|
12 July, 2002
A bold new direction or the same old wolf in a woollier disguise?
One of the most important and anticipated outcomes of the G8 meeting
in Canada in late June was an agreement on a 'New Partnership for
Africa's Development' (NEPAD).
The theory behind the agreement is for African Governments to work
in concert with wealthy G8 members to achieve lasting development
for Africa. African states are to take ownership of their own development
processes, including responsible government, and regional security.
Meanwhile, wealthy nations assist in any way they can, through aid
funding, debt cancellation, and opening up their markets to developing
country products.
It is an effort to get away from the idea of African countries as
passive recipients of help from the west, and to cast them instead
as active participants and partners.
Sounds like a good idea. But what does it mean in practice?
The
agreement is quite detailed and covers many areas, everything
from removing landmines and establishing a regional security force,
to 'unlocking' funds for development through aid, trade, and investment.
But it may actually means more conditions on aid funding. One of
the perpetual problems with aid funding is the level and types of
'conditionality' donor countries and organisations insist on. Development
funds are only loaned or given if the recipient country meets certain
criteria, set by the donor.
Those criteria usually involve opening up the local economy to foreign
investment and imports, and privatisation. NEPAD reinforces these
economic criteria, and adds additional 'governance' criteria - that
is, requirements for 'democratic' and 'responsible' government.
To critics this means a free licence for the West to meddle in the
affairs of African Governments. To supporters it is a ray of hope
that the corruption and incompetence of some of Africa's weaker nations
may be rooted out. NEPAD establishes a 'Peer review' system by which
African governments will assess each other's compliance with the governance
criteria, and the success or failure of NEPAD may hinge on this institution.
One of the most interesting criticisms of the document is that although
it espouses democracy, the process of progressing the NEPAD agreement
has been anything but democratic. NEPAD has been driven by four of
the wealthiest African Governments and the G8, and has involved very
little consultation at grass roots or civil society level.
A coalition of Civil
Society Groups in Malawi supported the concept of a regional initiative,
but sought an immediate halt to the progress of NEPAD until real consultation
had occured. They claimed that lack of consultation had skewed the
agreement away from African priorities: 'NEPAD proposes to continue
using the old neo-liberal models of development that have failed Africa
for long and as such this initiative does not offer any hope for turn
around of poverty in Africa.'
Some critics of NEPAD, such as Professor
Dennis Brutus of Jubilee South Africa have been scathing, claiming
that NEPAD signals the 'Re-colonisation of Africa'. 'The essence of
the document is that Africa promises to obey all requests from the
West and will submit to their demands, particularly in the area of
investment. Africa will be enslaved to satisfy the demands of the
West.'
NEPAD might work to reduce poverty in some African states. But it
faces a number of challenges, not least the lack of ownership at grass-roots
level, and the lack of new money from the West. But it does seem to
mark a new willingness for Western leaders and their African counterparts
to listen to each other's concerns. Whether this will produce any
real political will for poverty reduction, is another question. The
fact the G8 summit devoted only 90 minutes to the discussion is perhaps
an indication that it will not.
The G8 NEPAD agreement:
www.g8.gc.ca/kan_docs/afraction-e.asp
BBC News Question and Answer page on NEPAD
news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_2070000/2070958.stm
|
