African Aid and the G-8

[Kalidor]

As I'm sure many of you know, the G-8 has been meeting for the past days in Scotland to discuss various matters, amongst them the issue of Africa, and how it can be helped to escape the crushing grip of debt and poverty. Though the summit has been marred by the tragedy of the London terrorist attacks (and I offer my deepest, most heartfelt condolences to any that were effected by those attacks) the meeting is now down, and the G-8 has unveiled a plan to double aid to Africa, up to fifty billion US dollars by 2010. Aid has also been promised to the Palestinian Authority, in the amount of three billion, in the hopes of resolving some of the differences between Palestinians and Israelis. There are other elements involved as well, such as new trade arrangements between the G-8 nations and African nations, as well as debt cancellation for some of the poorer countries that meet certain requirements in terms of human rights.

I believe that the news from the G-8 is good news, and a step in the right direction, but is that step big enough? Africa is in a whole that it cannot get out of by itself; many countries are so debt ridden that much of their GDP goes simply to paying down interest on their loans so that they do not sink any deeper in debt. I think the G-8 is in a position to do something momentus, something that would be a truly positive change for the world. However, it is not to be. There is no questioning that 50 billion is a large sum of money, at least for all appearances. However, this 50 billion is going to be split up between many of the countries of Africa. I don't know how many countries will be benefitting, but even if it is just twenty countires, that leaves little more than two billion dollars per country, hardly enough to have much of a meaningful impact. It seems like an even more paltry sum when you think that these countries are paying far far more than that every year into the pockets of such organizations as the World Bank for interest payments.

More promising is the possibility of debt forgiveness for countries wracked by debt. Aid is all well and good, but it doesn't help in the long run if the country still has that looming debt. I think that debt reduction is something that has waited far too long to happen. It is apparent that many of these African countries will never be able to pay back their debt, leaving debt forgiveness as one of the few hopes of prosperity. Debt reduction would do things that simple aid money can never do. Aid can help an immediate situation, but it doesn't help a country to get back on its feet again. These countries need to be able to use their GDP to build infrastructure and social programs within their own borders. Without having to pay back debt, these countries will have a chance to do so, and may be able to stand on their own without foreign aid. That isn't to say that aid isn't a good thing; on the contrary we in the western world should do as much as we can. It must be part of a larger plan that will allow the countries to grow on their own though. It is a means to an end, not the end in itself.

I think that there is hope on the horizon for Africa. The G-8 is surely in the position to make some of that hope more real, but I fear that it won't be so. I will start to feel better about things when I hear of what the aid money is doing, or that a country is now debt free. It cannot happen too soon though. AIDS, poverty, famine, all of these are killing thousands every day. I just hope that the G-8 can find the will to do something about it.

[Tendou Souji]

I feel that it is not enough. Africa is such a big place with many-many problems such as poverty, famine etc. And so many citizens also. But, least we forget there is still hope to save africa.

[St. Ajora]

[Tron Bonne]

I found this article on why Africa shouldn't be given any Aid. you can read it here.

my stance isn't that Africa shouldn't get some aid, but who gave President Bush the Authority to just write a check to Africa? Last I checked, Congress has the right to appropriate funds. But what do I know? I'm not a politician. I must not be smart enough to understand why Bush can do whatever he wants.

on the other hand, the Aid doesn't reach those who need it, so what's the point?
_________________

[Lunarblade]

[Wataru]

I agree strongly with Lunarblade. Africa's biggest problem is its own governments. Hardly any of the nations of Africa have traditions of peaceful transitions of power and a huge amount of the aid given is simply snatched up by military regimes and never gets to the people it is supposed to help.

Let me further illustrate. When I was in college I participated in something called a "hunger banquet." People paid admission ($10 per person, I believe) to support the UN's famine relief program and get a "traditional African dinner." There were 100 diners and a group of six people from the theatre department who were there to do the demonstration (myself included).

The 100 diners drew cards when they came to the doors. Out of the 100, 5 drew the right card and were "the rich." They got to eat a wonderful dinner of chicken and vegetables and dessert in an air-conditioned elegant dining room. The other 95 were "the poor" and were made to stand in a big line where they would be given white rice served on a banana leaf and a half a glass of water. The pot of white rice would have served about 50 comfortably.

This is where it started to become indicative of Africa's problems. All women, anyone under the age of 16, and any male not judged to be physically fit enough for military service was removed from the line and placed on the end. The six actors (as the military/government) were served first and were given double portions. The rest of the men were given half portions. By the time the women and others reached the end of the line there was only enough food for about 10 of them. The rest got no food. All of the poor had to eat sitting on the hardwood floor with no air conditioning.

At this point, any member of the "military" who wanted more could simply walk up to anyone with food and take as much of their food as they liked, saying "it was for the success of our glorious leader's military forces." Military members could also get back in line as often as they wanted and cut in front of whomever they liked.

This process represented the natural food supply and distribution in Africa.

After food was served, there were speeches and discussions about Third World aid and the United Nations' efforts. On four occasions plates containing the food items the "rich" received were brought in, representing aid. The first three were immediately taken by the military. I don't like peas, so I threw the peas from my plate on the floor in case any of the poor wanted them. No one took any, but the speaker mentioned that in Africa, people would be crawling over each other to get what the military had thrown away. The fourth was cut up and distributed evenly to the remaining diners (representing the aid that gets through). Each person got half a teaspoon of rice and one green bean.

Forgiving all the debt in the world and sending all the handouts you can from here to Kingdom Come won't do a lick of good in Africa as long as military and totalitarian regimes are the norm there.
_________________

[Tron Bonne]

Amen, wataru14. Africa doesn't need aid, it needs economic and govornment reform. No matter how much money you throw their way, none of it will reach the people.
_________________

[Sophita]

To me it sounds like a lot of talk but not a lot of progress. 2010? If time is of the essence then why can't they do it now? They're throwing millions of dollars away on pork projects but they can't double aid to africa until 2010? If it is so important to them, then why the long wait?

Africa needs aid just as much as it needs government reform, but I think the government reform needs to come first to ensure that people are honestly going to get it. Unfortunately, though, aid won't solve everything - as The badguy from Tron's link points out, swamping Africa with so much aid that African merchants, farmers, etc. can't keep up isn't going to work well; it just turns Africa into a beggar state. (Not to mention that a lot of that, people don't even *get* thanks to corrpupt governments.) Africa needs to be primarily saved by Africans, but I do think that there's no reason that other areas in the world who are better off financially can't try to help them. They just have to figure out a way to do so without hurting them, and commit to it if they wish to.
_________________

SCII month continues! DueFiumi.com

John Layfield wrote:

But bubbles... children love bubbles! XD

[Tendou Souji]

[kuwaizair]

I have't been following up much, but are there exact countries that are being targeted for aid? But I also think just handing out some cash won't help, I'm a sick person and assume we can help a lot of peole thorugh "cultural emperilsm" meaning "you are in a bad spot because you are doing it wrong," if some does it better then you have others do it, then again when you dominate pepole like that they dont know what to do with themselfs, thus put themselfs into a bad spot.

what about poverty in one' s own nation? maybe its not as bad, so we should forget our own people and help strangers. thats what being human is all about. ditch your family and go help somone you don't know, work to support your own kind and give it to somone esle.

I don't know. we need to solve the problems differntly. there only so much hand outs that can help.
so they owe us? and we say "oh you don't have to pay us anymore" is that it or " heck well give you all you need and you don't need a thing"?

*srugs*
_________________
few runes short of a set of 27

[St. Ajora]

That article and the dinner example were very interesting, I'm glad they were shared. It gave me more insight as to what is really going on there...it just leaves me speechless.

[Kalidor]

I too really appreciated the example of the African dinner. It really is a great idea to give a more clear cut example of what things can really be like for these poor countries. It's one thing to hear about it and see it on television, quite another to actually live it. If only more people would get involved with these sorts of activities it might raise awareness to a point where more people are concerned about the real issues.

I think there have been several good points raised about the necessity of aid to Africa, and the link from The Badguy from Tron is an interesting one as well. It certainly presents a perspective that we don't often hear. I don't agree with everything said there, namely that UN organizations want to keep giving aid so that they wont be out of a job. I think their motivations are a little more benign than that. However, corrupt government and military officials taking the money and food that comes in doesn't do anything to help the plight of the country. Even then though, some of that food and money gets through. I know that perhaps sending aid is helping to fund these corrupt regimes, but if even some of it gets through to help the people that really need it, could that make it worthwhile? It's a tough question and one that I cannot answer definitively. If one child is saved from starvation and a dictator is funded with thousands of dollars...is the life of the child worth it? I'd have to say yes, but I'm sure others would disagree with me, saying that the greater good is not served.

I do agree that aid is only a bandaid solution though. Social and political environments will need to change before any real reform can happen. That is what is most promising about the debt elimination idea. I believe that there are a set of very stringent requirements as to what countries are eligible to receive the debt reduction. For example, I think they have to have some level of demovractic government, and a good record on human rights. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find anything at the moment to back that up, but I'm quite sure that is what was said on the news. In any case, I would hope that it is so, or else we have the same problem as sending aid to these countries; the governments in power and the military benefitting, while the people do not.

[St. Ajora]

[Sage]

First, I'd like to start with a grossly exaggerated hypothetical story to illustrate what aid is doing to Africa economically. Suppose you have a kid and he's going to have to run a marathon when he's 20. Now everytime he cries when he wants to go from point A to point B, you pick him and carry him. If you never make him walk on his own, when the marathon time comes around, he can't do it. The sooner you make him walk on his own the better. The longer we send aid to Africa, the worse its economy is going to become: more dependent, more in debt, and lower GDP. It's not just money either as The badguy from Tron's link showed. I cannot comment on whether or not they give aid to secure their own jobs. Only they can say for sure, but I'm certain it's crossed at least one person's mind. And one last economic point: it's not cost-effective nor economically beneficial to eliminate all poverty/pollution/crime.

Working at JPL has given me a sorta inside look at government funding (note that I'm not trying to come off as snobby). First, I'd like to point out that JPL is not NASA-run. It's not a government facility. It's operated by the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) and is a government contractor. Granted, they get the lion's share, but they are not NASA. Anyway, NASA's budget is $15B I believe which is nothing when you consider that every Mars mission costs $2-4B and every shuttle launch is half million I think (don't quote me on that last one). If the defense department didn't get that money, we may not be here discussing this (possible exaggeration). I guess my point is government spending on anything else is paltry and we just have to live with it.

I noticed that there are 2 conflicting views here. Kalidor for instance is looking at this from a high level. "We are all people" kind of view. I look at this on a lower level. Personally, I would help a friend before a stranger and a fellow American before an African. (Assuming that that was all I was to base my decision on, don't get mad). Neither view is better in an absolute sense, even though I think mine is. In order to argue any of these points we much approach these on similar metrics for measuring the argument which is impossible in this last example.
_________________

[St. Ajora]

To be honest with you, I think that both are good choices...it all depends on your perspective. It's natural to care for those around you, than to think of others that may be strangers and to give to them. But it can go the other way too (as noted).