Dakar — In the final part of the interview Senegal's President Abdoulaye Wade details his architectural vision for the Dakar, capital city of the West African nation he leads, and discusses what he calls his "Plan Omega" for Africa, which he presented at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in January.
Q: At Davos, Presidents Thabo Mbeki (of South Africa) and Olusegun Obasanjo (of Nigeria) also presented a sort of Marshall Plan for Africa. You also have a plan, and have spoken about it in Senegal, Le Plan Omega. Is it the same thing or do you have an alternative plan and why don't African leaders get together and present a common programme?
A: Let me tell you what happened. I have been working on a plan for Africa for a long time. That's my profession, that's my background. I didn't wait to be called on by Africa to study this.
I came up with a plan, with my experience as the leader of Senegal, and came to the conclusion that the daily battle we fight here is a struggle without hope. Because, if we are really to get involved in globalisation - and we are all for globalisation and for privatization - with the infrastructure and education problems of the sort we have here in Africa, then we will never make it.
The industrialized countries don't have these problems. They have the infrastructure and education built into the system, whereas we are behind with both infrastructure and education. That's why I came up with this plan, not the sort of Third World plan where we ask for everything, no. I have been scientific about this. My specialty is econometrics. So, I have built up a system based up on Keynesian theory. One hears that Keynes has become outmoded, but I disagree. The neo-Keynesians are the ones making the world economy work.
It's a bit long to explain, but there are monetarists and budgetary people who are all the offspring of Keynes. Those who pretend to be original are nothing of the sort. It's very easy to show that the monetary theory of Keynes is still relevant, perhaps not in Keynesian dimensions, but it still applies.
But for me, a Third World man, the situation resembles what happened in England after the war (WW II). So, when I quote Keynes, there's nothing unusual about it. The model of development aid has failed, spoon feeding and credit have failed. The proof? Whoever lends money these days knows perfectly well that the debtors will not be able to pay it back. Let's be serious. You give development aid now, and in five or ten years, that debt has to be rescheduled. That is not rational, lending to someone who you know perfectly well will not be able to pay back.
I mean if you go into your bank, and you have no money or are in the red, your bank manager is not going to lend you money. He is thinking rationally, he is realistic. But the donors are obliged to lend to us, knowing perfectly well that the money will not be paid back.
I say, let's look for resources. And I'll explain now how I intend to find those resources. Long-term financing should be for infrastructure and education. And I'm not going around with my hand stretched out, I'll look for the funds myself. So the financing would be partly funded from resources we have. The other half would be long-term credit to finance infrastructure and education.
Now, why do I say these funds should be established by the United Nations, and managed by an international structure under the auspices of the UN? Because we would transfer our own funds from the donors.
Q: But concretely what is your Omega Plan?
A: It is a personal idea that I've been working on for sometime now because of the failure of methods of financing the development of Africa. If we carry on how we're currently financing road building and infrastructure, piecemeal, with all the funds from bilateral aid, the World Bank, from the European Union - I bet you that in fifty years, we will still be building. Nothing will be finished. Take small Senegal, 190 thousand square kilometres, nothing will be finished.
So mine is a long-term plan to find the finance we need for an all-out campaign to build infrastructure. And here, I'm talking about roads, ports, airports, railways etc.
How do we find these resources? Well, let me first say that we have the resources from multilateral and bilateral cooperation. What we should do is to manage these resources at a global level, rather than every country managing its own -- a continental rather than a national strategy.
Why you may ask, what will it change? Because a global vision is more realistic at the continental level - and I'm talking about railways etc - rather than at a national level. So what I'm proposing is the creation of a multilateral authority which would answer directly to the United Nations and which would manage all the resources and would deal with investment.
Secondly: the bigger countries would be able to place treasury bonds, as a guarantee, so that we could obtain long-term resources. Now, that wouldn't bother them, because we would reimburse the money within a certain period, and they would not have to hand out money. I am not re-inventing the wheel. The United States has already done it - in Latin America and in Mexico.
Thirdly: What I've already said about providing funds for infrastructure and education in Africa. There's nothing new in that idea. It was suggested in the 1970s, some people were for it and some were against.
Q: Long-term debt to create continental infrastructure, but what's so different about that?
A: It's the continental vision and not individual countries. So we won't have to deal with incoherence we are experiencing after forty years plus of independence. I mean we talk about African unity, we want African unity, meanwhile we don't even have adequate road systems to go from one country to the other.
Since 1960, every country has been building roads, but today we in Senegal can't just drive to neighbouring Guinea. You can't just get up and go by road to Mali. Why? Because their roads weren't our problem. Every little country wanted to build its own. But if we have a global strategy, then the first thing we'll say is, yes, we need a good road that will take us to Mali, and onto Niger, all the way to Chad and the Central African Republic. Do you understand what I'm saying.
It's a difference in vision. So, with our common funds, we can together build all the infrastructure we need to link our countries together.
Q: But what about your fellow African leaders, President Mbeki, President Obasanjo and President Bouteflika of Algeria, they've proposed a project very similar to yours haven't they? Mbeki and Obasanjo were both there in Davos armed with their plan for Africa...isn't there a risk of duplication or are you working together?
A: Absolutely. Indeed, in Davos, we worked together. The difference is that they, Mr Thabo Mbeki, Mr Obasanjo and Mr Bouteflika have been mandated by Africa (by the Organisation of African Unity and the G15) to make contacts and talk with the G7/8 group of countries about debt problems. And they've talked about a plan for Africa. But they were the advocates of PLANS for Africa. We gave them the mandate. But as an individual and an economist, I have proposed ONE plan for Africa.
They actually went to talk about debt. But en route, they also came up with these plans for Africa. Truth be told, in Davos, they met all the big world financiers and gave their points of view. But there's no opposition.
We found ourselves - Bouteflika was absent because he was away on mission in Asia - Thabo Mbeki, Obasanjo and I were all on the same platform. They understood perfectly that what I was saying I was saying as an individual, a personal perspective. I was invited as an individual. They were representing Africa.
But to be honest, I didn't know that they were going to talk about a plan for Africa. It was right there in Davos that I found out about it. But I spoke and they both said, indeed, what President Wade has said fits in perfectly with our plan for Africa.
And you know what, Africa is a vast continent - 52 countries. So, we can all contribute. I suppose circumstances mean that I have given my opinion earlier than others, but other countries will follow suit. But there is certainly no contradiction, just two different dimensions.
Now they will present their plan to Africa and we will say what we have to say. But I have my ideas, my personal ideas and if some of these ideas can be integrated, then that's a good thing. If not, well they are my views and I stand by them.
Q: What do the western countries get out of this who, no doubt, prefer bilateral aid because of course this gives them direct influence and involvement?
A: Take the case of France. Their interest is that French firms, for instance, would benefit. After all, French companies could be the ones called on to build thousands and thousands and thousands of kilometres of roads in Africa.
Oh yes, I will show how the west will benefit. To carry out all this infrastructure work, we will need foreign and European firms, which are technically more advanced than ours, and which can build roads much faster than we could do, and of course more cheaply.
I always say that building one kilometre of road costs less in Morocco than it does in Senegal. In Senegal, it's CFA100 million a kilometre. It's much cheaper in Morocco.
What about South Africa? I always say there are two African countries - South Africa and Ghana - who have acceptable road systems which are good. So two-thirds of the resources I'm talking about would go to western companies to carry out the work.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Q: You have plans for rebuilding and redesigning Dakar. What specifically are you hoping to achieve in terms of the structure and with trade and economics as well as psychologically: changing a French colonial city. What are your plans?
A: Yes, of course. For me the restructuring of Dakar is a huge problem and undertaking. I had a meeting with the one hundred and fifty architects in Senegal and with construction specialists and those who deal with historic buildings and environment specialists to get an idea of how we can change the capital city.
It's a huge problem. Up till now, I haven't had response. I have my own ideas. But I haven't yet got a response from the architects and environmentalists. For the restructuring of the capital, we must first enlarge the streets. That's the first problem. Secondly, I hope we will be able to declare a pedestrian district. These are just ideas. Of course, they have to be discussed by the people and the specialists.
I think all over Dakar, take the district of the port, there are very nice and very old buildings. I think this district might be redone for the artists, as there are in certain countries which have glass shop fronts for sculptors, painters and jewelers, craftsmen etc. We could have a pedestrian area for that.
Beyond that, the main problem of Dakar is that it is a very, very long city - about 20 kilometres without any proper structure. I met some specialists in Davos and I think that in a few months, they will be able to treat waste water, which is a very big problem now. And I want to stop the extension of the city. I want to stop it, as they did in Morocco, in Rabat. We have identified an area that should become a big park - an open space -- and we will not allow construction in this area.
I have many, many ideas on that. I have a team of five architects that are working on this. The problem is not only for Dakar. St Louis, Kaolack, Thies also need restructuring. But the most important problem that we have to give priority to really is the treatment of waste water and garbage. We have a contract with a Swiss company, which is setting up its office in Senegal, and they will begin their work on 1 March or maybe mid March.
Part 1: Investigation Into Killing Ordered
Part 2: Some Success Fighting HIV/AIDS But "We Are Living A Tragedy In Africa Now"
