THE proximity of Mlimani City Conference Centre, the venue of the 20th World Economic Forum (WEF) on Africa held in Dar es Salaam last week was cordoned off to civil society activists and the public in general. The Dar es Salaam Police Special Zone Commander, Suleiman Kova, declared that only invited guests were being allowed to the conference and its environs, and that police had denied all requests for demonstrations to ensure non-interference with security arrangements that were in place.
The security arrangements were equally extraordinarily intense in other parts of the city, with a large concentration of police patrols at nearly all vital points. But one thing that Commander Kova and the authorities overlooked—the wrong message that the stern warnings and concentration of marshals may have sent across: that our civil peace is only sustained and underpinned by militarist intimidation. For a country boasting of genuine peace and democracy, that was an anathema.
We did not have savvy environmentalists, anti-poverty radicals or AIDS activists intending to heckle along Mlimani City corridors to disrupt WEF proceedings as had happened in many other countries during these meetings. Still, not everybody here in Tanzania agrees with the policies and ideas of the titans of politics and industry, which the WEF normally symbolizes. The civil society should have been allowed to protest peacefully to register their disagreement.
During similar meetings in other countries we had seen banners with messages such as “Fair Trade Not Free Trade,” The Media is owned by WEF Delegates,” or “Clean the Earth Now.” We needed not necessarily imitate those foreign protesters, but it would have been noteworthy to allow our dissenters air their views. In fact, the country was far from staging a civil disobedience of noteworthy magnitude to the WEF meeting.
Some foreign commentators had been particularly harsh with WEF—perhaps for good reasons. They once dubbed WEF delegates “the Goliaths of Globalization” and argued that unchecked capitalism and globalization—which WEF somehow represents—were partly to blame for deepening world poverty and environmental destruction.
Violent anti-WEF demonstrations were rampant in 1990s especially in Europe, Asia and Australia. In one occasion the protesters were “indiscriminately trampled, batoned and kicked to clear the road to bus in the delegates.” It was far-fetched to believe that such violence could have happened in Tanzania, partly because the majority of the people here were too busy trying to eke a living to have extra time to square off with armed guards barricading Mlimani City. Paradoxically, in our case, poverty was enough deterrence to violence.
The people were instead eagerly waiting to hear the possible benefits that the much-publicized gathering might have accrued to them. The president had already assured city residents that there would be some inevitable benefits: hoteliers, car rentals, safari tours and artistic entrepreneurs were among those likely to see the boon, out of the presence of over 1000 guests from 85 countries.
The Forum focused on the theme “Rethinking Africa’s Growth Strategy.” Participants “as well as the public” were invited to join Davos Debates in Africa through video links that were to be set up at the corner to air their “vision of Africa.” Yet commander Kova said No. The meeting was out of bound for the public.
How could the public have participated in the debates and air their views on “the opportunities and barriers” they thought the African continent faced, without being given access to the video links? At least the organizers and the police could have asked interested members of the public to register themselves in advance to participate in the debates. It was Africa at stake--she belongs to all Africans, not to a clique of political, business or media chieftains.
The restrictions to the WEF meeting reinforced the image—wrongly or correctly—that the Foundation’s events are gatherings of elites that have “accomplished little of substance” apart from being denounced by some critics as “a mix of pomp and platitude.”
Indeed what tangible cross-cutting benefits have Africa achieved from WEF meetings, apart from “collateral” gains? Coincidentally, the meeting in Tanzania came just a few weeks after the gathering of academics and intellectuals at the University of Dar es Salaam, during the Mwalimu Nyerere Intellectual Festival Week, which also focused on the future of Africa.
Since Commander Kova barricaded the area, it is important to use this column to say something. Over three decades ago, when German-born business professor Klaus Martin Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of WEF, came up with the idea of bringing together business, political and intellectual leaders to discuss “pressing issues facing the world” most of Africa was still the ideological and strategic battleground of super powers. Some African nations were not yet independent. South Africa, a major economic player in Africa today, was still mired in apartheid.
Except for political freedoms and reforms after the end of the cold war---because of the so-called wind of change—Africa still faces more or less the same challenges she had to contend with decades ago, including deepening poverty despite relatively higher economic growth and widespread disease including AIDS and malaria. It is true that most of the destructive wars and conflicts have ceased, but there are still many hotspots including Somalia, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Sudan. Literacy figures may have risen in general terms, but it is also true that advanced learning is becoming increasingly expensive for the majority young people, who may never benefit from the technology revolution. In some countries literacy gains of the past have been eroded.
In the past Africa never played a significant role in the international trade because she was largely confined to export of primary and traditional crops and other natural resources subjected to quotas and protectionist barriers; similarly today she plays a diminutive role in the world of free market and globalization.
“Africa is a continent full of potential,” President Kikwete said in a WEF press release last week. The same words uttered Julius Nyerere, Kenneth Kaunda, Milton Obote, Jomo Kenyatta, Kwame Nkrumah, Nelson Mandela and many other past and present leaders. So what is wrong?
Part of the answer is that many talks about Africa are never followed with concrete actions on the ground, or rather, adequate concrete actions commensurate with the talks. Once there were talks that the developed nations—which so much benefitted from African resources during slavery, colonialism, neo-colonialism or in whatever fashion—should set aside at least one percent of their GDP to assist poor developing nations leap forward, at least to alleviate poverty. It never materialized.
Part of the explanation was that Africans wouldn’t know how to spend the money. Instead of building roads or health clinics, some Abachas would stash the money way in “safe” Swiss bank accounts, thereby helping 22nd century Switzerland, the home of Davos talks, to advance even further, at the expense of Africa.
Today the trade debates have come to WTO and EPA talks, because Africa is supposed to be a trade “partner” even with giants like the European Union, instead of remaining a perpetual beggar of development aid. Do we not claim to be a continent full of potential, so what’s all this fuss about development aid?
The debates are enough! If some sanity still remains in the international community thinking let it start by implementing what it has already agreed on. As part of a new “global redesigning” the WEF and others should redouble their efforts to enable Africa meet the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) targets, at least to start from.
A few weeks ago, this column talked about a book titled “Can Africa Claim the 21st Century?”—whose authorship involved African Development Bank, African Economic Research Consortium, Global Coalition for Africa, United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, the World Bank plus numerous distinguished African scholars and policy makers.
If one still asks, “What is the vision for Africa?” the writer may be excused for wondering, what is wrong with international thinking and memory? The distinguished thinkers come from most prestigious learning institutions as well as renowned global economic and business think-tanks. Yet they seem to have utterly failed to think for Africa, or rather, to think about Africa in realistic terms.
The WEF website enumerates over 20 “achievements” of the Foundation between 1979 and 2009. To what extent have these been accomplished-- five per cent, ten percent or 20 per cent? Certainly not 100 per cent. For example, the plan to treat 50 people and prevent 14 million tuberculosis deaths world- wide in 10 years from 2006. In Tanzania, doctors say TB cases are on the rise.
Think about Tony Blair’s poverty alleviation initiative for Africa. Where are we? Gates Foundation- funded project on microbicide to help women protect against AIDS—they are the most vulnerable group in Africa—has reportedly ended with disappointing results, and there is no vaccine or medicine yet in sight apart from ARVs. In our country, the national slogan is: “Tanzania without AIDS is possible” but reports indicate rising-rather than decreasing-infection trends in some segments of the society.
And, whither Kofi Annan’s “Global Compact” to give “a human face to the global market”. How has it translated for Africa so far? And so on. These are among the “pressing issues” of our “African world.”
As for the WEF in Dar es Salaam, the police did not have to cordon off the meeting venue. Perhaps the public could have had a rare opportunity to interact directly with the delegates and seek their answers to some of these questions.