"Aid is good, business is better"

Last week's International Herald Tribune carried an article by two most unusual co-authors: the world's largest diamond miner and Africa's first woman president.

President Johnson-Sirleaf of Liberia and Nicky Oppenheimer of De Beers write: "Countries must be willing to make a change in mind-set from the idea that foreign programs and plans will lift countries out of poverty to a belief in their own vision for their future. Foreign aid should only temporarily support countries while they implement difficult reforms and get on their feet."

Fantastic. I wonder how long 'temporary' means, though? Ghana has had billions pumped into it over 50 years and there is no sign of it stopping anytime soon. In fact, Ghana is getting more aid than ever - partly because its government has the capacity to spend it. Even more deservedly, Liberia is (at last) getting the huge inflows it will need to build up its infrastructure and public services. Not much of it is channeled through the government yet, but that is beginning to change.

In the longer term, though, I wonder if it might be wise to plan ahead for when the aid money will stop? Cutting off aid from one year to the next is hugely damaging, but pretending that it will continue for ever is a recipe for continued stagnation and dependency. I'd favour a negotiated drawdown - somewhere between Obama's 2 years and McCain's 100 years.

Some countries will need help for longer than others. Post-war countries are a special case and so are small islands or landlocked countries without natural resources. But I'd argue the chances of, say, Kenya or Ghana becoming middle-income countries by 2020 would actually be enhanced if we could agree a plan for aid drawdown now. (It has been done: look at Botswana, South Korea, Taiwan, Mauritius, even India is now a net donor).

So, Madam President, will you be brave enough to announce the date when Liberia will be independent from aid?