AIDS: Killing Africa's Brand, Too

Our two favorite Bills -both of whom were relentlessly pursued by the Department of Justice for improper salesmanship of their operating systems - are in the midst of a five country ethical safari in Africa. They're lasering attention, as they have a particular ability to do, and talking up a range of public health initiatives designed to address the crushing burden that AIDS represents on the continent.

I don't want to be a knee-jerk contrarian, but noble and necessary as it is, there's something that bothers me about the Gates Foundation's (now flush with Mr. Buffet's billions, too) single-minded focus on AIDS in Africa. No, I'm not whingeing about the fact that Mr. Gates - and now Mr. Buffet - are directing so much of their energies and assets outside the United States. (Although the suitable deconstruction of that is surely a worthy subject of another post.) My queasiness has more to do with the image of the continent that their efforts portray. Africa is global brand, after all. And it's a brand that's come to stand for death, desperation and despair; an image created by the same well-intentioned people trying to rescue it.

True, AIDS is an economic burden that broke governments simply cannot handle; and broke, corrupt, and delusional governments are at the very bottom of the competency yardstick. And yes, the virtual elimination of a whole generation of men and women, and the resultant mass orphaning of children, is socially and culturally devastating. But like it or not, the only way Africa is going to change is if institutions that establish and sustain economic growth and a free-market structure can gradually emerge through this. That means a banking and judicial infrastructure, real education, and of course, a somewhat progressive and enlightened government. And we don't need Athenian democracy. I'll take imperfect but constantly improving leadership, even isn't totally freed of the "strongman problem" that has plagued the continent since independence (and is in many ways a clear byproduct, a metabolite, of colonialism).

AIDS is only a part of the problem in Africa, but lately you'd never know it. The Clinton/Gates trip, as well as programming by CNN, the BBC, and marketing by the UN (I've just come back from some time in the Far East and seen a lot of global TV) make it appear that Africa's problems are primarily health problems, and that if you cured AIDS you'd cure the continent. (Christiane Amanpour has become the official voice-over of the disease.) A year ago this time the 2005 G8 summit was being held, and since the Africa and debt forgiveness were their number one item, we were subject to another lap of horrifying statistics and video images. (Since then, foreign aid to Africa by some countries has actually gone down). But Africa was gripped by the same crises more than 25 years ago, which is the duration of the epidemic. Was the continent dramatically improving during those years?

This isn't a neocon position, and I don't want to be channeling Tom Friedman. But it's hard to argue the fact that around the world - whether it's countries you like, countries you dislike, countries you used to like, countries you want to like but can't, or countries you tolerate because they are opposed to countries you loathe -- economic growth, generally through entrepreneurship, leads to better living conditions. (It might also lead to a widening of the income gap, but at least there's enough income to measure).

In short, the focus on AIDS is bad for Africa's global brand because the continent has become almost singularly identified with the disease. It's well meaning and understandable, but has a long-tail downside. Imagine if GM said: support us and buy a Buick because our credit ratings suck, we're renegotiating our labor contracts, and the health-care costs we face in the future are devastating.

But the AIDS-obsession is more than just a branding mistake. Bill Gates, of all people, should understand how complex victories are won. And winning in Africa is nothing if not complex; you can't save it merely by pumping money into the fight against AIDS. Microsoft built its business with a vital and dynamic ecosystem that recognized the crucial way that overlapping structures had to support each other. So, starting with IBM, he manipulated hardware manufacturers into building his operating system into their computers. He formed his alliance with Intel - the notorious "Wintel" platform. He encouraged developers to develop products based on code to make his tools more useful and more valuable, because he knew that would encourage adoption and generate revenue.

Gates knew that to succeed he had to do more than push his operating system in a vacuum. His triumph was due to the complex, inter-dependent universe he nurtured. In fact, the PC operating system was generally acknowledged to be inferior to the Macintosh OS, but because the Mac system was kept closed, and because Microsoft did a superior job of structuralizing the brand, Apple never clawed beyond a 5% share of the computer market. Gates built an environment for success. Later, when the Internet emerged, he was late to the game but applied the same principles. He's not doing the same in Africa, though. He's creating a philanthropic monoculture when philanthropic diversity is what's called for.

This is a useful metaphor. By making brand Africa stand for disease, it becomes impossible for the continent to succeed economically in the foreseeable future. That's because Africa needs more than foreign aid, it needs business investment. And who's going to invest in the world's most dysfunctional place, with a missing generation, parentless children, a dysfunctional infrastructure?

Africa needs the same globalization that is pissing off so many people. Africa needs call centers and research centers linked to universities and centers of intellectual excellence; it needs Richard's Florida's Creative Class; it needs factories that make cheapo souvenirs to sell at the Eiffel Tower (all successful post-War economies, from Japan to China, started with cheapo junk); it needs Nike to have the courage to open a factory in Kinchasa, rather than pretending it takes courage to open a store in Harlem when it's just part of their marketing mission to sell rubberized crack to inner city kids. None of this can happen overnight, but in the context of Africa's current perception as the continent from hell, and with the global competition for jobs and talent, it's never absolutely guaranteed never to happen.

Of course, there has been, and continues to be, many efforts to move the economic needle in Africa, including the work of Jeffrey Sachs. And the Gates Foundation needs to continue to fight AIDS. Because Africa can't even begin to turn around under these current conditions. But a foundation with a narrow focus is the wrong model, even with these extenuating circumstances. When I look at the website for the Gates Foundation I see separate and isolated spheres of activity, of which public health in Africa is the largest. I see a narrow focus on treatment, when Africa's problem transcends that.

What I would like to see is an integrated vision for how the vast resources and beneficence of the foundation can not just moderate (if not eliminate) the scourge of AIDS, but can also create a framework for more than the absence of a negative. Just like Microsoft's business wasn't singularly focused on writing code, but on all the moving parts required for market dominance.

I'd like to see a plan for establishing and organizing the building blocks required for economic growth, in the same way that a Microsoft PowerPoint slide for launching a new operating system would include marketing, advertising, sales, partner programs, development efforts, public relations, internal communication, the works. All of it talking to each other, building on each other, driving each other.

I'd like to see a couple of regions identified for this focus, where AIDS drug availability and treatment improvements are strategically linked to a plan for investments across the dimensions required to create a functioning society. Where education and housing are addressed. Where entrepreneurship is cultivated. Where a telecom infrastructure is established, the banking network functions, roads are passable, and sovereign risk is reduced, so that global companies can be encouraged to take a flier on building a factory. This would allow the national resources of the country to flow back into it, instead of out of it as is currently happening.

It's a grand vision, yes. A new kind of philanthropic nation-building, perhaps. Ambitious as colonialism, without the mendacity and economic pillaging. But it's the right vision for Africa's brand and future. If we started to see this message on CNN we'd feel better, more uplifted, less donor-fatigued. I'd like to see the Gates Foundation start a dialogue on the subject. After all, if the largest foundation in the history of mankind -- with assets dramatically beyond what the UN can find in its couch - can't think this way, who can?