NationStates Jolt Archive

In a recent NYTimes magazine article Jeffrey Sacks, macroeconomist and special adviser to United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, claims poverty in Africa can be eliminated for $150 billion a year.

Keep in mind the U.S. spends $420 billion a year on weapons, and is footing a $200+ billion bill for the war on Iraq.

Despite recent increases, the United States still spends under 0.2 percent of its G.N.P. on foreign aid -- less than any other wealthy industrialized country.

Spend $150 Billion Per Year to Cure World Poverty
By DAPHNE EVIATAR

Published: November 7, 2004

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/07/magazine/07SACHS.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5089&en=3be7535d592cdc05&ex=1257570000&partner=rssyahoo

''The idea that African failure is due to African poor governance is one of the great myths of our time,'' Sachs began, addressing a packed hall. ''They can't get out of the hole on their own. If we don't take a different approach, we will not only see certain collapse; we will see a catastrophic downward spiral of violence.''

He continued, his voice rising: ''If you go to rural Ethiopia, Burkina Faso or Mozambique and try to figure out how to solve the problems of crushing disease burden, lack of cooking fuel -- they're living on dung as their cooking fuel. They lack access to basic medical care. We have not begun to take this problem seriously. What will it take for villages with no access to anti-malarials, where 10 percent of the adult population is H.I.V.-positive and has depleted soils because they can't afford fertilizer? If you have another idea of how they're supposed to do this all by themselves,'' he said, his voice shaking now, ''let me know.''

*applauds*

Now all we need is for people in power to listen!

Why is it US is always blamed for not helping poor nations enough? How about other nations?

Why is it US is always blamed for not helping poor nations enough? How about other nations?

Read the article. He is asking for all nations, rich and poor, to help Africa.

Why is it US is always blamed for not helping poor nations enough? How about other nations?

Despite recent increases, the United States still spends under 0.2 percent of its G.N.P. on foreign aid -- less than any other wealthy industrialized country.
The US also has the largest GNP.

However, I do think other wealthy nations need to do more too. It's just that the US has the most to improve on.

Why is it US is always blamed for not helping poor nations enough? How about other nations?
Because that those countries who give most per capita is:
Norway, Danmark, Nederlands, Luxemburg, and Sweden. US doesn't even qualify to the demands of UN, and if you look at the actual GNP and economies of the countries at the top of the list I think that US could afford "a bit" more...

I agree that something should be done.

1) However who is the $150 billion going to be distributed too?
2) Why just Africa??? The Middle east, Pacific and Asia all have their problems as well.
3) What exactly does an end to poverty encompass???? Is it housing, food, education for all etc??

I understand it is a great plan but personally I cant see it working even with all that money.

I agree that something should be done.

1) However who is the $150 billion going to be distributed too?
2) Why just Africa??? The Middle east, Pacific and Asia all have their problems as well.
3) What exactly does an end to poverty encompass???? Is it housing, food, education for all etc??

I understand it is a great plan but personally I cant see it working even with all that money.
1, They will probably not hand it out to everyone asking, but I trust UN in these matters, and I think that I have most people with me.
2, I have got no answer to this one, the official might be that Africa has no first world-economies to boost the continental GNP with (which is true). I think that the real reason is that the UN is afraid for the demands African nations may put in the future, after all they have been quite oppressed during the last... 1000 years, right?
3, All of that, a general raise in the standard of living or at least an effective commitment of the human and child-rights by all african nations.

I think it can work, but not with the way diplomacie is handled today...

I think it can work, but not with the way diplomacie is handled today...
Your points seem to make sense.

I agree, I am not saying that it wont ever work but the way society is structured today, I dont believe it can happen straight away.

Oh and by the way as it says $150 billion a year. How many years is that for???

Your points seem to make sense.

I agree, I am not saying that it wont ever work but the way society is structured today, I dont believe it can happen straight away.

Oh and by the way as it says $150 billion a year. How many years is that for???
2015 I guess...

Nice ways to have Africa developed:

Free trade. Most western countries impose punitive taxes on most about everything that comes from Africa. If they can't sell us their products (which in many cases would be cheaper and better than those that come from the US/EU), they can't get the wealth they need to be developed.

Support democracy: The west generaly supports the guys that keep the oil flowing. And many of those are corrupt. Democracy must be peacefuly supported in order to get more efficient, corruptless societies in Africa

Find a cure for AIDS :P : Hell, in 20 years the average life expectancy of Africa will be 40 years. AIDS is to them what the Plague was for Europe. Not nice.

And yes, giving them money is good, but that must be well conttrolled, since most of it ends in the pockets of dictators.

Nice ways to have Africa developed:

Free trade. Most western countries impose punitive taxes on most about everything that comes from Africa. If they can't sell us their products (which in many cases would be cheaper and better than those that come from the US/EU), they can't get the wealth they need to be developed.

Support democracy: The west generaly supports the guys that keep the oil flowing. And many of those are corrupt. Democracy must be peacefuly supported in order to get more efficient, corruptless societies in Africa

Find a cure for AIDS :P : Hell, in 20 years the average life expectancy of Africa will be 40 years. AIDS is to them what the Plague was for Europe. Not nice.

And yes, giving them money is good, but that must be well conttrolled, since most of it ends in the pockets of dictators.
If everything is so bad then please explain the situation in Uganda, there is hope for Africa, as long as you have democracy you have development...

Nice ways to have Africa developed:

Free trade. Most western countries impose punitive taxes on most about everything that comes from Africa. If they can't sell us their products (which in many cases would be cheaper and better than those that come from the US/EU), they can't get the wealth they need to be developed.

And encourage foreign direct investment and encourage Africa to be more open to it.


Support democracy: The west generaly supports the guys that keep the oil flowing. And many of those are corrupt. Democracy must be peacefuly supported in order to get more efficient, corruptless societies in Africa

Not just oil, other strateguc resources as well. But that's only half the story. Tribalism and rampant warfare are a bigger problem. Encouraging competent peacekeepers would be very helpful.

Find a cure for AIDS :P : Hell, in 20 years the average life expectancy of Africa will be 40 years. AIDS is to them what the Plague was for Europe. Not nice.

Probably too late for this. However, education is more likely to help than just a cure. But a cure certainly wouldn't hurt.

And yes, giving them money is good, but that must be well conttrolled, since most of it ends in the pockets of dictators.

Debt relife may be a better way of doing this. A plan for debt relife in exchange for allowing investment would be good, as long as it discourages nationalisation of foreign investments. A large grass roots micro-credit system, combined with economic reforms, would be better in the long run than simply making large donations to governments.

If everything is so bad then please explain the situation in Uganda, there is hope for Africa, as long as you have democracy you have development...

Check out this article (http://www.economist.com/finance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1989450) for some of the reasons Uganda, Mozambique, and Rawanda are in a rather unusual, and fragile situation. But, yes, trends like this (http://www.nationaudio.com/News/DailyNation/20112003/Comment/Comment2011200311.html) are encouraging.

There are more hungry people in asia/pacific then in africa. Let's broaden the subject.

I think the only way to help developing countries is to give them a fair starting point (relieve their debts), and then let them tell us what they need. We can decide that they need a school and a library, but why not ask them first? Maybe some countries don't even want to become a modern service economy, and are happy just to have a stable agricultural society. In that case we should teach them how to get a reliable harvest so they can be self-sufficient, and be done with it.
I think we are trying to shape developing countries to our own image, while that may not allways work out.

A little graphic on how the developed countries stack up on foreign aid as a percent of GDP.

http://occawlonline.pearsoned.com/bookbind/pubbooks/greenberg5e_awl/chapter98/medialib/illustrations/GREE182.GIF

Although, to be fair, some military expenditure should be factored as well. That being, any expenditure that can be directly designated as peacekeeping in nature. My argument for that is the fact that economic growth cannot occur without domestic security. We can denigrate the US expense on military matters to some degree, however would South Korea have had the chance to develop their economy to the point it has without the US presence for the past 50 years? How far would the Balkans have descended into ruin had NATO not stepped in to stop the civil war?

In that respect, those expenditures must be seen to be a part of foreign aid - although they are never factored in to such statistics.


But yes - the average Western country probably spends more on frivolous government-sponsered ads than they do to further the development of needy parts of the world. From even a self-serving standing it should be obvious that creating wealth in the 3rd world can only lead to expanded markets, however the payoff is too far down the line for most democratic governments to put the money into it. It's not politically advantageous to a short-term mandate to raise debt to help others when there are so many domestic issues at hand and Joe Average citizen wants their needs met first.

The long view is not a commonly noted attribute of the average taxpayer.

In a recent NYTimes magazine article Jeffrey Sacks, macroeconomist and special adviser to United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, claims poverty in Africa can be eliminated for $150 billion a year.

Keep in mind the U.S. spends $420 billion a year on weapons, and is footing a $200+ billion bill for the war on Iraq.

Despite recent increases, the United States still spends under 0.2 percent of its G.N.P. on foreign aid -- less than any other wealthy industrialized country.

MM, singling out the US? Why? There are many other nations in the world who are content to look on without raising a finger....

A little graphic on how the developed countries stack up on foreign aid as a percent of GDP.

http://occawlonline.pearsoned.com/bookbind/pubbooks/greenberg5e_awl/chapter98/medialib/illustrations/GREE182.GIF

Although, to be fair, some military expenditure should be factored as well. That being, any expenditure that can be directly designated as peacekeeping in nature. My argument for that is the fact that economic growth cannot occur without domestic security. We can denigrate the US expense on military matters to some degree, however would South Korea have had the chance to develop their economy to the point it has without the US presence for the past 50 years? How far would the Balkans have descended into ruin had NATO not stepped in to stop the civil war?

In that respect, those expenditures must be seen to be a part of foreign aid - although they are never factored in to such statistics.


But yes - the average Western country probably spends more on frivolous government-sponsered ads than they do to further the development of needy parts of the world. From even a self-serving standing it should be obvious that creating wealth in the 3rd world can only lead to expanded markets, however the payoff is too far down the line for most democratic governments to put the money into it. It's not politically advantageous to a short-term mandate to raise debt to help others when there are so many domestic issues at hand and Joe Average citizen wants their needs met first.

The long view is not a commonly noted attribute of the average taxpayer.

I also believe, Zeppistan, that one should also look at the total amount of money that each nation is putting in. Folks make a great deal about how little of the GNP is put into foreign aid, but never look at what that percentage actually represents in monetary units.

We still need to take care of our own homeless, hungry, disabled and sick as well as those in other nations -- and rarely, if ever, are private donations from American citizens ever taken into account in these matters.

I also believe, Zeppistan, that one should also look at the total amount of money that each nation is putting in. Folks make a great deal about how little of the GNP is put into foreign aid, but never look at what that percentage actually represents in monetary units.

We still need to take care of our own homeless, hungry, disabled and sick as well as those in other nations -- and rarely, if ever, are private donations from American citizens ever taken into account in these matters.

Well total dollars is one thing, but then you wind up comparing apples to oranges. IT's like saying that two people contributed $100 to a given charity and not note that one was a working stiff with a mortgage and 3 kids who had to make sacrifices to do that, and the other was a millionaire for whom it was pocket change. Are their contributions the same?

In this aspect, there is another factor: gdp per person. If two countries have the same GDP but one has five times the population, then the larger country has more domestic needs to care for before they are in a position to help others.

In that respect, I think it should be evaluated on a per gdp per citizen level. If average salaries are similar, and one country is donating $100 per person while the other is donating $10, then one is clearly taking their obligation in this matter more seriosuly than the other.

In a recent NYTimes magazine article Jeffrey Sacks, macroeconomist and special adviser to United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, claims poverty in Africa can be eliminated for $150 billion a year.

Keep in mind the U.S. spends $420 billion a year on weapons, and is footing a $200+ billion bill for the war on Iraq.

Despite recent increases, the United States still spends under 0.2 percent of its G.N.P. on foreign aid -- less than any other wealthy industrialized country.



We spend .2 percent of our GNP on foreign aid that WAY to much I think it should be more around the 0.0%. We need to spend more money on our military and less on foreign aid and welfare.

:headbang:
dude where would the money be invested in???
if you explained that to everybody it would be simpler and you would have much more supporters.
but i liked the idea

So they can't get their sh*t together without handouts from Europe and America? That must be insulting.

Nice ways to have Africa developed:

Free trade. Most western countries impose punitive taxes on most about everything that comes from Africa. If they can't sell us their products (which in many cases would be cheaper and better than those that come from the US/EU), they can't get the wealth they need to be developed.

Support democracy: The west generaly supports the guys that keep the oil flowing. And many of those are corrupt. Democracy must be peacefuly supported in order to get more efficient, corruptless societies in Africa

Find a cure for AIDS :P : Hell, in 20 years the average life expectancy of Africa will be 40 years. AIDS is to them what the Plague was for Europe. Not nice.

And yes, giving them money is good, but that must be well conttrolled, since most of it ends in the pockets of dictators.
You're 100% correct here.

An end to protectionism is necessary. One of the myths of our time is that western, even right-wing western leaders, support free trade. They only support it when it suits their lobbyists.

it seems very naive to me to think that if we just threw money at africa all their problems would be solved.

money is needed but the intense corruption of african governments, the aids crisis, ethnic strife, lack of infrastructure, years of war, etc. mean that it will take much more than just money to change the course of that continent.

and no i do not trust the UN to hand out $150bil/year in the best manner. they have shown plenty of bad judgement and inefficiency over the years. (not to single them out, all the international agencies have wasted massive amounts of aid given to africa)

This is just like us sending millions of millions of dollars to Africa to fight AIDS when we can't even handle it in our own country.

So they can't get their sh*t together without handouts from Europe and America? That must be insulting.
No, being that Europe and America (and others) are actively keeping them from doing so.

I think the only way to help developing countries is to give them a fair starting point (relieve their debts), I have to agree, many nations in Africa (and the world) owe more in interest on their debts than their entire yearly GNP.

*applauds jello biafra*
Add to that the history of colonialism and it's pretty much explained is it not?

Because that those countries who give most per capita is:
Norway, Danmark, Nederlands, Luxemburg, and Sweden. US doesn't even qualify to the demands of UN, and if you look at the actual GNP and economies of the countries at the top of the list I think that US could afford "a bit" more...
Actually Norway, Denmark, Netherlands and Sweden are THE ONLY countries who qualify the demands of UN which is 0.7% of GNP. Finland cut it's aid from 0.7 to 0.35 in early 90's and it's not like we couldn't afford it. Just think about how much your government (which ever) gives money to e.g. tobacco industry, farmers who produce too much (eggs, milk, meat what ever, they give money to produce it and more money to get rid of it) tax cuts for corporations (well only few countries do this) etc etc

I have a controverisal pet idea of mine that I like to put forward in these cases.

All the African Countries that haven't got their shit together should be re-colonised by the Former Colonial Power. The Portugese should take back Angola and Mozambique, the French can reclaim most of West Africa, and the British can sort out Zimbabwe, Somalia, and the Sudan.

The Former Colonial Power can sort out many of the country's problems, but not let them become independent- they've had their chance, and they fucked it up.

The FCP can then start treating the Natives as citizens of their own country, which means healthcare, roads, infrastructure, security and so on. The money to fund it can come from the sale of resources, taxes, and the FCP not wasting so much money on inefficiency.

I think you'd see a dramatic turnaround of the problems in Africa...

If everything is so bad then please explain the situation in Uganda, there is hope for Africa, as long as you have democracy you have development...
You really believe that? After 18 years of terror? That they'll finally find a solution and stop fighting? I have to say, I'm not so optimistic.

I have a controverisal pet idea of mine that I like to put forward in these cases.

All the African Countries that haven't got their shit together should be re-colonised by the Former Colonial Power. The Portugese should take back Angola and Mozambique, the French can reclaim most of West Africa, and the British can sort out Zimbabwe, Somalia, and the Sudan.

The Former Colonial Power can sort out many of the country's problems, but not let them become independent- they've had their chance, and they fucked it up.

The FCP can then start treating the Natives as citizens of their own country, which means healthcare, roads, infrastructure, security and so on. The money to fund it can come from the sale of resources, taxes, and the FCP not wasting so much money on inefficiency.

I think you'd see a dramatic turnaround of the problems in Africa...
Um... errr. NO!!

I'm sure African people will LOVE that. In fact, I was born in Africa and I can say, screw your plan.

Colonialism screwed Africa up to begin with!

And you use terms like "the Natives." How 19th century do you want to get?
:mad:

You do know why Angola and Mozambique are stuffed don't you? Think Cold War. It wasn't so cold in places like that...

This is just like us sending millions of millions of dollars to Africa to fight AIDS when we can't even handle it in our own country.
But in western countries we know how to avoid it. In Africa they don't. We can fight against AIDS with educating people. When they already have it, it's too late anyway.

And you use terms like "the Natives." How 19th century do you want to get?


Well, since you mention it, I'll grab my Martini-Henry, don my Pith Helmet, and see if I can get first class tickets for the Royal Mail Steamer from London to Dar-Es-Salaam, via Bombay and Hong Kong, eh old chap? :D

I'm not TOTALLY serious about re-colonising Africa, BTW- I just think that some of the FCPs should do a bit more to help out the African Nations, that's all...

We can fight against AIDS with educating people. When they already have it, it's too late anyway.

I agree. And it needs co-operation from everyone, governments, important social bodies and religious groups.

Which reminds me, apparently the Catholic church (I think it was the Catholic church) in Botswana was telling people that condoms don't stop AIDS because they have holes in them.

This lecturer of mine, who is also an AIDS activist and researcher, figured that the best way to counter such things is with humour. So their response was - "Of course they have holes, that's how you put them on."

Not just oil, other strateguc resources as well. But that's only half the story. Tribalism and rampant warfare are a bigger problem. Encouraging competent peacekeepers would be very helpful.

Yes, countries can have democratic leaders but some warlords just don't care who's the legitimate leader. Like in Somalia. They do what ever they want anyway.

Peacekeepers could be helpful but they should find them from other African nations. European peacekeepers may look like invaders in the eyes of locals, like French troops in Ivory Coast.

And western countries made a huge mistake when they draw the borders of countries with a ruler, forcing tribes to live inside artificial areas.

I agree. And it needs co-operation from everyone, governments, important social bodies and religious groups.

Which reminds me, apparently the Catholic church (I think it was the Catholic church) in Botswana was telling people that condoms don't stop AIDS because they have holes in them.

This lecturer of mine, who is also an AIDS activist and researcher, figured that the best way to counter such things is with humour. So their response was - "Of course they have holes, that's how you put them on."
Finally some of the governments are willing to admit they have a problem. That's a start. And Vatican certainly isn't helping. I've heard of this nonsense and it just makes me mad. Don't they realise their teachings actually kill people?

MM, singling out the US? Why? There are many other nations in the world who are content to look on without raising a finger....
Maybe because the article was in NEW YORK TIMES, not in Fraknfurter or El Pais?

Don't they realise their teachings actually kill people?
But at least they go to heaven when they die right? :rolleyes:

But at least they go to heaven when they die right? :rolleyes:
Guess so...But that's not a place where I would like to end up... :)

Guess so...But that's not a place where I would like to end up...
Hehe. Especially not if getting there involved a horrible, protracted, painful death...
Personally, I like my earthly pleasures...

In a recent NYTimes magazine article Jeffrey Sacks, macroeconomist and special adviser to United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, claims poverty in Africa can be eliminated for $150 billion a year.

Keep in mind the U.S. spends $420 billion a year on weapons, and is footing a $200+ billion bill for the war on Iraq.

Despite recent increases, the United States still spends under 0.2 percent of its G.N.P. on foreign aid -- less than any other wealthy industrialized country.

Spend $150 Billion Per Year to Cure World Poverty
By DAPHNE EVIATAR

Published: November 7, 2004

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/07/magazine/07SACHS.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5089&en=3be7535d592cdc05&ex=1257570000&partner=rssyahoo

''The idea that African failure is due to African poor governance is one of the great myths of our time,'' Sachs began, addressing a packed hall. ''They can't get out of the hole on their own. If we don't take a different approach, we will not only see certain collapse; we will see a catastrophic downward spiral of violence.''

He continued, his voice rising: ''If you go to rural Ethiopia, Burkina Faso or Mozambique and try to figure out how to solve the problems of crushing disease burden, lack of cooking fuel -- they're living on dung as their cooking fuel. They lack access to basic medical care. We have not begun to take this problem seriously. What will it take for villages with no access to anti-malarials, where 10 percent of the adult population is H.I.V.-positive and has depleted soils because they can't afford fertilizer? If you have another idea of how they're supposed to do this all by themselves,'' he said, his voice shaking now, ''let me know.''

Money will not cure curruption in Africa (as it has not improved education in the US). If you "Do-Gooders" want to go there, bring a bathing suit and a pot-holder.

Money will not cure curruption in Africa
Corruption isn't the only problem in Africa.

That plan will not work. Firstly, in real terms a portion of that $150 billion will be lost in corruption (both in African and Western regimes), as it always has been across the world including Arafat ($500 million for Palestine went to himself) and Bangladesh (most "corrupt" government in the world). Secondly, poverty is closely linked to disease and war in many areas and "free trade" agreements with the US or Europe. Eradication of malaria, HIV/AIDS, hep, gut parasites etc has failed at every attempt and throwing money at Africa will not remedy this, or result in an end to poverty where there is no infrastructure to carry out any proposed plan. Also, given how the Bush administration approached HIV aid for Africa, it is likely that a lot of the $150 billion would only be available for US sponsered programmes that often promote US values (eg sexual practices, church, market values etc). African populations usually are not interested in having US values imposed on them as a requirement for financial aid, and ironically US promoted free-markets and government styles leads to US-style wealth distribution inequality (one of the worst in the world) and corporate corruption. Thus, poverty issues are not solved.

A more effective short and long term aid to Africa's economic problems would be for US/EU corporations to stop exploiting these countries and for our governments to allow the African nations to escape the cycle of debt. This can only be done by using fair-trade rather than US/EU serving free-trade agreements, which will allow local industries to be re-born following their destruction due to unfair free-trade obligations. The US must also stop imposing its agenda through the IMF/World Bank and WTO, as this is directly responsible for the inescapable cycle of debt suffered by many countries forced into free-trade agreements with the US.

Colonialism screwed Africa up to begin with!

And you use terms like "the Natives." How 19th century do you want to get?

Indeed

Africa actually produces more food than it can consume, unfortunately much of the land is owned by Euro and US companies and the food (Cattle, peanuts, etc) are grown for export.

Africa also is a net exporter of petrolium products, much of the oil resources though are owned by Euro and US corporations.

as for democracy, aren't among the US allies, the SO democratic nations of Kuwait, saudi arabia, pakistan, Kenya, etc. etc.

didn't the western world liberate kuwait, but then handed it back to the royal family who have no democracy and so don't trust their own population that much of the menial labour comes from O/S and all the proffessional labour is US, german, british, etc?

so much for Gulf War 1 being about democracy :rolleyes:


The US didn't really emerge as a power until about 50 years after its independence, similarly we are seeing India awaken, and we are also seeing China awakening after a disasterous civil war between two NON democratic forces (the generals/royalists and the communists) where we supported a side that was EQUALLY UNDEMOCRATIC,

China 60 years on is now emerging as a powerhouse to rival any other.

As for Africa, Africa was divided up by the colonial powers and not according to pre existing national or tribal boundaries, hence the civil unrest as people were handed power, by the hasty retreat of the beaten european powers between the 1940s and 1970s.

and under the European rule, things were certainly great for the Europeans who were there, but they did bugger all for the local populations, the railways were used for transporting british troops, british owned goods and services, and paying indigines, the infrastructure was a tax imposed by the brits/euro powers.

certainly Vietnam was left a mess by the retreating French and the whipped americans, Indonesia has nothing to thank the French and dutch for, etc.

I am Pro Democracy, but handing them money is not an answer, neither is recolonization.

I think education is the best solution, set up schools/universities and technical colleges, help them help themselves.

Many nations can't even afford to purchase the produce exported from their own country as the corporations don't have to pay tax, have slave labour etc.

Even when Allende threatened to bring in a minimum wage all those Years ago, the US corporation were screaming that minimum wage, and basic labour laws that were still decades behind what was available to workers int he USA, would destroy the companies which was one of the reasons the US invested in destroying him.

Democracy? colonialisation? = RUBBISH

All the African Countries that haven't got their shit together should be re-colonised by the Former Colonial Power. The Former Colonial Power can sort out many of the country's problems, but not let them become independent- they've had their chance, and they fucked it up.

The FCP can then start treating the Natives as citizens of their own country, which means healthcare, roads, infrastructure, security and so on. The money to fund it can come from the sale of resources, taxes, and the FCP not wasting so much money on inefficiency.

I think you'd see a dramatic turnaround of the problems in Africa...

Almost all of the nations of Africa have only been independent of their colonial rulers for no more than 50 years (Liberia and Ethiopia excepted). After 80 years of independence from Great Britain the United States proceeded to tear itself apart, fighting its bloodiest war against itself over the issue of whether or not one group of people should be allowed to own another (please understand my point and don't take off on "states rights" tangent).

So given your logic, perhaps by 1861 Americans had demonstrated they could not handle many of their country's problems and should have been re-colonized by the British?

Also, keep in mind that the American colonies started off with some of the richest resources in the world, a functioning government, relatively few ethnic divisions, and a high standard of wealth, in both absolute terms and relative to the other nations of the world at the time.

The nations of Africa vary widely in their resources, were not allowed to participate in their colonial governments and therefore had little experience or training in governance, live in nations with borders drawn arbitrarily in Europe and which, in some cases, place bitter enemies in the same country and in others divided ethnic tribes into two or more separate countries, and who posses little individual wealth, either absolutely or relative to the other nations of the world (250 years ago the ratio of the wealthiest nations in the world to the poorest was roughly 5:1; today it is 400:1 with African nations comprising most of the poorest countries).

American and Western aid is not charity, but rather, enlightened self interest. Just as it was in the best interests of the U.S. to help rebuild Europe and Japan after W.W.II (has America ever enjoyed more relative prosperity than in the 1950s?), it is in the best interests of America and Europe to help get Africa on its economic feet.

You really believe that? After 18 years of terror? That they'll finally find a solution and stop fighting? I have to say, I'm not so optimistic.
1. Many African countries are ruled by dictators, of course there is no point in giving them billions of dollars, military interventions might be needed, the first action though should be to improve the state of democratic countries.
2. One thing that is arguing against me is the relation black people have to white farmers, and that is frankly something I can't give a solution to...
3. Nations in Africa were created by ruler, is the situation of today really the best for Afican countries? If it is handled civilised there might be no prblem in change that... (And if it was Uganda in particular you meant then you ought to know Idi Amin didn't represent any movment or group in Uganda, he was a mere tyranne.)

Maybe I am wrong abput UN handing out these checks, if the contributors themselves do it they might take better care of it? Corruption is a problem I admit, but it is not something that can't be fighten and overcomeed.

The reason why diseases are so common is that there are NO MEDICINES, and AIDS-halting drugs we take for granted are non-existant as well.

To cure the problems of Africa is not just about giving a check each year, to do it we must have workforces on the spot, plans for building up infrastructure, and above all, the western world have to work together!

And no, Pakistan, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are not parts of Africa.