G-20 summit and Cameroon: All the many reasons why that success does not augur well for Biya regime!

The success of the G-20 summit in London last week more or less sounds the death-knell of the Biya regime. The rich countries that traditionally are reluctant to give poor countries enough development aid suddenly gave out so much of it. That is because the success of regenerating their economies needs the support of poor countries. But the new money also comes with good governance requirements that are absolutely necessary for its successful use. That means that Paul Biya will be obliged to yield to credible elections. Surely not a happy prospect for a regime that survives on flawed elections.

‘Surprise’ was repeatedly used to describe the successful outcome of last week’s G-20 summit that brought together leaders of the world’s richest economies, emerging powers and developing countries.
They came together in order to see how to cope with the current downturn of the global economy in which no country seems to be spared. Although it was generally accepted that a common solution was the right thing to do, yet there were important divergences that made the outcome of the summit far less than certain.
There was, for instance, a clear rift between the Franco-German approach that insisted on emphasis on tougher regulations for the banking and finance sectors, as well as a crackdown on tax havens, where money is hidden to escape taxes.
That was against the position spearheaded by the US and Britain which constituted in calling for the injection of more money to stimulate economies. Nicolas Sarkozy was so convinced about his thinking on the matter that he threatened even before the summit to walk out of it the discussions didn’t go the Franco-German way.
The developing countries, and particularly Africans, were unsure what would come out of the summit for them, given the great concern of the rich economies to fix their own situation.
There was thus doubt, if not pessimism, about the summit’s outcome. But, thanks to an overriding spirit of compromise, the summit turned out far more successful than the doubts had led even its key actors to believe.
There was surprise in more than one respect: the show of unity among world leaders; and the unusually substantive achievement for a one-day summit! But the biggest surprise was for developing countries (and Africa) that had hardly expected anything out of the summit.
The rich nations took a commitment to prop up the tottering economies of developing countries through the International Monetary Fund that will get the staggering sum of one trillion dollars for the purpose. The US, Japan and the EU are raising substantially their financial contributions to the IMF for development aid.
The International Monetary Fund is expected to use the huge infusion of credit to issue loans and grants to developing countries in order to help them pick up their economies, and particularly spur slumping global trade.
Commentators generally admitted that the two days of socialising and summitry had unified world leaders and woven bonds of friendship between them in a way that had been unsuspected. Group photographs showed the summiteers with hands wrapped round each other.
It was a welcome opportunity to broach bilateral issues and exchange visit invitations. Barack Obama, for instance, accepted invitations to visit Moscow and Beijing.
The question may be asked as to how the London summit’s outcome affects Cameroon.
The answer to this question seems clear. Given the availability of abundant funds the rich world is now far more disposed to granting development aid to poor developing countries than ever. It even appears from the look of things that poor countries might be ‘pushed’ to take development loans!
The logic of the sudden and pressing need to help developing and poor countries is that all the stimulus efforts to regenerate the rich economies will only succeed fully when developing and poor countries are also brought into the global trade chain again.

Altruism
Although this turns out to be helpful to poorer economies, it is clear to see that the rich nations’ altruism is inspired in the first place by their self-interest. For, strapped for cash as they are, this was hardly the time to dish out with all that enthusiasm the $1.1 trillion that was pledged to the International Monetary Fund.
Barack Obama instantly tripled the US development aid! The EU and Japan also raised substantially their contributions to the IMF money! Things have never been so good for the IMF that reviews considered to be the greatest winner at the London summit! And all that is development aid!
Those who doubt this position must note that over many years the industrialised economies failed in their commitment to give aid to poor countries, particularly Africa. The promise by the G-8 at Gleneagles to give a $50 billion aid package to Africa was not respected.
The US, especially, has always been far, far below the recommended 0.7% GDP annual financial aid by rich countries to developing countries to help boost their struggle out of poverty.
Now comes a devastating global recession whose ultimate solution involves, or better still obliges, support for the poor countries. Then comes the cash, plenty of it, even at a time that it hurts to give! Rich countries know only too well the absolute need to stimulate world trade and resume globalisation. Aren’t they the major beneficiaries?
Then comes the catch for countries like Cameroon. The rich countries will necessarily be concerned about good governance in African countries much more than before. For that is the only way they can be sure that the aid they give will be appropriately used. Now more than before they want African economies to work well because that serves the interests of their own economies as well.
With greater commitment by Western countries to fund the IMF, it seems likely that bilateral aid to African countries will drop even further. It can also be predicted that both good governance performance and economic management of African countries will become the common concern of the entire group of the rich world.
Barack Obama already hinted at this on his arrival last Friday at Strasbourg for the NATO summit. He warned, in answer to a press conference question, that corruption in African countries would not be tolerated. That probably said it all. The new US president had already warned right on the day of his inauguration that leaders who use deceit to continue to stay in power ‘are on the wrong side of history.’
No doubt these developments on the international scene do not augur well for the 26-year regime of Yaounde. The unity of the international community, which was never as close as now and which is dictated by the recovery of the rich countries’ economies is a development that the Cameroonian president must learn to be wary of.
What is further noteworthy about these changes is that those who have decided them want them to work fast because they are about reversing the present recession.

Sarkozy
Paul Biya should be motivated by the prospect of his coming meeting in July with Nicolas Sarkozy to begin reviewing many a policy. It will surely be a friendlier meeting if the Cameroonian president approaches it with some significant measures already adopted and made public in Cameroon.
What is sure is that Sarkozy will receive Paul Biya both as French president and representative of the new G-20 whose other members in any case will watch with interest the outcome of the meeting in Paris.
Last week’s local elections in Senegal that saw the government coalition badly beaten by the opposition is one more proof after Ghana’s recent presidential election that with the right will clear and clean elections can be organised in Cameroon too.
Moreover, the recent renunciation of term extension after two mandates by Mammadou Tandja of Niger, thanks to persuasion by Sarkozy himself, are matters that the French president will surely confront Biya with. Sarkozy himself has had to set a limit to the number of terms a French president can have.
How will Paul Biya justify his amendment of the constitution, his ambition to continue in office after 29 years of continuous rule? How will he explain that all elections organised in Cameroon since October 1992 were flawed and that he has made a change of government in Cameroon impossible?
How is he going to convince Sarkozy of his goodwill in all this? His economic record is nothing to talk about. Cameroonians live in abject poverty and unbearable unemployment but the government has not adopted any deliberate measures to stimulate economic growth. How will he explain to Sarkozy that he is unconcerned about the suffering of Cameroonians?
We suspect the meeting with the French president promises to be a very difficult one for Biya. Last week’s London summit revealed some aspect of the French president that has not been commonly observed. Sarkozy is severe.
When he put down his foot and threatened to walk out of the summit unless his position prevailed, that was a different Sarkozy from the commonly known easy-going man with an infectious smile. Doesn’t he have granite inside him?
Paul Biya must beware. Everything points to a very different tenant at the Elysee; not a duplicitous Mitterrand who backtracked on his hope-raising pro-democracy speech at La Baule in 1989; nor a wishy-washy Chirac who didn’t even believe in democracy for Africa! These failures hurt Africans more profoundly than French presidents, with a knack for paternalism, realise.
No doubt France has a bad image in Francophone Africa, almost without exception. In Cameroon every French ambassador has had to cope with general public dislike of the French and everything French. This is not a credit to France as a former colonial master.
This is an issue Sarkozy can settle by frontally tackling the issue of democracy in Cameroon and the long history of fake elections. He can only win, and Cameroonians will owe him a huge debt of gratitude for that.
In his relatively short time in office Nicolas Sarkozy cuts a different image. He wants to break free of the old counterproductive habits of his predecessors. One clear role he is assuming is to encourage good governance and democracy in Africa. His coming meeting with Paul Biya offers him a sure opportunity to nail the dictator and get Cameroon out of its political rut.
For Paul Biya, isn’t it commonsense to begin to adjust to the important changes on the horizon? Wouldn’t it be better not to wait for the obvious whereby he will have to act under obligation where he still has the choice of acting in grace?

Source: The Herald