those issues which can always be emphasised at international forums because of its humanitarian significance and also because it involves an entire continent, which naturally lends itself to "magnified treatment", so to speak. But the political aspect cannot be ignored altogether.

To take a fresh instance where the politics of discrimination have once again been commented on, referring to the poor turnout at the "Live 8" concert held in Johannesburg, the city-based Sunday Independent wrote: "While the rest of the world revelled in the line-up of the Live 8 concerts — a celebration on behalf of the basket case that is Africa — Africans themselves got crumbs."

It added that, "The cream of the global crop (of entertainers), the big sellers and equally big egos, paraded on stages from Britain to Bush country." The core message of the paper was: "Live 8 reflects Thabo Mbeki's two worlds perfectly: The western world which is white and wealthy (and) Africa which is black and poor. They are once again using the continent to draw attention to themselves". Even so, let us for the moment forget this sordid topic of "making political capital out of Africa" and argue instead that Africa does require a lot of foreign assistance if the majority of its population is to survive and prosper.

In fact, steps to augment aid to the continent have already been taken, the Gleneagles G-8 summit having confirmed last month's decision by the group's Finance Ministers to write off $40 billion in debt owed by 18 of Africa's poorest nations to multilateral aid agencies, including the World Bank and the IMF.

The summit itself, under the leadership of Mr Blair, has decided to augment aid to Africa to $50 billion a year (up from around $25 billion in 2004) by 2010, an increase in total annual development aid of $50 billion (from the current roughly $50 billion) being also planned.

While the aid packet should be complimented, what will not be publicised is the behind-the-scenes haggling among the donors on the aid quantum.

On Thursday, summit sources said that countries such as the US, Canada, Germany and Italy were reluctant to mention a specific aid figure in the final statement, Mr Blair, on the other hand, being determined to have such a figure mentioned in the declaration.

Indeed, at the start of the summit there was a big gap between the level of assistance offered by the US and that suggested by Mr Blair.

A week before the summit, the US President, Mr George Bush, had said that the US had decided to double its assistance to Africa, that is, from $4.3 billion in 2004 to $8.6 billion in 2010. This was in addition to the $674 million in aid promised by Mr Bush during his meeting with Mr Blair, where the writing off of the debts of the poorer African countries was also announced. But this figure is way off the target set by Mr Blair in terms of which the US would have to shell out annually nearly $14 billion by 2010 as its share.

This apart, if Prof Jeffrey Sachs, the Columbia University economist, is to be believed, the US per capita contribution to aid for Africa is significantly lower compared to other G-8 countries. Prof Sachs also draws attention to the calculation that the total amount of assistance given to Africa by the US since 1960 comes to $50 billion after adjustment for inflation, which is "much less that the $80 billion the US will spend in Iraq this year alone".

The main problem with assistance for impoverished Africa, however, lies elsewhere, and in fact has precious little to do with how much is being transferred from the developed world. This is the issue of effective utilisation of the aid given, a sphere where the African report card till now has been unimpressive. It is not that this drawback is not widely known.

Thus, when Mr Bush made his announcement proposing a doubling of US assistance, he also said that "good government and the rule of law" were "as important as financial aid".

He said that the "primary focus" would be on "reforming countries"; in particular, African leaders must be "agents of reform" than "passive recipients of money".

In its report, the Commission for Africa, set up in London last year, has also harped on this theme, the relevant passage in the section on "Making it Happen" reading as follows: "Africa's development must be shaped by Africans. History has shown us that development cannot and does not work if policies are shaped and forced by outsiders. It is Africa's actions and leadership that will be the most important determinant of progress in generating a resurgence in Africa, advancing living standards and taking forward the fight against poverty.

"The more effective the action taken by Africa itself, the stronger the case for support from outside Africa. Partnership must be constructed around Africa's leadership."

Clearly, it is an uphill task. The Commission's report says that there are signs of hope: "Africa has recently been moving forward in ways which make success much more likely. We have seen strong progress in governance in many African countries, and the African Peer Review Mechanism is a potentially powerful tool for maintaining momentum".

Even so, pitfalls abound at every corner. Admittedly, where there is good governance with peace and security, growth and development have taken root. But, as the report warns, "we must be very clear . . . that the grip of weak governance, corruption and conflict in many parts of Africa is still strong".

It gives the clarion call that this grip "can and must be loosened and overcome". But, as with most such exhortations, the proof of the pudding lies in its eating, and it remains to be seen how the call will be interpreted and implemented.

In conclusion, one may give vent to a nagging thought which, in all probability, will be dismissed as being too far-fetched a view to merit serious consideration.

Is it possible that all this attention on Africa is geared to the negotiations taking place at the WTO on the Doha Round? Africa is of course important per se, but just now an effort is perhaps being made — possibly indirectly — by the developed countries to impress on the African leaders the fact that it would be somewhat ungrateful on their part were they to back the developing countries led by Brazil, India and China, among others, in their campaign against the rich economies on issues like the lowering of export subsidies and domestic farm support.

It could not be a fortunate moment for the West when it can make realpolitik and a humanitarian cause blend into each other almost seamlessly, specially when it is widely recognised that, for the first time, the developed world has its back against the wall vis-à-vis the developing and emerging economies in a fresh round of multilateral trade negotiations.

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Summit sans consequence

Making aid to Africa work

The conundrums in economic policy

Unfinished business

Impoverished in innovation

Bond market in India — Shaken, but not stirred

Individuals now reach their global customers

Advances, declines and potential brakes

Independent directors

Better transportation