|
|
The news from France
E. Ablorh-Odjidja, Ghanadot
February 18, 2007
France, a country which has been graciously described as being
on the forefront of the effort to increase Overseas Development
Assistance (ODA) to poor countries, unveiled her plan at a
summit on Africa held in Cannes, France last week.
The subject of the summit was about “How to tap and protect
Africa's natural resources.” It ran for two days, from February
14 to 16, 2006. France’s plan to help poor countries would raise
her ODA contributions to 0.7 percent of her GDP by the year
2012.
The summit was attended by 40 heads of state from Africa,
including President Kufuor of Ghana, the current chair of the
AU. Should Africa’s leaders be impressed with the French offer?
The answer is no.
This writer is firmly aware that you don’t look a gift horse in
the mouth, but is highly skeptical about the efficacy of the
French offer. He is also aware of the history of France and her
relationship with Africa and therefore notes that this horse,
France that is, has had more than her fair share of free
chomping in Africa over the past century.
With this offer, France has chosen a path that may be cute.
Rather than initiating a more substantial plan, namely, cutting
subsidy for her farmers, she has chosen the far less costly way.
Oxfam describes farm subsidy as the practice of dumping surplus
agricultural goods on the developing world “at prices far below
the true costs of production,” and concludes that “Europe’s
agricultural subsidies are inflicting enormous damage on
producers in the developing world.”
To demonstrate the problem, Oxfam features a letter from Aubrey
Taylor, President of St. Elizabeth Dairy Cooperative, in Jamaica
that reads:
“Yes, European milk powder is cheaper than our local milk. But
what you must realize is that imports of milk powder has subsidy
on them. The Jamaican farmer has no subsidy whatsoever. Our
production figures are true cost.”
The result is the Jamaican farmer, like farmers from poor
countries, cannot compete on her own turf.
That letter was sent to Ministers of Agriculture in France,
Spain, Austria, Belgium, Portugal, and Ireland in 2002 to no
effect. As late as 2006, France was leading a drive to stall
reform in the subsidy cutting movement.
Curb on subsidies can do better than anticipated increases in
all the ODAs of developed countries put together. It will
enhance job opportunities in poor countries like Jamaica and
Ghana faster and increase the purchasing power parity or GDP of
these countries.
A tomato farm at Pawlugu, Ghana, for instance, could export
fresh or processed tomatoes to European markets and thereby
raise incomes for people of her region. With subsidies in place,
Pawlugu has no chance. It will continue to import processed
tomatoes from Italy or France.
Farm subsides are what hurt Africa the most.
They kill local
productions and create dependency on foreign products.
France’s offer comes by way of President Chirac. He has been
dubbed throughout his political career as a friend of Africa. So
why is this writer not impressed?
This writer is not questioning the promise. Eventually,
something in terms of money will trickle down to the continent
as it always does. What has him baffled is the offer’s ultimate
intention. Is it aimed to help poor countries or to undercut
some economic powers of the world?
As President Chirac declared, France’s intention “is to rebuild
its ties with Africa.” This assertion comes at a time when
resource hungry China is busy traversing the continent, seeking
economic foothold in places where European powers formally held
sway. And of course, there is also the US, the world’s lone
super power whose equilibrium France loves to rattle from time
to time, on the sideline pursuing some effectual policies in
Africa.
Since 2002, the US has come out with her MCA compact to help
poor countries fight poverty through good governance. Last year
alone, the compact netted US$ 547 for Ghana and $491 to Mali in
grants out of the 5 billion MCA fund. The totality of this fund
and all US aid to poor countries is staggeringly more than 0.7
percent of the French GDP.
Can the French match the US dollar to the dollar in grants?
Perhaps, she could. But, the precise point about this absolute
dollar approach is that it poses some disadvantage to French
economy and prestige. It is this challenge that Chirac’s
approach attempts to offset.
The French economy is only a fraction of America’s; a 1.8
trillion GDP to the US’ 12.9 trillion. So going toe to toe in
absolute dollar terms against America can prove extremely
arduous and ultimately disadvantageous for France
But by expressing her altruism in a percentage based formula,
France hopes to shift the paradigm in her favor; knowing that
America with her huge GDP and her extraordinary global demands
and super-power commitments cannot afford this approach.
Perception wise, France can raise her prestige in the Third
world while still giving fewer dollars in aid than the US.
This French gambit may serve her well in the eyes of some poor
African countries that are desperate for any help. In haste to
accept the offer, they may fail to observe the difference in
absolute monetary terms. For now, chalk one political advantage
for France while America’s contributions end up looking very
parsimonious in spite of its comparatively larger size.
However, it will be a mistake if Africa fails to hold France to
a higher standard; more so than she should non-colonial powers
like China and the US. Yes, America took slaves from Africa. But
the Europeans powers kept theirs right there on colonial
plantations all over Africa.
Looking at the length of time and the territorial space France
occupied on the continent during the balmy colonial days ought
to be sufficient justification to demand more from her.
It is France, with the rest of the European colonial powers,
that took or grabbed lot of resources from the continent to
support her economy; that fed her factories with raw resources
from Africa at ridiculously low fixed prices. It is also France
that is hesitant today about cutting farm subsidies.
Farm subsidies remain currently the extension of the
exploitation that took place under colonialism. The practice can
only increase Africa’s dependency on others with each passing
decade. Right now, the Doha Round of talks within the WTO has
come to a halt over the issue of cutting subsidies.
It is time to bring this old horse out
of the stall for one more examination.
E. Ablorh-Odjidja, Washington, DC, February 18, 2007
|
