It is easy to be cynical. Fifty years of starvation, exploitation, conflict, misrule and deep, deep injustice is the post-colonial legacy common to most of Africa. Fifty years of platitudes, crocodile tears and shoddy economic prescription is the post-colonial legacy common to what is euphemistically titled the developed world. Whatever one's views of the merits or otherwise of the British empire - and Gordon Brown's praise for it is idiosyncratic, to say the least - our performance in the poorer parts of the world since the white man relieved himself of his burden has been abject. Now, with the leaders of the richest nations preparing to gorge themselves on the best hospitality that Gleneagles can provide, we have the sight of a Prime Minister in search of post-Iraq absolution donning the mantle of saviour of Africa.

Suspend cynicism for a moment, leave aside questions of motive, lock away the emotions that will be on display from Bob Geldof and his glittering ilk at the Live 8 concerts, and do as accountants do. Concentrate on the figures. Per capita income in the poorest countries of Africa has fallen by a quarter in two decades. Roughly 2.8 billion people - nearly half the world's population - live on less than $2 a day. Every day, 50,000 people die of hunger and preventable illness. The stats get worse: for every dollar given in aid, two dollars are recouped via trade tariffs. Then there are the debt repayments that have killed hopes of recovery. Then there is this, the most shocking of all: the United States, the most miserly of the G8 countries, has so far spent $177bn (£97bn) on the war in Iraq. This is ten times more than the US apportions to development assistance. As for our nice Tony Blair, the war spend to March is estimated at £4.2bn - that is identical to the annual figure for overseas aid. Well, that's all right, then: at least we're doing better than the Americans. Now we are told we should celebrate the government's pledge to bring by 2013 (yes, 2013) the proportion of our gross national income that we spend on the poor to the 0.7 per cent level set years ago by the UN. Any Labour government worth its ethical credentials should have done this immediately, in its first year in office. It would not have taken much - the equivalent of one low-cost flight to Barcelona per head of population per year. Alternatively, it could simply not have gone to war.

In its ever-cautious way, the government at least is trying to do some good. It cajoled fellow EU members to match the aid commitment - again with a delay built in. Mr Brown has tried his idea of an International Finance Facility, which would have produced an extra $50bn a year in assistance through selling bonds on international capital markets, but encountered implacable US resistance. It would have been a start.

Opportunities to galvanise civil society present themselves rarely. The goals of the Make Poverty History coalition - "trade justice, drop the debt, more and better aid", as described by Geldof - are admirable (if applied in that order). In last week's NS, we reported growing discontent among Britain's NGOs about Oxfam's closeness to the government. The response on both sides has been passionate (see Oxfam's riposte this week on page 35 and letters on page 36). But the dilemma goes beyond tactics - being in or out of the tent. The bigger problem is: by accepting an agenda of conditional debt relief and aid, before addressing the more fundamental economic injustices, NGOs could inadvertently do harm. They must not settle for an agenda set by governments and corporations that embeds the status quo, albeit with a few shock absorbers. There is scant sign that our politicians have grasped the damage the privatisation-or-die approach has wreaked (as Mark Thomas reports on page 21). Nor have they done anything to get to grips with the corrupt economic transactions between poor countries that have been turned into mono-commodity providers and their paymasters, the multinationals. Only last December, the UK's Export Credits Guarantee Department weakened its anti-bribery rules after intense industry lobbying. The rape of Africa's resources continues apace.

Mr Blair should receive one cheer for at least trying. His forthcoming talks in Washington will be crucial. His supine support for George W Bush's Iraq adventure makes it all the more important that he wrest significant concessions from the president. In the end, all that matters is results. Spin won't work this time. If at the G8 summit he secures a once-in-a-generation change to the polity, then he will have finally secured something for his legacy.

It is too easy to be cynical. But, given everything that has preceded this event, it is wise to be wary.

The whistle-blower's reward

The mystery has been revealed. We now know the identity of Deep Throat, the man who brought Watergate to an unsuspecting world. But will the voluntary unmasking of perhaps the most celebrated whistle-blower of our time deter his successors? We hope not.

From Clive Ponting and the Belgrano to Katharine Gun and Iraq, once in a while an individual confronts state secrecy and wins. Others have risked not their own freedom but their reputations, such as Arpad Pusztai, the biophysicist who made public his doubts about the safety of genetically modified foods.

The joy on the face of Mark Felt, the frail 91-year-old former FBI number two, suggests that the clever whistle-blower can have it all - the frisson of a secret good deed followed (when the danger has passed) by the plaudits, through gritted teeth, of that very establishment he defied.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website