Yes, Africa can change too

Africa, the second largest continent, has two faces: an Arab and a Black African one. In contrast to China and India, the news coming out of sub-Saharan Africa is rarely encouraging. Economically, Africa remains the "black hole" of globalisation.

This negative image is perpetuated by the mass media, keen to propagate Africa's many, but not exclusive, woes.

A never-ending story of famine and poverty, tyrants and toppling governments, wars and human atrocities, corruption and diseases.

Africa is about Live Aid, a continent crippled by its past and now living off the crumbs falling from the West's table.

There is another Africa: a land of natural beauty and biodiversity, rich in minerals and precious metals, the cradle of humanity. Africa is Nelson Mandela and Julius Nyerere as much as it is Idi Amin and Robert Mugabe.

Over the last decade, things were moving in the right direction. Political instability was declining. Most epidemics in the region had stabilised, although often at high levels. Transparency International says that perceived corruption too has been falling. The rise in the prices of oil and commodities benefited some of the African countries, such as Nigeria and South Africa.

Three quarters of the 46 sub-Saharan countries are net importers of food and were badly hit by the 2008 food crisis. These countries have relied too long on the agricultural surplus dumped by the West on their markets.

The recent G8 meeting at L'Aquila decided to hand out $20 billion in food aid, most of it going to Africa.

Barack Obama is insisting that this money goes primarily into building Africa's agricultural capacity rather than in continuing to feed it. Raising small farm productivity is a noble objective.

The snag is that the G8 want to conclude the deadlocked WTO trade talks by end 2010.

This assistance could be the carrot to get Africa to agree to liberalise its agricultural markets at grave risk to its farmers.

President Obama is suggesting a special mechanism (something along the lines Malta has with the EU) that would allow governments to intervene should there be an unwarranted surge in imports. Food aid or tied aid?

Africa will be the worst hit by the global economic crisis, triggered by the West's indulgence. Unesco's Global Monitoring Report estimates that the incomes of the poorer half of Black Africa's 800 million population will fall by 20 per cent this year, leading to more poverty.

From Italy, Mr Obama went to Ghana; his first visit to sub-Saharan Africa as US President and global leader.

Addressing the Ghanaian Parliament, he spoke with conviction and as an insider. "I have the blood of Africa within me," he said. He did some tightrope walking.

He admitted that colonialism has left a legacy of conflicts but insisted that it is time to move on. He insisted that development demanded good governance. Fair enough, although what leads to development continues to escape Western analysts and politicians.

Africa is not post-World War II Europe. The Marshall Plan worked here because it financed reconstruction not development. In the past 50 years, Africa received over $1 trillion in aid. Did this money help to reduce poverty?

African female economist Dambisa Moyo, in her recently published book Dead Aid, claims that foreign aid (not the overseas aid going into philanthropic projects) has been "an unmitigated political, economic and humanitarian disaster". Foreign aid is perpetuating a sense of dependency on outsiders; it has generated a bloated, self-centred public service, encouraged corruption and distorted markets.

This flow of easy money has led governments to seek to please the donor countries rather than to address the real needs of the people. It has created a big divide between the political class and most of the people. There is little trust. Success is associated with nepotism and hand-outs by the political regime. This is not the basis on which to build democracy and promote good governance.

Foreign aid should give Africa a future and not just seek to keep it alive. Donor countries can help by participating in the development of the physical infrastructure that would enhance the mobility of people and goods and ensure proper municipal services such as water and electricity. More funds need to be channelled into schools and adequate nutrition.

For decades economists argued whether countries should follow a balanced or unbalanced trajectory towards development. It is now clear that countries need to follow a combination of both. An unbalanced path will help them specialise and grow promising sectors that will enable them to interface successfully with the global economy as Bangalore did with the IT industry. This needs to be complemented by a more balanced approach to essential sectors such as agriculture so as to achieve self-sufficiency and provide for the basic needs of all citizens.

World War II bred a generation of dreamers in Africa who fought for political independence. Power and disillusion with ideology bred a generation of political opportunists. Africa is not alone in this. It is up to the young people of Africa to drive for change. Yes, Africa can.