The much-awaited report by the Commission for Africa has finally come out. ‘Much-awaited’ indeed – that, as if it would represent the ultimate manual to extricate Africa from all its misery.
If
you haven’t read the report, then, unless you are the curious type, don’t – the
two-page introduction plus the summary would be quite enough! The document does
not raise any fresh tips about the condition Africans find themselves in.
Suffice to say that, bar a bit of dressing, it is a repeat of what has been said
about our continent already.
The
main task of the CFA, according to the commission is “to define the challenges
facing Africa, and to provide clear recommendations on how to support the
changes needed to reduce poverty.” This, as it were, is the challenge of the CFA
and the rest is a mere document.
Although the commission, by its own admission, would like to come across
as a body dominated by Africans, only eight of the fifteen commissioners are
African. Amongst the rest, there are two seasoned British politicians (the
current Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer) and a former rock star
in Bob Geldof – a man much interested in living up to his reputation as brutally
outspoken while lacking an understanding of what Africa is all
about.
And in this respect, it is all a case of Africa
un-represented.
While
the CFA was hot in the news, I remembered an article I read in the Guardian last
year. The article was about how UK’s Foreign Aid to poor countries hampers the
drive of poverty reduction. A report by Greenwich University for War on Want, a
UK based anti-poverty charity, had found that conditional aid upsets the
development prospects of some of the poorest countries in the world because of
donor countries insistence on privatisation of
social and public services such as water and electricity, education and
healthcare. Such tied aid paves the way for multinational companies to buy
public institutions in poor countries and run them for
profit.
This happens
despite the fact that once privatised, public and social institutions are known
to provide scandalous level of service to the poor. What is more, many of the
poor in these countries can hardly afford the charges at any rate and are put at
a great disadvantage as a result.
Alarmingly, aid from the British government through DFID and other aid
institutions to poor countries is either withheld or completely cut off should
governments in receipt of aid fail to comply with the conditions put forward.
This has gone on before the CFA and it looks like it will go on in the future
unless of course rich countries expend a genuine effort to address this power
imbalance.
Take, for
instance, the case of South Africa; as a result of tied aid put together and
supported by the UK government and its front groups in the form of aid
institutions like DFID, poor people’s access to water
in Johannesburg now depends on how much they can
afford.
The water in
Johannesburg is partly owned by the British firm Northumbrian Water and its
French parent Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux. As a direct result of the company’s
withholding service for non-payment of bills, residents of Orange Farm and
Phiri, the poorest districts in Johannesburg, were at one point forced to draw
water from rivers. This led to an outbreak of cholera that infected over 100,000
people with 260 dead.
Of course, the
presence of Northumbrian Water and Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux in South Africa is
made possible through the intervention of the British government via DFID in
pushing for privatisation and public-private partnerships. In fact, writes
George Monbiot of the Guardian, DFID gave a privatisation lobby group, the Adam
Smith Institute, £6.3m for public-sector reform in South Africa in 2004
alone.
South Africa is
just one example. There are many more countries that have fallen victim to
conditional aid; governments in poor countries that depend on international aid
for providing even the most basic of services
–
the majority of which are African –
are
often taken advantage of in terms of being pressurized to accept policies they
know very well will harm their people.
Donor countries, through their agencies, are still forcing detrimental
policies on aid recipient governments by tying aid to dodgy conditions such as
water and electricity privatisation.
Many governments
of donor countries insist that the bulk of the materials and services needed to
deliver assistance be purchased from their own companies.
For instance,
70%
of the aid Italy and the USA – two of the G8 countries – disburse is spent on
purchasing goods and services from companies in these countries. This incurs a
procurement cost of up to $7bn a year – money that could be spent on reviving
the economies in recipient countries. A report of the Economic Commission of
Africa (ECA) found that 25 to 40% of aid value goes to buying goods and services
from companies based in donor countries.
And
according to Emira
Woods of Foreign Policy in Focus, of the $350 million pledged by the United States
government to tsunami relief, $248 million has to be spent in buying materials
and services from U.S. companies. That is the condition the US government has
placed for its pledge!
It is of course
very important that irresponsible governments are not allowed to squander money
given in aid. It is only fair that donor countries should insist on transparency
and accountability as far as the use of development assistance is concerned. In
fact, some level of conditionality may be required to make sure that some
governments do not divert aid for other purposes such us financing
wars.
Examples of such
reckless use of aid are seen in many countries in Africa. In this regard, donor
countries should focus on such problems as opposed to working as lobbying bodies
on behalf of multinational corporations to affect policies that harm Africans
but benefit wealthy CEOs and shareholders in the West.
According to the
Stockholm International Peace
Research Institute (SIPRI), between
1998 and 2003, Ethiopia and Sudan, two countries amongst the biggest recipients
of international aid in Africa, spent over $4.3 billion on military between them
(Sudan about $1.5billion and Ethiopia $ 2.8 billion).
However, despite the fact that Ethiopia’s military spending is
disproportionately high compared to what it spends on health, education and
society in general, British aid to Ethiopia has been recently expanded to £145 million for 2004/06 compared to £44
million in 2002/03. The aid programme includes direct budget support for the
Ethiopian government to spend as it wills. In light of Ethiopia’s rejection of
the Boundary Commission decision that legally delimited the border with, aid
from the British government may well be used for war.
***
This
sort of donor/recipient relationship based on skewed power balance, as well as
that which is focussed on nourishing dangerous projects of client governments,
places Africa under the shackles of subjugation akin to slavery. In such
circumstances, Africans cannot realise their destiny since their priorities are
constantly made to subserve those of the rich countries who are increasingly
looking to Africa as a mere source of raw materials.
Until
Africa comes to terms with the fact that the only way forward is to rely on
itself, the picture of Africa and Africans as eternal beggars will never change
– CFA or no CFA.