Aid for Africa

[Winterhaze13]

http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaySto...tory_id=4054539

After this weeks news of debt relief by the United States and the United Kingdom, as well as the announcement of Live 8, are these a step in the right direction towards helping Africa.

Will the U.S./U.K. aid package help Africa in a significant way?

What can be done to help Africa?

What is the main hurdle that is keeping Africa as the dark continent?

[Argus]

http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaySto...tory_id=4054539

After this weeks news of debt relief by the United States and the United Kingdom, as well as the announcement of Live 8, are these a step in the right direction towards helping Africa.

Will the U.S./U.K. aid package help Africa in a significant way?

What can be done to help Africa?

What is the main hurdle that is keeping Africa as the dark continent?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No it won't help. The main problem is a history and culture of corruption and tyranny. Honestly, the best thing which could happen to Africa would be recolonization, cutting the place up into more manageable countries (with ethnic and tribal lines respected), producing a generation of educated managers, and only then giving them gradually escalating freedom.

[Melanie_]

The history and culture of corruption and tyranny resulted from colonization in the first place. Who are you suggesting should recolonize Africa? This is a paternalistic solution - "we are better, we know what is best for you, just do what we tell you to until you have learned to be like us." Would the colonizers truly believe that the Africans could be like them? If not, it just sets up a climate of inferiority that breeds resentment.

Aid to Africa needs to be given in a way that empowers those who really want to make a change for the better. Not all of Africa is like Sudan, embroiled in a bloody power struggle where the leaders have little or no concern for those who are in their path. Some nations, such as Kenya, Tanzania, South Africa, are well established politically, but are suffering from the rampant spread of AIDS and the lack of medical supplies. Other nations, such as Eritrea, are still feeling the effects of wars that are (officially) over, but resulted in the loss of an entire generation. I read today about a study done by Save the Children, which listed the top 10 countries in the world to be a mother and child (Canada was number 8) and the bottom 10 - Mali and Burkina Faso, two countries on the west coast of Africa, tied for last place. Appropriate aid to these countries could increase their capacity to take care of their own needs, rather than creating more dependency on the West.

[Black Dog]

he main problem is a history and culture of corruption and tyranny. Honestly, the best thing which could happen to Africa would be recolonization, cutting the place up into more manageable countries (with ethnic and tribal lines respected), producing a generation of educated managers, and only then giving them gradually escalating freedom.

Ah yes. 'cause there's no way, no how those n******s could ever manage their own affairs, right? I mean really, all the instability, disease, strife, poverty, corruption and violence must be in the water or something. It certainly can't be related to the first go-round of colonialism, could it? And it certainly wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that so many of the tin-pot dictators that thrive in Africa are propped up by the west to serve their interests, would it? It's not as though the west is supplying these goons with the weapons, the training, and the wealth that allows them to keep power and plunder the land and oppress the populace, is it?

Isn't that what you meant to say?

but there's one truth in the morass of crap you're spewing Argus and that's that aid won't make a difference in Africa or anywhere else in the developing world. The unspoken and ignored colllarary to that is, however, that it won't make a difference so long as the west continues to undermine its own token efforts at releiving the suffering of the world's people by pushing policies devoted to advancing western interests first, regardless of the suffering those policies create.

[Lord Fingi]

The G-8 is just wasting their money on Africa, it's impossiable for the first world nations to tuckle poverty in Africa. Besides poverty in Africa can not be stopped by donating money to build industrial factories and food, to prevent poverty first you must educate them about the issue, like what causes poverty in the first place?, how to prevent poverty and educate them on economics. The first thing the G-8 should have been looking at is again educating them in economics, international languages to build relations with strong economically nations like Japan, U.S and Canada, European Union Nations and China. Most African ain't educated; so the educated, rich and powerful trick them into choosing options that will benefit the educated, rich and powerful groups. Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe is a very inteligent man including his peers aswell, they trick the least educated individuals into voting for them during elections and those groups are the first to complain in any case. They don't use common sense most of them, The Mugabe Adiministration promises them food if they get elected and they will be aplying them with food until the elections finished, we all know after the elections are finished and they have won they continue their rampage. Those individuals would be the first to suffer. That's a good example of what most African States are. The people should be educated in Health to prevent Viruses and other diseases. The first world nations should cut the donations, the africans should learn by theirselves to understand the worldmarket it's the same as the saying never give a rat bread crumbs or it will scourge for milk don't miss understand me by saying Africans are rats cause l am not referring them to that. I am an African myself and understand most of these issues from the encounters l have faced.

[The Terrible Sweal]

What is the main hurdle that is keeping Africa as the dark continent?

There are several...

-lack of accessible wealth

-ineffectual institutions

-unfavourable climatic factors, famine and disease

-unfavourable trade treatment

-corruption

-socio-economic inequity

-violence

-'anomie', unreason and insufficient 'citizenship'.

[Riverwind]

It certainly can't be related to the first go-round of colonialism, could it? And it certainly wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that so many of the tin-pot dictators that thrive in Africa are propped up by the west to serve their interests, would it?

Colonialism affected the entire world from Indonesia to Argentina. It is quite legimite to ask why Africa is the only area of the world that still suffers from wide spread poverty and failed states.

[losiguy]

n

[Black Dog]

Colonialism affected the entire world from Indonesia to Argentina. It is quite legimite to ask why Africa is the only area of the world that still suffers from wide spread poverty and failed states.

A question worth asking if the premise was, in fact, true. The colonialism hangover still haunts the Middle East, Southeast Asia and Latin America.

[Argus]

The history and culture of corruption and tyranny resulted from colonization in the first place.

I dont think so. It didn't result in lasting corruption and tyranny everywhere there was colonization.

Who are you suggesting should recolonize Africa?

Name's Argus. Have we met?

This is a paternalistic solution - "we are better, we know what is best for you, just do what we tell you to until you have learned to be like us."

Yes, all certainly true. We are better, we do know what is best, and they should just do what we tell them until they learn how to be like us.

Would the colonizers truly believe that the Africans could be like them? If not, it just sets up a climate of inferiority that breeds resentment.

Like them in that they'd want to watch hockey, or like them in being able to administer a functioning, healthy society?

Aid to Africa needs to be given in a way that empowers those who really want to make a change for the better. Not all of Africa is like Sudan, embroiled in a bloody power struggle where the leaders have little or no concern for those who are in their path.

Not all, only about 95%

Some nations, such as Kenya, Tanzania, South Africa, are well established politically, but are suffering from the rampant spread of AIDS and the lack of medical supplies.

And capable, educated, honest leadership.

[Argus]

he main problem is a history and culture of corruption and tyranny. Honestly, the best thing which could happen to Africa would be recolonization, cutting the place up into more manageable countries (with ethnic and tribal lines respected), producing a generation of educated managers, and only then giving them gradually escalating freedom.

Ah yes. 'cause there's no way, no how those n******s could ever manage their own affairs, right?

That seems to be the case thus far.

I mean really, all the instability, disease, strife, poverty, corruption and violence must be in the water or something. It certainly can't be related to the first go-round of colonialism, could it?

I'd say that they're releated more to the birth of these nations, which was done in a very hurried fashion, often with no real attempt to ensure their success, and with poorly educated people left in charge. By now it's simply a culture of corruption and violence which seems set to continue indefinately.

And it certainly wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that so many of the tin-pot dictators that thrive in Africa are propped up by the west to serve their interests, would it?

All nations will try to get all other nations to do things which benefit them. Either by hook or by crook. This has pretty much been the story of the world forever. Suddenly it's going to stop? Nope. So the trick is to have governments which will not be bribed or manoeuvred into screwing over their people. So far that's a trick rarely seen in Africa.

[Black Dog]

I'd say that they're releated more to the birth of these nations, which was done in a very hurried fashion, often with no real attempt to ensure their success, and with poorly educated people left in charge. By now it's simply a culture of corruption and violence which seems set to continue indefinately.

And it won't change because its simply not in the west's best interests to build successful states. Educated people tend to want things like self-determination, ownership of their own resources, and an equal voice. Things that aren't in the "national interest" of the wealthy nations.

All nations will try to get all other nations to do things which benefit them. Either by hook or by crook. This has pretty much been the story of the world forever. Suddenly it's going to stop? Nope. So the trick is to have governments which will not be bribed or manoeuvred into screwing over their people. So far that's a trick rarely seen in Africa.

You didn't challenge my assertion that we (the west) have been largely facilitating the screwing, so I assume you accept it. That has me wondering why you think we'd suddenly stop the screwing and give them an actual helping hand. What your peddling is the same self-serving, paternalistic crap that Kipling and the rest of the imperialists spouted a century past. Then as now, it made a great cover story, but in reality it was the source of the problem.

[August1991]

A question worth asking if the premise was, in fact, true. The colonialism hangover still haunts the Middle East, Southeast Asia and Latin America.

Latin America? Almost all of Latin America became independant several decades after the the US became independendant. IOW, Latin American countries became independant almost two hundred years ago. How long does this colonial excuse go on? (Or do you just update it with new versions - economic colonialism, cultural colonalism, etc.)

And it won't change because its simply not in the west's best interests to build successful states. Educated people tend to want things like self-determination, ownership of their own resources, and an equal voice. Things that aren't in the "national interest" of the wealthy nations.

And that obviously explains ex-colonies such as Singapore, or even "culturally colonized" countries such as, ahem, Canada.

You didn't challenge my assertion that we (the west) have been largely facilitating the screwing, so I assume you accept it.

BD, if you want to go in to self-flagellation mode, as a good Christian, to punish yourself for the sins of your brethren and forefathers committed against the downtrodden of the planet, go ahead. But don't include me in your diluvian exercise.

People in some countries around the world are desperately poor but if you take a look at the situation, it becomes rather obvious that people in North America are in now way the cause. In general, North Americans (and even Europeans) have been a helpful influence.

My favoured example is Argentina. In 1900, Canada and Argentina were almost identical. Similar population, resources, economies. Then the Argentinians blew it. They got mixed up in Peronism, socialism, State unionism and so on. Bad government is a common feature of a country having many poor people.

[Black Dog]

Latin America? Almost all of Latin America became independant several decades after the the US became independendant. IOW, Latin American countries became independant almost two hundred years ago. How long does this colonial excuse go on? (Or do you just update it with new versions - economic colonialism, cultural colonalism, etc.)

That's right....its just excuses...Nicaragua, Honduras, Colombia...where would they be without the machinations of the western powers? What about Haiti?

nosir. No western internevtion in their affairs. No sirree bob.

And that obviously explains ex-colonies such as Singapore, or even "culturally colonized" countries such as, ahem, Canada.

Give me a break.

People in some countries around the world are desperately poor but if you take a look at the situation, it becomes rather obvious that people in North America are in now way the cause. In general, North Americans (and even Europeans) have been a helpful influence.

Trans: "I see nozink..."

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

People in some countries around the world are desperately poor but if you take a look at the situation, it becomes rather obvious that people in North America are in now way the cause. In general, North Americans (and even Europeans) have been a helpful influence.

My favoured example is Argentina

My favoured example is Liberia. (in the African motif) From the World Human Rights Guide by Charles Humana (1986):

FACTORS AFFECTING HUMAN RIGHTS

An army sergeant and sixteen colleagues seized power in 1980, killing most of the previous government. The new rulers, the People's Redemption Council, have 'embarked upon a programme of national reconciliation and reconstruction'. After five years of rule, however, public executions and floggings of opponents still take place, detentions without charge are numerous, and torture commonplace. Promised elections took place in October 1985 which returned the president in a fraudulent poll. An abortive uprising followed the elections with deaths estimated at 500. The USA is a major supporter of the regime, with large investments in the country. (I added the bold type)

[August1991]

The USA is a major supporter of the regime, with large investments in the country. (I added the bold type)

TheloniousMonk, you make it sound as if the US is responsible for this atrocious Liberian regime. The US was merely giving money to an African country as Geldof and the rest of the Jet Set Left want. The US is damned if it does, and damned if it doesn't.

"Just give us the f****** money," says Saint Bob. Well, it's not as if we haven't tried. Since 1960, the West has injected $500-billion into Africa, far more than America spent on the Marshall Plan to revive a war-torn Europe after the Second World War. Today, aid to Africa is at a record high (led by the perfidious and callous U.S.), and Africa is poorer than before. Most of the money wound up in the pockets of the kleptocrats, who bought weapons for their armies and stashed the rest in their Swiss bank accounts.

....

If I thought that billions more in Western aid would actually be used to help the needy instead of kill them, I'd be all for it. I'd be the first in line to cheer Saint Bob and badger our government to fork over 0.7 per cent of our GDP. But the proposal to next week's G8 summit calls for the new aid money to go straight into the budgets of African governments.

Margaret Wente G&M

I used to think like Wente; stop giving aid money to governments and give the money directly to poor people in poor countries. (Most governments in poor countries would never allow that. All aid money must go through the local government so that they determine priorities.) I wonder now whether direct aid to persons would even work.

[I miss Reagan]

Thanks, Flea, for reminding us that the USA is responsible for all of the World's ills.

The problem with the Live 8 folks, is they don't learn from their mistakes. The millions Geldof raised in '84 hardly made it to the starving people of Ethiopia but went it's ruling dictatorship.

[Guest eureka]

August, Wente.ike you, prefers to ignore the extent and purpose of US aid. It is not the highest and is, in terms of the size of economies, one of the very lowest.

Further, as I have already said, most of the US aid is tied to purchasing goods from the US. It is not aid at all, really, but a deferred payment plan for the benefit of US Agriculture and industry.

US support of Amin can not be defended. Thelonius is correct in his apparent understanding.

[Argus]

I'd say that they're releated more to the birth of these nations, which was done in a very hurried fashion, often with no real attempt to ensure their success, and with poorly educated people left in charge. By now it's simply a culture of corruption and violence which seems set to continue indefinately.

And it won't change because its simply not in the west's best interests to build successful states. Educated people tend to want things like self-determination, ownership of their own resources, and an equal voice. Things that aren't in the "national interest" of the wealthy nations.

That too. But it also is not in the interests of the ruling classes in those states. That's rather more of a problem, and one you've chosen to ignore.

All nations will try to get all other nations to do things which benefit them. Either by hook or by crook. This has pretty much been the story of the world forever. Suddenly it's going to stop? Nope. So the trick is to have governments which will not be bribed or manoeuvred into screwing over their people. So far that's a trick rarely seen in Africa.

You didn't challenge my assertion that we (the west) have been largely facilitating the screwing, so I assume you accept it. That has me wondering why you think we'd suddenly stop the screwing and give them an actual helping hand.

We are helping them. But if you think all western nations - or all other nations, for that matter, are going to stop doing what is in their own best interests you're even more naive than I thought. That isn't how the world has ever worked. And while we're more restrained than we once were in how much we screw over other nations human nature is still human nature.

What your peddling is the same self-serving, paternalistic crap that Kipling and the rest of the imperialists spouted a century past.

Quite the contrary. I am openly admitting that nations do what is in their own best interests. You are the paternalistic one. On the one side you embrace the idea of African nations as equals. But on the other you admit they can't function as equals, can't sit at the world table with the big boys because they keep being convinced to trade their land for beads and whisky. So you want them to be protected - uhm, like indians on a reservation perhaps? Either they're full nation states which are fully responsible for looking after their people or they're not. Which is it? You want us to give them special treatment like the retarded boy at recess allowed to play in the game out of a sense of charity? That's paternalistic. Either they reform themselves, which seems most unlikely, or someone else should step in and reform them.

[Black Dog]

That too. But it also is not in the interests of the ruling classes in those states. That's rather more of a problem, and one you've chosen to ignore.

Not ignore. But in the context of your re-colonization idea, the role of the industrial nations in Africa's plight is not to be ignored.

We are helping them. But if you think all western nations - or all other nations, for that matter, are going to stop doing what is in their own best interests you're even more naive than I thought. That isn't how the world has ever worked. And while we're more restrained than we once were in how much we screw over other nations human nature is still human nature.

So that admission kinda torpedoes your re-colonization notion. If anyone is dispalying some rather breathtaking naivete, its you for acknowledging the less than simon pure tendancies of the west on the one hand, while on the otehr expecting them to suspend these practices on the othe rin the name of helping Africa up. In other words there's no reason to believe future colonization would be any more successful or well-iintende dthan the last round.

Quite the contrary. I am openly admitting that nations do what is in their own best interests. You are the paternalistic one. On the one side you embrace the idea of African nations as equals. But on the other you admit they can't function as equals, can't sit at the world table with the big boys because they keep being convinced to trade their land for beads and whisky. So you want them to be protected - uhm, like indians on a reservation perhaps? Either they're full nation states which are fully responsible for looking after their people or they're not. Which is it? You want us to give them special treatment like the retarded boy at recess allowed to play in the game out of a sense of charity? That's paternalistic. Either they reform themselves, which seems most unlikely, or someone else should step in and reform them.

Funny, I never once made a point about what should be done (though a good first step on our part would be to stop the practices that facilitate despotism and poverty and let Africa pull themselves up by the bootstraps), only countered your notion that recolonization (an openly paternalistic statement if there ever was one, despite your weak assertions to the contrary) would work. So you've just created another one of your patented Argus strawmen. You should sell those things at the farmer's market.

[Argus]

That too. But it also is not in the interests of the ruling classes in those states. That's rather more of a problem, and one you've chosen to ignore.

Not ignore. But in the context of your re-colonization idea, the role of the industrial nations in Africa's plight is not to be ignored.

We are helping them. But if you think all western nations - or all other nations, for that matter, are going to stop doing what is in their own best interests you're even more naive than I thought. That isn't how the world has ever worked. And while we're more restrained than we once were in how much we screw over other nations human nature is still human nature.

So that admission kinda torpedoes your re-colonization notion. If anyone is dispalying some rather breathtaking naivete, its you for acknowledging the less than simon pure tendancies of the west on the one hand, while on the otehr expecting them to suspend these practices on the othe rin the name of helping Africa up. In other words there's no reason to believe future colonization would be any more successful or well-iintende dthan the last round.

The reality of the world today is somewhat different than it was a century ago. If you make a given nation, ie, the US, UK, France, Spain, etc, the colonial master of another state then they are now responsible for the well-being of the inhabitants of that state. Now perhaps people in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and early twentieth centuries didn't know or care about the welfare of people in their colonies, but that has all changed. People in democratic countries wouldn't tolerate starvation, widespread lack of educational and medical services, or injustice in a colony their nation was ruling. If the US was to be given control of, say Liberia, do you really doubt the situation there for the average Liberian would drastically improve? Sure, the US would exploit Liberia's raw resources for it's own benefit, as well, but Liberians would be infinitely better off than they are now.

[Guest eureka]

It would be an interesting study to discover just how much, if any, net benfit, many por countries receive from aid. I suspect it might even be negative in some cases. Tied aid produces no benefit when compared to the loss of home industry and agriculture that it necessitates.

Thre should be deducted also the net loss of educated emigrants - cost of education etc. There is also interest on debt : debt incurred to the tied aid. I understand that Japan, to name one other than the US, ties 60% of its foreign aid to the purchase of Japanese products.

The cost to the third world in loss of productive possibility due to agricultural subsidies in the West quite likelyexceeds the dollar "value" of all aid and, to add insult to injury, we often give aid in the form of foodstuffs that we prevent them from producing themselves.

[Black Dog]

The reality of the world today is somewhat different than it was a century ago. If you make a given nation, ie, the US, UK, France, Spain, etc, the colonial master of another state then they are now responsible for the well-being of the inhabitants of that state. Now perhaps people in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and early twentieth centuries didn't know or care about the welfare of people in their colonies, but that has all changed.

Really? How so? What's so different now than then?

People in democratic countries wouldn't tolerate starvation, widespread lack of educational and medical services, or injustice in a colony their nation was ruling. If the US was to be given control of, say Liberia, do you really doubt the situation there for the average Liberian would drastically improve? Sure, the US would exploit Liberia's raw resources for it's own benefit, as well, but Liberians would be infinitely better off than they are now.

I disagree. People are perfectly willing to tolerate starvation, widespread lack of educational and medical services and injustice throughtout the world, regardless of who's running the show. Now, as then, western democracies are primarily inward-looking. Sure, we'll drop a few pennies in the jar at Safeway, or write Bob Geldof's millionaires a cheque, but it's mostly understood (implicitly) that "their" suffering is a unfortunate, but necessary, collarary to "our" way of life.

[I Miss Trudeau]

People in democratic countries wouldn't tolerate starvation, widespread lack of educational and medical services, or injustice in a colony their nation was ruling.

How are you going to convince these nations to become the explicit colonial masters of these third world nations? By force?

Why on earth would they do anysuch thing? Why would they choose to forego arms reach control in favor of getting their hands dirty? The current arrangement is cheaper and neater than what you propose.

[Toro]

My favoured example is Argentina.  In 1900, Canada and Argentina were almost identical.  Similar population, resources, economies.  Then the Argentinians blew it.  They got mixed up in Peronism, socialism, State unionism and so on.  Bad government is a common feature of a country having many poor people.

Fabulous example. I point to this example all the time.

Africa is messed up and the problems are deep. Its naive and somewhat arrogant, though certainly well-meaning, to think that the West can fix the problems of Africa. However, if you want to improve the odds, lower trade barriers for African goods and stop these insane agricultural subsidies.