Twenty years ago German Chancellor Willy Brandt concluded that peace was the solution to Africa’s problems. Two decades on Tony Blair’s Commission for Africa, launched earlier this year, will probably come to the same conclusion. The challenge will be to see whether Blair’s Commission can make peace a reality.
Speaking in Brighton three years ago, Blair called for action to assist Africa in its struggle to develop. It was a visionary speech that attempted to set the tone for a post-September 11 world. The Commission is seen by many as Blair’s follow-up. It is comprised of nearly 20 commissioners from across the globe, each bringing with them their own expertise. Through consultations with groups working in Africa, the commissioners will make recommendations on how the continent can tackle its problems.
It is unlikely Brandt would be happy with the progress in Africa. World Bank figures for 2000 show that nearly 50 percent of people in sub-Saharan Africa live on less than $1 a day-more than in 1990. Problems have been exacerbated by the Aids epidemic sweeping the continent, but lacklustre support on the part of developed countries has also made development difficult. The stark reality is that Africa needs help and the world isn’t helping. Few countries are achieving the 1970 UN target of 0.7 percent of GNP being dedicated to development assistance. Indeed, aid to developing countries has fallen since 1980 and in the post-September 11 world Africa finds more conditions attached to the money it is offered.
On its present course Africa will fail to meet the Millennium Development Goals set just a few years ago. The goals will only be achieved if the developing and developed worlds change the way they interact with each other. For the developing world this means following through on promises to secure better governance and facing up to its despotic leaders. For the developed world it means ending farm subsidies and entering into fair trade agreements whilst increasing development assistance. Both sides will have to make considerable changes to their present course in the face of political opposition at home from those with vested interests.
In the UK this will mean developing a consistent policy towards Africa: a continent ravaged by war. Conflict not only robs societies of their children but it also stops inward investment and programmes to assist development. Conflict could be curtailed if the big arms-producing countries, of which the UK is one of the biggest, develop effective policies on arms control. The government has broken its manifesto commitment on arms control and continues to prime the arms industry with money from the public purse. The government needs a coherent policy on Africa: not the current policy, which sees it give with one hand and take with the other.
Some NGOs criticise Blair for his decision to establish ‘yet another talking shop’. Only time will tell whether these criticisms are valid. However, unless the Prime Minister is able to develop the political will to challenge the vested interests that stop development in Africa he will have failed. Africa is a scar on the world’s conscience because rich countries have shown so little conscience in their policies towards the continent. Blair will need to call in many favours at the international level if these policies are to change and the Commission is to be a success.
Next year the UK will chair both the G8 and the European Council. This will give the government a rare opportunity to lead the international community on these issues: a chance that can’t be squandered. Blair and Brown have to go face to face with other world leaders to engage them with the problems blighting Africa. Engaging civil society organisations with the Commission’s work would also help. The land mine and Jubilee Debt relief campaigns should be a model for action. These campaigns galvanised the support of millions of people world-wide and forced governments to take action. If the Commission’s final report in 2005 is to be anything more than a theoretical essay on Africa’s needs then it has to engage civil society organisations. The dry analytical approach adopted by the Commission could come alive with an international dialogue on finding solutions to the challenges facing Africa.
The Commission has the potential to make a difference to the lives of millions of Africans if it is a Commission for Africa and the vested interests of the developed world are rejected. But the Commission’s report will only ever be a catalyst for change. It will take considerable political will to see decisive action on the issues facing the continent. Blair can only hope to avoid repeating Brandt’s failures. If he is willing to take tough decisions and gain the backing of international partners he might well help to bring peace in Africa a little closer.