Aiding Africa
Trade, not welfare, is the answer.
By Alex Massie
Edinburgh has not awaited an invasion with quite this degree of trepidation since Charles Edward Stuart led his Highlanders into the city in 1745. As then, businesses have closed and many residents have taken the prudent option of leaving the city for a few days until the storm passes and life can return to normal.
At least this time, however, the city is better defended. In 1745, it was defenseless and opened its gates to the Jacobite army. This week, all police leave has been cancelled and extra forces have been drafted in from across the United Kingdom to monitor the hundreds of thousands of protesters occupying the city during the G8 summit at Gleneagles Hotel, just 40 miles up the road. The army is also on standby.
Bob Geldof called for a million people to descend on the Scottish capital (population 450,000) as part of what he terms "A Long Walk to Justice," to increase pressure on the G8 leaders to do more to alleviate African suffering and poverty. The latest indications are, much to the relief of the city council, that far fewer will make the trip.
A spokesman for Geldof admitted that the Long Walk might also be a comparatively Lonely Walk. "There isn't a march as such. It's a metaphorical, symbolic thing which Sir Bob Geldof was talking about. It doesn't really matter where you march. It doesn't matter whether you are there physically as long as you are there in spirit."
Indeed. In truth, the protests are entirely unnecessary. They are doubtless well-intentioned, but, in many cases, promise little more than the satisfaction to be gained from self-indulgence.
Tony Blair has spiked the protesters' guns by dedicating much of the summit's public agenda to the question of debt relief and aid for Africa. This not only ensured that, all being well, this summit might actually be remembered for something other than the organized mayhem of protesters and the fine but synthetic communiqués issued from the meetings themselves â †it also took Iraq off the agenda.
Although Saturday's "Make Poverty History" march in Edinburgh, expected to draw perhaps 200,000 people, will be followed by a predictable "Stop the War Coalition" rally, the war is not the fulcrum for protesters' rage, even if the usual suspects will be in attendance.
In Britain at least, anti-Americanism has become the last refuge of the conformable. The United States can't win. As Andrew Natsios, the head of USAID, noted recently, if America did double the amount of aid it offered to Africa it would be accused of "imperial development."
Although the anti-globalization crowd may find George W. Bush repulsive, he is right. You can be certain that few among the kaftan-wearing hordes agree with Bono and Geldof's assessment that Bush has done more for Africa so far than Bill Clinton ever did. The president is right when he demands that in return for debt-cancellation and increased aid African governments commit themselves to being "agents of reform" rather than "passive recipients of money." As Bush put it on Thursday, "partnership not paternalism."
This demand for accountability is oddly controversial. But it seems axiomatic that anyone with Africa's interests at heart would want, indeed demand, that aid be spent on those it is designed to help rather than sequestered in Swiss bank accounts or squandered to satisfy the whims of a kleptocratic elite.
An appraisal of the history of aid to Africa is enough to make you weep. In the last 45 years the developed world has handed out more than $450 billion in aid. Yet according to Marian Tupy at the Cato Institute, African GDP declined by 0.59 percent per annum from 1975 to 2000. South Asia, which received just 21 percent of the aid Africa did, has increased GDP by 2.94 percent a year during that same period. Even allowing for different circumstances, that comparison is striking and ought to suggest that more aid is not necessarily the answer to African woes.
As Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown told MPs recently, "We should be opening our markets and removing trade-distorting subsidies and, in particular, doing more to urgently tackle the waste of the Common Agricultural Policy by now setting a date for the end of export subsidies."
This would do more than anything else to aid the developing world. Brown is the son of a Church of Scotland minister and grew up in Kirkcaldy, the birthplace of Adam Smith, just across the Firth of Forth from Edinburgh. Although a more traditional Labour figure than Blair, Brown has, in this instance at least, shown his appreciation of the fact that Presbyterianism and free markets have long been honorable and highly moral companions.
The same criticism of EU agricultural policy could and should be leveled at American farm and cotton subsidies. Indeed, while the president and Condoleezza Rice have admirably insisted that political liberalization is essential if the Middle East is to develop the kind of civil society that helps inoculate a population against extremism, the administration does not make it clear nearly as frequently that political freedom without economic freedom is only half a loaf.
Prosperity kills fanaticism just as surely, and perhaps even more effectively, than democracy â †provided, that is, that the latter exists in any meaningful sense. In that regard, tariffs on textile imports from countries such as Pakistan and Egypt are harmful to American national security as well as offensive to free-traders' principles.
Those concerns will be far from the minds of most of the protesters this week, however. Repeat after me: "Trade Not Aid! Free Trade Not 'Fair' Trade!" Is it too much to hope that this romantic but right message might be heard?
â †Alex Massie writes for the Scotman.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/massie200507060811.asp