From Kananaskis to Gleneagles: assessing Canadian "leadership" on Africa.

Publication: Behind the Headlines

Publication Date: 22-MAR-05

Bookmark this article Print this article Link to this article Email this article Digg It! Add to del.icio.us RSS

COPYRIGHT 2005 Canadian Institute of International Affairs

Three years ago, in the context of the Kananaskis summit of the G8, Prime Minister Jean Chretien orchestrated an agenda that for the first tune focused the attention of the world s richest countries on the monumental challenges facing the world's poorest continent. In early July 2005, this time at the instigation of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, at Gleneagles the G8 will do it again. In between, our government has focused more attention and resources on Africa than ever before. It is appropriate, therefore, to assess Canadian claims to leadership on Africa against this record of activity and, more substantially, to assess the extent to which Canada has been able to contribute to the improvement of sub-Saharan Africa's prospects.

The Canadian government's overall approach through this period has followed a "Satisficing" logic: it has been, on balance, "good enough" to sustain Canadian leadership claims, at least in relation to other rich countries, but it has fallen short of genuine leadership in relation to the real needs of African countries and peoples. To be sure, there have been initiatives of real importance--on HIV/AIDS and the "responsibility to protect," for example--supported by prodigious efforts on the part of individual Canadians within and beyond government. On the whole, however, Canada's more routine contributions have been just enough to be credible (and sometimes less than this), probably compromising more "heroic" initiatives of the sort noted above. As Canadian decision makers contemplate their ongoing role in Africa's affairs, therefore, they would be well served by focusing more on making consistent contributions to the continent's needs and on good followership of important initiatives by others, and less on the sometimes unseemly preoccupation with making and sustaining leadership claims.

Two important reports inform this analysis. The first is the government's recent International Policy Statement (IPS), A Role Of Pride and Influence in the World, released in April of this year; the second is the report of the Commission for Africa, chaired by Tony Blair, entitled Our Common Interest and released the month before. (1) The latter, in particular, provides a wide-ranging, comprehensive, and in many respects highly impressive analysis and prescription for Africa that can usefully inform the thinking of Canadian policy makers and others interested in African affairs.

The analysis that follows is in line with the three Ds that government policy increasingly aspires to harmonize: diplomacy, specifically in the plurilateral context of the G8; defence, or more accurately human security; and development, through Canada's evolving aid program. This triple focus gives less attention to the increasingly important realm of commercial relations and corporate social responsibility than it deserves. However, such concerns are increasingly integrated into the priorities of diplomacy, security, and development in Canadian policy, so that commercial issues are not completely absent from the stock-taking below.

WHAT IS AT STAKE IN AFRICA?

There are both ethical and interest-based foundations for the increasing preoccupation with Africa in the "rich world"--the term used in the Commission for Africa's Our Common Interest. These are cogently summarized in the report. The raw facts are that subSaharan Africa is the world's poorest continent, with half its population living in absolute poverty and with average per capita incomes that are lower today than 30 years ago. This year, millions of child and maternal deaths will occur that should be easily preventable; 40 million children will not able to go to school; and 2 million people will die as a result of HIV/AIDS, many of whom would have lived comfortably and productively had they had access to anti-retroviral drugs readily available elsewhere. In the meantime, agricultural subsidies in the rich world for the production of surplus food (which is then pushed onto the world market to the detriment of Africa's hard-pressed farmers) exceed Africa's total GDP. Ethically, then, the commission is entirely right to conclude:

The contrast between the lives led by those who live in rich countries and poor people in Africa is the greatest scandal of our age. To convey the enormity of that injustice we speak in millions--and yet we have to remember that behind each statistic lies a child who is precious and loved. (p 22)

The interest-based calculus may seem less immediate, especially from the safe distance of Canada, but is no less compelling. A developmentally robust Africa would enrich the world; an impoverished and declining Africa compromises world prosperity--although, problematically it has enriched individuals and companies within and beyond the continent who too often become obstacles to sustained renewal. An Africa populated by many fragile or "failing" states is one that cannot fulfill the elemental requirements of security for many of its people and becomes a locus of insurgency, instability, conflict, illicit trading, and refugees, that can and does provide support and succour to extremism (including terrorism), and call and does spill over into the affairs of rich countries in Europe and beyond.

On the other side of the ledger, there are clear signs of improvement. There has always been a dangerous tendency to over-generalize about the depredations of the continent, while overlooking the countries and peoples that have achieved successes, sometimes against long odds, in development, democratization, and social mobilization. Countries such as South Africa (just over 10 years beyond apartheid), Botswana, Ghana, Mozambique, Senegal, and Tanzania can be regarded as relatively promising, notwithstanding the extraordinary challenges (of inequality, HIV/AIDS, etc.) they continue to confront.

More broadly, the G8 at Kananaskis and beyond were responding to a bold initiative from some of Africa's most prominent and respected leaders, in the form of the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD). (2) There is a tendency to overstate the novelty of NEPAD, particularly in the claim that it represents the first comprehensive plan for African recovery and development to emerge directly from the initiative and vision of Africans themselves (to be truly "homegrown"). NEPAD does, however, contain important new emphases on the need for improved governance and on African responsibility for addressing and settling continental conflicts, and it proposes new...

Read the full article for free courtesy of your local library.