Gordon's Marshall Plan for Africa: Who is helping whom?
The Chancellor of the British Exchequer (that is Finance Minister to you and I), Mr Gordon Brown, a man popularly believed until recently, to be THE heir apparent to Teflon Prime Minister, Blair, is visiting Africa this week, taking in four countries including Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique and South Africa. In his bag of Goodies is a set of proposals that have been dubbed 'Gordon's Marshall Plan for Africa'.
A former political ally and friendly rival to Blair but now disgruntled by his friend's unwillingness to honour their gentle manly deal to step aside and allow Brown to take over as her majesty's Chief Minister is believed to be striking out differently from Blair to put his own stamp on both domestic and international policy in preparation for his eventual take over. So just as he has been doing inside Britain he is raising his stakes in the rivalry for compassion about Africa in a year in which Britain is heading both the G8 Club of rich nations and their first cousins in the European Union.
Blair has pledged to make Africa the centre piece of his dual presidency but since it is not a personal mandate Brown has every right to put his stamp on it too, just in case the crown falls on him before or after the British elections in May although my analysts are suggesting that because he has waited too long for the crown he may become yet anther 'great PM' Britain never had.
To be honest Brown has been a long campaigner for reforms of the International Monetary Fund and financial institutions to allow for greater debt relief and tremendous increase in Aid to poorer countries in the world.
His friends and their allies in the British media are calling his plan the Marshal Plan after the famous post second world war American General who master minded the post war reconstruction of Europe. This is more than a bit hyperbolic. First Brown is no general. Second, the Marshall plan was fully paid for by the US treasury without needing the support of ay other country as a price for keeping communism out of Western Europe and Asia Pacific. Britain, a middle ranking post imperial country, has neither the resources nor the clout to do the `same for a vast and diverse continent like Africa.
The whole British effort for this year is predicated on the potential influence it may wield as a result of the historical opportunity of being President of the EU and Chair of the G8 countries during 2005. This influence is being talked up but the reality is different.
There are a number of factors that will impact in a humbling way on this accident of history. One, this is an election year in Britain. It is safe to assume that the governing Labour Party will win another term but it is not certain what the composition of that government will be. Thus the unresolved Blair/Brown rivalry will limit British influence. We won’t know which of them will be able to deliver on what deal!
Two, Tony Blair has promised a referendum on Europe to Britain's Euroskeptic public and political classes. The outcome is not altogether a foregone conclusion. If you are a European leader why should you listen to any sermon from Blair about Africa or any other international issue when his country has yet to decide if they are travelling together with you on the Euro train.
Three, Blair's Prime Ministership and his cringing hanging on to Bush's coat tails show that when the chips are down he will follow Bush whatever the European consensus therefore why should other European leaders trust him? So British influence in Europe despite its Presidency will be severely limited.
Four, apart from EU consensus he needs also the support of his American bosses and other G8 countries for his grand vision since Britain is not able to unilaterally support a Marshall Plan for anybody. Again here the answer has to be in the negative. His 'shoulder to shoulder' toadyism with Bush has not yielded any fundamental influence on the neo-con provincial isolationists and unilateralists in power in Washington.
So where does that leave Blair's and Brown's grand plans for Africa? From where I am looking most of it will add to the mountains of well meaning initiatives and little action. Does this mean that there is nothing Britain can do? I am a political optimist therefore I always look at political possibilities. But both Blair and Brown have to abandon their missionary approach to Africa and concentrate on what they can deliver as a government and hope that their good example can catch on with other EU and G8 countries.
They also need to listen and act on what Africans have decided to do for themselves instead of bringing on new plans. Africa does not need new promises but fulfilment of old ones, both those we made to ourselves and those made to us by others.
I will suggest a number of indices of progress for Tony Brown and Gordon Blair. One, it is good that Brown is suggesting a massive increase in Aid budgets for Africa but while this may appeal to the liberal guilt of his western audience and the compassion entrepreneurs in the huge Aid and humanitarian industry it is not going to help Africa in the long run.
The other aspects of his plan concerning reform of trade and finance and Third World debt must receive greater attention. You can quadruple Aid but in the long run it will be like putting water in a basket if unequal trade and unfair financial dealings and debt trap the poor countries. It is not debt relief that is needed but universal debt cancellation. Let Britain lead by example then we will know that it is serious. Two, the demands of global trade and financial justice is not just at the level of commodities and terms of trade but should include labour access. After 5.00 pm (when most offices close) Africans and especially West Africans are in charge of the city of London because they are the cleaners, security staff, etc. Your traffic warden car park attendant, minicab driver and security personel in stores in many areas of London are more likely to be Africans these days. Many of them are highly qualified and professional people just 'doing anything' to make ends meet. Why can't Britain normalise their stay and let them compete on merit with their skills and experience instead of banishing them into the parallel economy of illegal immigrants, permanent part time students, over stayers, etc. Yet in some countries the remittances from these workers are even more than the total Aid into these countries. Many hospitals will not function if African doctors, nurses, auxiliary staff, etc stopped working. So who is aiding whom?
Three, and on this Britain can really inspire the rest of the world and cause a fundamental shift in global accountability, the city of London has been a major beneficiary of stolen money and other assets looted from Africa and other parts of the world by dictators and their Western masters and agents. If we can get back some of these looted funds British taxpayers need not be giving Aid to many African countries. If either Blair or Britain or together can deliver on these three points even critics and cynics like myself will hire praise singers and roll out the talking drums. But would they?
* Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is General-Secretary of the Pan African Movement, Kampala (Uganda) and Co-Director of Justice Africa
* Please send comments to