Much rubbish is still uttered about our duty to Africa, about the unconditional cancellation of debt to African countries, about "Western" responsibility for the tribal wars there, about the damage done to African culture by the white man, etc. etc. It was reassuring to hear Nelson Mandela implicitly reject these very sentiments when he was in Ireland earlier this year. Africa's biggest enemies are internal: despotism, tribalism, and corruption. Moreover, the waters of responsibilities for the chaos in Africa have been muddied by the competitive frenzy of the scores of non-governmental agencies from outside the continent which have set up offices up in every single African capital.
The British journalist Simon Jenkins told the Institute of United States Studies a couple of months ago that there are now 29,000 trans-national, non-governmental, non-profit-making organisations. They distribute more money than the World Bank; and no doubt one way or another, if only inadvertently, helped fund the jolly little war between Eritrea and Ethiopia recently. Moreover, they are beyond criticism. Because an organisation is a registered charity it must be a good thing. Who dare examine or question, never mind criticise, the priorities, agenda or raison d'etre of Concern, Trocaire, Gorta and Goal?
Irish charities
Nor is it merely a question of the impact of such organisations on the countries where they operate. Equally important is their role in their host countries. Who in Ireland would dare challenge the perceptions or the analysis of Irish charities operating abroad? As once Irish missionaries rescuing black babies from the perdition of limbo were beyond reproach, so today are the anachronistically-named Third World charities (the second world of communism having vanished everywhere save dear old North Korea). These charities enjoy annual budgets of many millions of pounds.
More than that. They shape our understanding of other countries, and no doubt influence policies being generated in Iveagh House, just as those precursors of NGOs, covenanting bible-thumpers, were able to draw British foreign policy (often to the chagrin of an incensed Foreign Office) in their wake across darkest Africa. Yet nobody dare publicly discuss their activities, never mind - God bless the mark - challenge them. Such charities are autonomous, unelected and frequently unaccountable. What characterises them is their addiction to the raising and spending of money. Can one honestly imagine any charitable organisation declaring: We no longer have any need for money; our job is done; let us close down our offices, go home and do something else with our time?
Self-reliance
Africa needs less charity and more self-reliance. Such self-reliance is only a possibility if Africa is trusted and respected when it deserves trust and respect, not out of charity, but out of hard-headed, pragmatic humanitarianism. So, in that same spirit, we might ask: Which continent in the world is the most soccer-mad? Africa. Which continent is exploding with soccer talent? Africa. Which continent has never hosted a World Cup? Africa. Which continent could benefit most from a successfully conducted World Cup? Africa. And which is the only country on that continent to have organised - and brilliantly organ ised - an international sporting event? South Africa, with the Rugby World Cup of five years ago.
We saw how South Africa fared in the sordid and grubby FIFA shenanigans in Zurich recently. After months of "hospitality" - a fortnight in Claridge's, courtesy of the English FA, champagne at every turn? No problem! - and after years of intense wheeling and dealing, and doubtless with aircraft-hangars of douceurs and sweeteners being distributed to the delegates, the most powerful country in Europe, Germany, is to host the 2006 World Cup. By means that he might well find himself trying to justify at the gates of heaven as St Peter does his "I'm-sorry-sir, it's-more-than-my-job's-worth-impression", the New Zealand delegate was persuaded by an early morning 'phone call or two to withdraw his support for South Africa. He abstained in the crucial vote.
Germany won by that single crucial vote. One wonders: will New Zealand shortly find itself the home for a Volkswagen factory to supply the Asian market? Whatever inducement was used to secure the World Cup for Germany, we can be sure that South Africa had no equivalent to offer. Equally, we - or rather I, because I have been there - can be sure that South Africa has some truly wonderful football stadiums, needless to say, infinitely superior to anything in Ireland (excepting Croke Park) - which is no great achievement. Chad has better football stadiums than we have.
Soccer hooligans
Admittedly, there's the problem of violence in South Africa; but I have little doubt that the lads of Zulu-Inkatha and the comrades of the ANC would soon have sorted out the imported soccer hooligans - if, that is, England qualify. It's unlikely; and furthermore, it's almost as undesirable that Ireland qualify. The world appetite for the football we play, bred on a muddy park, with four coats as goalposts, and with players walloping the ball with the elegance of stokers feeding a furnace, is somewhat limited.
The real issue isn't our presence or otherwise in the World Cup. The issue is something else besides, which goes to the root of sport anywhere, and which prevents it being corrupted and depraved by money. It is fairness. In essence, Germany abused its dominant position in the marketplace to host a World Cup it and Europe do not need, not least since we have a European Championship every four years. Africa doesn't need favours; but it does need fairness. FIFA gave it neither.