14 Leaders The EconomistFebruary 8th 2020
2 The argument for pretending to believe Congo’s result was
never openly stated, but goes like this: Congo is strategically im-
portant, a huge land mass at the centre of the continent with vast
mineral reserves and enough hydroelectric potential to light up
southern Africa. China and Russia are vying for influence there,
and do not care a plate of fufufor democracy. If America makes a
fuss about respecting the will of the Congolese people, Congo’s
ruthless rulers will cosy up to Beijing. Vocally supporting Mr
Tshisekedi is therefore the best way to preserve both stability
and American influence in Congo.
One year later, this argument is not holding up well. Ameri-
can fears of Chinese influence in Congo were always overblown.
The country is almost roadless. It needs more Chinese infra-
structure investment, not less. And there is little sign that, in
backing Mr Tshisekedi, America has made a wise long-term bet.
Granted, the new president has released political prisoners
and allowed more open criticism than his despotic predecessor,
Joseph Kabila, ever did. He has also toured foreign capitals de-
claring that Congo is open for business. But he has failed to curb
corruption or improve lives. He promised free primary educa-tion and hired 40,000 new teachers, but they have not been paid
and many have gone on strike. He vowed to improve security, but
the fighting between mass-raping militias in eastern Congo is as
bad as ever. He has floated the idea that neighbouring Burundi,
Rwanda and Uganda might help pacify the east. This is risky:
their previous incursions led to plunder and slaughter.
Not only is Mr Tshisekedi illegitimate, he is also weak. The
backroom deal that brought him to office left Mr Kabila pulling
many of the strings. The two men’s supporters squabble energet-
ically over the spoils of power but barely bother governing. None
of this is a recipe for stability, as the bloodshed in the east and
protests in Congolese cities attest.
Reforming Congo will take decades, and is a job for the
Congolese themselves. However, outsiders can help—with
trade, know-how and a willingness to call a coup a coup. If a fu-
ture American administration wants long-term influence in
Congo or anywhere else in Africa, it should be more engaged and
less cynical. Those who bless stolen elections share responsibil-
ity for what the thieves do with power. Those who press for the
rule of law are not always disappointed—as Malawi shows. 7F
or thecountry that invented railways, Britain has shown re-
markably little interest in them lately. New networks have
been built around Europe in the past few decades, but the only
significant stretch of track laid in Britain in a century is the 67-
mile (107km) hs1 railway that links London to the Channel Tun-
nel. Indeed, the country has half as much track as it had in 1963.
Yet while Britain has an almost American reluctance to invest in
railways, its commuting patterns are European: 10% of journeys
are by rail, compared with 9% in Germany and less than 1% in
America. The result is a lot of angry commuters.
Britain’s big problem is that, because it has built no new high-
speed lines, it runs fast intercity trains on the same track as slow
commuter ones. Long gaps have to be left be-
tween slow and express trains. The need to
make way for high-speed trains thus limits the
number of commuter services, and vice versa.
Eight years ago, the government decided to
rectify this by building a new 345-mile railway
from London to the north of England. Though
branded as High Speed 2, its principal job was to
boost capacity rather than speed. At the time,
this newspaper argued against it. Although we supported the
idea of investment in train capacity, we believed that there were
better projects to spend money on than hs2.
Spooked by the costs—now put at around £100bn, against an
original estimate of £42bn—and by the fury of 21 Tory mps whose
rural constituencies the track would slice through, the govern-
ment is considering cancelling the project. A final decision was
due as The Economistwent to press. We now believe the line
should go ahead—not because £8bn has already been spent, but
because the circumstances have changed.
Rail is an increasingly important part of the transport mix.
Climate change is putting a premium on carbon-efficiency. Atthe same time, passenger numbers have exceeded forecasts. The
government had expected passenger volumes to increase by
17-21% in the decade from 2011; actually, they were up by 24%
within just seven years and are expected to go on growing at a
similar clip. The costs of other, cheaper ways to boost capacity,
such as double-decker carriages and longer trains, have in-
creased, along with the cost of engineering wider tracks and
higher tunnels, and of buying more property around stations.
Meanwhile interest rates are so low these days that the govern-
ment can borrow long-term for virtually nothing.
The benefit-to-cost ratio (bcr) calculated for hs2, at around
one, is hardly a ringing endorsement. But just as the costs of big
transport projects are often underestimated, so
are their long-term benefits. The extension to
London’s Jubilee tube line, for instance, was ap-
proved with a bcrof less than one, but recent
analysis suggests that it has been more like 1.75.
And that includes only the revenues that go di-
rectly to the railway, not the economic conse-
quences of the revival of London’s Docklands
area, which the tube line made possible.
The main point of hs2, similarly, is its impact on the cities
and towns along its route and beyond. Boris Johnson, the prime
minister, is on a mission to boost growth in northern and west-
ern areas left behind by the country’s lopsided, London-centred
pattern of growth. On its own hs2 won’t make that happen, but
doing so without a new railway would be tough. The success of
the “Northern Powerhouse” rail scheme, to link the north’s big
towns, depends on it.
This is a tricky decision for Mr Johnson. It will be the biggest
financial call of his time in office. His party is divided over the is-
sue. hs2 will dog his premiership if it goes wrong. But if he wants
his vision of Britain to work, he needs it. 7High speed ahead
Britain is poised to decide whether to build an expensive new railway. It shouldInvesting in rail