The Audacity of Hope

connected local elites but do little for ordinary citizens—although it’s these ordinary
citizens who are left holding the bag when the loans come due. Indeed, countries that
have successfully developed under the current international system have at times
ignored Washington’s rigid economic prescriptions by protecting nascent industries and
engaging in aggressive industrial policies. The IMF and World Bank need to recognize
that there is no single, cookie-cutter formula for each and every country’s development.
There is nothing wrong, of course, with a policy of “tough love” when it comes to
providing development assistance to poor countries. Too many poor countries are
hampered by archaic, even feudal, property and banking laws; in the past, too many
foreign aid programs simply engorged local elites, the money siphoned off into Swiss
bank accounts. Indeed, for far too long international aid policies have ignored the
critical role that the rule of law and principles of transparency play in any nation’s
development. In an era in which international financial transactions hinge on reliable,
enforceable contracts, one might expect that the boom in global business would have
given rise to vast legal reforms. But in fact countries like India, Nigeria, and China have
developed two legal systems—one for foreigners and elites, and one for ordinary people
trying to get ahead.
As for countries like Somalia, Sierra Leone, or the Congo, well, they have barely any
law whatsoever. There are times when considering the plight of Africa—the millions
racked by AIDS, the constant droughts and famines, the dictatorships, the pervasive
corruption, the brutality of twelve-year-old guerrillas who know nothing but war
wielding machetes or AK-47s—I find myself plunged into cynicism and despair. Until
I’m reminded that a mosquito net that prevents malaria cost three dollars; that a
voluntary HIV testing program in Uganda has made substantial inroads in the rate of
new infections at a cost of three or four dollars per test; that only modest attention—an
international show of force or the creation of civilian protection zones—might have
stopped the slaughter in Rwanda; and that onetime hard cases like Mozambique have
made significant steps toward reform.
FDR was certainly right when he said, “As a nation we may take pride in the fact that
we are softhearted; but we cannot afford to be soft-headed.” We should not expect to
help Africa if Africa ultimately proves unwilling to help itself. But there are positive
trends in Africa often hidden in the news of despair. Democracy is spreading. In many
places economies are growing. We need to build on these glimmers of hope and help
those committed leaders and citizens throughout Africa build the better future they, like
we, so desperately desire.
Moreover, we fool ourselves in thinking that, in the words of one commentator, “we
must learn to watch others die with equanimity,” and not expect consequences. Disorder
breeds disorder; callousness toward others tends to spread among ourselves. And if
moral claims are insufficient for us to act as a continent implodes, there are certainly
instrumental reasons why the United States and its allies should care about failed states
that don’t control their territories, can’t combat epidemics, and are numbed by civil war
and atrocity. It was in such a state of lawlessness that the Taliban took hold of
Afghanistan. It was in Sudan, site of today’s slow-rolling genocide, that bin Laden set
up camp for several years. It’s in the misery of some unnamed slum that the next killer
virus will emerge.