Global non-governmental and civic organisations have slammed the G8 resolutions, issuing a damning statement that said: “Simply put, we are disappointed in the outcomes of Gleneagles. The resolutions fall far short of our expectations for a comprehensive and radical strategy to make poverty history in Africa. The Summit has simply reaffirmed existing decisions on debt cancellation and doubling of aid.” “The debt package only provides only 10 percent of the relief required and affects only one-third of the countries that need it. A large component of the US$50 billion pledged is drawn from existing obligations. Further, both packages are still attached to harmful policy conditionality. Today, the G8 missed a historic opportunity to write off the debt of over 62 least developing countries,” said Hassen Lorgat of the South African National NGO Coalition (SANGCO). While acknowledging that there was some good from the G8 summit, United Kingdom-based development organisation, ActionAid, made interesting observations on the G8 outcomes, saying the “bad news” coming out of Gleneagles summed up to no progress at all on trade between Africa and the EU, a meagre increase in aid that was too little too late and insufficient aid allocations for Aids and malaria treatment. ActionAid also said the much talked about debt cancellation deal, which would see 18 of the continent’s poorest countries having their debts to G8 states cancelled, was equally inadequate, considering that what was needed was debt cancellation for all African countries. Interestingly enough, we are made to believe that the debt write-off proposal for the poorest nations would amount to something in the region of US$40 billion when, in fact, it really amounted to US$1 billion a year, and was worth around US$17 billion in real terms.

Furthermore, the harmful and stringent conditions attached to this debt write-off could mean that many of the critical causes of poverty and misery will remain in place. Clearly, Africa needs less aid like this as well as less debt relief, if it comes with these conditions — and less trade with rich countries, if it is based on the condition of the continent being forced to open up markets. The G8 leaders announced a “doubling” of aid to Africa from US$25 billion to US$50 billion by 2010, though it has been noted that this was, in fact, not a doubling of aid, but an increase of an estimated $15 billion to $20 billion in new money. The rest of the money had apparently already been earmarked for this purpose, thus, it was not, in fact, a total doubling. On the key area of trade interaction between the G8 and Africa, which is crucial for Africa, several issues that needed to be addressed, such as the rich countries’farm subsidies and their protected markets, were not discussed at all. Trade discussion was left to later in the year. We agree with analysts who have noted that while debt relief would be helpful for Africa at the moment, more progress would be made if a fairer, more equal trade balance existed between Africa and the developed states.

Constant talk about G8 intentions for Africa — while failing to materialise into real action — has gradually become wearisome, as it has been made to appear as a great deal for poverty and debt relief while, in fact, it is designed to benefit the developed countries themselves. There was a general fear that given the high emphasis on opening up African markets to free trade and privatisation, this was really a summit that helped gain deeper penetration into African affairs and improve the interest of multinational firms based in the G8 nations. The UK Department for International Development’s recent document, “Partnerships with Business”, clarifies this position, stating that most aid recipients “are commercially important to the business sector, not just as export markets, but also for sourcing inputs and raw materials, for foreign investment and joint ventures . . .” But there has been some good emanating from the G8 summit. For starters, a number of developing countries were invited, so they should likely feature in any subsequent meetings and mount pressure for the outcomes to be transformed into action. Also, millions of people came together in a global campaign to put an end to poverty, while the UK government responded to campaigners and South leaders by putting poverty and Africa at the centre of the Gleneagles agenda.

Although they were both inadequate and unpopular, it is also refreshing to note that the G8 made some steps, including the cancellation of debts of some poor countries, the provision of some (though meagre) amounts of extra aid and recognising that countries must be free to determine their own economic policies — tantamount to recognition that the current practice of attaching strings to aid must be radically altered. After the conclusion of the summit, the spotlight will now be on the G8 leaders as the world watches their policies and actions to see whether or not they will translate into action. Before raising our hands in thanks for the “gifts” that the developed world has so generously endowed upon us, Africa must certainly question what lies beneath these gestures.