Encouraging signs. Africa's time may well have come. There are a few indications of this from the European side. It appears quite clear that in the view of Louis Michel, the job of European Commissioner for Development Aid is not just a stepping stone in his political career, but that he feels profoundly and personally involved in it. Not since the era of Lorenzo Natali have we heard such a note of sincerity and passion. Loving Africa and the Africans and doing all in his power to help them was a duty to Natali, a mission; I get the impression that the same is true of Louis Michel. A number of Member States have listed Africa among their main priorities. Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac have taken initiatives which testify to their desire to act. Be it the Franco-German idea of a tax on kerosene (supported by some, rejected by others), or the new financial instrument proposed by the UK, the intention of finding extra sources of aid is clear. At the same time, the EU is fighting at the WTO for the new round of international trade negotiations to justify its “development round” tag. And the fact that the ACP States and the EU have just closed their negotiations, within the planned time-frame, on the five-year revision of the Cotonou Convention (see our bulletin of 25 February, p.8) is also an encouraging sign. Tony Blair has repeated that Africa will be the priority of the UK's current G8 Presidency and forthcoming EU Presidency and did so in terms that made the emotion behind them clear: “Africa is a continent of breathtaking beauty and diversity and its habitants have extraordinary energy and endurance. As I said when I went there, if you give them the smallest chance to get on, they seize it with both hands”. Guy Verhofstadt recommended a “common agenda” for Africa's children. At the same time, and this is the most important point, African countries have shown that they are taking on more and more into their own hands, even if this is still done imperfectly, to phase out internal conflicts and promote freedom and democracy on their continent.
African countries must do their bit. However, I am aware that opposite points of view continue to abound. The British historian Niall Ferguson published a long article in the international press to show that far from putting African countries on the road to development, international aid has done nothing but line the pockets of the local elite and feed corruption. According to a recent study of thirty African countries, these elites exported 187 billion dollars between 1970 and 1996, which, with interest, corresponds to 145% of these countries' debts! Around 80% of each dollar returned north that same year in the form of flight of capital. This explains how the burden of debt has come unsustainable. Without challenging these figures, the services of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown replied that Mr Ferguson's article certainly didn't help to solve the African problem. This is too simplistic a response. I feel that both sides are needed. The North must respect its commitments on aid, but the African countries must fight corruption and the abuses committed by the elite, and put an end to inter-African conflicts which are, by a long way, the main cause of famine and natural disaster. Otherwise, European commitment would be fruitless. The EU already operates distinctions between the countries which receive its aid, depending on their behaviour; I feel it must do more of this in future, without being swayed by the protests of those crying our against undue interference in the internal affairs of any given ACP State. It's not a question of operating political choices, just of not contributing to the wastage of aid, to corruption and to abuse.
Solutions and dangers. This, incidentally, is the reason I don't trust anyone who emphasises financial aid alone, who asks only for money, without worrying too much about the real solutions, such as: the stability of prices of raw materials (whatever the multi-nationals make of that); a return to traditional agricultural production (to feed local people) instead of export cash crops which make the countries in question totally and ruinously dependent on agricultural imports; the end of export subsidies practised by rich countries (including the EU), allowing them to export their agricultural surpluses at low costs, killing off local production in Africa and elsewhere. And African leaders must stop allowing themselves to be seduced by the idea of the total opening-up of the EU's borders, be the sirens in question non-governmental organisations who know no better or big exporting countries who can invade the European market and, at a stroke, eradicate agricultural products from Africa.
(F.R.)