Richard Dowden
Times Online (UK)

Thank God for that. The last thing Africa needs is a wave of wacky new Western ideas to solve its problems. It has suffered enough from fickle economic policy fashions in the past 20 years. As many pointed out when the commission was launched in February last year, why not fulfil on promises rather than think up new ones? What is new is a comprehensive report which analyses sub-Saharan Africa’s predicament, both as a continent and in the way that it relates to the world. Its recommendations are described as an “integrated package . . . not a list from which either African or rich countries can pick and choose.” They include everything from multilateral debt to mosquito nets. And they also cite the damage we do to Africa. The report urges rich countries both to support Africa and to end bad policies that hinder its development.

This is the area where the commission has come into its own and African voices have been heard. In that sense this is not just another report telling Africa what it must do to save itself. It reveals the complicity of the rich world in impoverishing Africa. The message is that you can’t build a dam in Africa but continue to sell arms to its bad governments. You can’t give more aid but support agricultural subsidies in Europe. No pick and mix. If you want to help, you have to sign up to the whole package.

So rich world governments are being asked to drop agricultural subsidies by 2010 and dismantle trade barriers – “politically antiquated, economically illiterate, environmentally destructive and ethically indefensible.” They are being asked to cancel all subSaharan Africa’s multilateral debt and to double aid in the next three to five years. And governments, NGOs and shareholders are asked to put pressure on Western companies to curb corruption and to be more transparent in their activities in developing countries. Corruption money in Western banks must be traced, frozen and returned to African governments.

This is a tough one for Britain. Recently, for example, at least $2 billion from Kenya and more than twice that from Nigeria flowed into London’s banks from the families and friends of their respective presidents. London appears to be the money laundry of choice. And when the newly-elected Government of Nigeria tried to get the money back, it was hindered by the Government here. Since 9/11 there has been some tightening up, but corruption money is still not treated with the seriousness of drugs or terrorism funds.

There is much solid analysis in the report – an admission, for example, that the prices of African commodities have not declined because of trade barriers erected by rich countries. The problem is that Africa does not produce the rights goods at the right prices. This means that even if the rich countries dropped their subsidies to agriculture tomorrow, Africa would not be at the front of the queue to feed the world. This runs bravely against the accepted wisdom.

The report is full of good ideas but there are two serious problems in its conclusions. First, is the commission really insisting on an all-or-nothing approach? Do the commissioners, including Mr Blair, really believe that his fellow G8 leaders and the EU will buy the package as a whole? Or even in parts? Will Japan agree to 100 per cent debt forgiveness for Africa? Will the Americans and French agree to end agricultural subsidies by 2010? These seem unlikely. So one assumes that this is no more than rhetoric.

Second, do the recommendations really emerge from the report, or were some precooked and added as sauce? Outsiders can’t deliver development, the report says; it must be done by Africans. But “Africa’s core problem is the weakness of its governance,” it adds. It is not just corruption. Even with clean governments, few African states have the capacity or systems to deliver services from capital city to village. Africans know this. A new survey in eight African countries by the polling company GlobeScan indicates that in only three were a majority positive about their governments’ ability to solve national issues.

Yet the report blithely recommends a doubling of aid and a total debt write-off that would drench African governments in money. “At present Africa does not have the capacity to handle it effectively,” says the commission, honestly. But it argues that if recent trends in improvement in governance continue and aid is well spent, the continent could be ready for the increase within five years.

The evidence of improvement is shaky. No one can assume that improvements in Mozambique, for example, can or will be copied in Liberia. In Uganda, one of the four improving countries quoted, poverty is increasing and the country is heading into a political typhoon as President Museveni changes the Constitution to stand for another term. Improvements in Botswana and Mozambique have been driven by business, not aid. That leaves more free education in Tanzania as the example of aid that works – hardly evidence that the continent is on the verge of a Great Leap Forward, turbo-charged by aid. Rather, the record of many Africans countries shows aid making the political problems worse, not better.

Africa is changing and, in some fundamental ways, getting better. It has fewer wars than ten years ago. There are more radio stations and mobile phones making lots more Africans aware of what is happening and giving them a voice to change their countries. More change will come but in Africa’s owntime, which may be painfully slow. Patience is one of Africa’s greatest strengths and we may have to learn a little of that. This report could mark the beginning of the end of the decline but there is no quick way back up.

Richard Dowden is Director of the Royal African Society but writes in a personal capacity.