Washington, DC — However distracted by Thursday's bombings in London, the G8 meetings in Gleneagles, Scotland continued with consideration of global climate change and a working lunch that South African President Thabo Mbeki attended. Friday is designated for an Africa focus, with leaders of the eight developed countries that compose the G8 meeting together in the morning, followed by a working lunch between the G8 and the African leaders who were invited to the summit.
The summit itself has been the culmination of lengthy preparatory meetings, with policy statements hammered out in advance by "sherpas" - the representatives of the G8 leaders, whose name is taken from the Himalayan guides who escort climbers to the summits of mountains, and whose aides are dubbed "sous-sherpas." Underscoring the sherpa's central role, musician and anti-poverty campaigner Bono met with the group in London for 30 minutes while there for the Live 8 concert, making what German sherpa Bernd Pfaffenbach called a "very positive" impression.
Leaders of several African countries were invited to Friday's working lunch: the four founders of the New Partnership for African Development (Nepad) - the heads of South Africa, Nigeria, Senegal and Algeria; the leaders of Ethiopia and Tanzania, who are the Africans serving on the Commission for African Development (the "Blair Commission") formed by British Prime Minister Tony Blair; the president of the African Union; and the president of Ghana, which was one of the first countries to submit itself to the African Union's "peer review" process, designed to evaluate compliance with the goals and standards of good governance and socio-economic management. Also invited to the lunch were the United Nations Secretary General and the president of the World Bank.
Before leaving for Gleneagles, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Africa, Constance Barry Newman, spoke with AllAfrica's Tamela Hultman about the Africa focus of this year's G8. Newman, who was in charge of Africa for USAID before assuming her current post, has attended previous G8 summits and worked closely with a wide range of efforts and initiatives leading up to the summit. She has participated in intensive sessions with African and G8 officials and sherpas.
Newman says she is hopeful about Africa's future, partly because African leaders are playing increasingly responsible roles and partly because the G8 process and the attention surrounding it have raised Africa's international profile. She also says that that African civil society will be a determining factor in raising Africa from poverty. Here are excerpts from the conversation:
What has been the United States' approach to this year's G8, with its emphasis on African development?
What's important to understand is that Africa is important to the United States and has been recognized as being important to the United States since the beginning of this administration. I think what needs to be communicated is that the developed countries and the G8 need to take on a different role than in the past - one of real partnership with Africa.
African leaders are serious themselves about being held accountable for what goes on on the continent, whether it's peace and security, whether it's famine, whether it's improving trade. We should all expect a stronger statement in recognition of the shifting role of the G8 to that of a partner with the Africans - and an honest recognition of what it is that each partner has contributed and is willing to contribute in the future, in the context of what the Africans want and need.
What should be appreciated is that Africa is a real player in the world now. There is a growing recognition on the part of the G8 that nothing gets through the United Nations without a major role played by Africa - that peace and security, particularly on the African continent doesn't get addressed without Africans.
So I think that one of the good outcomes and one of the reasons why the UK has put Africa high up on the list for the summit - and why Africa has been on the summit agenda now since 1990 - is more hope in the role that Africa can play in the future.
The New Partnership for African Development (Nepad) that grew out of the formation of the African Union is getting its "peer review" process underway. Do you think this scheme to have countries submit themselves to evaluation by their peers is something really substantive?
I think it is. I think the African leaders are serious about it. I don't think it's easy. I think it's tough. And they really can't turn to examples of where it has taken place in the world, because it hasn't really. The OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, an alliance of developed countries) has certain reviews of countries' development activity, but there's really no process out there that has peers reviewing the extent to which you're running a democratic government, the extent to which you have an environment that is friendly to the development of businesses - so it may turn out that the peer review process will be a model for the rest of the world. And I don't think people ever looked at it that way.
But it's not easy. And what's going to be the proof of the pudding is when a peer review process is over, and there's an analysis that is critical. I'm not clear that the process of handling the results is quite understood. And that, too, is difficult. Let's say that it's a critical review. A government probably would prefer a quiet whispering of the criticism - but then it's not a transparent process.
I think that many of the leaders who have signed up for it are serious about being responsive in a transparent way. But suppose it's a direct criticism of something the president has control over and it's just before an election? I think what is healthy, anyway, is the fact that people are going through the process; there will be more people who will know more about what's going on; and it will be the strength of the response of civil society and the political parties that probably will make the difference.
Despite the very public push for more development aid to combat African poverty, many Africans are arguing that the ability to develop their economies on the basis of fair trade is even more important for their futures than direct financial assistance.
It's very interesting. That's what the United States has been saying all along - that in order to be equal there has to be a give and take, and there has to be a give and take in the economic arena. Now what is also understood is that to get there from here, in many instances, there is a need not only for the economic environment to change, but also for capacity building. Not to admit that there are some development needs in order to have an equal trading partner is not being realistic.
If the roads are not in, if the telecommunication systems don't work, if there's no electricity, and if there are no people who are engineers in the country - to say that you are going to be able to compete with the rest of the world is not realistic. And so development money is needed to help get to that point. But the world also has to be honest about the detrimental impact of subsidies - that you're not going to have real trade until you open up the system for it to be an equal playing field. You have to do that.
Realistically, what are the prospects for that happening?
Well, I think they're better. You know the United States has indicated an interest in removing subsidies in a larger context of the developed world removing subsidies. So what it's going to take is the U.S. and Europe agreeing across the board, in agricultural products for example, that there will be some reduction of subsidies. There's much more talking about that openly, much more honesty about "you've got subsidies, and we have subsidies."
"We all have subsidies, [but] my subsidies are better than your subsidies" - there's a little of that going on, but I think people are serious about attempting to address it. I've been present when President Bush has talked to some of the presidents about it, where he has said he wants to address the issue, but he does want to do it in the larger context.
One of the persistent divisive disagreements about development aid is the question of what is being called "absorptive capacity" - the issue of how much aid African countries can absorb. Andrew Natsios, the head of the U.S. aid agency has said the developing world couldn't absorb the level of aid that the British prime minister is advocating. South African President Thabo Mbeki, in response to a question we posed about just this issue, has argued that Nepad has detailed plans, akin to business plans, to use aid effectively, such as dredging harbours to facilitate trade. How do you see this question of absorptive capacity?
I don't really like that discussion, personally, and I'll say why. It gets to be almost accusatory; it gets to be passing judgment, and it's hard when people get into that disagreement. I've been in many of [those discussions]. I think what has to happen is planning, just as President Mbeki said. You say what additional amount of money, what is required, going to Mozambique or into South Africa, for example, for education - what is required. In most countries, what does need to be worked on is financial management systems. What is required is more people trained who know how to manage those systems, but that's not impossible.
When I talk about capacity, I think the answer to it is around the issue of what is needed to make the country work, so that it can address its problems with additional resources. What is needed?
And then how do you get what is needed to them? What are the strengths and weaknesses? What are the gaps? What are the financial management systems? What do you need to do to improve them? What is needed to bring about a system of consensus building? I think that's better than saying either they do or they don't have [absorptive capacity].
I think President Mbeki or my friend Andrew ought to say, "This is what the country needs. This is what it will take to get the country there." You can assume that some things are not present. And then, sure, if you dump a whole lot of money [for education] and you don't have any teachers, that's not a good idea. You should ask the questions: what do you need and how do you get it - not just say it's not there and move on to something else.
Part of the reason why the discussion goes on is something that I had hoped - and I think we all had hoped - we wouldn't get into, which is what "x" amount of money is needed for Africa before 2015. I had many discussions with the UK representatives before and during the time of the commission report, and I always felt that if you get into the number, you're going to have some unnecessary conversations. It's much better to break it down into categories - and into 'how do you get there from here?' discussions - instead of saying, "You've got to double overseas development assistance." I always thought that was a mistake. You start to get into the question of whether that much aid can be used. [Note: The British, as well as many of the campaigns that have coalesced around support for defeating poverty, have proposed 0.07 percent of GDP as a target for donor countries to contribute to aid for developing countries, an approach the United States has rejected.]
So you're looking for a pragmatic way around that discussion about absorptive capacity?
Exactly.
As you know, a U.S. think tank, the Brookings Institution, has published a study saying that the Bush administration has increased aid to Africa by about 57 percent, most of which has been emergency food aid rather than development assistance - a figure that differs substantially from the administration assertion that it has increased aid to Africa by 300 percent.
I have to look at the details, but I see that as another discussion that's "so what?" I guess the "so what" is you can't take credit for something you didn't do. But I'm not sure that's what happened. I suspect if you break down everybody's statement, everybody is correct [within their particular frame of reference]. The truth of the matter is the United States is the bilateral leader in providing development assistance and humanitarian assistance. It just is.
So that's what I say in all the meetings I go to with the G8. "Why are we having this discussion? Because you want to make us feel worse and you feel better? No, that's not helpful. Why don't we just say: Here's what we're going to do. What can we do together? How can we leverage one another? We're going to do the best we can, given what it is we think we can do politically, what we can do based on our other priorities, and we expect you're going to do the same thing."
We should all be pushed to do more. The Africans themselves should be pushed to do more - because some of what people do or don't do is based on their perception of how serious African leaders are about addressing corruption, addressing conflict. No one wants to continue to pour money into a place that they believe isn't going to use it properly.
I go back to being practical. The U.S. is the big guy on the block, and I always tell people here, "Don't expect people to thank you. Just go on and do it, because you're the big guy. Why would you thank the big guy? You wouldn't. You want the big guy to feel bad, so he'll do more. That's what goes on all the time.
So given all the political context, what difference will this G8 make to Africa?
I think several things. The very fact that Africa is on the agenda is important. The very fact that African leaders are invited to sit with the G8 leaders is important. It says, 'We're equals.' The very fact that the G8 has spent the entire year talking with one another and with African leaders about what to do next is very healthy. Growing out of that are some things that people weren't thinking about doing. The G8 doesn't run programs for anybody. It's how they talk about it, and what they do individually or in groups later that makes a difference.
I think there's going to be a great deal of ripple effect from the summit. And there's already been a lot that's gone on, all the discussions and all the meetings that have been held. And the good thing is that it hasn't been just the personal representatives [of the leaders]. It has been the sherpas, and the foreign affairs advisers and the sous-sherpas. I mean everybody's been talking about Africa! I think that's wonderful. I was in London for the meeting with the sherpas three weeks ago, and the African personal representatives had a dinner with the sherpas. These are the folks who are dealing with all of the issues. I was taken by the many speeches made by the sherpas about Africa.
I was really amazed. And that's what I felt was healthy, because these folks are going to go back to wherever they live - many of them to the equivalent of national security agencies, many of them are in ministries of foreign affairs, some in the private sector. But they all now know Africa, and that's where I think the benefit comes. All these G8 leaders have been talking about Africa and it's almost a little competition about who's going to do the most. That's good.
How central is HIV/Aids to these discussions?
It has to be now. The pandemic affects every part of what goes on in Africa. It affects every profession, every sector, and until that is reversed, any gain, particularly economic gain, is short-lived. For awhile I was concerned that all of the new money would go for HIV/Aids, and people would be better and feel better, but they wouldn't, for example, be better educated. And so it's balancing act, but the balancing has to be realistic. The truth of the matter is that people are dying every day, people are in pain every day, new people are being infected. That fact must be addressed by action, and it has to be at the front of the line.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
It's not just HIV/Aids, it's malaria also. We've concentrated on HIV/Aids, but if you look at the number of deaths from malaria, and the fact that over 90 percent of malaria deaths are in Africa, you can't just dismiss that; it's another important threat to the economy and to the viability of African nations. So nobody's going to give any speeches that say we should not be concentrating on HIV/Aids, because they can't, because they know better. It has to be addressed.
You think that understanding is widespread?
I really think it's widespread. There's been no meeting to which I have gone where we don't have to talk about HIV/Aids; it doesn't matter what the topic is. If you're talking about any kind of educational progress; if you're talking about peace and security; if you sit down with military leaders, they say you have to talk about HIV/Aids and what you are doing about it. Talk to business leaders, and they talk about what they're doing with HIV/Aids. So it's a reality.
How prominent is the issue of gender?
The Africans are getting better on gender; the leadership is getting better. You know Rwanda and South Africa, for example, have in their legislation a certain percentage of parliamentarians that must be women. There are more and more women in senior positions, influencing political parties. President Mbeki just appointed a woman as deputy president. Other countries have senior officials who are women.
But on the other hand, there's still an uphill battle on rights for women. There's still a major concern about violence against women. There's still a major need to concentrate more on girls education, so that the next generation will be ready. Because the literacy rates are lower for women. Yet it is the women who bring about the greatest stability in communities, they insure greater probability of children being educated, of families being healthy. So Africa isn't going to make it, competing with the rest of the world, if it doesn't educate women, doesn't remove the burden on women, doesn't remove the violence that's there. I think there's more recognition on the part of leaders that they have to do more.
The women are insisting on it more too, which is what it takes.
How do you assess the prospects for debt relief for middle income countries over the near term? For example, countries like Namibia, which have a dual economy, with both a quite wealthy minority and a very poor majority. They don't qualify for the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Debt Initiative, the World Bank and IMF program designed to assist the poorest nations. Nor are they currently eligible for development aid from the U.S. Millennium Challenge Account. (MCA)
People are looking at what's the next round on debt relief. People are looking at what other categories of countries other than the HIPC countries might get some debt relief. I have mixed feelings about it personally. Countries like Namibia, Botswana, South Africa fuss, too, about the MCA. I understand what they're saying, that they have two societies. But then they have to do something about the distribution of the wealth.
Many people working in African affairs seem to ricochet between despair and hope.
I have great hope. I really don't have despair.
Hope from what I hear from the leaders, what I believe is true, and in relation to what I know is going on in the rest of the world. You know the rest of the world isn't all that hot, so it is relative.
I think this is Africa's time, and I think the Africans know it and are prepared to take advantage of it. That's why I have major hope.
