Is Africa hopeless, as the UN report might suggest? Absolutely not, as witnessed by Western initiatives, writes Declan Walsh in Nairobi
The UN Development Programme, listing 25 sub-Saharan African countries as the most miserable places on Earth, is enough to bring on tears - except in Africa where in some places crying is culturally inappropriate, while in others people learned long ago that it gets them nowhere.
Among the 173 countries surveyed for the Human Development Index, Norway was the most desirable place to live, while Ireland was the 18th.
At the other extreme of the list, Sierra Leone came last (again), followed by Niger, Burundi, Mozambique and Burkina Faso. Other familiar names in the pantheon of pain follow further down the list: Ethiopia (6), Rwanda (12), Angola (13), Democratic Republic of Congo (19).
In many ways the order doesn't really matter. The index is based on an evaluation of factors such as per-capita income, education and life expectancy. In the bottom 25, whether your country is placed first, 10th or 25th, it is in deep trouble.
Africa's annual monopoly of this dog basket seems to confirm all the worst "dark continent" clichés. It has the bloodiest wars, the worst famines and the most appalling disease rates. Its leaders are corrupt, its businessmen crooked and its citizens largely uneducated and poverty-stricken.
All these things, in a narrow sense, are true - in the same way as the United States is ranked as the sixth most developed country, even though it may not seem that way if you live in a New York ghetto. Some African countries are starting to build their economies, fight AIDS and slowly prosper. Two - Uganda and Senegal - are even within the bottom 25.
Unfortunately, too few others are following their lead.
Does that mean that Africa is a hopeless place? Absolutely not, as witnessed by a flurry of recent initiatives that suggest Western countries may be increasingly aware of their ability - and obligation - to help pull Africa out of the mire.
Although not entirely successful, the Jubilee 2000 campaign to cancel Third World debt has led to concrete results in some countries.
Britain is also spearheading the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NePAD), a plan to increase trade and aid for evidence of improved government.
But the debts can also pull in the opposite direction, although moral liabilities tend not to show on international balance sheets.
Cynical colonial and Cold War policies have undoubtedly contributed to some of the worst disasters of recent years. Belgium's ham-fisted exit from Rwanda in the 1960s sowed the ground for the genocide of the 1990s; America's blind support for Mobutu Sese Seko created the conditions for the war that continues today in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The free-marketeering West also has economic dues. Globalisation enables Western manufacturers to exploit cheap African raw materials and labour. But when it comes to importing agricultural products - the primary economic activity of most African countries - into the highly protected US, EU and Japan, the door is firmly closed.
Instead of dropping tariff barriers, Western countries prefer to help Africa with the more politically neutral aid assistance. But here, too, lie deep responsibilities.
Over three million people face starvation in Malawi (ranked 11th from the bottom) within the coming months because of a critical shortage of maize, the staple food. The crisis is partly due to drought, but is also driven by political factors, such as gross mismanagement that saw the country's emergency food stocks sold off in unclear circumstances last year.
The authors of yesterday's UNDP report stressed the link between good government and decent living conditions. Western donors like to claim their aid money is focused on promoting democracy. But, in reality, the approaches can be confused and contradictory.
Ireland, for example, lists Ethiopia as one of its six priority beneficiaries of Government aid. But Ethiopia's government, through which much aid is channelled, has arguably helped to create other humanitarian crises.
Two years ago it fought a costly war against Eritrea, and most its troops have deliberately destabilised the UN-recognised government of neighbouring Somalia.
Ireland, which also gives aid to Somalia, has not complained, but is not the only donor to observe silence.
Certainly, African countries have only themselves to blame for many woes and must pull themselves off the floor. But it is equally clear that rich countries are able - and duty-bound - to help them do so.