The result of the CfA was produced on March 11 this year, when the UK-led Commission released a report detailing a recovery plan for the continent.[1]  The report claims to set out a radical vision, with a range of measures to alleviate poverty, improve health and education and reduce conflict in the continent. The report states that its aim is to “tell a story…telling the world how the problem looks through African eyes” (p.19). However, the African eyes included in this commission have been very carefully selected to share the same distorting glasses worn by Blair and his G8 cohorts.

Of course, Blair's is not the first commission, conference, report or forum to focus on proposing solutions to Africa's problems. Over decades, there has been a trail of failed Northern-led initiatives for Africa, and some of them are considered in this Alternatives Commission report. Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem considers the similarities between the CfA and the Brandt Comission in assessing the shortcomings of such initiatives. Beyond the limitations contained within such plans, Abdul-Raheem argues, there has been a lack of action to match the promises made. Yao Graham, in his article, describes his sense of deja-vu reading the CfA report, considering that a previous initiative for Africa, NEPAD, supported by the G8, and accompanied by the 'Africa Action Plan' was described by Blair and others as 'Africa's last chance'. The question is, does this report in any real way present an alternative approach to previous flawed strategies? 

There are three things we have to consider to answer the question. We need first to identify where the policy emphasis really lies. We do not have to look far to find evidence that corporations have a critical rule in shaping the G8 agenda. What does that mean for Africa?  Secondly, as Yao Graham suggests, it is not words but deeds that count in assessing how sincere the Blair government is about addressing Africa's problems. We can already get a sense how far Tony Blair has met his own professed commitments to Africa. Thirdly, and most importantly, we need to ask Africans what they see as both the problems and the solutions facing their continent, in the context of the global economy the G8 control. This third priority is the motivator for this Alternatives Commission report. African assessments of the report bring a different perspective to the table, borne of years, sometimes decades of campaigning and activism on the ground. Furthermore, these experiences occur in African contexts, providing direct experience and sharpened perspectives of lifetimes in Africa, accessible neither to Northern politicians, nor Northern NGOs.

Policy emphasis

The UN places primary importance on the participation of all members of society. This is in contrast to the IMF definition: Our approach is to concentrate on those aspects of good governance that are most closely related to our surveillance over macroeconomic policies—namely, the transparency of government accounts, the effectiveness of public resource management, and the stability and transparency of the economic and regulatory environment for private sector activity. Michel Camdessus, IMF Managing Director, 1997.[3]

The G8 interpretation chimes with the IMF emphasis on macroeconomics and the facilitation of privatisation. Despite G8 gestures of inclusiveness in inviting African leaders to their recent summits, there is little evidence that the interests of African people are driving policy. Most of the contributions to this report question the macroeconomic framework that has been externally imposed on Africa over decades. The report begins with an overview of the African economy in the context of the global capitalist system. Through this examination of the context, Dot Keet from South Africa provides a comprehensive analysis of the external factors sustaining poverty in Africa. This is a useful summary of the root causes of Africa's problems, including consideration of trade, aid and debt among other factors relevant to G8 policy considerations.

As emphasised by several of the contributors to this report, potentially positive interventions recommended in the CfA, come with strings attached. The disastrous impacts of the conditions attached to loans and to debt relief include liberalising trade and economies, privatisation and the imposition of charges for essential services such as health and education. Charles Abugre from Ghana focuses on the details of the economic web constraining Africa's development, examining the links between trade and debt, as well as considering the rhetoric surrounding proposals of aid.  Abugre questions the current emphasis on the European Common Agricultural Policy; which he argues is a red herring. 

African voices in this report present a range of perspectives on debt. Demba Dembele from Senegal considers the history of the debt crisis, from the 1980s, through the development of the HIPC initiative, in examining the inherently unjust debt trap. Dembele outline African solutions for breaking free from the debt chains. The Jubilee South article considers current negotiations on debt relief. They argue that the debt offer recently advanced from the G7 finance ministers it is not a worthy response to the ceaseless and untiring campaigning by campaigners across the South. There are still too many conditions, too few countries considered for relief, and some of the creditors are still not involved in the process. As Jubilee South argues, the G8 cannot make poverty history if they don't acknowledge and accept responsibility for their own role in creating and sustaining debt.

Samir Amin views the structural adjustment associated with debt conditionality as ensuring Africa's oppressed position in the newer form of neo-colonialism associated with globalisation. Without a shift away from the neo-colonial paradigm, he argues, debt will swiftly regenerate. Samir Amin argues that the Commission for Africa seeks to segregate the debt campaign in Africa from a wider struggle for justice. The debt campaign should continue, as it has been, as a campaign of the global South.

Strings attached to aid also involve adjustments which facilitate privatisation. UK foreign aid is now largely targeted at countries willing to comply with this. Tajudeen Abdul Raheem is particularly critical of the operations and ideology of international aid, for perpetuating the image of Africa as a begging bowl, always to remain dependant on Western benefactors.

Korinna Horta argues that despite CfA references to the importance of sustainability of donor interventions in Africa, little attention is being paid to the quality, sustainability and environmental impact of aid so far. World Bank support for private sector investment will play an important role in any new aid. Africa is viewed - by the US in particular - to be the world’s new energy frontier. Yet, history shows that resource rich African countries are among the poorest and most conflict-ridden in the continent. The World Bank must be held to account for sustainability of its interventions, argues Horten.

As the governance and legitimacy of the G8 has come under scrutiny in recent years, it has been pressured to respond. Facing criticisms of paternalism towards Africa, the G8 have wanted to be seen to involve African leaders. Of the 17 panel members of the CfA, 9 are African, allowing Blair to claim that CfA is a majority African initiative. But such a claim belies the fact that the African leaders who have been hand-picked are among those most willing to comply with the neoliberal agenda of the commission. They include Benjamin Mkapa, the Tanzanian president and Trevor Manuel, the South African finance minister. These two governments have particularly close trading links with the UK government, and have both enthusiastically pursued privatisation programmes with UK encouragement. The Tanzanian government website boasts of the rapid privatisation of its public sector over ten years, proclaiming the UK as its largest foreign partner.[4]

The United Kingdom is also the biggest foreign investor in South Africa. In June 2001, Patricia Hewitt, until recently UK Trade Secretary, spoke at a meeting promoting UK - South African business links, where she highlighted that British companies' total investments in South Africa were over £11 billion. She also promoted the new trade development and promotion organisation, Trade Partners UK, commenting that South Africa would remain 'a target market for the UK.'[5]  Yet, we know that privatisation in South Africa has brought its own miseries and caused hardship and increased poverty for huge sections of the population. Trevor Ngwane, in his article on the privatisation strategies adopted by the ANC, explains why there is a growing grassroots movement resisting such measures. If the G8 is genuine about democracy, he argues, they should listen to these campaigners' views. 

The role of corporations in influencing the G8 agenda is central to all of this. Corporate Watch has demonstrated how the Commission for Africa has been directly influenced by the very corporations responsible for creating poverty and havoc in the continent.[6] The CfA plan, they argue, is to invest massive amounts of G8 and African money in public-private partnerships to build the infrastructure that will eventually turn Africa into a single free market economy, a major international trading partner and a new growth site for foreign investment.

Corporate Watch demonstrate how closely corporations worked with the Commisison for Africa. In July 2004 Chancellor Gordon Brown and Reuter's chairman, Niall FitzGerald, set up a Business Contact Group explicitly to provide private sector input to the Commission for Africa. The Contact Group was comprised of leading corporate investors in Africa, which met the Commission three times during the consultation. Its 16 or so corporate members are not known for demonstrating good governance in their operations in Africa: Anglo American, Shell, De Beers, Rio Tinto and.Diageo, who also own the Gleneagles hotel where the G8 Summit will take place. The Corporate Council on Africa and the Canadian Council on Africa also gave input, thus allowing oil corporations, ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco, a say. The aims of the CfA Business Contact Group is to get the policies of the international community to match those of multinational corporations currently operating in the continent. Small wonder then that central to the Commission’s blueprint are public-private partnerships (PPPs) in which the private sector is contracted to build and operate infrastructure like roads and ports, or provide basic services like water and electricity.

Increasing governance and assumption of power by transnational corporations is evident in all of this. African leaders compliant with this model are described as good governors, but are no more representative of their populations than the leaders of the G8 are of theirs. UK based Africans and African diaspora groups have described the CfA report as 'colonialist' and pushing a model of development 'favourable to deregulated free markets and Western economic and political interests.'  The African groups issued a statement with the World Development Movement:  "Real solutions for Africa are more likely to come from genuine African initiatives, for example, the Pan-African Movement, the landless movement in Southern Africa, the Africa Social Forum and the campaign against privatisation in Ghana. The UK and other rich country governments, international NGOs and liberation movements can best support African development by building solidarity with these grassroots movements[7]."

Despite acknowledgement in sections of the report that privatisation and trade liberalisation have contributed to the collapse of infrastructure and increased deprivation in Africa, the CfA still seeks to adjust Africa to neoliberalism. Good governance has to fit within that framework. In this context, what does the CfA commitment to addressing corruption mean and how effective is it likely to be? 

Matching words and deeds

It is too soon to be able to systematically evaluate whether the commitments in the CfA report will be fulfilled by any of those responsible for the document. However, some initial indications are available, both through careful consideration of the words chosen, and through initial responses from the UK government, as Abdul-Raheem recommends, matching words with deeds.

Describing corruption as 'a systemic problem facing Africa', the Commission urges the G8 to make commitments to improve transparency in transactions with the continent. The report acknowledges that corruption exists in the west as well as Africa: 'Fighting corruption involves tackling those who offer bribes as well as those who take them,' It recognises the relationship between rich natural resources, such as oil and diamonds, and how their presence in Africa has facilitated conflict, with much of the wealth ending up in western bank accounts.

However, the wording of the report is critical in determining its seriousness. The wording indicates good intentions, 'urging' improvements in transparency and more support for self-regulatory bodies such as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI). But where are the commitments to effective regulation?  Patricia Feeney, executive director of Rights and Accountability in Development, sums it up: 'They've taken very much the usual line of protecting our companies at any cost… They've not shown any sign of really taking their own medicine.'[8]

Only a week after the report was published, Britain was criticised for failing to crack down on bribery by its firms abroad - precisely what the CfA recommended rich countries do. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) issued a report saying not a single firm or person has been prosecuted since its anti-bribery convention came into force in Britain in 2001, citing a lack of political will and resources.[9]  The international arms industry also highlights the commitment of the G8 to pursue its own interests in Africa. Five of the G8 member countries, including Britain, are the world's biggest arms dealers. Transparency International comments on the UK: 'The government is seriously deficient in meeting the strategy and targets identified in the commission's report.'[10]

What hope for Africa?

The architects of capitalist globalisation have increasing difficulty in justifying their policies. However, they are also skilled at manipulating the media and the powerful in the interests of upholding corporate control and their own associated power. It is imperative that the CfA report be seriously scrutinised from the outset, because if we accept at face value another strategy document which is inherently flawed, the outcome will be that Africa, rather than the strategy, is viewed as a 'basket case', when the strategy fails. This feeds into the vicious spin circle, whereby Blair and Co. will claim that more corporate control and more World Bank conditionality are the cure rather than the cause of Africa's problems.

As the G8 Scotland summit has drawn nearer, discussion and debate about Africa has not even begun to get to the roots of poverty in the continent. Blair's commission report was carefully framed to trump the anticipated arguments of mainstream anti-poverty campaigners, and indeed it had been warmly welcomed by less critical sections of the Make Poverty History campaign. Most of the contributors to this report urge caution around supposedly anti-poverty campaigns that are too easily reframed as government policy. For many African groups and NGOs, there remain serious concerns about the intentions and limitations of the CfA. That is why this Alternatives report has been produced.

There are stark contrasts between the resources at the disposal of Blair's commission and this alternatives commission report. Unlike the timescale of a year and the huge budget enjoyed by Blair's commissioners, this report has been put together in a period of four weeks, with no budget and absolutely no corporate involvement. Blair's commissioners all have connections to the international financial institutions, as detailed at the back of this report in a short article by Paul Cammack. The contributors to this report are motivated by social justice and equality.

Some of the contributions in this report have recently been published in other forums, as detailed. The majority have been written for the report. Almost all of them have been written by Africans, and range from short statements to more in-depth analysis. Contributors have on the whole produced material of their own choosing, independently of each other. In some cases this means that several authors cover the same subject. However, given that the emphasis of each contribution varies, the repetition, where it occurs, serves to strengthen the key messages.

The contributors to this report demonstrate above all that it is precisely because the African continent remains trapped in a web of conditionality imposed by an increasingly merciless global economic order, and at the behest of the G8, that so many millions suffer.

The authors of this report cannot be dismissed as cynical pessimists. They are all actively engaged in struggles for justice; some have been over decades. Being sceptical about the intentions of the powerful is not the same as resignation to hopelessness. Progress involves recognising the source of the difficulties currently faced by the continent. That means constantly checking to see whose interests are really foremost - with a key question in the case of foreign policy on Africa being whether the initiative driven by corporate interests?  It also means holding the G8 to account - are they fulfilling their promises and following their own advice?  But above all progress must entail identifying and working with solutions identified by Africans. The Alternatives Commission is one small step in that process.

The whole report is available in pdf format or as chapters in word.