|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Considerable progress has been made on debt relief over the years, on which we have probably gone almost as far as we can for the time being, because we can offer such relief only to countries that demonstrate that they will spend the proceeds on the welfare of their people. There is no point in providing debt relief, as we are sometimes urged to do, to countries where the proceeds are used to fund either civil wars or corruption. Nevertheless, considerable progress has been made in that area, and one of the biggest pieces of progress made in my time at the Foreign Office was the renegotiation of the vast Nigerian debt of $35 billion. There was some element of relief involved in that, but we expected a large amount of it to be paid as well. That was a major step forward, and we played a positive role in encouraging our allies to engage with the Nigerians, and in encouraging the Nigerians to engage with the creditor countries.
We have a role to play in conflict resolution. I am sorry to say that the great disasters people have referred toin Darfur, with the depredations of the Lords Resistance Army in northern Uganda and now, unfortunately, in the Central African Republic and the Congoare matters on which I feel we could have done more, but for the fact that we became so heavily bogged down in the Iraq enterprise. Sadly, some of the people of Darfur, and perhaps those of northern Uganda, are collateral damage caused by the huge diversion of resources into the war in Iraq. We could have done a lot more, in my view. Rightly, we encouraged the African Union to take the lead, and provided it with capacity. We recognised at the outset, however, that it did not have the means to cope, and we asked it to do more than it was capable of. It could have done not just with logistical help, but with personnel from our armed forces in some capacity or other. They could have made a big impact on some of those peacekeeping missions.
John Bercow: I understand the significance of the hon. Gentlemans point, but in referring to what is taking place in Iraq and its diversionary impact, he used the past tense. Does he agree that it is not too late for us to repent and significantly upscale our actions in seeking the sort of alleviation that is still required in Darfur?
Mr. Mullin: It is too early to say that for sure. We have heavy commitments in Afghanistana different issue from that of Iraq and I do not seek to suggest that the two are the samebut I hope that eventually we will be able to play directly a more positive role in some of the major peacekeeping forces in Africa, particularly those in the Congo and Darfur. Perhaps too, if they want it, we may give the Ugandans help in dealing with the Lords Resistance Army.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Does my hon. Friend agree that the very fact of the UKs considerable commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan has induced, and required, many countries that had thus far remained outside peacekeeping forces to join those forces? Even though their countries may be committed to supporting Iraq and Afghanistan, they lacked the military capacity or experience to do so.
To return to the generic issues, we all know that there has so far been very little progress on tariff reform. It is vital that industrialised countries sweep away the barriers to the import of goods from Africa and some of the subsidies in Europe and America that make African goods uncompetitive, particularly agricultural products. It is crazy that some of the most fertile countries in Africa are importing from heavily subsidised, first world farmers food that they could easily grow themselves.
HIV/AIDS and malaria, which the hon. Member for Hazel Grove was right to mention, are a vast problem, especially in southern Africa, but they are one of the matters on which considerable progress has been made. As I believe the Foreign Secretary said, 3 million Africans are now on antiretroviral drugs, and I am glad to say that the South African Government have given up their head-in-the-sand approach to AIDS, so progress is being made there. Large resources have been made available, especially by the United States, and there are tentative signs that the tide may be turning, although the Popes recent remarks were not very helpful.
Non-governmental organisations and others always call for more development aid, but there are limits to what it can achieve. Properly regulated, the private sector is far more effective as a means of creating prosperity. Besides creating a safety net for the poorest, the primary role of the state is to create the conditionsabove all, the rule of lawthat make African economies attractive to outside investment. That is why, in recent years, British aid has rightly been concentrated on trying to provide the expertise that enables African countries to govern themselves effectively. I believe that that is called capacity building. For example, it has been mentioned that we are training African peacekeepers. In fact, we have helped to set up a military academy in Ghana. That is exactly what we should be doing.
We can help to establish, as the Crown agents have in Angola and Mozambique, an effective taxation system so that the state has available to it resources that can be invested in education and health. Once Governments have the ability to provide basic services for their own people, instead of just stopping things happening they can make things happen. Gradually they will win the respect of their people, who will begin to have faith in the democratic process.
As others have said, the one issue that dominates all others in Africa is governance. As long as corrupt elites with no concern for the welfare of their countries continue to pillage them, large parts of Africa will continue to go backwards and no amount of outside assistance will make the blindest bit of difference. I had the privilege of attending on behalf of the Government the inauguration of the wonderful woman who was elected President of Liberia. I have not been to Somalia, but Liberia is probably the most devastated country that I have ever visited. She said in her inauguration speech, Liberia is not a poor country. Liberia is a rich county that has been grievously mismanaged. That is true of much of the rest of the continent.
The need for accountable government is the single greatest issue facing Africans. There are rays of light here and there, and Members have referred to themBotswana, Ghana, Tanzania, even Nigeria on a good daybut Presidents who leave office voluntarily and Governments who accept defeat at the ballot box remain the exception rather than the rule. Africa desperately
needs institutions that are stronger than the individuals who from time to time preside over them. There are still too many leaders who come to power uttering fine, democratic sentiments and introduce constitutions limiting incumbents to two terms of office, but who end up becoming Presidents for life and ruining their countries.
I was present at the African Union summit in Addis a few years ago when Kofi Annan addressed it. He had in front of him many of the big offenders, including General Eyadéma from Togo, President Bongo, Mr. Mugabethey were all there. He looked them in the eye and said, One of the tests of leadership is knowing when its time to leave office. Then President Chissano of Mozambique got up. He was leaving office voluntarily, and he pointed at some of those guys and said, And we all know who Kofi was talking about, dont we? It was an electric moment.
China has been referred to only briefly in the debate, but we have to engage with it. We cannot let it become a neo-colonial power in Africa, seeing it simply as a means of finding raw materials as we did in years gone by. One thing that has undermined our efforts, especially in trying to encourage African countries to be transparent about their dealings with the extractive industries, is that just when we get to the point where the countryfor example, Angolais about to sign an agreement to be transparent, along comes China and offers a large, no-conditions, no-questions-asked loan. If that becomes the norm, it will undermine all the progress that has been achieved.
In Darfur, where I have to say the Chinese have occasionally played a positive role, we cannot allow them to buy all Sudans oil and then take no interest in what the Sudanese Government do to their own people. The only way around that is to engage with China. It is going to be a world power, which we welcome, but with that comes responsibility. I think that the Chinese are beginning to recognise that. Their Africa Minister was here a while ago and was saying some of the right things.
Finally, I wish to make one tentative point. The failed state will be one of the great challenges of the 21st century. To be honest, in some states the scale of the failure will be too great for us to be able to do much about it. However, there are countries that no amount of one-off intervention can rescue. We may have to cast aside our liberal instincts and go for something more drastic one dayrule by UN mandate, perhaps for a generation, subject of course to referendums of the local people at regular intervals to check that that is what they want. I stayed with the American ambassador in LiberiaAmbassador Blaney, a very brave man who saved Liberia from the ultimate catastropheand that was his view. Liberia was then on its fourth outside intervention. It now has breathing space and a wonderful woman President who must be given all the help that she needs, but if there were a fifth or sixth failure, there would come a point at which we would have to say, We cannot carry on like this. If Sierra Leone were to go under again, we would have to cast aside our liberal
instincts, which are all in the opposite direction, and recognise that something different had to be tried if we were to make a difference. It is not a one-size-fits-all solution, and it will not solve vast problems such as those in the Congo or even Somalia, but for some of the smaller African states and perhaps one or two elsewhereI believe that it happened in East Timor for a whileit will have to be contemplated.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. Since the time limit was imposed on this debate, the number of people seeking to catch my eye has reduced, for a number of reasons. I therefore plan to raise the limit again to 17 minutes.
Mr. Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con): It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who is a distinguished former Africa Minister. His stature in Africa raised him considerably above the foothills, if I may give his book a plug. He, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) and the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke) all expressed the concern, which I share, that Governments may resile from or let slip their commitments on aid or debt relief. He and others emphasised the importance of peacekeeping and help on that front. However, I wish to focus exclusively on the importance of trade for Africa.
Trade has been the route taken by the most successful developing countries in moving from poverty to prosperity. Korea and China in Asia and Brazil in Latin America, have shown that it is possible to trade out of poverty. That will ultimately be the route that Africa will have to follow. However, it is harder for the late starters to do that, because they have to compete with those ahead of them, who have already accumulated a critical industrial mass and the economies of agglomeration that go with it, yet still have low incomes and pay rates to compete with. Moreover, the poorest countries, the majority of which are in Africa, are poor because they typically face the greatest natural obstacleslack of natural ports and navigable rivers, and a shortage of roads, railways and so on to get to market. It is therefore intolerable that we in the rich world add to those problems by retaining tariffs, quotas, subsidies and rules, which make it even more difficult for them to export their goods, enter our markets and trade out of poverty.
That is why, last week, four distinguished Members of Parliamentthe right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), a former Secretary of State for International Development; the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), a long-standing spokesman and former leader of the Liberal Democrat party; the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (John Battle), a former trade and Foreign Office Minister; and Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick, the recipient of a UNICEF award for his contribution to solutions for Africas children, as well as my humble self, a one-time development economist and subsequently trade Ministerlaunched a campaign to help the poorest
countries, mostly in Africa, to trade out of poverty. Trade Out of Poverty is the name of the campaign and the all-party group, which we formedI urge hon. Members to support it. We may be unlikely bedfellows, but we are united in a common commitment to bring to trade the same passion to mobilise public support as Make Poverty History brought to aid and Drop the Debt brought to debt relief.
We began by writing to the leaders of the G20, asking them to put Trade Out of Poverty on the agenda and to urge their countries, severally or collectively, unconditionally to open their markets to all the poorest countries, simplify their trade rules, end subsidies that hit the exports and trade of the poorest countries, help poor countries replace the high tariffs that they impose on each other with other sources of revenue, and invest in the physical and organisational infrastructure that those countries need if they are to take advantage of the opportunities that opening up our markets will give them.
It might seem quixotic to choose this conjuncture, when the developed world is suffering genuine pain, and the recession and the credit crunch have meant a revival of protectionism. Indeed, the World Trade Organisation has joined the World Bank in pointing out that countries have already begun surreptitiously to introduce protectionist measures. No fewer than 17 of the G20 countries have, since the last meeting of the G20, at which they unanimously endorsed a commitment to withstand the pressures of protectionism, introduced measures designed to undermine trade and protect their domestic markets. However, we know that in the 1930s, protection, far from helping countries recover, prolonged and deepened the slump. The poorest countries, then as always, suffered most from that prolonged recession. It is therefore even more important that we in the rich countries turn the tide against protectionism by opening our markets more liberally to the poorest countries of the world, especially the countries of Africa.
Malcolm Bruce: The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful and legitimate point, which I support. Does he also acknowledge that, in Africa, the internal barriers to trade also cause massive depression and that, in many cases, unlocking them would make those countries better able to trade, especially with the sort of support that his group offers?
We believe that we can take steps at little or no cost to us. The poorest countries have one fifth of the population of the world, but account for only a fiftieth of its trade. By no stretch of the imagination are their industries a threat to ours. On the contrary, they want and need to buy more of our goods. The only thing that restricts the amount of goods that they can buy from us is their ability to pay for them by exporting to us. It is a win-win situation if we open our markets to them.
We have spelled out five steps that the rich countries can and must take to help the poorest countries in Africa trade out of poverty. First, rich countries must unconditionally open their markets to all low-income countries. We do not need to require them to reciprocate. The poor countries are understandably reluctant to open their fragile industries to the full blast of competition
from the developed world. They say that most rich countries used infant industry protection when they were developing, and so ask why they should not do likewise. Plenty of economistsI am normally among their numberdispute that case and argue that it is in the interests of poor countries to liberalise their markets. That is as may be, but we should not make the best the enemy of the good by saying that, because it is in their interests to open their markets, we will not open ours to them. If we want to persuade them to be more liberal in their trading policies, we should first set an example by opening our markets to them.
Of course, the European Union, like many developed countries, already offers unconditional free access to some countries. Under the Everything but Arms agreement, we allow tariff-free, quota-free access, but only to a list of the smallest and most vulnerable countries. In Africa, the agreement excludes most of the more populous countries, such as Nigeria, Côte dIvoire, Ghana and Kenya. We should offer them, too, free access to our markets. Even when we have, in theory, opened our markets for specific goods by abolishing tariffs, complex and onerous rules of origin have rendered it largely ineffective.
Mr. Lilley: We collectively make decisions on trade in Europethat may or may not be a good thing; it is not what I am arguing. If we want to liberalise access to the British market, we must persuade the EU to liberalise access collectively to the European market. I believe that there is a consensus on that, as reflected by the cross-party composition of Trade Out of Poverty, and I hope that Conservative and Labour Front Benchers will support that consensus and a move in the direction that I am outlining.
Secondly, we should simplify and make more generous the rules of origin and other trade rules that we operate. Trade increasingly involves chains of production, with a series of processes and components from a variety of countries. It is vital that African countries are enabled to participate in those chains of production. For example, America, through the African Growth and Opportunity Act, liberalised its rules of origin, which resulted in a marked increase in exports of clothing from Africa to America. Rules of origin matter.
Thirdly, we must end subsidies that damage trade and inhibit exports from the poorest countries to ours. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) mentioned the $3 billion or more subsidies that the Americans offer to maintain only 25,000 cotton manufacturing jobsthat is more than $120,000 a job. It would be easier to give those peoplenot all of them, only those whose product has to be dumped abroada stipend for a while and let them move into other activities. That dumping destroys millions of jobs and undermines millions of peoples income, especially in west Africa.
I heartily endorse the point that my right hon. Friend has just made. I probably was being slightly impatient earlier. I am a keen supporter of President Obama, but it does no harm to underline the
urgency of the matter. In making the suggestion for the withdrawal of export subsidies that he has just made, will my right hon. Friend confirm that that, too, should be unconditional?
Mr. Lilley: I am sure that President Obama is as relieved as I am to know that he has my hon. Friends support. Those subsidies should of course just go. Their removal is ultimately in the interests of taxpayers in the rich countries and would enable us both to enjoy products better produced abroad and to focus on those things that we are best at producing.
On average, the EU spends almost as much supporting every cow every day as the average income in the poor countries of the low-income group, as defined by the World Bank. That in turn inhibits those countries ability to compete with us. It is deplorable that the EU should have reintroduced subsidies for, say, milk powder. Milk powder is an important product that is potentially made and consumed in the developing world, but we are undermining that potential through those subsidies.
The fourth step recognises the point that the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) made about the phenomenon whereby the highest tariffs that most African countries face are those that are imposed on them by their equally poor neighbours, and which they likewise impose on those neighbours. One of the reasons why African countries impose those tariffs is that doing so is one of the simplest means of obtaining the revenue to finance their activities. It behoves us in the developed world to help those countries to replace those sources of income with other sources of domestic revenue, so that they can trade more actively with each other. It is significant that 75 per cent. of the exports of European countries go to other European countries, whereas only 10 per cent. of the exports of African countries go to other African countries. The potential for trade growth within Africa is enormous if we can help countries to take that step.
The fifth and final step that we advocate is to focus investment on both physical and administrative infrastructure. In the successful countries of Asia, a high proportion of the population live near the coast, near roads or near navigable rivers. In Africa, the population is highly dispersed and often distant from any means of transport. Without improved transport infrastructure, people will not be able to get their products on to world travel routes and world markets. At present it costs less to get goods from Tokyo to Mombasa than to get them from Mombasa to Kampala. Through our efforts we must help African countries to improve their infrastructure. It is sad that in recent years the proportion of aid that has gone on infrastructure has been declining. We believe that it should be increasing; indeed, something that the Foreign Secretary said in his opening remarks leads me to believe that the Government are also of that view.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|