Northern Uganda bares the scars of its long experience with civil war. Everywhere there are derelict and burned-out buildings, cratered roads and other decrepit public facilities. And then there are the multitude of walking-wounded.

One of them is Jeffery Akena. Akena was a hardworking 14-year-old student dreaming of somebody becoming an engineer when a rebel landmine tossed his life into disarray. The last thing he clearly remembers is walking down a dirt trail near his home. Then he found himself on the ground, looking upwards into a cloud.

"I saw smoke above me," he says, remembering the incident. "Then the people came for me…I heard them shouting."

Akena lost both legs and now uses a clumsy steel wheelchair. Like most African countries, Uganda has almost no facilities for its handicapped citizens. If Akena is ever to become an engineer now, it will be a miracle.

Akena's story is typical of Africa. And his experience illustrates why the Group of Eight needs to help end civil war in the continent as a step towards fostering Africa's economic development. Akena was on his way to becoming a highly skilled and productive member of his society -- just the kind of person Africa needs. His injuries robbed the continent of his abilities and ambition.

The development plan for Africa that the G-8 will discuss is called NEPAD, or The New Partnership for Africa's Development. The plan was drawn up by several African leaders and it offers a trade-off to western countries: If the west will give aid and investment to Africa, then African countries will meet measurable and clear standards of good governance. This includes better protection of human rights, democratic values, and most importantly, peaceful management of state affairs.

That's the deal. And Jean Chretien is one of its most vocal supporters. But there are difficult questions about whether or not the G-8's cash can stop the violence that plagues this continent.

Take for instance the civil war in Sudan. This war has raged for nearly 20 years. Up to two million people have been killed, and millions have been displaced. The conflict centres on the demands of the black-African (and Christian) south for autonomy from the Arab (and Islamic fundamentalist) north. But the fueling of the conflict has been possible through outside support, especially the western purchase of Sudanese oil.

In the case of Sudan's civil war, there is ironically a need for less investment from the west, not more. A recent report from The World Bank says, "…rebel groups in vulnerable countries 'loot' primary commodities to stay financially viable. This allows them to pay their large numbers of young, poorly-educated soldiers and to keep their rebellion alive domestically as well as internationally." In the Sudan case, it is particularly government forces who have been financed through the sale of oil. The Khartoum government has therefore steadfastly refused to negotiate seriously with the southern rebels in an effort to end the war.

The 15-year-old civil war in Angola seems to have finally dragged itself to an end. Once again, millions were killed, many more injured and displaced, and all on the back of western financing.

The original conflict in Angola began as a product of the Cold War, with the west supporting Jonas Savimbi's UNITA, and the Soviet bloc, including Cuba, supporting the left-wing government of Jose Dos Santos.

The conflict survived the Cold War thanks to the willingness of foreign nations and companies to purchase Angola's "blood diamonds" and other commodities. Some were sold by UNITA, some by the government. In any case, their sale allowed the war to continue without end. The World Bank says UNITA alone accumulated an astonishing $4 billion from diamond mining in territory under its control.

The concern among some critics of NEPAD is this: Can the west stop civil wars simply by withholding aid? Many believe that far stronger measures are necessary, including the strict application of sanctions on offending states, and the use of armed 'peacemakers' where necessary.

A recent study at Oxford University noted that the level of conflict in Africa, if transposed over western Europe, would have been called "The Third World War". Yet the kind of armed intervention successfully used by western countries in Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina have never been widely suggested for Africa.

This worries Ugandan journalist Charles Onyango-Obbo. The Harvard alumnus is editor of Uganda's daily independent paper, The Monitor. He believes the west lacks the political will to move firmly in ending conflicts in Africa.

"Post-Second World War it was necessary to have America setting the tone," he says. "You know, we need to have such a strong kind of mechanism, such a strong leadership on the continent before you can get anything going."

Obbo and others want to see American leadership used to force peace on African combatants. Unfortunately, that's probably a non-starter.

Though U.S. forces were successful in delivering food to millions of starving Somalis, the loss of 18 soldiers in a single firefight -- the famous "Blackhawk Down" incident -- sapped American willingness to use their troops in Africa. One year later, the U.S. stood by as nearly one million people died during the Rwandan genocide. American forces haven't set foot on the continent in any big way since the Somalia intervention in 1993.

That's too bad, because there is evidence that the firm use of military force can have dramatic effects in Africa. The vicious civil war in Sierra Leone ended in January after British Troops -- working alongside government forces -- forcibly disarmed competing rebel groups. Incredibly, in only a few months, the United Nations has declared Sierra Leone fully disarmed, and a recent election was successful and nearly violence-free.

Africa desperately needs stability. Only rule of law will attract the kind of private investment that can fuel Africa's growth. Until then, people in the west will view Africa warily when they look for a spot to invest their money. When I asked a Canadian government trade commissioner what advice he gives companies curious about investing here, he laughed wryly, then said: "We tell them, if you're not willing to take a chance, don't bother. Because it's a very different environment here."