Tony Blair's Commission for Africa will have little effect unless it tackles global apartheid. So long as global rules are made by a minority, any progress in Africa could be wiped out overnight by changes in currency, trading conditions or security as a result of decisions or neglect by the world's most powerful bodies. Unless Africans have an equal and effective voice in global decision-making, the Commission's work will be forgotten.

All other questions are window dressing.

This Commission would not be necessary if rich countries had been committed to the UN Economic Commission for Africa, founded 1958; the UN Programme for Action for African Economic Recovery and Development initiated in 1986; the Global Coalition for Africa founded in 1990, or the UN Initiative for Africa, launched in 1996. Indeed, the Commission could save money simply by updating the UN Action Plan for African, published in 1991.

The treatment of Africa and its position in global decision-making is in some respects worse than the treatment of the majority in South Africa under apartheid. Although the West condemns racism, and includes Africans and people of African descent at the highest levels of governance, the structures of global decision-making systematically prevent Africa from having an effective say in the economic and political rules which govern their affairs. As a result, African states are often treated like Bantustans, clients of Western powers, and the needs of their people are neglected.

One example of minority rule in global governance is the UN Security Council: 80% of the permanent members are white, representing less than 10% of the world population, and 60% are European. As a result, the Security Council has failed to protect Africans from the scourge of war.

The International Community would not have tolerated genocide in Rwanda if Africa had had a veto in the Security Council. The World Bank and IMF would have done more about aids, debt, famine or declining currencies and commodity prices if Africa had the same votes compared to the US. Nor would Africa have faced steep tariff barriers and dumping if it had the same clout in the WTO as Europe. The G8 would not have let Africa get into its current state if it had been a member.

How the major powers and institutions of global governance allocate and implement budgets, appoint top officials and influence national policies can encourage corruption and make it impossible for citizens to hold governments to account. As the Commission says, transparency can be a powerful mechanism both for enhancing overall delivery by government and the participation of excluded groups. But few global institutions or Africa Desks in the foreign ministries of the rich world are open and transparent.

Giving African nations an equitable and effective say in the major institutions of global governance would address one of the central questions raised by the Commission: if Africa had a veto on the Security Council, IMF, World Bank, WTO, and Bank of International Settlements, it would quickly become a domestic issue for rich countries. They would soon find the political will to make a lasting commitment to Africa's development.

If the Commission is serious about enabling Africa to solve its problems, it will:
- Review Africa's representation on the major institutions of international decision-making
- Advocate equitable representation and powers for Africa in these bodies
- Draw up principles of transparency, accountability, democracy and equitable decision-making for all institutions of global governance, as advocated by the One World Trust.

There are opportunities for reform. This week a UN High-Level Panel will recommend fairer representation for Africa and other Developing Countries on the UN Security Council.

The G8 member states have the power to propose a new global settlement on the basis of our common humanity, in which international decision-making is based on equity, transparency, democracy and accountability. If it does so, the issues facing Africa will remain the common concern of the world. If it does not, the Blair report will join the Pearson Report, the Brandt Report and many other reports in the footnotes of history, as business as usual resumes.

* Titus Alexander is founder of Charter 99 and author of "Unravelling Global Apartheid" (Polity Press/Blackwell, 1996)

* If you agree with these arguments, tell the Commission and give them specific examples about the way in which global apartheid and Africa's position in international decision-making causes harm or hinders progress. If you disagree, join the dialogue at Pambazuka News! Send your comments to

The Commission is holding a series of meetings with Africans throughout the Continent, starting this week, on 1 December, in Dakar, Senegal. Commissioners will also travel to Nairobi (6 Dec); Douala (8 Dec); Lusaka (10 Dec) and Alexandria (14 Dec). These meetings will enable representatives from every African country to comment on the Commission's work, and allow Commissioners to collect new material for their report. The meetings are being organised in partnership with LEAD International www.amref.org/speakforafrica.htm and the Southern African Regional Poverty Network http://www.commissionforafrica.org/getting_involved/consultationdocument.htm

Prepare comments in the form of a brief summary followed by up to 750 words.
Where your submission relates to a particular thematic section of the document, please indicate this in the summary.

Submissions should be sent to the Secretariat to the Commission for Africa by e-mail: [email][email protected]

Mark the Subject 'Submission October-December Consultation' followed by your name or the name of your organisation. http://www.commissionforafrica.org/getting_involved/GettingInvolved.htm

* If you or your organisation has made a submission to the Commission for Africa, please send your contribution to Pambazuka News and we will include it in the newsletter. Send to