Subsidies for the rich or aid for the poor? There is no clear answer following the financial crisis, concludes Eva Dadrian "The needs of the world's poorest nations must be considered in long-term solutions to the international economic crisis." This is how the leaders of the 55 French-speaking nations wrapped up the XII Francophonie Summit in Quebec City, though there was little to show that this was more than just a platitude. The Francophonie Group, which is often considered as the French-language equivalent of the British Commonwealth, includes mainly France's former colonies in Africa, Asia and the Pacific. The summit was the first north-south meeting since the global financial crisis, and as observers have pointed out, its timing with the financial meltdown was a blessing in disguise for the developing countries, especially the African countries which make up about half of the 55 members in the Francophonie Group. According to observers, they were offered a unique opportunity "to express their views on the crisis and their fears for their future." In fact by the end, fears that nothing concrete would result from the summit proved justified, as the only clear plan for action that emerged is a proposal to reduce energy costs, while the issues of development aid, Millennium Development Goals, poverty, famine and trade were pushed aside to discuss concerns about the impact of the world economic downturn. Six weeks ago, when the global financial crisis gripped investors, banks and stock markets across the world and wiped out billions worth of shares, some analysts were quick to declare that the crisis will have no "direct" impact on the African economies. According to them, the crisis would only affect developed nations, those nations that have a highly developed and complex financial and banking system offering sophisticated facilities to risky borrowers. And because Africa was not "integrated" in the global economy, it was less vulnerable and susceptible to the impact of the crisis. This could have been a blessing but as African economists rightly claim the large majority of the Africa's economic and financial partners are from that global economy; therefore, the "collateral damage" will also be heavy for the continent. Many observers, including the UN Development Programme, were dismayed at how it was possible to "find" $700 billion to rehabilitate the New York financial community, while only $20 billion were "found" by the G8 at Gleneagles in 2005 to help Africa, and even that sum has since been "lost". So what will happen to the African economies when the global economy slows down, recession grips international markets and the developed countries become more protectionists, particularly in the agricultural sector? "This will hit natural resources, industry and trade. Given the current food crisis, it's clear it will damage developing nations," said Denis Sassou Nguesso, president of the Republic of the Congo. Most African countries, like the Congo, rely on commodity exports and are already facing difficulties selling their products. In addition, the recent drop in metals and other natural resources prices is reducing national revenues. In the midst of the crisis and supposedly concerned by its deepening effects on Africa's poverty to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, world leaders attending a special meeting of the General Assembly on 23 September recommitted themselves to strengthening a "global partnership of equals". In their final declaration, they also stressed that "eradicating poverty, particularly in Africa, is the greatest global challenge facing the world today." However, the successive meetings and summits lined up by the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the EU, the G8, the G7 and the G20 that followed the UN General Assembly annual gathering were aimed, primarily, to ensure that the actions of the rich nations are "closely coordinated" and as emphasised by Henry Paulson, the US treasury secretary, were to ensure that one country's action does not come at the expense of others or at the expense of "the stability of the system as a whole". Ban Ki-Moon, the United Nations secretary- general, expressed dismay that while Africa needs $72 billion per year for development, the rich countries pay $267 billion in subsidies to their farmers, but still holds out hope. "Looking ahead to 2015 and beyond, there is no question that we can achieve the overarching goal: we can put an end to poverty," cautiously adding "but it requires an unswerving, collective, long- term effort." The Millennium Development Goals, which in principle represent a global partnership on an agreed set of goals, can be achieved only if all the actors work together. While African countries have pledged to govern better and to invest in their people through healthcare, education and food security, rich countries have pledged to support them through aid, debt relief, and fairer trade. These require a greater financial commitment, and right now, none of the rich countries are ready to fulfil such an obligation. The lack of any concrete outcome from the Quebec summit merely confirms this.
