A quite wonderful piece of nonsense in the Guardian today. Well, it would be wonderful if it wasn’t so disgustingly damaging.

If road building is
posited as the solution to African poverty, we have learned nothing
from history. For the past two centuries, Africa’s roads have led to
its impoverishment. Its earliest export was the indigenous population
consigned as slaves to the Americas. The trade ended in the 1860s and
was succeeded by a new wave of exploitation. European traders realised
they could use Africa’s cheap labour to extract its abundant minerals
and grow cash crops to export to Europe. To this end, Europe had to
control Africa, and so the colonial invasion began.

By
1900 conquest was complete. African labour was now used to create
wealth from Africa’s resources for the benefit of Europe. In his
economic history of Africa, Walter Rodney describes how its transport
infrastructure was built to that end: "Means of communication were not
constructed in the colonial period so that Africans could visit their
friends. Nor were they laid down to facilitate internal trade in
African commodities. There were no roads connecting different colonies
or different parts of the same colony to meet Africa’s needs and
development. All roads and railways led down to the sea. They were
built to extract gold or cotton and to make business possible for the
trading companies and for white settlers."

The
improved transport system enabled foreign companies to make profits,
but the companies preferred to fund the costs of construction through
foreign loans, thereby putting in place the foundations of African
debt.

After
the demise of colonialism in the second half of the 20th century, the
haemorrhage of African wealth continued. Africa was locked into a
global economic system rigged by the rich countries. Trade barriers
ensured that Africa was denied its share of the value added in the
manufacturing process – not least because the commodity market was
controlled by foreign companies, resulting in low prices for African
exports but high prices for imports. Africa was locked into exporting
more and more for less and less; its transport infrastructure proved
inadequate and so its dependence on loans remained. Currently,
transport accounts for more than 25% of World Bank lending to
sub-Saharan Africa, around $5,367m in 2005. Most of this is for
building roads.

We
are now expected to believe that if Africa had a more efficient
transport infrastructure it would be able to export more effectively to
western countries and expand its economy. Lowering the cost of
transport, we are told, would reverse the historical flow of wealth.
The African economy would develop along the same lines as the
carbon-hungry affluent world, but in a sufficiently sustainable way to
save the planet. It is a tall order.

They’re right that the colonial era infrastructure was based on the idea of getting things down to the sea, not on trade within the regions. So what should we do about that? Obviously, help to build a transport infrastructure that does actually facilitate trade between the regions (we might also point out to them that lowering tariffs mutually would be a good idea…low or no tariff access to the rich world is all well and good but many of the gains from trade will come from regional and local specialization).

And what do these giant brains suggest?

Tony Blair and the
Commission for Africa mistakenly believe that more road building will
enable Africa’s economy to prosper. However, reducing transport costs
will, as the commission acknowledges, greatly increase traffic volumes,
thereby worsening climate change. And Africa will experience some of
its most severe impacts.

Contraction
and Convergence changes the direction of policy from aid for road
building to payments to the poor of Africa for their unused carbon
rations. This process will enable the African economy to develop, but
in a uniquely African way. The affluent west can and should repay some
of the wealth it has stolen from Africa. Funding for healthcare, HIV
prevention, education and security is urgently needed. But Africa does
not need the crumbs from the white man’s carbon banquet to build more
roads.

Yes! Carbon Trading! The cure for all our ills!.

What they are actually suggesting is that Africa not develop a better transport infrastructure and we pay them not to do so. That is, that they should stay poor and stuck in misery because…well, because why?

This process will enable the African economy to develop, but in a uniquely African way.

God forbid that the happy darkies and dancing picanninies should actualy become capitalist, or wealthy, or be able to feed their children or anything. No, no, far better that they remain different, unable to follow the only method we have as yet found to create a modicum of material wealth, for they are different than we.

This is disgusting racist tosh and The Guardian should be thoroughly ashamed of publishing it. Whether Africa develops along individualistic lines, communal, social, tribal, whatever, they still need a transport infrastructure as it is the most basic necessity for such development. The one they have won’t do it. Whether such infrastructure should be funded privately, publicly, via aid or whatever is a different matter but to state that they shouldn’t have one because they’re different  is worthy of the most appalling racists…these Africans, hopeless, just can’t do a thing with them.