Fraser Nelson: How African Aid Can Be the New Imperialism

Fraser Nelson, in the Scotsman (6-8-05)

TWO men wanting to change the world met in the White House yesterday. They discussed their agendas, and did not quite agree. But this was always going to be the case when there are conflicting visions of a global empire.

The "imperialist" charge against George W Bush is clear: his plans to spread democracy around the world amount to an American empire in all but name. He is intent on exporting American political values to the furthest corners of the globe.

Tony Blair has avoided similar charges - yet the agenda for Africa that he will bring before the G8 leaders is no less ambitious. Like America, Britain also believes it has a moral duty to change the world - and is about to embark on a mission to do so.

The idea of the new American empire has been powerfully explained by Niall Ferguson, the Glasgow-born historian. Washington, he argues, is the new Rome as it maintains a new global world order, at great expense.

But while America is playing the role of policeman for the free world, Britain is angling for the role as the conscience of the West.

Unlike America, Britain has been here before. Our empire started off as a device for exploration and plunder, expropriating the natural resources of colonies and growing rich quick. But midway through the 19th century, things changed dramatically. The role of the British empire then became to establish the rule of law and better the lives of its subjects. It was not enough for Britain to rule the world: it wanted to redeem it - through civilisation, law and Victorian values

One main political export was the form of government. Britain believed it had perfected parliamentary democracy, and knew how to build roads and civilise nations. Missionaries and civil engineers were the foot-soldiers of this new empire.

History has swung full circle. Britain once again believes it has the answers for good government: and, under the auspices of the "world community", will start improving countries without the need of removing their governments...

But "empire" is now a dirty word. Its political dimension - exploitation and oppression - has obscured the fact that it was seen by millions of Victorians as a moral device for bettering the lives of millions, physically and spiritually.

Now, it is a mission without the missionaries - but Victorians would easily recognise their own ideals in today's crusade to Make Poverty History.

Mr Brown's model is the Marshall Plan, where the US government injected the equivalent of GBP 50 billion into a war-torn Europe, helped it rebuild infrastructure and was rewarded by a staunch Cold War ally.

To Niall Ferguson, the Marshall Plan was a tool of the new imperialism - because it extended America's power, assured its values were enacted over a part of the world to which it had no claim. The same is true for Mr Brown.

He has spent seven years calling for a Marshall Plan for Africa - an idea that has been met with deep suspicion on the other side of the pond, where it is argued that decades of aid can be reversed in a stroke by dictators such as Robert Mugabe.

Mr Brown is no less ambitious than Mr Bush. The pivotal difference is that America has the budget to rule the waves: Britain does not. This is why Britain needs global alliances, while America does not. But Gordon Brown has a cunning plan.

His International Finance Facility would deliver an empire-sized budget long after the days of empire have passed. It is, in effect, a GBP 60 billion mortgage to fund the Africa mission - a 30-year loan, borrowing from future governments.

Mr Bush is often told that he runs the world like an American empire, and should admit as much. Britain is about to embark on another extraordinary mission, not seen since our own imperial heyday. Such ambition deserves to be called by its name.