Jim Eagles: Live 8's noble effort misses its big chance

There's been a great deal of publicity about the appalling situation in Zimbabwe, where a quarter of the population has fled abroad and half the remainder are at risk of starvation in what until a few years ago was one of the most prosperous countries in Africa.

And what is generally reckoned to be the cause of this disaster? Debt? Colonialism? Lack of aid? Unfair trade? Or the bizarre policies of President Robert Mugabe?

Of course, you know the answer. I merely mention it to illustrate the flaw in the well-intentioned global crusade of Sir Bob Geldof, Bono and their Live 8 supporters to "make poverty history".

If all Zimbabwe's debt was cancelled tomorrow it would make no difference to the five million people facing starvation. In part that is because Zimbabwe, like some other debtor countries, have stopped repayments. But it is also because in Zimbabwe, as in much of Africa, no amount of debt relief will overcome corruption, incompetence and tribalism.

That is not in any way to denigrate the efforts of Geldof and Bono. Anyone who can persuade a bunch of self-centred rock stars to perform free for a good cause certainly deserves a knighthood. And anyone who can focus global attention on the plight of the world's poor for even a few hours almost qualifies for sainthood.

The tragedy is that having managed to get the world to think briefly about poverty - particularly poverty in Africa - they blew the opportunity. The main aim of Live 8 was to persuade world leaders meeting in Gleneagles to cancel the debts owed by the world's poorest countries. That was a wasted effort on three counts.

First, the leaders had agreed in advance to debt cancellation. Why squander moral pressure demanding something that will happen anyway?

Second, the burden of servicing debt is a relatively minor part of Africa's problem. Some countries have stopped paying what they owe. Most others get grants and loans to enable them to service their debts.

Rwanda, for example, which was to pay the World Bank and the African Development Bank $4.5 million next year, will not now have to make that payment, but the banks will reduce their handouts by a matching amount. The net effect will be minimal.

Third, while plump white politicians make tempting targets, the reality is that the solution to Africa's poverty does not lie in their hands. It lies with Africans. Rather than protesting at the Gleneagles meeting, the Live 8 group would have been better off focusing attention on the African Union summit being held in Sirte, Libya, at the same time.

It is not hard to identify what is wrong with Africa. Sadly, Zimbabwe's appalling leadership and disastrous economic policies are all too typical - and the world knows it.

Nor is it hard to identify a solution. Singapore showed the policy direction 50 years ago. More recently India, Vietnam and China have underlined how to create wealth. In Africa, countries such as Tanzania, Mozambique, Botswana and Ghana have introduced policies which are reducing poverty.

What is required is competent government, a reliable legal system, basic infrastructure, minimal corruption, scope for private enterprise and effective markets. But Western leaders cannot provide those things. Africa's leaders can.

There is much the rich world can, and should, do to help those African leaders who try to do the right thing. It does make sense to end the bizarre system of lending African governments ever more money with which to meet repayments on earlier loans. Carefully targeted aid - and governments and aid agencies are getting much better at ensuring that their aid does help the poor rather than buying limousines for greedy politicians - can do much to create the necessary skills and to build infrastructure.

But the biggest single thing the rich countries can do to end poverty is to sign a global free-trade deal. The key is that it has to be free trade and not the weasel-worded fair trade the Live 8 people have misguidedly been calling for.

One side of the coin has to be allowing poor countries unrestricted access to rich-country markets, unhampered by subsidies, tariffs, workplace rules, labelling restrictions or other sneaky protectionist devices. Africans are as entrepreneurial as anyone but their talents can never flourish when they are denied access to the world's wealthiest consumers.

The old aid proverb has it that if you give a man a fish you feed him for a day but if you teach him to fish you feed him for life. To that could be added the further truism that if you allow him to sell his fish in Japan for $100 a time you provide him with the wherewithal to feed and clothe his family and send his children to school.

The other side of the coin - getting poor countries to open their domestic markets - is just as important. Some will complain such a move would simply destroy Africa's fledgling industries. Similar arguments were heard in New Zealand when our markets were opened.

Yes, jobs were lost in industries not internationally competitive, but they have been more than replaced by jobs in industries which are competitive. More importantly, the result was a huge improvement in the standard of living of ordinary Kiwis because they could buy cars, shoes and television sets at vastly cheaper prices.

Why shouldn't Africans be allowed access to cheap goods? Should Nigeria protect its mosquito net manufacturers by imposing 40 per cent tariffs on imported nets? Wouldn't it be better to waive the tariffs and make it easier for Nigerians to protect themselves from malaria? If the net manufacturer is related to a politician, there's little chance of that happening.

And that points to the issue which should have been top of the agenda in Sirte but probably wasn't. It's a pity the Live 8 artists didn't go there to sing a few songs.