Africa was set adrift before it was ready to rule itself

'It is absurd to claim there is any way forward which would not include a large measure of neo-colonialism'

Internal links

Bruce Anderson: Africa was set adrift before it was ready to rule itself

Leading Articles: Home fires

Blair ends whirlwind tour of West Africa with plea for campaign to relieve poor nations' debt

Tony Blair is right. We should take an interest in Africa's welfare, and not only for sentimental reasons. As the Prime Minister more or less said – he was not so blunt – squalor and chaos in Africa is a potential threat to the leafy suburbs of England. A collapsing Africa could become a terrorgenic Africa.

After the cold war, Africa briefly dropped off the geopolitical map. Once the Russians lost interest in the continent, many in the West felt it was safe to do likewise, especially as some policymakers were already suffering from compassion fatigue. Billions had been poured into Africa via aid programmes, and almost all of it had been wasted – or embezzled. It seemed pointless to provide foreign aid which mostly ended up in Swiss bank accounts; still less, if it ensured the corrupt and oppressive rulers had just enough to pay their armed forces to maintain them in power while terrorising their populaces.

Not all aid was useless. A few projects were good, especially those sponsored by non-governmental organisations such as Save the Children. But as the economist Peter Bauer and others have argued so forcefully, the record of government-to-government aid has been disastrous. The continent would probably have been better off if there had never been any.

In the early '90s, benign neglect seemed to be an option. No longer. A few years ago, Henry Kissinger compared the Soviet Union to Upper Volta plus nuclear weapons. Since 11 September and Afghanistan, the humour has gone out of the comparison. We now know that any state, however crazily run, can provide a haven for political malignancy. We also know that, within a few years, as technology advances, states that are incapable of maintaining roads or providing clean water will be able to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

Map makers in the 16th and 17th centuries, to whom the interior of Africa was truly a dark continent, amused themselves by inventing picturesque descriptions. "Here be tygers''. "Here be anthropophagi.'' The modern equivalent would be "Here are terrorists''. "Here is a biological weapons programme.'' Those are amusements which we cannot afford. We now have good, sound selfish reasons for re-engaging with Africa in order to throw light on the darkness.

But this will require more than photo-calls or international conferences. It will require an exercise of will, starting with the willingness to acknowledge our own past misdeeds and moral failures.

Not all European powers were good colonists. The Belgians were a disgrace, while the Germans too behaved brutally, especially in South West Africa. But the British and French brought roads, schools, hospitals and law. We also sent out able and disinterested public servants. In the 1950s, Sudan was described as a country in which blacks were ruled by (Oxbridge) blues. Sudan was better run then than ever before or since. We have everything to be proud of in our African colonial record, except its premature end.

Forty years ago, the West betrayed Africa. Because we had lost the appetite for empire, and could no longer afford its burdens, we cast black Africa adrift, handing independence to territories which were in no way ready to rule themselves.

That unreadiness is now self-evident. It would be absurd to claim that Africa has any way to move forward which would not include a large measure of neo-colonialism. This need not mean direct white rule. It would involve a careful selection of local politicians who would administer their countries under Western tutelage.

In the West, we know what works: the rule of law, a market economy and democracy. In the case of Africa, the first two are the priorities; democracy can come later. In the interim, it is a question of finding clever, hardworking patriots who will run their countries in an authoritative manner, not a totalitarian one. Africa needs local equivalents of Ataturk, Franco, Pinochet and Musharraf – not Mobutu, Mugabe, Kaunda or Nyerere.

There is no reason why these African rulers should not grow rich in office. But their role model should be François Mitterrand, not Joseph Mobutu. We want characters who will pocket a tiny percentage of a rapidly growing GDP, not gangsters who will plunder an entire country.

Every British, French and American embassy in Africa should be easily able to identify suitable local politicians. It would then be a simple matter for the ambassador who has been designated to act as a covert governor general to call on the existing ruler, congratulate him on his impending retirement, assure him that his application for Swiss residence has been granted, and that he can take $50m with him, plus a guarantee of immunity for past misdeeds.

If the ruler in question protested that he had no intention of retiring and that he was worth $500m not $50m, the ambassador should make himself clear. Either he takes an honourable and affluent retirement – even though all theft in excess of $50m must be refunded – or he faces a drastic loss of life expectancy.

Such a threat would be more credible if we had not been so supine over Robert Mugabe. But past spinelessness must not be an excuse for future failure, in Zimbabwe or anywhere else. If Mr Mugabe hangs on to power for much longer, the West will have to use force against him to prevent his completing the ruin of a potentially rich country.

Over the past 40 years we have seen the ruin of a continent, full of attractive people who deserve so much better treatment than they have received at the hands of the brigands and kleptocrats who have mis-ruled them. My neo-colonial solution is unlikely to gain general acceptance. Some people will be shocked at the idea that Europeans have a better understanding of Africa's interests than most Africans do.

But the true moral outrage does not lie in proposals to make Africa a ward of a Western court. The outrage lies in allowing Africa to go on deteriorating; and Africans to go on suffering. The burden of proof should not lie with those who believe in importing good government on Africa, but with those who believe that Africa is capable of generating good government for itself.

None of this is likely to trouble Mr Blair, as he prepares for an international conference to discuss Africa's problems. From that conference, doubtless, will flow pious resolutions and impressive photographs. But so many conferences have been held over the past four decades, producing so little progress. There is no reason to believe this will change under Mr Blair's chairmanship.

Throughout Western capitals, it would be easy to assemble a group of experts who could assist well-inclined African rulers to improve their people's quality of life. They ought to be recruited and put to work. It is now time for the West to stop talking about Africa, and start telling Africans what to do.