New US-Pakistan equation

IN THE aftermath of the events of September 11 when President Musharraf promptly decided to side with the US against the war on terror, relations between US and Pakistan have taken a turn for the better. The recent visit of President Musharraf to the US was a continuation of that upward trend. It has meant a strong endorsement by President Bush of the policies being pursued by President Musharraf and his government in combating terrorism and advancing mutually serving objectives.

Clearly, in symbolic terms, the visit was a great success. Even on substantive issues there were modest gains, although the hype generated before the visit had created undue expectations. There is also the factor of dependence syndrome which often leads to inflated demands and unrealistic expectations, especially where our relationship with Washington is concerned. On balance however, the president’s visit has given a new depth and dimension to the mutual relationship. Equally, it brought into sharper focus the element of expediency characterizing US-Pak relations.

For its part America wants to fully benefit from Pakistan’s unique geopolitical position in its global war on terror, particularly in Afghanistan, and seeks support for its policies at the regional and global levels and more so in the context of the Islamic world and India. Pakistan too has seized this opportunity primarily for strategic, political and economic gains. Close relationship with the sole superpower improves Pakistan’s international standing and acts partly as countervailing factor vis-a-vis pressure from India and brings in economic benefits. These motivations drive the two countries to work closely in areas of common or converging interests.

The question that arises in the mind of many is whether in this asymmetrical relationship Pakistan is capable of guarding and advancing its national interests, or is President Musharraf merely playing ball to remain on the right side of the US to promote his personal agenda of keeping democracy at bay. Additionally, there is a misperception that has gained wide acceptance in the country that Pakistan is fighting the war against terror entirely at the behest of, and for the US, and it is not linked to its national interest. The truth is that there is more at stake for Pakistan in the successful outcome of the battle against terrorism than for the US.

The decision to go along with the US after the fateful events of 9/11 undoubtedly had an element of imposition, but the success of this joint endeavour will reduce militancy and extremism and promote stability in Pakistan and in the region with all its attendant benefits in economic and political terms. It is indeed a sad commentary on our decision-making process that it is mostly the forced decisions rather than those based on our own free will — whether these be IMF conditionalities regarding discipline in financial management or superpower dictates for withdrawing support from the Taliban — that have proved more beneficial to our national interests.

The modest economic package of three billion dollars spread over a five-year period and evenly divided between social and defence sectors, is an affirmation of America’s commitment to Pakistan’s stability and progress. This agreement is linked to adherence to certain norms of state conduct, which include non-proliferation, an end to state-sponsored terrorism and progress towards strengthening democratic institutions. Hopefully, Pakistan would take care not to provide any excuse to US Congress to scuttle the assistance programme on grounds non-compliance.

The signing of the Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) can be the pre-cursor of a Free Trade Agreement and is a “consultative mechanism” for enhancing trade with the US. With the emphasis shifting from aid to trade as a means of promoting economic growth, Pakistan could benefit from this agreement provided it takes appropriate measures to conform to international practices in trade and commerce. The agreement on cooperation in science and technology requires at our end a fairly sound scientific and technological infrastructure, which Pakistan currently lacks. It should therefore focus on those programmes in the field of education, research and industry that have a better assimilative potential and capacity.

America’s refusal to sell F-16’s has brought disappointment in the defence community because that would further increase the growing imbalance with India in the conventional field. Although, keeping in view the strong US leanings towards India and its non-proliferation concerns, the decision was not unexpected. Firstly, it would have seriously affected the US’s strategic relationship with India, which it greatly values. Secondly, F-16s are capable of delivering nuclear weapons and that would go against America’s non-proliferation policy. It is another matter, however, that Washington’s own record on non-proliferation and disarmament issues is highly questionable.

It is worth recalling that Pakistan was provided F-16s during the 1980s when its nuclear programme was covert and still in its infancy and these fighter planes were meant essentially to counter the Soviet threat. Nevertheless, if America wants to develop a durable and mutually beneficial relationship, it cannot ignore Pakistan’s legitimate defence needs in the developing regional security scenario.

The Indian air force is getting equipped with latest SU-30MK-1 fighter planes from Russia, and is negotiating major defence deals with western suppliers. Washington has allowed Israel to sell its advanced Phalcon airborne reconnaissance system to India and is also likely to permit the sale of Arrow anti-missile system to it.

This would neutralize Pakistan’s nuclear capability to some extent. The Indian air force already has in its inventory aircraft equipped with weapons systems that can fire beyond visual-range missiles. All this further tilts the conventional and nuclear balance in India’s favour. Additionally, two other regional developments widen Pakistan-Indian military gap. First, as militancy is contained in Kashmir and the political process gains momentum there, fear is that India would be able to divert move of its forces, now engaged in internal security, against Pakistan. Second, the thaw in Sino-Indian relations would free a few divisions from its north-eastern border.

Both these are positive developments themselves and are generally welcome, but the fear is that India may use its augmented military impose its will on Pakistan. America, however, may be willing to supply transport aircraft; helicopters, radars, military equipment and hardware that complement Pakistan’s efforts to support the military needs of the US on the western front and are of a defensive nature.

America is interested in the stability and development of democratic institutions in Pakistan but may not pursue this objective forcefully in the near future if it feels that it may impede the fight against terror or strengthen extremist forces. At the same time, there are serious concerns in the US about the type of polity that is emerging in Pakistan. There is a fear there that the country may get caught between the forces of militarism and theocracy and democratic evolution may be derailed.

Indeed, the emphasis on Islamic values by the religious parties is fine and there could be no disagreement on the fundamental tenets of our religion, which we all want to uphold. But their worldview is myopic and totally out of step with the realities of life and times dangerous to Pakistan’s vital national interest. With memories still fresh of the doings of the Taliban in Afghanistan, certain recent actions of the MMA in the NWFP have raised serious misgivings within the country and alarm abroad. These have implications for investment, nuclear programme’s safety and inter-state relations.

On the question of Kashmir the US is interested in seeing the issue resolved peacefully through bilateral negotiations, keeping the interests and wishes of the Kashmiri people in view. It is already playing a positive role in reducing tensions between the two countries and is willing to be a facilitator in the wider context of normalization. Washington supports the Indian position regarding cross-border insurgency and has been insisting that Pakistan stop support to Kashmiri militants.

However, President Musharraf, has been justifiably insisting that New Delhi reciprocate by agreeing to substantive negotiations on Kashmir. If America seeks genuine peace and stability in South Asia, then it has to assert more effectively in support of a just settlement of Kashmir. It is doubtful, however, that the US would take a position on Kashmir that is fundamentally different from India’s. It is more likely to try to persuade both countries to work out a solution within the existing territorial realities with minor alterations, greater autonomy for Kashmiris and soft borders.

For the development of enduring relations with US that are not characterized by frequent ups and downs, Pakistan will have to move towards true democracy, a strong economy and a tolerant Islamic polity. Peace with India would be another pre-requisite for a stable and productive relationship.

The writer is a retired lt-gen of the Pakistan army.

Was the visit a success?

IT IS interesting and instructive to observe how President Pervez Musharraf’s recent odyssey to the West was assessed in this country. It speaks volumes about our national mindset and our exaggerated perception of the country’s standing in world affairs.

First the assessment. Depending on which side of the political/ideological divide they came from, many viewed the economic deals — especially the writing-off of the one billion dollar debt and the offer of three billion dollar aid in five years to Islamabad — as a major triumph of diplomacy. Others were critical of the quantum. They felt that this sum amounted to being peanuts in view of the support and cooperation Pakistan was extending to America in its war on terror — the sum of 10 billion dollars was bandied about as the right compensation for the losses suffered in the Afghan war.

Another issue which emerged as a litmus test for the success or otherwise of the Musharraf visit (and even other aspects of our foreign policy) was Kashmir. Did the president manage to impress on the Americans the need to deliver the disputed state to Pakistan? Has Mr Bush promised to push Mr Vajpayee towards a dialogue with Islamabad to resolve the outstanding dispute on our terms? There were some from the opposition camp who even suspected a sell-out. The criticism went to ridiculous extremes. For instance, a PPP leader said that the general’s body language indicated that he “had done a dirty deal on Kashmir”, whatever that was supposed to be.

Defence equipment — that is how much we can obtain — was another key determinant which has attracted considerable attention in Pakistan. For instance, many grudged the fact that the coveted F-16s could not be acquired after all. These warplanes have emerged as some sort of a status symbol in Pakistan’s military ties with the US. There were others who found solace in the reports that 1.5 billion dollars from the aid package will be spent on arms, including C-130s, P-3C Orions and Cobra helicopters.

And of course sycophants were ecstatic over the fact that the president was one of the very few world leaders to have been invited to Camp David. They gleefully rubbed in the point that Prime Minister Vajpayee had not enjoyed a similar honour.

But these considerations are really not the stuff that goes into the making of a successful foreign policy. These reactions also reflect the simplistic and shallow worldview and perceptions of international politics that very often find expression in this country. The propensity to view everything in terms of black and white is another factor that distorts our perspective. It is time this was rationalized.

It is important that Pakistan should realize that the international power structure is changing. The world is now moving beyond the post-cold war era. The United States continues to be not just the sole superpower of the world but has emerged as a hyperpower — and a very arrogant and irrational one at that. This holds three lessons for the smaller states of the Third World. First, no small country should unnecessarily attempt to challenge the hyperpower in a show of cocky independence.

Secondly, this also means that a Third World state, such as Pakistan, should shape its foreign policy in such a way that it is not forced to depend on the US for the successful implementation of its foreign policy goals.

Thirdly, it must define the pattern of its external relations on the merit of each issue confronting it and not in the light of the United States’ worldview.

The reason why President Musharraf’s visit to the US cannot be applauded unconditionally is the fact that it has further tightened the American noose round our neck. The economic and military aid, which is clearly linked to our continued good behaviour in the war against terrorism, only reinforces the begging bowl image which has stuck to us since Pakistan emerged as an independent state in 1947.

Can we ever aspire to emerge as a self-reliant and independent state in the community of nations not tied to the apron strings of a big power? This seems unlikely given the mindset Pakistan has traditionally displayed. It is not more aid but more trade that we should be trying for. Just look at India. Unlike us, it has moved in the other direction. It has told 22 donor countries that it would not accept any more aid from them once the on-going projects are completed. This covers an amount of $600 million, which account for a quarter of the foreign assistance India receives every year.

The problem is that Pakistan has not made a move at all to change its foreign policy, which continues to be pegged to Kashmir. What has this failure to move with the times brought in its wake?

It has made the country hostage to the jihadi groups. They have been given a licence to operate freely. With the exception of only those which are directly linked to the Al Qaeda and are therefore anathema to the Americans, the others are under no constraints since they are the ones who can stir trouble in Kashmir. Without them our Kashmir policy would have reached a dead-end. The militants keep the Kashmir issue alive and give rise to the hope that India will be forced to loosen its stranglehold over Kashmir.

The operations of the jihadi groups cannot be confined only to Kashmir or be manipulated at will. They are striking at the roots of Pakistan’s domestic stability and integrity, having developed the strength to manipulate the political forces and intensify divisiveness and schisms within the country. The sectarian incident in Quetta on Friday in which over 50 people were massacred points to the implications of the activities of these terrorist groups for the country’s peace and stability.

The escalation of jihad activities gives the US greater space to fish in the troubled waters of Pakistan’s domestic politics. That has also enabled it to make demands of all kinds such as the recognition of Israel and the dispatch of troops to Iraq. These are issues that Islamabad should have considered on their merits and not on Washington’s insistence.

The fact is that Pakistan has become overly dependent on the militants for attaining its goals on the “core issue” of Kashmir. With the initiative having passed on to the them, how much room does Islamabad have to make compromises in its policies without which no solution is possible?

By remaining rigid vis-a-vis Kashmir, Pakistan is driving itself into isolation. The changes that are taking place in international affairs have yet to register with our policy- makers. One wonders if they have noted the thaw that is setting in on the India-China front. Differences on Sikkim and Tibet, the two key irritants in their border dispute, have been tacitly sorted out during Mr Vajpayee’s recent visit to Beijing.

India’s role in South East-Asia has also been growing while in the Middle East and Afghanistan its economic and political ties with the states in the region are pretty substantial. While our ties with the region are based on sentiments drawn from historical bonds of friendship and a common religion, India’s relations are rooted solidly in tangible economic and political factors, which in the end prevail.

On the world scene, major realignments are taking place and the blocs that are emerging have enough economic and military clout to act as countervailing forces if not actually as a challenge to the US. Europe is moving in the direction of further integration and enlargement with ten East European states set to join the EU next year. Its new constitution, its common foreign and security policy and the growing strength of the Euro give the European Union not only a big-power status but also the capacity to influence international affairs.

This of course will not dramatically transform the international equations immediately. But these developments are like straws in the wind and point to the changes in the political climate taking place at various levels. That will change the context in which we have become used to operating for decades. The fact is that Pakistan has followed a Hallstein Doctrine of sorts in respect of Kashmir and India.

Those who lean even slightly towards India’s point of view on Kashmir are written off by us. This worked to an extent in the days of the cold war when the world was divided neatly into two camps. But now when the configuration is more ambiguous we only isolate ourselves by making Kashmir the touchstone of our foreign policy.

Free radio & television!

CAN Pakistan’s electronic media, radio and television, or more precisely, Radio Pakistan and the Pakistan Television Corporation, ever be completely free? Can they do without any government control and without any official interference in the tone and content of their programmes, particularly in the presentation of social, economic and political news and views?

Obviously, by freedom of these media I mean the freedom that we generally associate with the BBC and CNN, to name just two of the democratic world’s broadcasting agencies. Though there is a snag in this too because, after September 11 and the war in Afghanistan, CNN has shown itself to be amenable to government “advice” on the plea of national interest. However, the BBC, on the whole, keeps the flag flying.

Before I begin to say anything about freedom in the context of news presentation and the airing of independent views and analyses, I can be asked a ticklish counter question. “We always talk of freedom from official interference in news reporting by the print and electronic media. But has anyone given a thought to the ever-present pre-censorship by powerful social and religious elements of our society which is a far greater inhibition to unbiased reporting and speaking the truth, and to a free and frank discussion of some of the vital issues facing the nation?”

I shall not even attempt to answer that embarrassing query. You and I know that because of that fear of society hanging over all of us there can be no real freedom for anyone in the mass media, or even in one’s personal life. That cross has to be carried. But what we can do is to try and get rid of the stifling and, at the same time, sycophantic atmosphere which made the reporting of even non-political day-to-day news a crushing bore under the past elected governments and military regimes. What a reflection on our intellectual self-reliance that we had to depend on the BBC to tell us what was happening in our own country.

But things are changing. It is a paradox of the greatest surprise that the two electronic media should have the strangulating control over them relaxed by the latest military regime. This process started some two years ago, and already we see politicians on PTV in live discussion of public problems. The way things are going we may see our radio and television acting and behaving like newspapers which are having a field day so far as absence of restrictions are concerned. Moreover, for the citizens of Pakistan the setting up of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) may well become as big a step as the first step on the moon.

PEMRA will make its presence felt when private news and views channels on radio and television become a routine happening. In the meantime the very manner of the presentation of news and, more importantly, discussion of national issues over the electronic media is becoming unrecognisable from what we have been accustomed to since youth or childhood or birth, depending on our age.

Let me remind you of what constituted news for radio and TV before the new wave invaded their studios. The news bulletins were so strictly confined to the utterances and activities of government leaders that momentous happenings that affected the common man — accidents, deaths, political upheavals, riots, disturbances and the like — found no place in them. Calamities like floods were reported only in the context of what the government was doing about them, and the most terrible accident that killed a hundred could only find place in radio and TV news if a federal minister was there to preside over relief work. Of course reporting political activity of the opposition variety could not even be imagined.

Nowadays I prefer to read my news rather than switch on the radio or TV for it. But I did watch the reporting of Basant in Lahore a few months ago. The extensive coverage given by PTV to the popular festival in Lahore, the happy kite-flying multitude on the roads and on housetops, and how all the hotels, from the humblest to the five-star type, were packed with visitors from outside, including fun-loving foreigners, was most heartening.

This means that PTV has learned to share the happiness and problems of the masses. It is another matter that kite-flying has just been banned in Lahore because of the steel wire for string which has killed many, but I am told that Basant next year will be organised within the confines of this ban.

For the first time, Radio Pakistan and PTV have boards of directors whose members are not the controlling bosses of the two organisations but people from outside — senior officers from the ministries of finance, foreign affairs and defence as well as a couple of non-officials. I am told the top guns of both the media put up a stiff resistance to this, but they were over-ruled because it was felt that no worthwhile change could come about unless fresh blood was inducted into the body.

This reminds me of a piece that I wrote some years ago on what would happen if radio and TV were given absolute freedom to conduct themselves on the lines of foreign electronic media. I had said that the staff of radio from August 1947 and of TV from August 1964 had become so conditioned to dictation that they are sure to have lost whatever initiative they possessed and wouldn’t know what to do if they were to handle a controversial news. I quoted that popular verse about the bird in prolonged captivity preferring death to liberty: Itne maanoos sayyad se ho gaye ke rihai mili bhi to mar jaaenge. I hope this doesn’t happen to our radio and TV people.

Coming back to PEMRA, this authority is responsible for regulating the establishment and operation of all private radio and TV stations, including cable, to be set up for the purpose of international, national, provincial, district, local or special target audiences. The chairman is a well-known professional of acknowledged competence. Five of the nine members are eminent citizens from the provinces, two of them women. The remaining three are federal secretaries of information and interior, and the chairman of the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority. To ensure that the public can voice its views about radio and TV programmes, there is a Council for Complaints consisting of a chairman and five members from the public, two of whom are women.

Entrepreneurs had been knocking at the doors of the Pakistan government for a long time seeking licences to establish private radio and TV stations, but none of the elected regimes listened to them. What a tribute to democracy that a military regime should take steps to ensure as much freedom as possible to the electronic media!

Campaign finance omissions

THE busiest people at presidential campaign headquarters in the US last week were the accountants, crunching the final fundraising numbers for the crucial second quarter.

But nowhere in those voluminous pages will people be able to find the names that really matter — not who wrote the $2,000 cheques, but who was responsible for bringing them in. For in a campaign finance system that hinges on disclosure, the glaring omission is the failure to require that a campaign’s true financiers be revealed.

The role such individuals play was made dramatically clear during the 2000 race, when the Bush campaign set what seemed an audacious benchmark of $100,000 per fundraiser to be collected by its elite group of Pioneers. This time, with individual contribution limits doubled to $2,000, there is an even loftier target of $200,000, which earns fundraisers the status of Ranger.

To its credit, the Bush campaign in 2000 eventually released a list of Pioneers, and the campaign has pledged to do so in 2004 as well. But that voluntary move simply underscores the inadequacy of the existing disclosure regime, on both the presidential and congressional levels.

While it is the rare candidate who enjoys the luxury of having a Pioneer on board, all campaigns have their big fundraisers, and all campaigns know exactly who these people are.—The Washington Post

From the cradle to the grave

Aajao, maine sun li teray dhol ki tarang,

Aajao, mustt ho gayee meray lahu ki taal,

Aajao Afreeqa

Aajao, maine dhool se maatha uttha liya,

Aajao, maine chheel di aankhon se gham ki chhaal,

Aajao, maine dard se bazoo chhurra liya,

Aajao, maine noch diya bekasi ka jaal,

Aajao Afreeqa

EVER the internationalist, Faiz Ahmed Faiz paid this tribute to Africa’s liberation struggles in 1955. Listen closely to his invocation and you can hear the rhythm of tribal drums, perhaps even pick up the distant echoes of freedom chants. Much of the continent was at the time under the yoke of European colonial masters, and its peoples’ yearning for freedom served as an inspiration to progressive movements across the globe.

Africa today is a far cry from the hopes invested in it all those years ago. Poverty and pestilence go hand in hand through much of the continent. It’s better acquainted with drought and famine than any comparable part of the world. Misgovernance is endemic, and there is an unparalleled propensity towards civil wars that tend, every now and then, to spill across borders.

All these ills keep reinforcing each other. A decade after hopes of an African renaissance were raised by the end of the cold war and by South Africa’s success in throwing off, without violence, the shackles of apartheid, the cradle of humanity is beginning to resemble its grave.

How did it come to this? What went wrong?

It is easy — perhaps too easy — to blame it all on ruthless exploitation. Of course, it would be hard to deny that, on the whole, African nations were subjected to greater indignities than other western colonies. Even before the great wave of 19th century colonization, it was largely African human resources that were singled out as fodder for the slave trade.

As a crime against humanity, the enslavement of an estimated 12 million Africans between 1650 and 1850 would appear to be on a par with the Holocaust suffered by European Jews in the 20th century, but it’s not a subject touched upon too often by commentators. Whenever the descendants of slaves in the US bring up the question of reparations, they attract little more than derision. Although tribal rivalries in Africa preceded colonization, they were exacerbated by the divide-and-rule strategies favoured by the European ruling elites, and the current Congolese crisis serves as a reminder of how long old wounds can fester.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo, where a seemingly endless civil war is believed to have claimed close to five million lives over the past five years, is in many ways a special case. At the handing-over ceremony following independence in 1961, King Baudouin read out a paternalistic speech filled with praise for Belgium’s role in the region. The independent nation’s young prime minister begged to differ. Patrice Lumumba was not scheduled to speak at the ceremony, but did so anyway. “We have known sarcasm and insults, endured blows morning, noon and night because we were ‘niggers’,” he said.

The Belgians weren’t accustomed to plain-talking ‘natives’. A separatist revolt was rapidly engineered, and within a year Lumumba was dead. Not until last year — 40 years after the event — did Brussels acknowledge moral responsibility for his assassination. The CIA, too, had Lumumba in its sights, but was pre-empted on this occasion. Within a few years the c onfusion in the Congo gave way to the absolutism of the appropriately pro-western but profoundly corrupt Mobutu Sese Seko.

Unlike the Congo — which was renamed Zaire before reclaiming its older nomenclature post-Mobutu — most African countries that gained independence in the early 1960s got the rulers they wanted: among others, Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana, Julius Nyerere in Tanzania, Jomo Kenyatta in Kenya, Ahmed Ben Bella in Algeria. Quite a few of them were scholars and statesmen with lofty, pan-Africanist ideals. Not all of them were inclined towards socialism, but most of them were to some degree devoted to the economic uplift of their people.

They were not entirely unsuccessful in this endeavour. Yet the absence, broadly speaking, of a manufacturing base through much of the continent posed a serious dilemma. Africa had been stripped of much of its wealth during the colonial era, but had received precious little in return. Western powers continued to be keen on access to African resources, but had little interest in helping African countries stand on their own feet.

This does not mean that economic asphyxiation was inevitable. Unfortunately, no one was able — or willing — to come up with economic models that took cognizance of specific African conditions and traditions. Models that diverged from western monetarist prescriptions as well as the socialist orthodoxy. Models that may have worked despite Africa’s underdevelopment.

Meanwhile, those leaders who, against the odds, survived the first few years began devoting more and more attention to consolidation as a means of political longevity. The ambitions of the indigenous military hierarchy and external destabilization efforts, occasionally in concert, posed the biggest threat. The result, in too many cases, was a drift towards one-party rule. Staying in power became an end in itself and gained precedence over other goals, such as basic economic development and progress towards democratic institutions. Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe offers a textbook late-20th-century example.

These phenomena are not, of course, exclusively African. Nor, indeed, was the manner in which superpower rivalry manifested itself in the continent. The US was more than a little alarmed when the first flush of independence led to the emergence of nations likely to be friendlier towards Moscow or Beijing (not to mention Havana) than towards Washington. Measures to redress this perceived imbalance included a policy of arming rival militias, a strategy that has proved even more detrimental to African prospects over the past 30 years than the IMF’s structural adjustment.

American concern was reinforced in the 1970s when the demise of the fascist Salazar regime in Portugal facilitated the liberation of Mozambique, Angola and Guinea-Bissau, and in each case the triumphant freedom movements turned out to be left-leaning. The US and South Africa (which, under apartheid, played on behalf of the US a regional role comparable to that of Israel in the Middle East) for nearly two decades funnelled funds and weapons to the rebel forces of Jonas Savimbi despite their well-documented atrocities.

Savimbi was eventually forced to give up, but not until Angola had been pretty much devastated. Now American oilmen are eyeing the oil wells that were once protected by Cuban soldiers from Savimbi’s hordes — and, according to some reports, US military personnel have also been spotted in Luanda. Africa is now very much a part of US plans to diversify further its energy sources. Although Angola isn’t on George W. Bush’s itinerary this week, the Emperor of the Free World is gracing Nigeria, Uganda, Botswana, South Africa and Senegal with his presence.

Travelling through Africa can be a mind-expanding experience. That’s probably asking for too much in Bush’s case. And while one would like to think that lavishing such attention on Africa makes a welcome change from past policy, the record of the present US administration impels one to fear for the nations it suddenly begins to heed. Likewise, regime change in Liberia and the possible deployment there of peace-keepers, including a contingent from the US, may make sense in the short term. It’s worth noting, though, that militias in many parts of Africa are able to readily attract recruits because there are so few alternative vacancies. Just as tribal rivalries are invariably rooted in deprivation, militias have become a sort of business.

What can the world do for Africa? Quite a lot, actually. Truly free and fair trade would be a start — and not so much a favour as simply the right thing to do. One of the main reasons African farmers cannot compete with their western counterparts is the hefty agricultural subsidies, which not only mean that the European and American markets are effectively shut to them, but also enable the US to dump its agricultural surplus in Africa.

It would also help if the rich nations would respond more readily to UN aid appeals for Africa’s poorest countries, thereby helping save tens of thousands of lives. Aid dependence isn’t good for Africa, and handouts are obviously no substitute for the sort of investment that could help establish a manufacturing base. But staving off starvation is a worthy short-term goal. At the same time, although there has been much talk of western pharmaceutical giants abjuring the profit motive to make medicines — particularly AIDS remedies — readily and cheaply available to Africans, it hasn’t happened yet on a sufficiently large scale.

Beyond that, rescuing Africa from the grave is up to Africans. In a political testament written shortly before he was killed, Patrice Lumumba said: “One day, history will have its say, but it will not be the history they teach at the UN, in Washington, Paris or Brussels but the history they teach in countries freed from colonialism and its puppets. Africa will write its own history and it will be one of glory and dignity.”

His prediction may yet be fulfilled. Perhaps Africa can still “come back”. Perhaps....

E-mail: mahirali@journalist.com