|
US and Britain agree
on relief for poor nations; The
plan would free 18 countries, most of which are in Africa, from any obligation
to repay the estimated $16.7 billion they owe the international lenders, said
the official, who requested anonymity because a formal announcement of the
agreement had not been made. The debts will be written off by the lenders in an
effort to allow the debtor countries to start fresh, get their books in order
and eventually be able to borrow again for economic development, health,
education and social programs, rather than simply to repay existing loans…Mr.
Bush also resisted calls by Mr. Blair for a doubling of direct governmental aid
to Africa, saying the United States has already tripled aid to African
countries in recent years and will provide more as those nations show they can
use it effectively. And
the administration has rejected the British proposal for creation of a new
international body that would raise money for Africa by borrowing against
pledges of future aid. What
did Blair achieve? http://politics.guardian.co.uk/development/story/0,15709,1502375,00.html Blair
wins few promises from Bush http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/08/AR2005060800369.html Commentary that focuses on more than the debt relief. Is relieving debt relief and extreme poverty in Africa the West’s
penance? Should there be a ‘separation of church and state’ between policy and
intent? If this had been written by a native of the Third World, wouldn’t the
message be different? How African aid can be the new
imperialism The
"imperialist" charge against George W Bush is clear: his plans to
spread democracy around the world amount to an American empire in all but name.
He is intent on exporting American political values to the furthest corners of
the globe. Tony Blair has avoided
similar charges - yet the agenda for Africa that he will bring before the G8
leaders is no less ambitious. Like America, Britain also believes it has a
moral duty to change the world - and is about to embark on a mission to do so. The idea of the new
American empire has been powerfully explained by Niall Ferguson, the
Glasgow-born historian. Washington, he argues, is the new Rome as it maintains
a new global world order, at great expense. But while America is playing the
role of policeman for the free world, Britain is angling for the role as the
conscience of the West. Unlike America,
Britain has been here before. Our empire started off as a device for
exploration and plunder, expropriating the natural resources of colonies and
growing rich quick. But midway through the 19th century, things changed
dramatically. The role of the British empire then became to establish the rule
of law and better the lives of its subjects. It was not enough for Britain to
rule the world: it wanted to redeem it - through civilisation, law and
Victorian values One main political
export was the form of government. Britain believed it had perfected
parliamentary democracy, and knew how to build roads and civilise nations.
Missionaries and civil engineers were the foot-soldiers of this new empire. History has swung full circle. Britain once
again believes it has the answers for good government: and, under the auspices
of the "world community", will start improving countries without the
need of removing their governments. By far the most
important document in the Africa debate is the report by Tony Blair's
Commission for Africa. Now in bookshops as a paperback, it is a fact-packed and
powerful summary of Britain's new ambitions for the former colonies. Parts of it urge caution. Those who
ignore African culture, it warns, are doomed to failure: condoms are not much
use fighting AIDS when the disease can be spread by ancient initiation-rites,
blood-brother practices and widespread polygamy. But other parts read
like a Labour manifesto
for the planet.
It is laden in five- and ten-year plans, focused on schools and hospitals, and
constantly judges success in terms of spending targets. Its recommendations are eerily
recognisable. No school class size
should be above 40. Health spending should be at least 15 per cent of the
government budget. Africa must double the area of arable land under irrigation
by 2015. Where
Victorians once brought Bibles, Britain now brings targets. Just as Britain covered India in
railways, so should Africa have its new infrastructure. There should be
"no prestige projects" (we have, it seems, learnt from the Millennium
Dome), but instead, "irrigation of small plots of land". Africa should also
adopt the Private
Finance Initiative (PFI):
all major projects should be "built and delivered in conjunction with the
private sector". Means-testing should be introduced, to ensure free
healthcare for the poorest. Just as England has
city academies, so will Africa have specialist schools. There should be �1.6
billion over ten years to "develop centres of excellence in science and
technology, including African institutes of technology". There is not a God -
but there is the western gospel of gender equality. Africans should do
something about the "routine exclusion of women" from
"decision-making bodies". To sell this to Africa's tribesmen would
require a cultural revolution. We are not talking
about simply debt relief, nor a few more food projects. This is the agenda for
Britain's new, benign
colonialism
- an ambitious blueprint stamped with Gordon Brown's assumptions and methods.
President Bush
is more concerned with good governance - arguing that political stability brings its own harvest.
Emphasis on central planning, and spending a certain amount of cash by a
certain deadline, is a British idea. Hence the split on Africa. Contrary to the
caricature,
President Bush is not simply refusing to pay up - indeed, he has pledged more
to fight AIDS in Africa than the rest of the G8 countries put together.
Britain's agenda for Africa simply clashes with America's. The Commission for Africa
report would not look out of place in the Foreign and Colonial Office of 1870.
Indeed, it has many parallels with America's plan for postwar reconstruction in
Iraq. All are projecting a form of empire. Then and now, morality is a common theme. The crusading zeal of the Victorians is
more than echoed by Mr Brown when he speaks about "the moral arc of the
universe". The Africa Commission says "we are in one moral universe". Christianity is by no means absent this
time around. The Chancellor is, famously, a son of the manse whose political
opinions were formed by his father's sermons in Kirkcaldy. His most powerful
speeches all have something of the pulpit about them. And, of course, Mr Blair
is the most religious occupant of 10 Downing Street since Gladstone. This is a
man who takes his Bible with him on overseas trips: he and his Chancellor are
united in seeing in Africa a moral mission. British churches are
firmly backing the Make Poverty History campaign, whose literature is stacked
in church halls across Britain. It is a campaign our Victorian forefathers
would certainly recognise. But "empire" is now a dirty word. Its
political dimension - exploitation and oppression - has obscured the fact that
it was seen by millions of Victorians as a moral device for bettering the lives
of millions, physically and spiritually. Now, it is a mission without the missionaries -
but Victorians would easily recognise their own ideals in today's crusade to
Make Poverty History. Mr Brown's model is the Marshall Plan, where the US government injected the
equivalent of �50 billion into a war-torn Europe, helped it rebuild
infrastructure and was rewarded by a staunch Cold War ally. To Niall Ferguson, the Marshall Plan was a
tool of the new imperialism - because it extended America's power, assured its
values were enacted over a part of the world to which it had no claim. The same
is true for Mr Brown. He has spent seven years calling for a
Marshall Plan for Africa - an idea that has been met with deep suspicion on the
other side of the pond, where it is argued that decades of aid can be reversed
in a stroke by dictators such as Robert Mugabe. Mr Brown is no less ambitious than Mr
Bush. The pivotal difference is that America has the budget to rule the waves:
Britain does not. This is why Britain needs global alliances, while America
does not.
But Gordon Brown has a cunning plan.
His International Finance Facility would deliver an empire-sized budget
long after the days of empire have passed. It is, in effect, a �60 billion
mortgage to fund the Africa mission - a 30-year loan, borrowing from future
governments. Mr Bush is often told
that he runs the world like an American empire, and should admit as much. Britain
is about to embark on another extraordinary mission, not seen since our own
imperial heyday. Such ambition deserves to be called by its name. http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=627722005 |
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
