Photo: riekhavoc

A protest at the Ugandan mission to the United Nations: The country's cabinet is amending a proposed anti-gay law after strong foreign protests.

David Cameron's threat to cut aid to governments which do not uphold gay rights goes right to the heart of the West's relationship with Africa. John Atta Mills, Africa's quietest and most emollient president, immediately responded with a denunciation of British bullying. Ghana's "societal norms" were different from those in the UK he said and added: "I, as president, will never initiate or support any attempt to legalise homosexuality in Ghana."

If Cameron can't take Atta Mills with him on this, he is unlikely to win over many other presidents. Just as the British government is fighting desperately to maintain aid commitments when all other departments are facing cuts, they are finding it harder and harder to 'push money out of the door' as the aid slang has it. Direct Budget Support is the only way they can dispose of these huge sums. £2.9 billion of the £7.8 billion aid budget this year goes in direct support. Ghana gets £85 million. Little Malawi, which was to get £72 million, has had its aid cut because it expelled the British High Commissioner for making disparaging remarks about President Bingu wa Mutharika.

Since the end of aid conditionality, the rhetoric has been that the recipient government must 'own' the projects the aid money is spent on. That means it must really believe in using it effectively for development. But at the same time, the aid donor has of course already decided what it should, and should not, be spent on. When conditionality was in vogue the rule was that, 'you can have this money as long as you spend as I tell you to.' This was felt to be demeaning and disempowering for the recipient governments. So now aid is given under broader less enforceable agreements. But underpinning them is still an assumption that the aid will buy compliance from the grateful recipient government. This assumption is frequently wrong.

Recipient governments in Africa understand donor politics far better than donor governments understand the recipients. African governments also have more room for manoeuvre - not having to worry about opinion polls and a free press. They know the donors have to hit their targets, push money out of the door, and the channels are overloaded. So, more often than not, power is in the hands of African governments, not the Western donors. Cameron's call will threaten them not one jot. It is more likely to unite most of Africa against him and he will have to back down. Only South Africa and Botswana will support him.