NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4613987.stm


This is just ludicrous. I found the comments by that moron Jeffrey Sachs especially hilarious, so hilarious that I nearly wet my pants reading them. He says aid is effective. Is that so? If aid is so effective, why is the whole continent so poverty-stricken? He calls the belief that aid is ineffective because of corruption a "myth." Is it? Most African tin-pot dictators use the aid they receive to buy expensive jets for themselves, build private airfields, and enrich themselves, their cronies, and their friends and family. They don't give a damn about the people they rule. The more aid we send to Africa, the richer the gangsters who run its countries are going to get. Sadly, aid is not a viable solution. The only way to help our fellow man and alleviate his suffering in Africa is through humanitarian organizations and private charities. I personally plan to donate as much as I can to a reputable organization to help Africans. Charity is the answer. Government-to-government aid is not.

Aid efforts are also a lost cause in many areas because of demographics.

Put plainly, people's lifespans in some countries are so short (eg Sierra Leone, life expentancy 37 in 2001 according to the UN) that what you are dealing with is nations populated largely by children, and sick, hungry, illiterate ones at that.

Europe was rebuilt so easily after WW2 because despite the apparent destruction, it had a vast industrial base, organised economy and a well-educated population. It needed an injection of capital to restart the economy, which the Marshall Plan, as a one-off, provided.

I read in an article in the Independent a while back that we have spent several times the Marshall Plan per capita on Africa already. No amount of cash will change the fact that some countries in Africa are already dead.

My opinion is that it does not matter whose well-meaning pockets the money comes from, government, big business, charities or NGOs, in a lot of places, tragically, it is a wasted effort.

Aid efforts are also a lost cause in many areas because of demographics.

Put plainly, people's lifespans in some countries are so short (eg Sierra Leone, life expentancy 37 in 2001 according to the UN) that what you are dealing with is nations populated largely by children, and sick, hungry, illiterate ones at that.

Europe was rebuilt so easily after WW2 because despite the apparent destruction, it had a vast industrial base, organised economy and a well-educated population. It needed an injection of capital to restart the economy, which the Marshall Plan, as a one-off, provided.

I read in an article in the Independent a while back that we have spent several times the Marshall Plan per capita on Africa already. No amount of cash will change the fact that some countries in Africa are already dead.

My opinion is that it does not matter whose well-meaning pockets the money comes from, government, big business, charities or NGOs, in a lot of places, tragically, it is a wasted effort.

The Marshall Plan actually didn't help Europe at all. Most of the countries only started to recover after the plan ended. Germany experienced explosive economic growth by implementing free-market policies. These policies helped Germany, which received less than half the aid Britain received, recover at a much faster pace.

Aid efforts are also a lost cause in many areas because of demographics.

Put plainly, people's lifespans in some countries are so short (eg Sierra Leone, life expentancy 37 in 2001 according to the UN) that what you are dealing with is nations populated largely by children, and sick, hungry, illiterate ones at that.

Europe was rebuilt so easily after WW2 because despite the apparent destruction, it had a vast industrial base, organised economy and a well-educated population. It needed an injection of capital to restart the economy, which the Marshall Plan, as a one-off, provided.

I read in an article in the Independent a while back that we have spent several times the Marshall Plan per capita on Africa already. No amount of cash will change the fact that some countries in Africa are already dead.

My opinion is that it does not matter whose well-meaning pockets the momey comes from, government, big business, charities or NGOs, in a lot of places, tragically, it is a wasted effort.

Given the lack of civilization in some of the countries there, or the inability of the people in some of those countries to establish and maintain some semblance of civilization, it begs the question why some of the arbitrary lines drawn on the map of Africa are classified as "countries" at all.

Aside from them spending a lot of time doing each other in by starvation and civil war, and coups, and every other sort of idiocy, a substantial portion of the African population is going to perish from AIDS - in some areas, as many as 70 to 80 percent of the population will disappear.

Want to talk about the collapse of civilization across a wide area of an extremely large continent? It's underway now, and nothing we do can stop it.

Charity is the answer. Government-to-government aid is not.

DOCTOR: (cradleing dieing child) Nurse, bring me the oral rehydration formula, stat!

NURSE: But this oral rehydration formula was paid for by a government aid program, not private charity!

DOCTOR: NOOOOOOO! THE FOOLS WHEN WILL THEY LEARN! This oral rehydration formula is useless! If only a private charity had paid for it! Oh well... (Tosses child in grave on way out door.)

Want to talk about the collapse of civilization across a wide area of an extremely large continent? It's underway now, and nothing we do can stop it.
Yep, which is why I don't subscribe to well-intentioned attempts to solve the problem. Like I said, a lot of countries are already dead, it will just take one more generation to confirm what is already obvious.

Yes! More money into a bottomless pit!

DOCTOR: (cradleing dieing child) Nurse, bring me the oral rehydration formula, stat!

NURSE: But this oral rehydration formula was paid for by a government aid program, not private charity!

DOCTOR: NOOOOOOO! THE FOOLS WHEN WILL THEY LEARN! This oral rehydration formula is useless! If only a private charity had paid for it! Oh well... (Tosses child in grave on way out door.)

Private charities aid the people directly. Government-to-government programs give the aid to the government of the country being aided. And more often than not, said government pockets the aid. So ask yourself: which would you prefer, the former or the latter?

We could start by planting some grass.

A lot of you seem to be very defeatest about Africa and in a way I can see your point that money to Africa never reaches the people who need it the most and that money is wasted due to corrupt regimes but it worries me that some of you seem to want to give up on all kinds of aid or alms giving. Sure aid doesn't work hugely well, but it works a damn sight better than doing bugger all and complaining about lack of civilisation in Africa.

On an unrelated note, if I was currently lobbying for more aid to a country that wasn't in Africa I would be feelin pretty cheesed off by now. I hope people realise that there are poor countries outside of that continent.

Thankyou for reading.

Wouldn't it be more effective if the aid was provided as schools, volunteer teachers, hospitals, volunteer medical workers, etc. rather than just lump sums of money? How does a corrupt government squander or steal a school?

Wouldn't it be more effective if the aid was provided as schools, volunteer teachers, hospitals, volunteer medical workers, etc. rather than just lump sums of money? How does a corrupt government squander or steal a school?

The government puts soldiers around the building. They then charge their friends money to be allowed entrance, and they keep the people they dislike from coming near the building.

no, seriously, we should plant some grass there (hay).

and wheat, corn, barley, etc.

make their tillable land flourish so that they can begin to help themselves.

If there are dictators who wish to hoard the fruits of farming (for instance, if there is one food-rich country surrounded by arid countries), they must be deposed and inter-country food trade should be encouraged. Hunger should be seen as the #1 problem. Conquer that, then go after AIDS.

help them with water-making machines (no idea what they're called or how this works...)... kinda like the one Kevin Costner used in Waterworld.

hehe

The Marshall Plan actually didn't help Europe at all. Most of the countries only started to recover after the plan ended. Germany experienced explosive economic growth by implementing free-market policies. These policies helped Germany, which received less than half the aid Britain received, recover at a much faster pace.

Um... one must build a house before one can move in. :)

A lot of you seem to be very defeatest about Africa and in a way I can see your point that money to Africa never reaches the people who need it the most and that money is wasted due to corrupt regimes but it worries me that some of you seem to want to give up on all kinds of aid or alms giving. Sure aid doesn't work hugely well, but it works a damn sight better than doing bugger all and complaining about lack of civilisation in Africa.

On an unrelated note, if I was currently lobbying for more aid to a country that wasn't in Africa I would be feelin pretty cheesed off by now. I hope people realise that there are poor countries outside of that continent.

Thankyou for reading.

Its not just that people are discouraged over the corruption and lack of impact that aid (the good kind) has, its just that Africa is fundamentally screwed. Like Whispering Legs said, parts of that continent have 70-80% HIV/AIDS infection rate. It is my belief that we're riding on an AIDS bubble, which will soon burst and result in several million deaths in a very short period of time.

Such a loss of populace would be devestating to even an industrialized and modern country, much less the backwards coup-prone "republics" of Africa. They have little industry, poor infrastructure, and many of them insist on killing each other because they come from a different tribe.

Africa is doomed, plain and simple. Best thing we can hope for is that it'll be a nice quick death, which would allow other countries (namely India and China) to export their citizens there and repopulate. Of course this would put them in control of one of the great resource nodes, but I think they can do a better job of it than the Africans.

Private charities aid the people directly. Government-to-government programs give the aid to the government of the country being aided. And more often than not, said government pockets the aid. So ask yourself: which would you prefer, the former or the latter?

Doesn't your government give aid to people? You know, for vacinations, health, education, sanitation, ect? Aid that buys helicopter gunships isn't aid. It is "not effective aid," or "not really aid at all." The country I'm in at the moment has a pretty good record of giving effective aid, and has been gradually improving as more people pay attention to what is going on and thinking about how to improve the situation. Maybe you could do the same where you are and make sure that goverment aid really is aid? If my brother was a drug addict, I'd help him, but I wouldn't give him money. If I thought he'd quit, maybe I'd trust him with a little money and see how he spends it. I sure as hell wouldn't fund his drug dealer, because I'm not stupid.

Nearly all government to government aid in the form of money or loans is effectively funding the drug dealer.

How about an absolutely massive tax on gem quality diamonds? (From any source. That would cut back on the flow of arms.

How about a massive increase in diamond smuggling too.

The idea that a massive tariff on diamonds will reduce the arms trade is laughable.

Nearly all government to government aid in the form of money or loans is effectively funding the drug dealer.

Don't give it to the government. They're not the ones dying from preventable diseases. The cold war is over. There is no need to prop up or bribe goverments to stop the Soviets. It's not that difficult to find cost effective ways to give aid. It's also an effective investment in soft power. If the aid you give doesn't work, change what you're doing. Don't piss money away and then say, "Oh this aid thing doesn't work, I'm taking my ball and going home." Quitter. Use your brains and give it your best shot. Talk to people who are already helping the poor cost effectively. Use your brains to work out the best way to help. Or, if you don't want to help, don't get in other people's way.

P.S. My bile is directed at an archtype and no one in particular.

Given the lack of civilization in some of the countries there, or the inability of the people in some of those countries to establish and maintain some semblance of civilization, it begs the question why some of the arbitrary lines drawn on the map of Africa are classified as "countries" at all.

Aside from them spending a lot of time doing each other in by starvation and civil war, and coups, and every other sort of idiocy, a substantial portion of the African population is going to perish from AIDS - in some areas, as many as 70 to 80 percent of the population will disappear.

Want to talk about the collapse of civilization across a wide area of an extremely large continent? It's underway now, and nothing we do can stop it.

In a way I agree. But I think it has more to do with Westerners not having any idea what makes Africa work. When America and Europe try to intervene in African affairs they tend to treat it like it's their own home country, but with palm trees, or deserts.

I look at it as being like how the Federal government was trying to rebuild the population of buffallo in Yellowstone by giving antibiotics to the sick and keeping the predator population low. They just kept getting sicker. Finally they re-introduced wolves, for a completly unrelated effort, and the buffallo started thriving. They probably didn't need to bring in wolves to help the buffallo, just leave them all alone and let the cyotes cull the sick and the dying.

The problem was that people didn't understand all the forces at work in their ecology. The same tends to hold true with Europeans trying to understand African "ecologies" of economics, democraphics, and actual ecology. If we'd just get the hell out and stop trying to preserve the sick and the dying (metaphoricly speaking, I mean the corrupt military dictatorships and such) and just let them find their own equilibrium.

While it may sound cruel to allow the chaos that will ensue, we clearly can't do any better. All our efforts to stabalize Africa are like those of an amatuer pilot overcompensating on the controls, and eventually creating a tailspin. And we don't even recognize it because we're not in the damn plane. And Africa can't find an equilibrium, because the West keeps moving the equilibrium.

Too much chaos? Support the military dictator.

Too much corruption? Support the revolution.

Too much famine? Flood their food markets.

Too much political opposition to our economic plans? Embargo.

How about a massive increase in diamond smuggling too.

The idea that a massive tariff on diamonds will reduce the arms trade is laughable.

Did I say tarif? I did not. I would propose something along the lines of personal property tax, at a completely massive level.

That way, every year you would have to remit some kind of tax to the government (around $10,000 per carrat I should imagine). It would be relatively easy to enforce, because it would be suspicious whenever anyone owned a diamond, and the revenue folks - yes those people who stop me making my own whisky - could swoop down and confiscate them &c. unless tax reciepts could be provided.

I am fairly sure this system would erridicate domestic demand for gem quality diamonds. After all they only really have one use, and liquor is just as effective in that respect.

It could be enforced, provided laws against unwarranted search and seizure are abolished.

There is already a massive market in diamond smuggling, your 'idea' would increase smuggling to titanic proportions, and drive the market underground.

You propose no solution, more than that, you dismiss the possibility all togetherm

You have not justified an annual tax on personal property, nor have you justified the human rights implications of your 'idea'.

Nor have you indicated how, orwhy this totalitarian measure would work to reduce arms flow, nor what arms flow will be reduced.

Nor do you even consider that if diamond restrictons are going to work, they must be at the source.

This comes down to the basic point that you can't FORCE help onto people. You can try to help them, but if they refuse the help, all you're doing is pouring money into a pit.

It's like the spread of AIDS in Africa. Because of pride, cultural differences and an innate cultural xenophobia among some tribes (and even countries), AIDS infection rates are expanding at an exponential rate. This is not due to lack of aid...it's due to rejection of the aid offered.

SOME areas of Africa can be helped. I say focus on those until the rest come around.

They don't need Aid, they need peace and free trade.

They don't need Aid, they need peace and free trade.

Well, for starters, some of them could elect a leader who wasn't a complete idiot who didn't believe that AIDS was caused by a virus.

As it is, it doesn't matter what we do or fail to do now. In half a century, most of the people in Southern Africa will be dead.

The Marshall Plan actually didn't help Europe at all. Most of the countries only started to recover after the plan ended. Germany experienced explosive economic growth by implementing free-market policies. These policies helped Germany, which received less than half the aid Britain received, recover at a much faster pace.

You are SO wrong, it did....a lot, and for the free market, it was already inserted in Germany, the free market had to be established in those countries that wanted the marshall aid, that's why some european countries said no to it. I think you have to look into your sources for your claims, I'm from northern europe, and study political science at the university.

Based on experience of myself and others, aid in developed Western countries comes from the poor in large parts and goes straight to the wealthy in these so called poor countries. Private charities are no more immune to giving to the wrong people than governments are, in fact the number of charities that spring up overnight is a little concerning considering how ineffective they tend to be.

Free trade as it currently exists is not a good idea, considering how helpful the WTOs, IMFs and foreign pressure has been in South America I hold no hopes for Africa. Getting rid of the debt is a start, giving people the chance to compete economically without having markets flooded by farmers from countries that are heavily supported financially and letting them sort it out their way.

Live Aid is a real joke, the combined wealth of all those famous people taking part is more than several countries in Africa combined. Also the idea that all of Africa is illiterate, stupid and un-developed is a really ignorant idea, might as well say every American eats nothing but burgers and drive around in 4x4s going "Yee-Haw".

Also the idea that all of Africa is illiterate, stupid and un-developed is a really ignorant idea, might as well say every American eats nothing but burgers and drive around in 4x4s going "Yee-Haw".

I would bet that undeveloped describes most of the real estate in Africa.

Illiteracy is high, if you take the whole continent into the picture.

Stupid is as stupid does.

And a fair number of people outside the US believe that we eat burgers and drive around in SUVs going "Yee Haw".

It could be enforced, provided laws against unwarranted search and seizure are abolished.

There is already a massive market in diamond smuggling, your 'idea' would increase smuggling to titanic proportions, and drive the market underground.

You propose no solution, more than that, you dismiss the possibility all togetherm

You have not justified an annual tax on personal property, nor have you justified the human rights implications of your 'idea'.

Nor have you indicated how, orwhy this totalitarian measure would work to reduce arms flow, nor what arms flow will be reduced.

Nor do you even consider that if diamond restrictons are going to work, they must be at the source.

Personal property taxes are already well established at the state level. I see no problem in introducing an carrat tax. Clearly, they would be no more difficult to enforce than any other type of property tax. All diamonds must be registered and the duty paid. And If the duty is set sufficiently high enough, possesion of any diamond would become suspect. At the very least, tickets could be issued to people who are seen owning diamonds that require proof that the duty has been paid be produced within a certain time period. All unregistered/delinquent diamonds should be considered subject to tax liens, and therefore can be seized by the government.

As the only purpose* of gem quality diamonds is to wear them and look pretty, I cannot forsee that people will secretly hoarde diamonds and just take them out of the box under their mattress just to play with them, simply to avoid paying the tax.

I would imagine, that such a tax would make wearing diamond jewelery prohibitively expensive, and therefore the demand would go almost to zero. (After all who is going to pay $5000 for a ring which may be subject to eventual seizure the first time it is worn in public?).

If the demand is virtually eliminated, then smuggling takes care of itself.

Removing diamonds from trade would prevent the sale of so-called "conflict diamonds" which are used to fund some of the worst human rights excess in sub-saharan Africa. It would also greatly diminish the availability of hard currency on hand for arms purchases.

As gem quality diamonds are essentially useless for anything anyway (except to grind up and make sandpaper/cutting edges with) I really don't see a downside.

*some anecdotal evidence indicates that they may also have an aphrodisiac effect, however it is at best temporary, and so should not be of major concern.

I agree with Whispering Legs. Africa is a money pit. It's sad but true. I do have compassion for individuals who are striving to make it a better place but I just don't see it happening.

Wouldn't it be more effective if the aid was provided as schools, volunteer teachers, hospitals, volunteer medical workers, etc. rather than just lump sums of money? How does a corrupt government squander or steal a school?


Instead of continual handout, we need to help them help themselves. Get rid of the military dictators that force the people into being starving,disease ridden refugees. Let people settle and plant crops. Not wander around in the dust till they die while bandits with machine guns steal bags of grain.
They need to attend to themselves-not just foreign relief volunteers who have been there for a hundred years and its only gotten worse. They cannot help themselves till they are free of opression.
How many more millions of dollars can be dumped into this rathole? Dollars that are stolen by "warlords" while people starve and babies with bloated bellies rot with flies all over them? Pouring money in doesnt help-it hasnt and it wont. Educating the people will help them help themselves. But first, the ones that are killing them need to be killed.

And whenever we do that, everyone gets mad at us. So-we could just keep writing checks.

Just a question to the people that say they don't like aid to Africa but at the same time say they care about Africe. Why are you not more worried about loans to Africa? Because if aid goes into the wrong pocket the rich western countries has wasted money but as little we give in reality that is no big problem for us. But if the loans goes into the wrong pockets and just make some rich people more rich it is the poor in that country that have to pay it back. So my first point is that yes there are problem with aid but it is hell lot better then loans.

And a big problem is not that the money is getting to african and they can spend it how they want and they spend it folishly. No in many cases aid comes with harsh demans like for example they can't have african running the aid project but western expert that cost many times more then hiring locals that would also aid the local economy more. Also is a big problem is that the africans in many times have to buy western product from the country giving the aid many times the market price making the aid a way to subsidied the giver countrys companies.

Another huge problem is the lack of free trade but not that the african don't have it but that the USA and EU don't have it. That you have tariffs on import production that goes up you more refined the product is. So they can export orange pretty cheap but if they want to export orange juice the tariffs is mutch higher. At the sametime they have to open up to western import creating the classic colonial example of export of raw materials import of western goods.

Also is a huge problem is that the USA and EU give alot more aid to there own agricultural and industrail sectorn then they give to africa. So my finale point is that aid could and should be good thing but isn't because of the EU and USA self interest.

YES! Infact not only must we help out other third world countries, its very obvious to me that it must be a requirement for the top ten nations to do so (unless during failure of the worlds economy and all nations become third world or atleast the top ten.)

I have to agree with Whispering Legs, Africa is a lost cause, aid money goes to arming the corrupt, idiotic governments, aids is skyrocketing, South Africa which is supposedly the economic model of Africa is slowly degrading to the level of other african nations. Nothing short of invading the continent and wiping out the Warlords one by one(I refuse to call them national leaders) will save the continent.

Also the idea that all of Africa is illiterate, stupid and un-developed is a really ignorant idea, might as well say every American eats nothing but burgers and drive around in 4x4s going "Yee-Haw".


I would bet that undeveloped describes most of the real estate in Africa.

Illiteracy is high, if you take the whole continent into the picture.

Stupid is as stupid does.

And a fair number of people outside the US believe that we eat burgers and drive around in SUVs going "Yee Haw".


And a fair number of Americans dooo eat burgers and drive around in SUVs going Yee Haw

and far to many people are sitting back in air conditioned rooms... responeding to this thread on their computers, saying Africa is doomed...
you guys are sitting back laughing at these people dying... theres no easy solution, but stilling back laughing that they are screwed... we may have fo spend a lot to only sustain the status quo there... but so what... we're loaded... do it and in the mean time figure out something better.. keep thinking about it... not just blow it off ... they're are people dying

you guys are sitting back laughing at these people dying... theres no easy solution, but stilling back laughing that they are screwed... we may have fo spend a lot to only sustain the status quo there... but so what... we're loaded... do it and in the mean time figure out something better.. keep thinking about it... not just blow it off ... they're are people dying
Excuse me, but I don't think anyone here is laughing at all the people dying in Africa. We're debating the merits of pumping more and more money into a system that is showing no results.

Kind of like the US public education system.

Wouldn't it be more effective if the aid was provided as schools, volunteer teachers, hospitals, volunteer medical workers, etc. rather than just lump sums of money? How does a corrupt government squander or steal a school?

Well, it takes over the building and uses it for other purposes. If you want to help, the best way to do it is a mobile system - wandering teachers. A single person can evade the government much easier than an entire building. Now, it won't be as effective - it'll be slower, and they'll only get to learn for part of the year - but it's easy-access, and can be done in between doing jobs to keep the family alive. I don't know about Africa, but in Britain a couple of centuries back, a lot of people didn't go to school because they needed to work and support their families.

The same can go for medical workers, although they're even less effective... rather, you need to use the resources available to help the people help themselves. If a population can only be kept alive by importing vast amounts, it's in trouble, not least from the massive debt it'll get into. (The problem with this is the Sahel areas, which are semi-desert. They really need evacuating, but the advent of the nation state has made that impossible)

Now, I agree that giving money to corrupt governments is messed up, but we have to help Africa somehow.

Unlike most of you here, I have seen poverty. Not the "bad district" of town kind of poverty, I mean "my-family-has-no-food-and-my-village-is-starving-poverty". I have lived on the continent in question, and trust me, if we don't get any aid over there that continet is screwed.

I say we give money to the governments that aren't corrupt(Ermmm...I guess that means South Africa :p), and try to create a STABLE Africa. Sitting around and abusing that continent while it starves to death will come back to bite us, especially once the Africans get a grip on themselves.

Now, I agree that giving money to corrupt governments is messed up, but we have to help Africa somehow.

Unlike most of you here, I have seen poverty. Not the "bad district" of town kind of poverty, I mean "my-family-has-no-food-and-my-village-is-starving-poverty". I have lived on the continent in question, and trust me, if we don't get any aid over there that continet is screwed.

I say we give money to the governments that aren't corrupt(Ermmm...I guess that means South Africa :p), and try to create a STABLE Africa. Sitting around and abusing that continent while it starves to death will come back to bite us, especially once the Africans get a grip on themselves.

South Africa is corrupt. Most of the aid that gets sent there is used to enrich the new Xhosa Super Elite. Apartheid imposed by Boers is now gradually being replaced by a new system of apartheid where the Xhosas accumulate more and more power for their own selfish interests.

First of all the idea that Africa is going to suddenly depopulate is plain old stupid, I don't know were yuo got those facts from. Africa as of 2000 had 770,300,000 people, 770 MILLION people. 60 million more than Europe and it is actually increasing steadily. True AIDs is a problem but it won't wipe out the population of the entire continent. Granted yes Africa has plenty of problems, plenty of dictators exc but you have to looka t the fact that most of Africa just gained its independence not to long ago from Europe which left it in shambles.

Look at Rwanda. I believe the two tribes were the Hutu and Tutsi(If I get them mixed up forgive, its been a while) The reason the genocide broke out their goes back to colonialism. When the Europeans(Believe it was the Dutch??) colonized that part of Africa they gave the Tutsi's more rights because they were taller, fairer skinned and had whiter features. Tutsi's were the ones that were educated and when the Dutch left they left the Tutsi's in power even though the Tutsi's were a minority. From there we all know what happened, the Hutu's basically revolted, letting hundreds of years of repression out on the Tutsi's. Before the country was colonized though the two tribes had gotten along.

Africa has its problems and I agree throwing money at it is just stupid but Africa will get better. It'll develop over the years, don't forget tin pot dictators, civil wars, famines, genocide, AIDs, these things are just African problems, every continent has em.

Maybe we can best help Africa by giving them regime change?

Maybe we can best help Africa by giving them regime change?
Like I said, I'm not paying for it.

All it would achieve is rotate the Swiss bank accounts into the hands of a new group of criminals.

Maybe we can best help Africa by giving them regime change?


How you going to do that? America's a bit stretched, most of Europes old military powers don't exactly hold the ability to invade countries oversea's anymore. Inciting revolt will just make things worse.

There's this political theory. It states how countries must go through a time of mindless geonicide in order to mature into another level. Every country has had this happen. You can tell if a country has problems if the boarders are all straight.

Well, right now Africa is going through that process. Its just that unlike the middle ages with swords and sheilds, they now have guns and kevlar. Well, scrach kevlar. RPGs.

There's this political theory. It states how countries must go through a time of mindless geonicide in order to mature into another level. Every country has had this happen. You can tell if a country has problems if the boarders are all straight.

Like the north-western and south-western borders of the United States, then?

I'm not actually convinced Africa's at the point where it needs nation states yet... doesn't it mainly have them because we colonised and set them up? And then just waltzed out, leaving them to anarchy and dictatorships? I mean, no offense to Africa - or any other colonial nations - but shouldn't a country have to earn the name?

(Obviously, places like Egypt aren't included in this)

Let Africa be Africa. No amount of aid is going to change things there. These people need to work it out amongst each other. No more international influence. Let them figure it out. I dont want to see another US tax dollar sent to corrupt and immoral regimes.

Personal property taxes are already well established at the state level.

Land taxes have been.

You've quoted my questions, and then dismissed them. How will taxing personal diamonds stop the flow of arms?

Why should legitimate trade in non-conflict diamonds be restricted?

How can your measures be enforced while maintaining liberty of person and property?

Removing diamonds from trade would prevent the sale of so-called "conflict diamonds" which are used to fund some of the worst human rights excess in sub-saharan Africa. It would also greatly diminish the availability of hard currency on hand for arms purchases.

Zimbabwe and Sudan purchase arms from China, and they don't/can't pay hard currency. They do give Chinese traders land, and Sudan gives oil.

Would you also tax oil into extinction?

Perhaps you should simply stop any and all trade.

For people who are writing off Africa, I would like to point out that South-East Asia was extremely poverty stricken forty years ago. Since then things have improved immensly for the vast bulk of the population. I would also point out that if you traveled back five hundred years and considered with area would be the first to undergo an industrial revolution, then the most likely canidates would probably be China, India, or the Middle-East. It's unlikely that you would choose backward, primitive, Europe. You would be even less likely to pick the sheep herding backwater of England as becoming the leader of the industrial revolution. Africa is not some doomed hellhole. Most people in africa have better standards of living than Europeans 200 years ago. There are places in Africa that are like hell on earth, and that is a great pity. But I see no reason why conditions won't improve overall in the future, despite numerous problems.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4613987.stm


This is just ludicrous. I found the comments by that moron Jeffrey Sachs especially hilarious, so hilarious that I nearly wet my pants reading them. He says aid is effective. Is that so? If aid is so effective, why is the whole continent so poverty-stricken? He calls the belief that aid is ineffective because of corruption a "myth." Is it? Most African tin-pot dictators use the aid they receive to buy expensive jets for themselves, build private airfields, and enrich themselves, their cronies, and their friends and family. They don't give a damn about the people they rule. The more aid we send to Africa, the richer the gangsters who run its countries are going to get. Sadly, aid is not a viable solution. The only way to help our fellow man and alleviate his suffering in Africa is through humanitarian organizations and private charities. I personally plan to donate as much as I can to a reputable organization to help Africans. Charity is the answer. Government-to-government aid is not.

I rarely agree with you, but for once, I totally agree with you.

Bah. We need to give Africa aid, alright.

Operation: Iraqi Freedom style aid.

Without regime change, nothing but more fancy jets for Mugabe will result out of this.

Bah. We need to give Africa aid, alright.

Operation: Iraqi Freedom style aid.

Without regime change, nothing but more fancy jets for Mugabe will result out of this.

Yeah, there's trillions of dollars wasted already I think the amount of money congressional estimates proportioned could of paid for every child in the entire world to receive basic immunisations for the next 58 years or something closer to home the money could of been used to provide health insurance for over 104,000 children for one year. Of course that's just based on congressional estimates, not the actual cost and the figure is obviously rising.

Cost of War (http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Issues/Military/Iraq/highcost/index.html)

South Africa is a terrible example, the government there is being ruined by foreign pressure and the ideas of more educated and well-intentioned financiers. Free trade is broken, corrupted and terribly ineffective when all sides don't play by the same rules.

*sigh*

You guys are content to let Africa destroy itself? Trust me, just like everyone thought that Asia would never amount to anything before it zoomed to the top, Africa will become powerful too. And then you rich Americans and Europeans will NOT be happy.

(Oh, and by the way, Africa is screwed up because of what WE did to it. Thanks, colonial powers. You screwed up an ENTIRE continent. Such and achievement, eh?)

*sigh*

You guys are content to let Africa destroy itself? Trust me, just like everyone thought that Asia would never amount to anything before it zoomed to the top, Africa will become powerful too. And then you rich Americans and Europeans will NOT be happy.

(Oh, and by the way, Africa is screwed up because of what WE did to it. Thanks, colonial powers. You screwed up an ENTIRE continent. Such and achievement, eh?)

Um... the continent was already screwed long before Colonialism.

The Ottomans had basically taken control of everything of value north of the Sahara and unalterably changed it, stamping out what remained of Egypt, seriously came close to destroying Coptic Christianity, and conquering every tribe and kingdom (ie: Morrocco), except PERHAPS the Berbers.

South of the Sahara, they went directly from the stone to the iron age, since there was no way to make bronze. Couple that with a lack of navigable rivers, and the village blacksmith became almost a religious office. Tribes did not evolve into nations as in Europe. Imagine if France had stayed Brittany, Breton, etc. instead of forming a nation.

Thus by even 1300, Africa south of the Sahara was over a hundred years or three behind the Ottomans and even those backwards barbarians in Europe.

Africa will become powerful too. And then you rich Americans and Europeans will NOT be happy.
America and Europe benefit from the developed nations of Asia. They will benefit from the developed nations of Africa too. This is a good reason for developed nations to help poor nations develop faster, so they will get more benefit from them. Imagine the results if Japan had stayed poor. Lower quality cars, no Nintendo, development of cheap electronics would be delayed, robotics would not be as advanced, fewer pharmacutical processes would have been developed, little or no manga, etc. If you think Japan is cool, just wait until you see what Uganda can do.

I dont want to see another US tax dollar sent to corrupt and immoral regimes.

I consider the US to be a bit of a corrupt and immoral regime yet I donated after Sept 11.

I do think that people who provide aid should be constantly thinking about better ways of getting that aid to the people who need it most. I have a bit of a problem with charities in that they tend to be religion-based. I think the position of the Catholic church to continue to prohibit the use of condoms among parishioners in a continent so ravaged by AIDS is itself corrupt and immoral. And it indicates to me that these might not be the best people to decide who gets what in impoverished communities. I do not deny that such charities have done a lot of good as well.

(Go Uganda)

Land taxes have been.

Tell that to the nice people in Connecticut. They have taxes on items of personal property. I believe Maine also charges excise tax yearly on some items of personal property.

You've quoted my questions, and then dismissed them. How will taxing personal diamonds stop the flow of arms?

Destroy the demand for gem quality diamonds, and rebel groups will no longer be able to sell them. They would lose the hard currency they gain from these sales that are currently used to purchase weapons. So it would reduce and in many cases eliminate the flow of arms to many sub-saharan rebel groups that commit so many atrocities. Take sierra-leone or angola for instance.

Why should legitimate trade in non-conflict diamonds be restricted?

The "legitimate" diamond trade has so mired itself with these clowns, it's hard to feel any sympathy for it.

That said, I see it this way: The legitimate trade really provides no benefit to the US. On the other hand, as long as it exists, there will be the problems caused by conflict diamonds. Sacrificing it in order to remove conflict diamonds from the equation would do a lot more to help africa than all the meddling that is currently done. I think it is a fair trade.

You also have to remember that the Diamond trade is fucked up to begin with. Conflict diamonds wouldn't be such a problem if prices weren't so artificially high because of the debeers monopoly and their artificial restrictions on supply. Moreover, if debeers didn't run around squashing every industrial process that manufactured gem quality diamonds, the demand could be satisfied from domestic industry at a fraction of the price. The very fact that they are allowed to do this should give you a clue as to how much importance is attached to the existence of the diamond trade. In other words, not much.

How can your measures be enforced while maintaining liberty of person and property?

The same way that all other taxes are enforced. I don't see the problem. The only point of gem quality diamonds is to wear them in public. It would be a simple matter to issue tickets from time to time requiring that proof that all duties had been paid on any visible stones without infringing upon liberty of person or property.

After all, they are essentially so useless, people would give them up once it became a hassle.


Zimbabwe and Sudan purchase arms from China, and they don't/can't pay hard currency. They do give Chinese traders land, and Sudan gives oil.

It's hard to grant land when you are a rebel militia, likewise extract oil. Naturally this won't stop nation states from getting arms. But in many cases in africa, rebel militias have used conflict diamonds to fund the complete destabilization of countries. Sierra Leone &c.

Obviously, no one measure is going to solve Africa's problems, but this is a relatively trivial one, that could do a lot of good without actually hurting anyone.

In fact I am tempted to say just make diamonds contraband. I doubt that there will be many people who will risk incarceration to wear them, so I don't think smuggling would be not much of a problem. But because I do respect property rights, I don't suggest that.

Would you also tax oil into extinction?

Perhaps you should simply stop any and all trade.

No, I wouldn't. I am probably a lot more pro free trade than most people. That doesn't mean I think the drugs trade is a good idea either however, or importing shoes made by child labor in sweat shops for that matter.

Sometimes the trade in certain commodities is very damaging to one party, and provides no real benefit to the other. I think when that happens, it is perfectly legitimate to question it. Oil is incredibly useful. So I wouldn't ban it.

With diamonds on the other hand, chicks can learn to wear opals instead.

you know Africa is not the only place where you can find dimands (SP) hell here in Canada it is becomeing quite the export

you know Africa is not the only place where you can find dimands (SP) hell here in Canada it is becomeing quite the export

Yes, I am aware of that. It was quite the scandal because debeers dropped the ball on that one.

Debeers has vast holding in Canada that it doesn't extract diamonds from. It just doesn't want anyone else to either.

first of all Who is Debeers? I never ever hurd of him/her

first of all Who is Debeers? I never ever hurd of him/her

It's the diamond cartel that controls the "legitimate" diamond trade. It is possibly the most evil company in history. (And arguably one of the driving forces behind the creation of aparthied in South Africa amongst other things).

It's the diamond cartel that controls the "legitimate" diamond trade. It is possibly the most evil company in history. (And arguably one of the driving forces behind the creation of aparthied in South Africa amongst other things).

wow all that and I never Heurd of them?

I must bone up on my Evil Corp. handbook

Did I say tarif? I did not. I would propose something along the lines of personal property tax, at a completely massive level.

That way, every year you would have to remit some kind of tax to the government (around $10,000 per carrat I should imagine). It would be relatively easy to enforce, because it would be suspicious whenever anyone owned a diamond, and the revenue folks - yes those people who stop me making my own whisky - could swoop down and confiscate them &c. unless tax reciepts could be provided.

I am fairly sure this system would erridicate domestic demand for gem quality diamonds. After all they only really have one use, and liquor is just as effective in that respect.


There is an easier way to do this perhaps. Diamonds and many other gem can be lab created now. My engagement ring is a saphire that would be worth a few thousand dollars if it had been dug up. Instead my husband paid 80 dollars and got the matching pendant. Lab created stones are clearer and have richer colors. And the best part is no one had an arm chopped off in the process.

Just a question to the people that say they don't like aid to Africa but at the same time say they care about Africe. Why are you not more worried about loans to Africa? Because if aid goes into the wrong pocket the rich western countries has wasted money but as little we give in reality that is no big problem for us. But if the loans goes into the wrong pockets and just make some rich people more rich it is the poor in that country that have to pay it back. So my first point is that yes there are problem with aid but it is hell lot better then loans.

And a big problem is not that the money is getting to african and they can spend it how they want and they spend it folishly. No in many cases aid comes with harsh demans like for example they can't have african running the aid project but western expert that cost many times more then hiring locals that would also aid the local economy more. Also is a big problem is that the africans in many times have to buy western product from the country giving the aid many times the market price making the aid a way to subsidied the giver countrys companies.

Another huge problem is the lack of free trade but not that the african don't have it but that the USA and EU don't have it. That you have tariffs on import production that goes up you more refined the product is. So they can export orange pretty cheap but if they want to export orange juice the tariffs is mutch higher. At the sametime they have to open up to western import creating the classic colonial example of export of raw materials import of western goods.

Also is a huge problem is that the USA and EU give alot more aid to there own agricultural and industrail sectorn then they give to africa. So my finale point is that aid could and should be good thing but isn't because of the EU and USA self interest.
Has some one been listening to Al Franken show? First off why shouldn't the U.S. Give aid by way of offering U.S. products such as rehydration meds. Beggars shouldn't be choosers. I realize the beggars could buy cheaper meds from another but then the U.S. would benefit less and in turn have less to give. Second if our agri businesses fall apart we won't be able to give hand outs to anyone. Self interest is vital to survival. Africa becoming economically developed would benefit the west. We love buying stuff. Africa has stuff.

Side note we have plenty of poor people in the U.S., they are arguably worse off then the homeless in under developed countries because it's harder to live off the land here and we supposedly have less compassion for people with out jobs. And from what an American tourist tells me much of Europe is doing much better. So I find it hard to believe that we aren't giving enough to other countries, to people don't like us and aren't likely to even say thank you.

Has some one been listening to Al Franken show? First off why shouldn't the U.S. Give aid by way of offering U.S. products such as rehydration meds. Beggars shouldn't be choosers. I realize the beggars could buy cheaper meds from another but then the U.S. would benefit less and in turn have less to give. Second if our agri businesses fall apart we won't be able to give hand outs to anyone. Self interest is vital to survival. Africa becoming economically developed would benefit the west. We love buying stuff. Africa has stuff.

Side note we have plenty of poor people in the U.S., they are arguably worse off then the homeless in under developed countries because it's harder to live off the land here and we supposedly have less compassion for people with out jobs. And from what an American tourist tells me much of Europe is doing much better. So I find it hard to believe that we aren't giving enough to other countries, to people don't like us and aren't likely to even say thank you.

Who's Al Franken? I swedish No of course USA can give product for over marketprice but be honest about it you don't give for example 10 million in aid you give 6 million in aid to for example Zimbawe and 4 million in aid to you american company. But it also can mess up there planning like then it's technical stuff it not fun to get a pumpingmaching that works well for one
year and then breaks down and they need to buy expensie spare parts from america that take long time to get.

Then I really glad to hear from you that I think many think screw free trade let's think of our own interest. Becuase it soo many that talks about free trade but then it comes to ther own industry then free trade with out any subsidution is bad or tariffs is bad. Just hoped that you could see that it's africa not the richest country in the world that need help with developing their agricultural sector. Also yes it's fun to buy stuff but it's more fun then the country is poor so your big business can set the price.

Also I would like to see your live of the land in Africa, because many poor actually live in the city or are landless, so steeling is in many cases a better solution then living of the land.

But you have a really good point if you don't have a solidarity inside your own country and try to take care of the poor, it's mutch easier to just don't care about the rest of the world to. Like for exampel the welfare state like Sweden give around ,7-1 % in aid while use give around ,1-,2 % not because USA is a poorer country but because there have more fend for use self attitude. But my point is not hate USA just be a bit pissed of the egocentric west.

Tell that to the nice people in Connecticut. They have taxes on items of personal property. I believe Maine also charges excise tax yearly on some items of personal property.

Isolated examples.

Destroy the demand for gem quality diamonds, and rebel groups will no longer be able to sell them.

You mean push the demand underground.

You are aware that conflict diamonds are already illegal. Those laws should be enforced.

They would lose the hard currency they gain from these sales that are currently used to purchase weapons. So it would reduce and in many cases eliminate the flow of arms to many sub-saharan rebel groups that commit so many atrocities. Take sierra-leone or angola for instance.

Angola didn't pay hard currency for their arms. They received them as political gifts.

Sudan and Zimbabwe don't pay hard currency for arms.

The "legitimate" diamond trade has so mired itself with these clowns, it's hard to feel any sympathy for it.

You don't like them, so what? Doesn't lend any weight to your argument.

That said, I see it this way: The legitimate trade really provides no benefit to the US.

It gives people things they want. Whether you see a good, or bad, or neutral effect on the society is irrelevant.

On the other hand, as long as it exists, there will be the problems caused by conflict diamonds. Sacrificing it in order to remove conflict diamonds from the equation would do a lot more to help africa than all the meddling that is currently done. I think it is a fair trade.

And banning guns in the hands of law abiding civilians removes guns from criminals :rolleyes:

Sometimes the trade in certain commodities is very damaging to one party, and provides no real benefit to the other. I think when that happens, it is perfectly legitimate to question it. Oil is incredibly useful. So I wouldn't ban it.

Hypocrisy. Money from oil had funded some of the worst thugs in history. Money from oil is used by the Saudi government is promote Islamo-fascist hatred everywhere.

The simple fact is that you have not proven the legitimate trade does anything worse than your beloved oil companies already do.

I agree, the conflict diamond trade is the problem, but the solution is to crack down on conflict diamonds, rather than deprive people of their jewellery.

You're peddling the easy, feel-good solution without doing the thinking.

Westerners doing this is one of Africa's biggest problems.

Who's Al Franken? I swedish No of course USA can give product for over marketprice but be honest about it you don't give for example 10 million in aid you give 6 million in aid to for example Zimbawe and 4 million in aid to you american company. But it also can mess up there planning like then it's technical stuff it not fun to get a pumpingmaching that works well for one
year and then breaks down and they need to buy expensie spare parts from america that take long time to get.

Then I really glad to hear from you that I think many think screw free trade let's think of our own interest. Becuase it soo many that talks about free trade but then it comes to ther own industry then free trade with out any subsidution is bad or tariffs is bad. Just hoped that you could see that it's africa not the richest country in the world that need help with developing their agricultural sector. Also yes it's fun to buy stuff but it's more fun then the country is poor so your big business can set the price.

Also I would like to see your live of the land in Africa, because many poor actually live in the city or are landless, so steeling is in many cases a better solution then living of the land.

But you have a really good point if you don't have a solidarity inside your own country and try to take care of the poor, it's mutch easier to just don't care about the rest of the world to. Like for exampel the welfare state like Sweden give around ,7-1 % in aid while use give around ,1-,2 % not because USA is a poorer country but because there have more fend for use self attitude. But my point is not hate USA just be a bit pissed of the egocentric west.
Al Franken is a liberal radio talk show host and comedian. Thursday night's broadcast was about how the U.S. doesn't give enough. I agree with your example but see it diiferently. We give Zimabwe 6 million dollars worth of medication and pay the people who produce it 4 million dollars. This gives the people of Zimbabwe medication they didn't have before and it feeds the workers who made them. I know that some of those workers are ceo's and other highly paid professionals who are paid more, but they are also the brains who make it all possible and as such deserve more. If aid when aid is given in the form of poorly made machines the people who made them should be punished.
I don't follow the begining of your second paragraph. In my life time however U.S. farmers faced an economic crisis where in many people who's family had been farming since coming to this country were forced to sell their land. We fund our farmers so that doesn't happen again. This was in the 80's.
But yes finding a bargin is nice. This is why you can find tourists in poorer countries. Especially if it's a safer country with less threat of being kidnapped or murdered because of drug or civlil wars. When the U.S. dollar is weak we get an influx of European tourists. If you are going to be pissed at those who take care of their own first you are going to be pissed with vast majority of humanity. Who charges friends and family market price? Who doesn't try to give friends and family business whenever possibly?

As far as living off the land goes it is also true that our homeless live in cities. However Unlike many under developed countries most of the U.S. sees winter temps well below zero and that Americans are less compassionate. I have no source for the compassion issue because I am referencing a lecture I attend years ago. But it seems likely that Americans look down more on beggars because we value self sufficiency highly.

I also see how it would be easier for a welfare state to give more aid since the people who make the wealth don't get to decide how it's spent.

In my humble opinion, we should just write off their debts and leave them to it. Try to prevent unfair trade and all that, but otherwise leave them to it. As a great fictional character once said, "life will find a way".

You are SO wrong, it did....a lot, and for the free market, it was already inserted in Germany, the free market had to be established in those countries that wanted the marshall aid, that's why some european countries said no to it. I think you have to look into your sources for your claims, I'm from northern europe, and study political science at the university.
I'll delete if this has already been answered...

Some countries said no because Soviets said they have to say no. They didn't have a say on the matter. Like Finland. I'm pretty sure every country would have been more than happy to receive some aid to rebuild the country. Eastern European countries had to pay huge compensations to Soviets and could not say yes to the aid.

I leave in a country which said no.

They don't need Aid, they need peace and free trade.

I quote the same site I quoted on the other aid thread
"The total cost to developing countries of restrictions on textile imports into the developed world has been estimated to be some $50 billion a year. This is more or less equivalent to the total amount of annual development assistance provided by Northern governments to the Third World."

"The US, Europe and Japan spend $350 billion each year on agricultural subsidies (seven times as much as global aid to poor countries), and this money creates gluts that lower commodity prices and erode the living standard of the world’s poorest people.

“These subsidies are crippling Africa’s chance to export its way out of poverty,” said James Wolfensohn, the World Bank president, in a speech last month.

Mark Malloch Brown, the head of the United Nations Development Program, estimates that these farm subsidies cost poor countries about $50 billion a year in lost agricultural exports. By coincidence, that’s about the same as the total of rich countries' aid to poor countries, so we take back with our left hand every cent we give with our right."

from http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp#MoreMoneyIsTransferredFromPoorCountriestoRichThanFromRichToPoor

Look at Rwanda. I believe the two tribes were the Hutu and Tutsi(If I get them mixed up forgive, its been a while) The reason the genocide broke out their goes back to colonialism. When the Europeans(Believe it was the Dutch??) colonized that part of Africa they gave the Tutsi's more rights because they were taller, fairer skinned and had whiter features. Tutsi's were the ones that were educated and when the Dutch left they left the Tutsi's in power even though the Tutsi's were a minority. From there we all know what happened, the Hutu's basically revolted, letting hundreds of years of repression out on the Tutsi's. Before the country was colonized though the two tribes had gotten along.

Thats bull altogether. First of. Rwanda was a German colony untill 1918, it was under British/Belgian occupation since 1916, when it became Belgian. The way you tell they lived happily ever after before becoming a colony. The truth of the matter however is that the Tutsi invaded what is now Rwanda in the 13th/14th century and oppressed the Hutu majority ever since. The first violence between the two groups started in the 1950's with the Hutu manifesto meant to emancipate the Hutu majority. In 1959 the Hutu violently revolted overthrowing the Tutsi kingdom. As a result the Tutsi where chased into the neighbouring countries.

Foreign aid is not the most effective way to aid development. Sincerity and fair trade on the part of developed nations are.

Has some one been listening to Al Franken show? First off why shouldn't the U.S. Give aid by way of offering U.S. products such as rehydration meds. Beggars shouldn't be choosers.
The beggars could become something else if they could choose the meds they want to use. USA demands that if they want the money, it has to be spend on very expensive American drugs. The difference between the cost of the meds is
American: 15 000$/year
Brasilian: 350$/year
(from Thalif Deen, Tied Aid Strangling Nations, Says U.N, Inter Press Service, July 6, 2004)

Your not helping Africans, you're giving your tax money to American companies.

The beggars could become something else if they could choose the meds they want to use. USA demands that if they want the money, it has to be spend on very expensive American drugs. The difference between the cost of the meds is
American: 15 000$/year
Brasilian: 350$/year
(from Thalif Deen, Tied Aid Strangling Nations, Says U.N, Inter Press Service, July 6, 2004)

Your not helping Africans, you're giving your tax money to American companies.
And as soon as some one want to give money with no strings attached they will be wise to by the less expensive drugs. However I maintain that aid is not a god given right. They can have what we choose to give or refuse to accept it. I'm all for charity but I find demands for charity unjust. It is not right to ask the wealthy to go broke supporting the poor.

Tell that to the nice people in Connecticut. They have taxes on items of personal property. I believe Maine also charges excise tax yearly on some items of personal property.

Isolated examples.

Over 3 million people is an isolated example? :rolleyes:
(I live in Connecticut.)

And as soon as some one want to give money with no strings attached they will be wise to by the less expensive drugs. However I maintain that aid is not a god given right. They can have what we choose to give or refuse to accept it. I'm all for charity but I find demands for charity unjust. It is not right to ask the wealthy to go broke supporting the poor.
You rather give 15 000$ to American companies than 350$ to foreign companies? Which way is going to make you broke?

I agree that private donations can be addressed to where ever one wants to. But the aid US government is giving is abuse of taxpayers money. 70% of the "aid" US government gives, is earmarked. The receivers have to spend it on American products. I think it's wrong for the American taxpayers to be forced to give so much money to domestic corporations.

I will say this in defense of poorer countries, It is silly to expect them to repay loans while they are still in need of aid. We should all be sensible enough not to demand repayment and in the next moment write another check.

You rather give 15 000$ to American companies than 350$ to foreign companies? Which way is going to make you broke?

I agree that private donations can be addressed to where ever one wants to. But the aid US government is giving is abuse of taxpayers money. 70% of the "aid" US government gives, is earmarked. The receivers have to spend it on American products. I think it's wrong for the American taxpayers to be forced to give so much money to domestic corporations.
There is a difference between giving and paying. We are giving to poorer countries to pay our workers for drugs. I think it's wrong for tax payer money to be given to anyone. Period. I should have the right to decide who I give my money to. Personally I would not choose to give my money to coutries who stone women for the sin of adultry and so forth.

Its not just that people are discouraged over the corruption and lack of impact that aid (the good kind) has, its just that Africa is fundamentally screwed. Like Whispering Legs said, parts of that continent have 70-80% HIV/AIDS infection rate. It is my belief that we're riding on an AIDS bubble, which will soon burst and result in several million deaths in a very short period of time.

Such a loss of populace would be devestating to even an industrialized and modern country, much less the backwards coup-prone "republics" of Africa. They have little industry, poor infrastructure, and many of them insist on killing each other because they come from a different tribe.

Africa is doomed, plain and simple. Best thing we can hope for is that it'll be a nice quick death, which would allow other countries (namely India and China) to export their citizens there and repopulate. Of course this would put them in control of one of the great resource nodes, but I think they can do a better job of it than the Africans.best not give china that much territory or they'll turn it into a second Tibet ...
just saw bono on tv, adressing the eu and asking for more funding!
is that guy out of his mind? if he wants their debts cleared and let them get more financial aid and such why the fudge doesn't he pay for it himself?!

There is a difference between giving and paying. We are giving to poorer countries to pay our workers for drugs. I think it's wrong for tax payer money to be given to anyone. Period. I should have the right to decide who I give my money to. Personally I would not choose to give my money to coutries who stone women for the sin of adultry and so forth.
heh, that's exactly where most of your money is going to...

More to this diamond conversation. I haven't read any of it yet. But I just read something relating in Time. Gold, coltan, fish and waters are all causing trouble. And of course, oil.

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005/06/02/congo11041.htm

+more from Time (can't find the article)
...while more recently activists have highlightes the exploitation of coltan, a rare mineral used in cell phones. The next targets? Fish and water, says Alex Yearsley, a campaigner with London based NGO Global Witness. Yearsley says that predatory looting of Africa's oceans assets could destabilize already fragile societies. Tanzanian president Benjamin Mkapa says there is a lot of resentment among people who see themselves left with the scales and bones while all the flesh is taken away to Europe. Conflict fish?

heh, that's exactly where most of your money is going to...
mine? I doubt that happens in Isreal stones many people or Egypt for that matter.

mine? I doubt that happens in Isreal stones many people or Egypt for that matter.
Well neither's civil rights history is something to be proud of...

top ten recipients
1. Egypt
2. Russia
3. Iraq
4. Congo (dem reb)
5. Israel
6. Pakistan
7. Jordan
8. Colombia
9. Afghanistan
10. Ethiopia
(http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/30/1860571.gif)

well, Nigeria isn't on the top ten...
Anyway people on those countries need even more help than people who live in more peaceful countries. No one says that the money should go through governments. Finland traditionally aids Nepal and after some recent incidents some said that we shouldn't give them any help before the situation changes. I think that's stupid. Now they need help more than ever. Starving population will not rebel against oppressive leaders.

Well neither's civil rights history is something to be proud of...

top ten recipients
1. Egypt
2. Russia
3. Iraq
4. Congo (dem reb)
5. Israel
6. Pakistan
7. Jordan
8. Colombia
9. Afghanistan
10. Ethiopia
(http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/30/1860571.gif)

well, Nigeria isn't on the top ten...
Anyway people on those countries need even more help than people who live in more peaceful countries. No one says that the money should go through governments. Finland traditionally aids Nepal and after some recent incidents some said that we shouldn't give them any help before the situation changes. I think that's stupid. Now they need help more than ever. Starving population will not rebel against oppressive leaders.
While the amount of aid from some countries such as the US might look very generous in sheer dollar terms (ignoring the percentage issue for the moment), the World Bank also points out that at the World Economic Forum in New York, February 2002, “[US Senator Patrick] Leahy noted that two-thirds of US government aid goes to only two countries: Israel and Egypt. Much of the remaining third is used to promote US exports or to fight a war against drugs that could only be won by tackling drug abuse in the United States.”

source (http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp#MoreMoneyIsTransferredFromPoorCountriestoRichThanFromRichToPoor)

What country on this planet has had it's share of ugly history. As far as not sending the money through gov'ts, it's not entirely the gov'ts that carring out human rights violations. Citizen of many countries are just as guilty. It's like blame the U.S. gov't for the lack of gey rights in the U.S.

What country on this planet has had it's share of ugly history. As far as not sending the money through gov'ts, it's not entirely the gov'ts that carring out human rights violations. Citizen of many countries are just as guilty. It's like blame the U.S. gov't for the lack of gey rights in the U.S.
True. But I still don't understand why you wouldn't want to help people who live in countries where such horrid actions take place? Do they have to suffer because of few fanatics?

edit. btw that chart was from the same site. I guess those figures change every year. (as Israel was not number 2 on that stat)

True. But I still don't understand why you wouldn't want to help people who live in countries where such horrid actions take place? Do they have to suffer because of few fanatics?

edit. btw that chart was from the same site. I guess those figures change every year. (as Israel was not number 2 on that stat)
When it's a currupt gov't? yes. Giving aid to currupt leaders will not encourage reform. And it increases the chance of that aid going into the wrong pockets.

In the case of a few fanatics? no.
How ever the beating of women (http://www.hrw.org/women/) cannot be laid at the feet of a few fanatics. Nor state sanctioned death sentences.
I've been awake a long time and having trouble finding a decent source for the killing of women because of sexual mores.

I've been awake too long. I apologize for all the misspellings and chopped off words. I'm going to bed. I would like to continue the conversation later though.

heh, that's exactly where most of your money is going to...

Helio, plenty of women are beaten to death in Western countries - women who die in a silent war waged by their husbands and boyfriends.

Every Western country has them, and despite government efforts to stop it, it isn't even slowing down. It's a product of our society and our male/female roles.

I would be willing to bet that more women were beaten to death in the UK or Europe last year than were stoned to death in Saudi Arabia.

...while more recently activists have highlightes the exploitation of coltan, a rare mineral used in cell phones. The next targets? Fish and water, says Alex Yearsley, a campaigner with London based NGO Global Witness. Yearsley says that predatory looting of Africa's oceans assets could destabilize already fragile societies. Tanzanian president Benjamin Mkapa says there is a lot of resentment among people who see themselves left with the scales and bones while all the flesh is taken away to Europe. Conflict fish?

This NGO is not being honest about its motives. Their real aim is to eliminate global trade.

Helio, plenty of women are beaten to death in Western countries - women who die in a silent war waged by their husbands and boyfriends.

Every Western country has them, and despite government efforts to stop it, it isn't even slowing down. It's a product of our society and our male/female roles.

I would be willing to bet that more women were beaten to death in the UK or Europe last year than were stoned to death in Saudi Arabia.
Like I didn't know that. Finland is one of the worst countries. I'm willing to bet that more Finnish women were killed by their ex or current husbands than were stoned in Saudi Arabia. And there are only 5 million Finns.

I don't really see how it's related to this issue.

When it's a currupt gov't? yes. Giving aid to currupt leaders will not encourage reform. And it increases the chance of that aid going into the wrong pockets.

In the case of a few fanatics? no.
How ever the beating of women (http://www.hrw.org/women/) cannot be laid at the feet of a few fanatics. Nor state sanctioned death sentences.
I've been awake a long time and having trouble finding a decent source for the killing of women because of sexual mores.
I'm lost.
Of course I'm not supporting stonings, honour killings or beatings. Those take place all ovet the world. ok, if you won't help any men because of this, why would you refuse to help the women? Many organisations a) concentrate on helping women b) try to do something about the violence against women
Why not help through these programs? Is denying the aid from these countries going to change things for the better?

i'm not sure how well this would go over, but here's an idea:

We scrutinize all African countries and decide which have the most stable economies, means of production, labor forces, production capacity, agricultural solvency (i mean food), stable regime/government, education/literacy rates, business acumen, etc.

There's hopefully at least one such country in each major area of Africa.

Maybe these stand-out/stable countries could be wooed into helping their poor regional neighbors to re-build, starting with food, free elections (and hopefully resulting stable government), education, infrastructure and medicine. I mean they should show them how to operate such necessary systems on a national level.

If Poor Africa is really not willing to accept monetary aid directly from us, maybe they'll be willing to accept the aid of nearby stable African countries.

We could direct our financial contributions to these model African helper-states.

Unfortunetly, many of the african nations deemed "stable" by the rest of the world, are still struggling within themselves. I speak from experience. Democracy might look good on paper from the other side of the world, but in reality, Democracy is still struggling to take root in Africa.

i'm not sure how well this would go over, but here's an idea:

We scrutinize all African countries and decide which have the most stable economies, means of production, labor forces, production capacity, agricultural solvency (i mean food), stable regime/government, education/literacy rates, business acumen, etc.

There's hopefully at least one such country in each major area of Africa.

Maybe these stand-out/stable countries could be wooed into helping their poor regional neighbors to re-build, starting with food, free elections (and hopefully resulting stable government), education, infrastructure and medicine. I mean they should show them how to operate such necessary systems on a national level.

If Poor Africa is really not willing to accept monetary aid directly from us, maybe they'll be willing to accept the aid of nearby stable African countries.

We could direct our financial contributions to these model African helper-states.
African union? I believe it's becoming more and more significant to the continent all the time. I think it could work.

+free trade

We could almost stop giving straight aid if we just stop treating them differently than other countries. We demand that they can't give any subsidies to their business but we won't stop giving it to ours.

Add in the fact that foreign intervention on a similar scale to what you propose is why Argentina's government collapsed in 2001 and the economy was left in shambles, I'd personally rather not see that sort of action taken in Africa.

Free Trade is a big damn joke, it supports the already stable Western government and makes commodities out of public assets and gene types. Real great idea. Global trade is a good thing, its just the power of corporations is disturbing especially the idea in the US that they have person-hood, there was a real stroke of genius.

Unfortunetly, many of the african nations deemed "stable" by the rest of the world, are still struggling within themselves. I speak from experience. Democracy might look good on paper from the other side of the world, but in reality, Democracy is still struggling to take root in Africa.
To be honest, I don't think that democracy is the only option for a stable nation. People usually want rapid changes but those are impossible and usually cause even more instability and poverty. Slow and small steps towards democracy would be ideal (if the current leader is not someone like Mugabe...then there's no other options than revolution)

Add in the fact that foreign intervention on a similar scale to what you propose is why Argentina's government collapsed in 2001 and the economy was left in shambles, I'd personally rather not see that sort of action taken in Africa.

Free Trade is a big damn joke, it supports the already stable Western government and makes commodities out of public assets and gene types. Real great idea. Global trade is a good thing, its just the power of corporations is disturbing especially the idea in the US that they have person-hood, there was a real stroke of genius.
It is a joke because western countries are not following the rules they have made. WTO forces poor countries to make idiotic decicions in the name of free trade when it has nothing to do with free trade.

Here's my solution: Let Africa Sink (http://www.kimdutoit.com/ee/index.php/essays/let_africa_sink/)

Granted, it wasn't written by me, but I've said the same thing for years.

It's hardly as if us western countries don't have money to burn. The bill should fall at the feet of the governments whose protectionism beggars the developing world.
The government has our money anyway. Relying on charity removes the burden of redressing the balance from the shoulders of the government, and allows people to feel good about themselves for throwing 2p into a bucket once every couple of months. Charitable donations should be compulsory for rich people (like the British and Americans). This would make it more like a tax, so the Govnt. might as well do it.


[Apologies for my crappy explaining, I'm very sleepy.]

I've no idea what your point was in quoting me Helioterra, you kinda just reinforced me views/statement which is good I guess... it isn't just that though, go do research.

More aid? Ahahahahhahah!!!!
Oh wait, they're serious? So am I

Concerning aid to africa, and essay by a canadian, on zimbabwe and the american 2nd amendment.

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/006986.php

Zimbabwe Changed My Mind: Guns Are A Human Right
by Joe Katzman at June 10, 2005 11:48 AM

As many of you know, I'm from Canada. We have a pretty different attitude to guns up here, and I must say that American gun culture has always kind of puzzled me. To me, one no more had a right to a gun than one did to a car.

Well, my mind has changed. Changed to the point where I see gun ownership as being a slightly qualified but universal global human right. A month ago in Yalta, Freedom & The Future, I wrote:

"Frankly, if "stopping... societies from becoming the homicidal hells Mr. Bush described in his Latvia speech" is our goal, I'm becoming more sympathetic to the Right to Bear Arms as a universal human right on par with freedom of speech and religion. U.S. Secretary of State Condi Rice's personal experience as a child in Birmingham [Alabama] adds an interesting dimension; I hope she talks about this abroad."

This week, I took the last step. You can thank Robert Mugabe, too, because it was his campaign to starve his political/tribal opponents and Pol-Pot style "ruralization" effort (200,000 left homeless recently in a population of 12.6 million) that finally convinced me. Here's the crux, the argument before which all other arguments pale into insignificance:

The Right to Bear Arms is the only reliable way to prevent genocide in the modern world.

And Zimbabwe is the poster child for that proposition. So let's start with what's going on:

* Zimbabwe's Slo-Mo Genocide
* Bystanders of the World
* The Dynamics of (In)Action
* Or Else Get Weapons: The Right to Bear Arms


The rest is just as good, read all of it.

It's hardly as if us western countries don't have money to burn. The bill should fall at the feet of the governments whose protectionism beggars the developing world.
The government has our money anyway. Relying on charity removes the burden of redressing the balance from the shoulders of the government, and allows people to feel good about themselves for throwing 2p into a bucket once every couple of months. Charitable donations should be compulsory for rich people (like the British and Americans). This would make it more like a tax, so the Govnt. might as well do it.


[Apologies for my crappy explaining, I'm very sleepy.]

Aha. So I'm responsible for people I don't know in another land?

Yeah, right.

Go buy a house, start a family and then talk to me about where my money should go. :p

I'm lost.
Of course I'm not supporting stonings, honour killings or beatings. Those take place all ovet the world. ok, if you won't help any men because of this, why would you refuse to help the women? Many organisations a) concentrate on helping women b) try to do something about the violence against women
Why not help through these programs? Is denying the aid from these countries going to change things for the better?
I'm refusing to support societies who tolerate such obvious human rights violations openly. I do not want my money given to citizens of any nation that would treat me as second class citizens. Women's rights are an easy example of this. And as a matter of fact I do wish to help those women, I give to Human Rights Watch. I do more here at home. I thankfully live in a society where the basic rights of people are highly valued and it's frankly easier to help those who need it. There is still racism, homophobia and sexism in the U.S. but very few people who belive that the murder or oppression of people is acceptable. It's not nationalist protectionism it's values protectionism. Perhaps it's cold to dismiss the suffering of people who happen to be far away but I recognize that I am in fact one person so I have chosen reasonable path and goals. I commend anyone who chooses to go to Africa to right the wrongs there. And welcome anyone who wants to give money to do the same so long as they make an effort to see that their money is really going where they want it too.

Actually you should scorn the people who go to Africa to be all helpful, as was mentioned earlier it costs more to get such foreigners into those countries then it would to simply hire a local and get them to do the work. Fundraising trips abroad, "Give me money and I'll climb Everrest", that sort of thing are another great waste as the money needed to send those people there would be better spent and is normally more than the actual money raised.

It is difficult to strike a balance between looking after your own back yard and then going to someone elses to stop them from doing the same, such a balance is lacking in the world. People foced into oppressive situations are not going to be adverse to taking action because when there's nothing to lose and everything to gain killing people becomes... simpler and more black and white.

Just go check the Bolivian news.

I'm refusing to support societies who tolerate such obvious human rights violations openly. I do not want my money given to citizens of any nation that would treat me as second class citizens. Women's rights are an easy example of this. And as a matter of fact I do wish to help those women, I give to Human Rights Watch. I do more here at home...
Alright, so you're helping. I'm not confused anymore :)

I've no idea what your point was in quoting me Helioterra, you kinda just reinforced me views/statement which is good I guess... it isn't just that though, go do research.
I don't know to whom you addressed that post but I thought it was to me.

"Add in the fact that foreign intervention on a similar scale to what you propose"

Probably you weren't writing to me, as I didn't propose any foreign intervention.

I agree that free trade is a joke, but I believe it COULD work if western countries would follow their own rules. If you read the whole tread you'll notice that we've been talking about many problems relating to western "aid" which is beneficial only to westerners. (to be honest, I don't remember if those posts were in this thread or the "America fights against AIDS" (the title was something like "why don't you US bashers talk about this") thread)