Examination of Witness (Questions 100-104)
Mr Myles Wickstead
2 FEBRUARY 2006
Q100 Chairman: I suppose I am thinking
aloud, I am trying to search for the right question. If the African
Union does not have a role, is it in fact something in which they
should have a role to the extent that the European Union speaks
to the African Union to find which of the Poverty Reduction Strategies
ought to be supported? Would that also give us a lever, if you
like, to implement what the strategy says about successful development
requiring various human rights, democratic principles and the
rule of law without making those decisions ourselves on a bi-lateral
basis? Does that introduce the African element into it?
Mr Wickstead: I think that is an extremely interesting
area. The philosophy behind the PRSPs was always that there is
not a standard model for a PRSP, it is developed by countries
in the way that they judge fit and there was no very strong guidance
or there was no specific format into which these PRSPs had to
go. I think there could be a role for the African Union in saying
these are the sorts of things that we would expect countries to
be looking at in their Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers
and in particular we think it is very important to link this to
the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. Yes, I think
there could be an important element to that.
Q101 Chairman: Do you agree one of
the problems is we can equate the African Union to the European
Union in terms of attempts to build some new institutions but
actually it has not got any carrots to offer, has it? Part of
the success of the European Union is perhaps that it could hold
out membership to states that achieved the Copenhagen Criteria,
to use shorthand, but they have not got that carrot.
Mr Wickstead: They do not directly have that
carrot, that is quite right. I think the equivalent carrot is
the Africa Peer Review Mechanism. I think by going through the
APRM process countries will automatically gain additional support
from the international community for doing what they are doing.
I think that will become the carrot.
Q102 Lord Lea of Crondall: Is it
not a corollary to the Chairman's question that if there are 25
countries having an interface with 50 countries that is over 1,000
interfaces. This is also a questionable use of resources, of people
in African countries who are thin on the ground as skilled professionals
and not too thick on the ground anywhere. Therefore, in some respects,
the argument could run in the direction of saying more of the
carrots should be channelled through a rather more limited number
of interfaces even though some of the countries' action papers
would have to fit a wider pattern. It is a bit ridiculous to try
and have everybody cutting their own ribbon to say, "I am
the minister for Britain and our taxpayers have opened this road
in Sierra Leone" and the answer to that is there is something
a bit weird about these professional resources.
Mr Wickstead: I completely agree with that.
I think that is absolutely right. There were horror stories of
last year in Tanzania the Ministry of Finance having 400 separate
donor missions going in, that was over one a day, not counting
weekends and holidays, and their job was to be running the economy
of the country not to be servicing donor missions. I think it
comes back to the point that was being registered earlier of the
importance of getting away from tying aid to country procurement,
of having a common set of rules and procedures that everybody
follows so we do not have 40 countries involved in country X with
40 different rules of procedure and 40 different reporting and
monitoring requirements, it is ridiculous and I was very glad
to see that highlighted as a priority in this paper.
Q103 Lord Hannay of Chiswick: On
the same point I wanted to ask you if you agree that it is a bit
of a mistake to equate the European Union and the African Union
and to try to force the African Union into a kind of European
Union mould because the way Europe—the whole show—has
got on the road is from a completely different end from the one
that makes sense in Africa, that is to say Europe an economic
integration. Economic integration is a very dubious proposition
it seems to me in Africa in the earlier stages though later on
it may, if African economies develop, become more so. On the other
hand, the Africans have made quite big progress on governance,
security issues, human rights and such like far earlier in their
phase of unity than the Europeans did. Do you not agree it is
part of your line about African ownership. The Europeans have
got to work with the Africa that exists not the Africa that they
would like to see in their own view. I feel that we should not
get hung up on the mismatch between the African Union and its
functions and the European Union and its functions, we just have
to work with each as they are and the question of co-ordination
donors is a European issue but the question of co-ordination of
donees is something we would be quite silly to put too much emphasis
on.
Mr Wickstead: I think all those are very wise
points. Perhaps the answer is that the AU can learn as much from
the EU's mistakes, what it has done wrong as well as from what
it has done right. Certainly, I do not think the AU is going to
be created in the image of the EU. Nevertheless, it is true that
Africa does see Europe as a sort of model. They do have ambitions
for a European Central Bank and human rights institutions which
are based loosely on the European model. I think there is, perhaps,
a particular role that Europe can play in helping that, but always
keeping in mind, which was the point you rightly made, that this
belongs to Africa. Our job is to support what it is Africa wants
and not seek to impose outside models on Africa but use those
models to help where they ask for it.
Q104 Chairman: Thank you very much.
It has been a very full and interesting session. Thank you so
much for coming and answering our questions.
Mr Wickstead: Thank you, my Lord Chairman, and
thank you to the Members of the Committee.
| 
