Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe has said the opposition MDC has until Thursday to agree a power-sharing deal, or he will form his own government. "We feel frozen at the moment [without a government]," he told state media. The MDC has rejected the ultimatum and says it will not be "bullied" into signing a deal.

The wife of Kenya's prime minister has turned down a controversial monthly allowance of $6,000 (£3,000) offered to her by the government. Ida Odinga thanked the state for appreciating her role, but said she did not need money for her legacy. The decision to pay hefty salaries to the wives of the prime minister and vice-president provoked public outrage.

The late Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa has been buried at a sombre ceremony in the capital, Lusaka. There was a 21-gun salute as his body was lowered into the ground in a copper-plated coffin - Zambia is Africa's biggest copper producer.

Voting is taking place in Angola in the first parliamentary polls for 16 years. Although 14 parties are taking part, the contest is primarily between long-term rivals, the ruling MPLA party and opposition Unita party.

Not far from the closely packed mud huts of Pabo camp for Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) in Northern Uganda, the Catholic parish office lights up like a beacon in the inky night of this war-torn area; the region has never had electricity. Last year, the Pabo diocese used a wireless internet connection provided by an NGO called Battery Operated System for Community Outreach (BOSCO) to apply for a $40,000 grant for solar panels. Now the health center has an internet phone they can use to call free anywhere in the world, and students at Pabo secondary school are sharing stories of abduction and war on personal blogs.

Here is a review of some of the issues that were discussed in the African blogosphere during the break.

Zimreview, African Aspects, Larry Backer, Reinventing Africa, Sami Ben Gharbia’s Blog, Scribbles from the Den

As comrades and compatriots, gathered in Johannesburg, South Africa, August 14-16, 2008, from all parts of the world, at the African Conference on Participatory Democracy, hosted by the South African Communist Party and the Swedish Left Party under the auspices of the International Left Forum declare the following...

Fourteen members appeared on 26th August, before Magistrate Doris Shomwe in Harare Magistrate’s Court. They had been arrested near the Zambian Embassy in Harare on 28 May 2008, where they were to hand over a petition to the SADC chair calling for an end to post-election violence.

The third high level forum (HLF3) on aid effectiveness will be held between the 2nd and 4th of September in Accra to discuss the implementation of the Paris Declaration on aid effectiveness since 2005. Prior to the HLF3, civil society representatives expressed concern that the 'HLF could represent a step backwards in efforts to improve aid effectiveness'. Meanwhile, African, Caribbean and Pacific countries and their counterparts in Central and Latin America to ‘put an end to the long drawn so called banana war'. ‘After failing to strike a deal at the last WTO negotiations in Geneva, ACP countries want to reiterate their position on the decision of the European Union, the major consumers of Latin American banana to gradually reduce the EU’s tariff of 176 Euros per tonne to 116 Euros by 2015’. Also in trade-related news, the United States and the East African Community (EAC) signed a new trade agreement that will see the deepening of relations and bilateral trade, valued at about $1.2 billion last year. While, analysis of the growing involvement of Russia in Africa has come under the US radar of concern given ‘Africa’s increasingly recognised geopolitical significance as well as the strategic importance of its natural resources to the security of the United States’.

Also, this week, there remains uncertainty about whether Uganda will join the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) customs union, that is soon to make the regional bloc a free trade area and guarantee preferential rates to members’ exports. Uganda’s reticence to embrace the free trade area stems from national protectionists and the manufacturing lobby who regard the union as a threat to its nascent industry. Similarly, during the second round of negotiations on the protocol for a common market for the EAC, Tanzania expressed concern with respect to provisions on the free movement of persons and labour.

Following the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD) is investigating the appropriate steps towards full integration into the AU architecture. Also this week, a committee of experts on gender held a two-day meeting in preparation for the session of African ministers in charge of gender and women's affairs due to discuss and adopt the AU’s gender policy. In South Africa, the ten permanent committees of the Pan African Parliament held new round of sittings from 25 to 29 August in preparation of the forthcoming ordinary session of the Parliament to be convened between 27 October and 7 November this year.

In peace and security related news, the AU commission chairman, Jean Ping, visited Mauritania to talk with the junta that seized power on 6 August, along with other political stakeholders and civil society in an effort to find a solution to the constitutional crisis ensuing from the military coup. Though the AU has strongly condemned the putsch, a majority in the Mauritanian parliament has pledged loyalty to the new military regime. In other news, the AU commission chairman has welcomed the signing of the agreement between Somalia's Transitional Federal Government and the opposition Alliance for the Re-Liberation of Somalia and added that his institution would do all that is necessary for the effective implementation of the deal. Ping also announced that the AU would work closely with the United Nations to ensure the early deployment of a UN peacekeeping operation in Somalia and called on the international community to provide the necessary support to sustain the current political momentum in Somalia. However, the AU and chief negotiator in the Zimbabwe conflict, President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, were unsuccessful in reaching a deal between the two main rivals at the recently concluded Heads of State and Government summit of Southern African Development Community (SADC). In their final communiqué, SADC leaders 'reaffirmed their commitment to work with the people of Zimbabwe in order to overcome the challenges that they are facing'. Activists, trade unionists and other human rights organisations strongly condemned SADC leaders for failing to include in their communiqué the global demands to have the ban on humanitarian food aid in Zimbabwe lifted accusing them of not being geared to handle the crises in Zimbabwe. Though some analysts decry the ‘nauseating power sharing gimmick in which the ‘paradox of Africa’s fledgling democracies is just a starting point for negotiations’. Also regarding southern Africa, AU commission chairperson Jean Ping sent his condolences to the family and the people of Zambia following the passing of President Levy Patrick Mwanawasa, which has spurred speculation about political unrest in Zambia.

In other news, Ms Maria Netto, United Nations Development Programme's climate change policy advisor noted that developing countries may not achieve their Millennium Development Goals targets by 2015 unless they addressed climate change concerns. Further, the Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation will organise, in October, a six-day seminar in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, to analyse the implications of global climate change for sustainable agricultural production in African, Caribbean and Pacific countries.

Wambui Mwangi's is an articulate and well researched article that has touched the core. We are too quick to identify with heroes only when they are away and despise/ignore them when they are home. We only remember them when they die or leave for other lands and become victorious. Our mediocrity doms us to baselessness and unabashed revelry in pseudo victories which lead to no real growth. Why is liberation only felt away from home? Are we afraid to take the bull by the horns and the attendant responsibility imposed to see it through to the end. Is that why we elect substanadrd leaders over and over again who lead us to ruin? Thank you for the article. Am glad to know that it's a view held by many.

The issue of development cooperation especially aid can be traced back to the United Nations resolution 2626 of 1970 on the international development strategy for the second United Nations development decade where rich countries pledged to give 0.7% of their gross national products as development assistance after recognising the role that aid could play in fostering development in developing countries. The next 30 years that followed saw aid being manipulated and used to meet political ends such as recruiting and rewarding southern allies during the Cold War. The question of aid for development seems to have taken a lull in this period and only surfaced again after the signing of the Millennium Declaration.

The financing for development conference held in Monterrey in 2002 that followed sought to examine the internationally agreed development goals adopted during the past development decade, and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that originated from the 2000 Millennium declaration, for their financial implications and to indicate ways of mobilising the financial resources needed to achieve them. The outcome of the conference on financing for development was a turning point in international economic cooperation. The adoption of the Monterrey consensus at the summit level on 22 March 2002 not only signalled a new partnership in international economic relations but also reaffirmed the advantages of the new approach toward consensus building taken by the international community.

In February 2003, leaders of the major multilateral development banks and international and bilateral organisations, donor and recipient country representatives gathered in Rome for the high level forum on harmonisation. They committed to take action to improve the management and effectiveness of aid and to take stock of concrete progress, before meeting again in early 2005. The high level forum concluding statement, the Rome declaration on harmonisation, sets out an ambitious programme of activities, which includes among other things agreements to streamline donor procedures and practices, ensure that donor assistance is aligned with the development recipient's priorities and most importantly to implement the good practices principles and standards formulated by the development community as the foundation for harmonisation.

The Paris Declaration of March 2005 represents a landmark achievement that brings together a number of key principles and commitments in a coherent way. It also includes a framework for mutual accountability, and identifies a number of indicators for tracking progress. There is a general recognition that the Paris declaration is a crucial component of a larger aid effectiveness agenda that could engage parliament, gender groups, civil society actors, new lenders, global funds and foundations in a more direct manner. In the Paris declaration, donors and partners committed themselves to monitoring their progress in improving aid effectiveness against 56 specific actions, from which 12 indicators were established and targets set for 2010 (OECD 2007).

Although the international post Paris process has represented a significant amount of work (in terms of surveys, analysis, consultation process, evaluation of the Paris declaration etc), there still remains the need to ensure that the Accra agenda for action is more ambitious, securing strong input and impact, reaffirming the Paris commitments, reflect on the midterm review of the Paris commitments, and include guidance on areas where further progress is needed.

THE PARIS DECLARATION

The purpose of the 2005 Paris declaration on aid effectiveness is to improve aid delivery in a way that best supports the achievement of the MDGs by 2015.

Equitable and sustainable structural transformation of African economies is a prerequisite for improving livelihoods across the continent. Despite decades of reform often led under structural adjustment programmes, and a very high level of openness, most sub-Saharan African countries remain highly dependent on a narrow range of mineral and agricultural commodities, with low levels of value-addition and low potential for job creation. Africa’s share of world trade has declined from 5.5 per cent in 1980 to 2 per cent in 2003, and of this trade there is an overwhelming dependency on trade with the EU (European Union). Stimulating growth that enhances welfare, creates quality employment, and fulfils social and economic rights requires holistic economic policies and the political space and financial means to implement them - at national and continental levels. These policies need to reflect the aspirations and values of all sectors of society and to further regional integration and a process of sustainable agricultural reform and industrialisation. As one of Africa’s leading economic partners, in terms of trade and investment, as well as wider financial support through aid finance, the EU could play an important and significant role in supporting holistic and equitable economic transformation across Africa.

REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS

Trade policies have a critical role to play in supporting economic development across Africa. These policies are increasingly set through agreements in international arenas. Whilst the World Trade Organisation has set trade rules that have implications for African countries, it is a new generation of bilateral/regional trade and investment agreements that will critically determine the types of trade and wider economic policies that governments can use to support development. The ongoing negotiation of Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) between African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries and the EU will have a decisive impact on the trade and economic policies of African countries. For most African countries, the EU is the single most important trade partner and thus any agreement with the EU will have substantial implications. The EU’s current EPAs’ proposal are in danger of undermining the very policies that African countries require to promote regional integration and transformation of their economies. There are widespread and justified fears that the configuration of the EPA negotiating blocs will undermine rather than promote aid effectiveness.

Sport is continuously being assigned to a non-political space but no-one lives in a bubble – sports people or LGBTI people. The arrival in London of the Chosen Few (CF), a team of young out Black lesbians from the township of Soweto to play in theInternational Gay & Lesbian Football Association World Championship , which is overwhelmingly dominated by white gay men, is very much a political event. An event in which the only other three lesbian teams have a total of three Black players, and where the CF are stomped and fouled upon with some outrageously poor and unprofessional refereeing.

A little background on the tournament: one of the fixtures of the International Gay and Lesbian Football Association which was started in 1980. The description of the games in the

“to foster and augment the self respect of gay women and men throughout the world, and engender respect and understanding from the non-gay world, through the medium of football (soccer).”

But the IGLFA also needs to accept that there a huge amount of work to “engender respect and understanding” between LGBTI people. For example, acknowledging lesbophobia and racism as expressed by white gay men, as well as sexism and other prejudice in the non-gay world. The event claims to be a “World” tournament inclusive of lesbians and gay men. Yet no less than 95% of the participants were men, of whom 90% were white with only three teams from outside Europe and America – Japan, Mexico and Argentina. On the women’s side there were only five teams - the two CF teams from South Africa, one team from Chicago and two local London teams.

As comrades and compatriots, gathered in Johannesburg, South Africa, August 14-16, 2008, from all parts of the world, at the African Conference on Participatory Democracy, hosted by the South African Communist Party and the Swedish Left Party under the auspices of the International Left Forum declare the following:

1. The African continent has been, and continues to be, ravaged by effects of neo-colonialism, the comprador bourgeoisie, and imperialism, devastated by curable diseases- amongst them TB, Malaria, underdevelopment, abject poverty and squalor living conditions affecting the majority of its inhabitants amidst its riches. That, the African continent is a repository of rich minerals - gold, diamond, coal, platinum, plants, water and oxygen resources and others.

2. The capitalist system and imperialist forces continue to plunder these riches at the expense of the majority whilst enriching a small capitalist class and some corrupt African leaders chosen to defeat substantive democracy and perpetuate a neo-liberal democratic outlook that promises rights without substance.

So nobody really knows what the guy is gonna do - see . Obama might be a bit better than McCain - but he might even be worse. Remember the right wing Charles de Gaulle granting independance to Algeria, something the Socialist Party would not do being scared to be regarded as unpatriotic and weak.

At the end it may well be that Osama will pursue the same line as MacCain both serving US-corporate interests but that he will disguise this by grosser human rights propaganda.

Regarding : If you check the African-American press you will see widespread concern about Obama's lack of interest in the Black American community! He has been hand-picked by the American elite and has no interest whatsoever in Panaficanism as it is generally understood. He is no more a friend of Africa than Morgan Tsvangirai or the late Jonas Savimbi of Angola. the ethnicity or sex or age of the next American president will not be the deciding factors in the policies of imperial America. Obama is a product of corporate America and will do what he is told by the big banks and the pentagon!

Events marking the one-year anniversary of the abduction and disappearance of Haitian human rights activist took place in several major cities in August, 2008. Demonstrations and vigils were held in Port au Prince, Haiti where several hundred supporters marched to the Palace of Justice to demand that the government of President Rene Preval and the United Nations release a report on their investigations into his disappearance. Similar actions took place in London, Oakland and Los Angeles.

Lovinsky Pierre-Antoine was last seen in Haiti after leaving a meeting with a human rights delegation from the United States and Canada on August 12, 2007. His abandoned vehicle was found the next morning and he has not been heard from since. Although his alleged abductors contacted friends and family two days later demanding a $300,000 ransom, most people including Amnesty International, believe this was a ruse to cover up what was actually a political abduction aimed at silencing Mr. Pierre-Antoine. They point to the fact that most kidnappers maintain contact in an effort to negotiate and arrange for payment. Amnesty International issued an appeal last January where they stated, "Lovinsky Pierre-Antoine's abduction was reportedly made to look like a kidnapping for ransom. On Tuesday 14 August, the alleged abductors called Pierre-Antoine's family asking for a ransom of USD 300,000. However there has been no further contact from the abductors."

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/394/Tandon_l_and_tmb.jpgThe following is an excerpt from the concluding chapter of Yash Tandon's new book, Ending Aid Dependence, published by Fahamu Books, September 2008. For more information please visit, .

For far too long the debate on development aid has been constrained by conceptual traps and the limitations of the definitions provided by the donors. If the recipients or beneficiaries of aid are to own the process, as present trends in the development literature suggest, then the conceptual reframing of the issues must itself change its location from the North to the South.

The conceptual starting point is not aid but development. The horse of development must be put before the cart of aid. Growth, admittedly, is an important aspect of development, and indeed there is no need to labour the point (as some orthodox economists and the World Bank attempt to do defensively). But growth is not the same as development. In this [book], we have defined development, following in the footsteps of Julius Nyerere, the founding president of Tanzania and the first chairman of the South Centre, as ‘a long democratic process, that starts “from within”, where people participate in the decisions that affect their lives, without imperial interference from outside, and aimed at improving the lives of the people and realisation of the potential for self support, free from fear of want and political, economic and social exploitation’. We put it as a formula: Development = SF + DF – IF, where SF is the social factor – the essential well-being of the people; DF is the democratic factor – the right of the people to participate in decision-making that affects their lives; and IF is the imperial factor – the right of nations to self-determination and liberation from imperial domination.

This is in sharp contrast to the mainstream orthodox economists’ definition as Development = Growth + Wealth accumulation, where Growth = Open markets + Foreign investments + Good governance (as defined by the West), and the wealth accumulation by the rich is assumed to ‘filter through’ to the poor by market- driven forces.

The most critical aspect of our definition of development is its political economy and historical context. The developing countries have gained their political independence, but in most cases they are still trapped in an asymmetrical economic, power and knowledge relationship with the former colonial powers that con- tinue to dominate the process of globalisation, and the institutions of global governance (the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, WIPO, WCO, OECD, EU Commission, etc). The developing countries are making heroic efforts to disengage from this lock-in situation (demanding policy space, for example). Some of them (the so- called newly emerging industrialised countries of the South) have indeed succeeded or partly succeeded, but the bulk of the devel- oping countries are still trapped in the shackles of history. Africa, especially, is identified as a continent that has not fared well. From this trap, Africa and others can liberate themselves only if they take matters of development into their own hands – and do not leave it to aid and its delimiting and colonising conditionalities, such as the structural adjustment programmes of the IMF and the World Bank, and now the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness.

In other words, the national project, the project for self-determination, is still on the agenda of political action for developing countries. Its counter, the imperial project, is also still alive, but gradually weakening. Its ideology – the Washington consensus and globalisation – crafted after the dominant paradigm of free market liberalism and Western systems of governance, democracy and the rule of law, has lost credibility and legitimacy. This is not to undervalue the importance of democracy or the rule of law. Without these there would be anarchy and oppression. But these values cannot be imposed on the developing countries from outside, and certainly not loaded on to the wagon called ‘development aid’, followed by sanctions against those who fall short of Western donor expectations. The experience of Zimbabwe, tragic in its consequences, is an example of the curse of Red Aid, swallowed by a government and a people who had sacrificed so much to win their political independence. It is for this reason that the case of Zimbabwe has been analysed in detail in this monograph.

The fundamental reason why the relationship between ‘aid’ and ‘development’ is not fully understood is because of the way both terms are defined in the OECD-DAC vocabulary, definitions which have also been adopted by the United Nations. These are self-serving, West-centric, value-loaded and arbitrary definitions. It is argued here, for example, that there is no good reason for excluding what I call Yellow Aid (or military and political aid) from the definition. This kind of arbitrary exclusion ignores the military and political assistance provided by countries in the South too, for example, the liberation of Southern Africa. Worse still, it places military aid under the carpet, outside of a rational discourse within its political and ethical context.

In this context, it is argued that the 0.7 per cent has acquired a ‘mythical’ status. It carries an ethical-moral dimension, and provokes a lot of passion, particularly among civil society and in the North. This is an understandable reaction from NGOs and civil society organisations that have a strong affinity with the South on grounds of solidarity, but they have an imperfect understanding of the structural problems with the aid architecture. For the developing countries, the 0.7 per cent is a weapon to hold the North to their promises, even when the last 40 years’ experience should have made them wiser. An extended and expanded version of the 0.7 per cent model is the ‘booster’ model of aid. This is based on the assumption that the resource gap in developing countries (in particular, Africa) should be filled by a massive dose of aid over a number of years until the countries take off, like an aeroplane. The proponents of both the 0.7 per cent and the booster models need to question the resource gap theory. They will then understand that the developing countries do not have a resource gap. It is a gap unwittingly or deliberately created, directly as a result of the activities of global corporations and the misdirected policies of the IMF and World Bank. The irony is that the booster aid is still packaged within the framework of the very conditionalities that are part of the problem and not the solution.

This monograph provides a new taxonomy for development aid – in five hues – in a more rational and comprehensive classification. Development aid is placed along a continuum from Purple Aid (based on solidarity) on the extreme left and Red Aid (ideological aid) on the extreme right. In between are Orange Aid (which is really not aid at all, and should simply be called commercial transactions); Yellow Aid (already explained above); and Green/Blue Aid (whose three components – the provision of global public goods, non-tied humanitarian and emergency aid, and compensatory finance – are segments of the totality of financial and technical and technological assistance that are genuinely developmental. These are part of the global good not only from the national (recipient) country’s perspective, but also from the global perspective. One implication of this classification, for example, is that global civil society in the North as well in the South might find they have more affinity with Purple Aid, and perhaps also with Green/Blue Aid, than with aid of the other three colours.

The body of the book consists of the seven steps that the developing countries need to take in order to exit aid dependence. The most difficult is the first step – the psychology of aid dependence. The dependence psychology has not only occupied the minds of leaders in many (if not most) developing countries, but it has also taken roots in mass psychology. It is not necessary to attempt to summarise the seven steps. Much more can be written on the subject than is contained in this monograph. The important point is that the process has to begin somewhere and very soon. It is an agenda that has to be captured by the people themselves at community and grassroots level. However, it also requires an enlightened and visionary leadership at national, regional, and continental levels.

It is argued here that the present aid and development architecture at the international level is an obstacle to the realisation of the national project. Three power asymmetries – economic power, political power and knowledge power – are deeply embedded in the existing structures. It is a continuing battle for the developing countries to try and secure policy space within the constraints imposed by these asymmetrical structures.

The present debate on the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (PDAE) is located in this larger context to explain the circumstances in which the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC) and the World Bank and IMF are trying to retain their relevancy and legitimacy, both of which have been severely eroded as a result of the changing geopolitical and economic realities of the last decade or so. If the OECD, the World Bank and the IMF do not achieve what they hope for at the Accra conference on aid effectiveness (September 2008) and the Doha Monterrey Review Process (November–December 2008), then they could face oblivion within the next decade. For the DAC its oblivion is a historical necessity in any event. At best, it should remain as a body to coordinate policies for OECD member countries. As for the World Bank and the IMF, they can salvage themselves if they pull out of Red Aid, withdraw to their original missions, and give voice to those who have suffered most from the developmental failure of their policies and the financial volatility of the last two decades.

In this broad historical and political perspective, the Development Cooperation Forum (DCF) of the UN and the fast evolving South–South relationship can play a very positive role. However, it faces many challenges, and its future is still largely uncertain.

At the end of the day, we need a truly heterogeneous, pluralistic global society that is based on the shared values of our civilisation, and the shared fruits of the historical development of the productive forces of science, technology and human ingenuity. Only on this basis can we build a global society that is free from want, exploitation, insecurity and injustice.

*Yash Tandon is the executive director of the South Centre, Geneva, an intergovernmental think tank of the developing countries. Dr Tandon’s long career in national and international development spans time as a policymaker, a political activist, a professor and a public intellectual. He has written over 100 scholarly articles and has authored and edited books on wide-ranging subjects from African politics to peace and security, trade and the WTO, international economics, South–South cooperation and human rights. He has also served on several advisory committees.

*Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/394/Tandon_l_and_tmb.jpgThe following is the foreword to Yash Tandon's new book, Ending Aid Dependence, published by Fahamu Books, September 2008. For more information please visit, .

The primary and long-term objective of this monograph is to initiate a debate on development aid, and to lay out a doable strategy for ending aid dependence. An exit strategy from aid dependence requires a radical shift both in the mindset and in the development strategy of countries dependent on aid, and a deeper and direct involvement of people in their own development. It also requires a radical and fundamental restructuring of the institutional aid architecture at the global level.

A more immediate objective is to start a dialogue with the OECD’s Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, which forms the basis of a high level meeting in September 2008 in Accra, and to caution the developing countries against endorsing the Accra Action Agenda (the ‘Triple A’) offered by the OECD. If adopted, it could subject the recipients to a discipline of collective control by the donors right down to the village level. And this will especially affect the present donor-dependent countries, in particular the poorer and more vulnerable countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean. A simple schema (Table 1) at the end of this Foreword illustrates the differences between the strategy of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and the South Centre’s aid exit strategy. Beyond the Paris Declaration, there is still the question: What then? There has to be a strategy for ending aid dependence, to exit from it.

There are countries in the South that have more or less graduated out of aid, such as India, China, Brazil and Malaysia, and there are others which will soon self-propel themselves out of aid dependence. In fact, aid was never a strong component in the development of either India or China. They have been reliant on their own domestic savings and the development of a domes- tic market through the protection of local enterprises and local innovation. They have opened themselves up in recent years to the challenge of globalisation and foreign competition only after ensuring that their own markets were strong enough. Brazil, on the other hand, was an aid-dependent country until only recently. Both Brazil and Malaysia have succeeded in ending their aid dependence through strong nationally oriented investment and trade policies. These included supporting and protecting the domestic market and export promotion, as well as the currency, fiscal and monetary policies that go with them.

In an earlier period, during the 1960s and 1970s, the so-called tiger economies of Korea, Singapore, Taiwan-China and Hong Kong ended their aid dependence mainly in the context of the Cold War. These countries were able to use the opportunity provided by the Cold War not only to draw substantial capital from the West, mainly the US, but also to build their production, infra- structural facilities (banking, finance, transport, communications, etc) and export capacity. They took advantage of the relatively open US market to export the products of their early manufacturing growth. They benefited from the fact that the US needed them to fight communism in that part of the world. This enabled them to initiate state-supported industrialisation without having to account to institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF, to import technology without having to pay huge fees for intellectual property rights, and to build strong reserve funds.

This book is not about them, although valuable lessons can be learnt from them. We are now living in a different period of history. This book is about countries that were neither able to take advantage of the Cold War period, nor had the benefit of a large domestic market and entrepreneurial class to develop an endogenous development strategy. We are therefore talking largely about the hundred or so countries that fall within the classification of least developed countries (LDCs), the middle-income countries that are not LDCs but are still struggling to become economically independent from foreign aid, and the vulnerable, small and island economies. Geographically, these countries occupy the huge land mass of Africa, large parts of Asia and Latin America, the Caribbean and the Pacific islands.

The message of this book needs to be seriously considered and debated by all those that are interested in the development of the countries of the South. If this means the rethinking of old concepts and methods of work, then let it be so.

*Benjamin W. Mkapa, President of Tanzania 1995-2005 was President of Tanzania 1995-2005.

*Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/

The nexus between aid, security and development is now beyond doubt. In fact, security is a precondition for development. The often cited ‘no development without security, no security without development’ captures this interconnectivity (Dochas 2007). Iraq, despite huge avalanche of aid for reconstruction, is a good example of the importance of security. Sadly, aid has become one of the casualties in the ‘war on terror’. It has been rapidly securitised. Self-interest and political motives determine the priorities of aid. Since the start of the ‘war on terror’, when United States (US) President Bush claimed that anybody was either a friend or an enemy, aid has become one of the weapons in their arsenal. War on terror has brought back the state as the sole referent in security. International aid as known today originated during the Cold War at a time when the US felt that the whole continent of Europe would be converted into a socialist camp and pumped billions of dollars through the Marshal Plan to jumpstart the war damaged economies. Enter 9/11, the good intentions of aid were set aside for the political priorities and self-interest.

US President George Bush said on 20 September 2001: ‘We will direct every resource at our command to the disruption of the global terror network’. Relief became a reward for useful intelligence information. Aid was not only a weapon on the battlefield but also used in diplomatic negotiations with poor countries. In 2003, the US threatened poor UN Security Council members like Angola, Cameroon and Guinea with a reduction of international aid. In the post 9/11 era Africa continued to need security and aid as much as before to overcome its ‘tremendous economic, social and political’ (Mohiddin 2007) challenges. Yet Africa did not have ‘capable and intelligent states’ (Kauzya 2007) able to provide much needed security which is a precondition for development and peace. Any form of aid creates an asymmetrical relationship between the donor and the recipients vitiating the spirit and letter of the Paris Declaration. This relationship fosters ineffective aid. In fact, it does harm by feeding into existing conflicts thereby perpetuating conditions of insecurity that hinder meeting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).