NationStates Jolt Archive

Was anyone else banging their head against the wall the past week with G8 and the Live 8 concert demanding more "aid" to Africa? First of all, I want to get this quite clear. IN NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM AM I RACIST! Ok, now that that is out of the way, let me get down to my argument. For the last, what, 60 years? Their has been nothing but Civil War after Civil War after Civil War, and Despot after Despot after Despot in Africa. The entire continent is an economic hell hole. We (we being the industrialized nations of the world), pump in billions and billions of dollers worth of money and aid year after year, with nothing in return. Most of the money we send to these governments is used to buy weapons so the wars continue. We are doing the exact opposite of aiding them. AIDS is running rampent in that country, so what do we do? We spend more money! AIDS IS A PREVENTABLE DIEASE! KEEP YOUR FRIGGIN PANTS ON AND YOU WONT GET AIDS! DON'T SHARE NEEDLES AND YOU WON'T GET AIDS! What is so hard about this? Ah, I know, it's because a certain political party in America is using the AIDS epidemic as an excuse to tax us even more and send our money to a place were we will get no return on the investment and no good will come out of our aid. Want to help Africa? Use economic embargoes to get rid of these governments who are too buzy with genocide to help their citizens! Nothing is going to change in Africa as long as those governments are allowed to stay. No amount of protesting and rocking is going to help these people! No amount of money is going to help these people! Only social reform will, and as long as the governments of the world keep trading and dealing with these leaders, that change is not going to occur, so we will keep sending our money to an financial black hole without helping the people we set out to help. Am I the only one who feels this way?

Most of Africa did not gain its independence until the 50s and 60s, with several nations not achieving independence until the 70s, and a few, such as Namibia, not until the 90s. That's not really enough time to reverse a century of destruction.

Because if we save 1 life it's worth it.

I agree 100%. Sending money to Africa is a waste of tax-payers money and does little or nothing. At the very least we need a MAJOR cange in how money is used and given out to the people of Africa.

I agree, NAS. Nothing can be done to help Africa by us as nations or humans. Any amount of aid sent there often falls into the hands of warlords or doesn't make any real changes. Leave Africa be is what I believe. It will either help itself or collapse from the inside.

In response to Live 8, good intentions, I'm sure. But it'll never solve the real problems.

Was anyone else banging their head against the wall the past week with G8 and the Live 8 concert demanding more "aid" to Africa? First of all, I want to get this quite clear. IN NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM AM I RACIST! Ok, now that that is out of the way, let me get down to my argument. For the last, what, 60 years? Their has been nothing but Civil War after Civil War after Civil War, and Despot after Despot after Despot in Africa.
I don't have much understanding of African history, but I would assume that being transferred to independence from being colonies could be a bit of a shock, especially if they were not set up with a functioning governmmental system beforehand. That is only a guess, though, because I don't know the situation at all.
The entire continent is an economic hell hole. We (we being the industrialized nations of the world), pump in billions and billions of dollers worth of money and aid year after year, with nothing in return.
Well, I personally find it a bit silly to expect that nations that are currently quite undeveloped will be able to gain a profit. In my understanding, they really can't do what many people expect them all to do, which is to function as a fully developed country, because they aren't all fully developed.
Most of the money we send to these governments is used to buy weapons so the wars continue. We are doing the exact opposite of aiding them.
I do agree that the aid is often ending up in the wrong place.
AIDS is running rampent in that country, so what do we do? We spend more money! AIDS IS A PREVENTABLE DIEASE! KEEP YOUR FRIGGIN PANTS ON AND YOU WONT GET AIDS! DON'T SHARE NEEDLES AND YOU WON'T GET AIDS! What is so hard about this?
Well, one problem with that is the fact that many of them don't know that, at least, last time that I heard. They don't all have access to the Internet and such, so they don't all get the information that we take for granted. Also, there isn't much by way of AIDS testing, so even if they do keep their pants on until marriage, they could still get AIDS due to their partner either having contracted it him/herself, or from being born with it.
Ah, I know, it's because a certain political party in America is using the AIDS epidemic as an excuse to tax us even more and send our money to a place were we will get no return on the investment and no good will come out of our aid. Want to help Africa? Use economic embargoes to get rid of these governments who are too buzy with genocide to help their citizens! Nothing is going to change in Africa as long as those governments are allowed to stay. No amount of protesting and rocking is going to help these people! No amount of money is going to help these people! Only social reform will, and as long as the governments of the world keep trading and dealing with these leaders, that change is not going to occur, so we will keep sending our money to an financial black hole without helping the people we set out to help. Am I the only one who feels this way?
I do agree that the many of the current regimes over there are not very good ones, at least if what I have heard is true. But I really have no clue what it is that would best help the African people.

Well, that's a big topic in more ways than one. And I disagree with some what you say, i.e. money won't help these people. It's all in how it's spent.

Where I agree with you is that our track record with aid money is poor, and many recipients completely waste what they are given. We're expecting too much from money - it won't bring significant reform, just provide help in getting there.

Every country has different needs - it isn't one big nation, rather many with different problems.

Rather than quit aid entirely, let's spend the money directly depending on the need of the nation. Want education? We'll educate your college students and give you trained people to manage your country? Need infrastructure? We'll hire the contractors and supervise them directly. Shortage of schools? We'll get them built and staffed. Specific programs for specific needs. No more palace building.

I think some of these countries have addiction issues with the cash the west throws around. They'll never get it together as long as the annual welfare check arrives in the mail.

Morally bankrupt tyrants don't get any except under unusual circumstances. And money given should have concrete conditions on what it should be spent on - with audits to force compliance. They waste that money and they get no more - that's an incentive-builder.

It may sound corny, but catch a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime.

The people of Africa spent a century without any say in their government. Teaching them how to run a government and providing incentives to farm will do a lot more than well meaning but misguided aid.

Most of Africa did not gain its independence until the 50s and 60s, with several nations not achieving independence until the 70s, and a few, such as Namibia, not until the 90s. That's not really enough time to reverse a century of destruction.
"Century of destruction"? Africa (at least the British parts) was in much better shape before independence. They've done the damage, they should fix it. No more aid except for emergency aid. AIDS is entirely preventable if a few measures were taken:
1) Thabo Mbeki & co. to realise that his hated enemy, the evil, satanic white man, is correct and AIDS is caused by HIV. This is spread through lack of condoms and a culture of raping anything that moves. Traditional medicines don't work.
2) Aid money should be spent on retrovirals not on the president's new merc
3) Everything is not the West's fault and more sympathy would be forthcoming if Africa admitted it causes most of its own problems

The EU and the US should cut their subsidies, I think its disgusting that a farmer in Europe, who could easily get a job elsewhere (In some countries, like the UK, Spain, but you might want to wait a while for the rest of the EU)
are paid by the government to make their products profitable! Thats not fair, the government should have done that for the Internet bubble companies if they're going to do that for farmers!

The resources sent for aid are often intercepted and used to further the aims of the criminals, and their wars. It rarely gets to the people.

The original poster mentioned AIDS..In Africa, men'll screw virgins in the belief that it'll cure AIDS, which it obviously doesn't, and causes AIDS to spread even faster.

From what I understand, most of the problems they have are of their own doing, and I don't feel that any country should feel obligated to help them, if they can't help themselves, first.

and a culture of raping anything that moves.

Just like Britain has a culture of setting up concentration camps?

That was just a sick weapon of war invented by militias and corrupt governments that purposely brings down the political and social welfare of the other side.

"Century of destruction"? Africa (at least the British parts) was in much better shape before independence. They've done the damage, they should fix it. No more aid except for emergency aid. AIDS is entirely preventable if a few measures were taken:
1) Thabo Mbeki & co. to realise that his hated enemy, the evil, satanic white man, is correct and AIDS is caused by HIV. This is spread through lack of condoms and a culture of raping anything that moves. Traditional medicines don't work.
2) Aid money should be spent on retrovirals not on the president's new merc
3) Everything is not the West's fault and more sympathy would be forthcoming if Africa admitted it causes most of its own problems
They would be better off, hwoever Africa was doing fine until we came and took it over, we basically raped the content, took it;'s good and then left it.

Take it one step further...

Is it not condescending to assume that African nations need our money because, well, they're Africans and kinda ignorant?

And are we giving them money because, well, it's like a good thing to help poor people - all the other nations and the liberals will like you if you're nice, right?

So we send them a few billion with a nice card that says "we're thinking of you, have a nice year."

Why not evaluate our entire aid program? Is it possible that we're sending guilt money to Africa that maybe could be better spent elsewhere, but we're too PC to consider that?

"Century of destruction"? Africa (at least the British parts) was in much better shape before independence. They've done the damage, they should fix it. No more aid except for emergency aid. AIDS is entirely preventable if a few measures were taken:
1) Thabo Mbeki & co. to realise that his hated enemy, the evil, satanic white man, is correct and AIDS is caused by HIV. This is spread through lack of condoms and a culture of raping anything that moves. Traditional medicines don't work.
2) Aid money should be spent on retrovirals not on the president's new merc
3) Everything is not the West's fault and more sympathy would be forthcoming if Africa admitted it causes most of its own problems
Belgian Congo anyone?

Aid perhaps should be distributed to the private sector in Africa (Depending wether its a country that has one) As we know. the private sector is usually more capable with spending money than the public sector.

I read a story about a woman in India that they gave a loan to to start her own business. She bought a mobile phone. She charges other people in her village to use it rather than the unreliable fixed line telephones in India. The business was doing well so she bought more phones. She set up shop in neighbouring villages, employed people etc, etc.

Is that not the way to go? (I know its a little optimistic that it will always work out that way, especially considering that India has a very free democratic government, but it's still better than the current system.

Well, I am very glad to see that people agree with me on this issue, both liberals and conservatives. I guess there are some things both sides can agree on, eh?

Well, I am very glad to see that people agree with me on this issue, both liberals and conservatives. I guess there are some things both sides can agree on, eh?

I don't think we should fund corrupt dictatorships. I think the African people need help but we are not helping by funding their oppressors

Well, I am very glad to see that people agree with me on this issue, both liberals and conservatives. I guess there are some things both sides can agree on, eh?

There were a couple of excellent threads last week on this topic. I was also surprised (and pleased) to see how close political opposites were on this. Could actually have a serious and productive discussion on how best to implement aid.

It may sound corny, but catch a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime.

The people of Africa spent a century without any say in their government. Teaching them how to run a government and providing incentives to farm will do a lot more than well meaning but misguided aid.


I agree- well said.

Dumping money down a rat hole isnt the answer.

Teaching the people how to improve their own lives and those of their children is. Is welfare working? No-its creating generations of people that expect a hand out, when they would be a hell of a lot better off being trained,educated and then assisted in job placement. Help give people a chance at running their own show-give them a dream they can attain and appreciate and be proud of.

Belgian Congo anyone?
Note I said the British part. What the Belgians did is indefensible but I did not refer to them

Just like Britain has a culture of setting up concentration camps?

That was just a sick weapon of war invented by militias and corrupt governments that purposely brings down the political and social welfare of the other side.
The UK set up concentration camps in thye Boer War, I'll admit that. However, these were more like holding pens, not Auschwitz stlye death camps. I'm not saying we didn't make mistakes in the empire but we've made far fewer mistakes than the African nations since independemce. The concentration camps were used to stop the Boer women and children aiding their men in the Boer war. This was a mistake and many people died. However, the UK learned from this and his not repeated this since. Your claims of "a sick weapon of war invented by militias and corrupt governments that purposely brings down the political and social welfare of the other side" seem like a well rehearsed rant rather than a proper argument

They would be better off, hwoever Africa was doing fine until we came and took it over, we basically raped the content, took it;'s good and then left it.
We took jungle and left civilization. Slavery was started by the arabs and the africans sold their own people into slavery so don't try and pin that one on the UK. Africa was not doing fine before the empire and millions of africans who would not be alive except for us would agree.

Care to reply anyone?

Here's how I see us fixing Africa.

Currently the one thing Africa can actually produce with any ease is agriculture. Farming is a relatively simple practice that the people there can fairly easily undertake. It is irrelevant whether or not we put Africa in poverty. Instead, it is time for us to realize that our own trade practices, especially in farming, are keeping Africa from fully developing.

Case in point: The CAP, or Common Agricultural Policy for Europe. It's a method of subsidizing food production in Europe to make sure that Europe remains self-sufficient. What does that mean for Europeans? Their governments take their tax money and use it to pay farmers to sell their goods cheap enough that they can undercut any business. Tie this in with tariffs against outside farming producers and it guarantees that European farmers feed Europeans.

This sounds fine, but it inevitably causes problems for people in Africa. Europe, with its higher cost of living, would be an excellent place for Third World producers to sell crops and actually maintain a successful agricultual business rather than just subsistence farming. This, in turn, would put money into local African economies as these farmers begin to want to use the money they make to buy other things. Essentially, if the CAP were dismantled, Africa would begin to fix itself, and Europeans wouldn't lose their money to subsidize inefficient farming. In fact, if that money were given back to Europeans or put into social programs, Europe's growth rate would probably start to pick up again.

However, Europe is not the only place engaging in unfair trade practices that hurt Africa. The United States maintains the right to subsidize or put tariffs on any item for "national security" purposes. Most notoriously, the US has subsidized sugar production in Wyoming while putting tariffs against sugar imports. Sugar is another great crop for fledging farmers to grow, but they are cut off from a whole extra market where they could compete for better prices on their goods. The result is similar to the CAP. The American government spends taxpayers' dollars subsidizing the farming industry, which costs the average American money, and meanwhile the Third World farmer can't make the money he should.

If these trade practices were revised and the whole globe was given a chance at free trade, we would see three immediate positive results:

1) Governments of developed countries would no longer have to spend money subsidizing industries, which would mean more money to pay down debt, to fund social programs or to give back to the people in the form of tax cuts, depending on their political slants.

2) People in developed countries would be able to get basic items like food cheaper because there would be no tariffs stopping cheap goods from reaching their grocery stores. This in turn would leave them with more money to spend on other things and as a result would grow the economies of developed countries even more.

3) The Third World would become a market worth investing in. Farmers in the Third World would start to have disposable income, which would mean there would be demand in Africa, which would be filled by either start-up African businesses or direct foreign investment, either of which would provide jobs for more Africans, which would create a cycle of demand that would propel Africa forward.

However, this solution is not without its losers. We're talking about a mass agricultural outsourcing. This means farmers in the developed world will lose their jobs. Overall, their nations will be better for it, but they personally will suffer, much like those who lost their jobs in the Industrial Revolution due to mechanization. Remember though, we have progressive countries. There is a social safety net here for those who lose their jobs, whereas those who can't get a job in Africa starve to death. We can get the people who lose jobs here back into the workforce, which is more than African governments can do right now for a variety of reasons.

This should be a simple case of special interests. Our governments are propping up industries that can't survive on their own, which is something we as a people frown upon. Meanwhile, others are starving, another thing we frown upon. This should be a matter of forcing our farmers to play fair on the world market, yet we refuse to make it one, and as a result, Africa stays poor and our pockets are getting drained to subsidize our farmers.

Note: Not the first time this has been posted.

This is a reply to the very first post on the topic.

You can't just say all of the money goes to paying for weapons, and also where did you get that from about people pumping billions and billions of pounds into Africa, we had concerts because they don't get enough. Everyone should be equal, and to turn our backs of a whole continent that needs our help is totally immoral. It isn't the people of Africa who want to fight, they want to farm and have lives. It's the governments of Africa who exploit the population, taking children from their homes and making them use a gun and take other peoples lives. I say the governments of Africa go, and money go to the people who live under the poverty line, who can't afford even to buy food. You should think more before posting such an incorrect, right winged, controversial piece of crap.

This is a reply to the very first post on the topic.

You can't just say all of the money goes to paying for weapons, and also where did you get that from about people pumping billions and billions of pounds into Africa, we had concerts because they don't get enough. Everyone should be equal, and to turn our backs of a whole continent that needs our help is totally immoral. It isn't the people of Africa who want to fight, they want to farm and have lives. It's the governments of Africa who exploit the population, taking children from their homes and making them use a gun and take other peoples lives. I say the governments of Africa go, and money go to the people who live under the poverty line, who can't afford even to buy food. You should think more before posting such an incorrect, right winged, controversial piece of crap.
Why not make trade fairer and allow Africa to EARN its improvement. Something given is not as valued as something earned. Let Africa pull itself out of its pit like others have done, through trade.

The Genocide in african countries also involved rape. Such actions are prone to spread STD's. To help africa, we have to help them set up a solid law enforcement in the country. We also need to spend directly on the medicine and deliver THAT over, not trust the government officials to buy the medicine. I also believe it is worthwhile to help countries in deep poverty, like all those in africa.

Africa was no means to help itself at the moment. The most we can do is help get them on their feet through job oppurtunities and setting up trade relations with them.

One point on farming. Farm subsidies could be argued affect freetrade. However thanks to animal welfare, foot and mouth disease, health and saftey etc. western farmers spend lots of money that African farmers don't have to. If you want to have freetrade then you need a level playing field. If western farmers are to give up their subsidies then African farmers must conform to western regulation on animal welfare and health and saftey. Without doing that we are damning are own farmers to be throttled by the very legisaltion we have introduced. The only other option would be to dropping such regulation in the west. One or the other I'm afraid. Battery eggs anyone?

Here's how I see us fixing Africa.

Currently the one thing Africa can actually produce with any ease is agriculture.

<snip>

This should be a simple case of special interests. Our governments are propping up industries that can't survive on their own, which is something we as a people frown upon. Meanwhile, others are starving, another thing we frown upon. This should be a matter of forcing our farmers to play fair on the world market, yet we refuse to make it one, and as a result, Africa stays poor and our pockets are getting drained to subsidize our farmers.

Note: Not the first time this has been posted.

While complete international free market economy is a worthy objective, and one that I conceptually support, might it work better from a practical standpoint to first analyze how capable the markets are nationally and regionally in Africa? I see you have knowledge in this area, is this anything you could help with?

I'm thinking largely of solving infrastructure issues, transportation, warehousing, ports, etc. In general, make sure there are no regional barriers to trade and no food deficiency issues before turning Africa into the bread basket of Europe.

If I'm coming across as critical of your concept, be assured I'm not. I also want to make it clear I have no particular skill in the area of economics. But I continually find myself coming back to the enormity of the problem of finding the way to integrating the world, including Africa.

I feel that we don't even have a proper analysis of which countries need aid, let alone on how they need it. And then developing a set of objectives and ordering aid priorities, which is a very practical sort of thing which I find interesting.

Surely AID is only given out in exchange for things. Governments are accountable to their own voters not for Foreigners there not a charity. AID is usually in exchange for things like contracts for infastructure or mineral resourse.s If you'll pardon the phrase there's is no such thing as a free lunch.

While complete international free market economy is a worthy objective, and one that I conceptually support, might it work better from a practical standpoint to first analyze how capable the markets are nationally and regionally in Africa? I see you have knowledge in this area, is this anything you could help with?

I'm thinking largely of solving infrastructure issues, transportation, warehousing, ports, etc. In general, make sure there are no regional barriers to trade and no food deficiency issues before turning Africa into the bread basket of Europe.

If I'm coming across as critical of your concept, be assured I'm not. I also want to make it clear I have no particular skill in the area of economics. But I continually find myself coming back to the enormity of the problem of finding the way to integrating the world, including Africa.

I feel that we don't even have a proper analysis of which countries need aid, let alone on how they need it. And then developing a set of objectives and ordering aid priorities, which is a very practical sort of thing which I find interesting.

To be honest, Africa does not have a lot of the benefits that we have in the developed world, both in terms of natural and manufactured resources. That said, they do have an advantage over us in one area of the market: they'll do anything to make some money. This sounds harsh, but the simple fact is that they will accept less pay than any Westerner would, which would make Africa a very attractive place for a lot of businesses. Some would complain that these businesses would pay the people peanuts, but remember that right now they get paid nothing, so peanuts would be an improvement. Not only would this improve the immediate situation for the people in Africa, it would allow them to start to develop the infrastructure necessary to establish things like trade unions and strong governments.

We should use the Industrial Revolution as an example. Yes, conditions were deplorable, but it started the movement towards unions and the modern society that we live in today. Compare this route with the option of letting them continue to starve and die of AIDS. Clearly triggering an African Industrial Revolution would be an improvement over the current system, in both the short term and the long term, and the best way to do that is to open up as many opportunities as possible for them to produce.

So what happens to us? Well as it is policies like the CAP only continue to exist because farmers need something to compensate for the inherent inefficiencies of the system. The CAP actually produces more food than Europe uses every year and dumping laws prevent them from doing anything other than letting them go to waste. This is what the average European's tax dollars go to. The United States and Japan do similar things. Canada's system is unique, and I'm not quite sure whether or not it's as bad as the other Western systems, but it does subsidize its own farmers, which means higher taxes for all of us in the Western world. In reality, humanity will naturally produce enough food to feed everyone with the cash to pay for it. The trick is getting everyone that bare minimum necessary to pay for food. At that point, humanity will create enough food to feed everyone, unless we run out of land first.

Let's be clear, if we are going to target the areas of the African economy that we know will take off, we have to take advantage of the fact that their desperate and will do anything for pay. We have a chance to create infrastructure in Africa simply by letting them work. What do we stand to lose? Inefficient traditional industries. Farmers, auto manufacturers, menial jobs will go to Africans who can do them for cheaper. They get the money they need to eat, and we get lower taxes and cheaper goods. If nothing else, the money we save in the Western can go towards helping people who lose jobs in the globalization process, so that everyone wins.

In the end, globalization is the simple, inexpensive way that we can help Africa. We don't have to give them large sums of money or aid: just let them do what they want to do, and what they want to do is work to feed their families. If we give them another option for survival next to pillaging and looting, I'm betting they would take it. We'd see the stablization of Africa and its integration into the rest of the world.

Because if we save 1 life it's worth it.

:) Good to see someone on here who thinks that human life is precious

we cant abandon africa. there will be hell to pay when millions of unloved unparented children grow to adulthood because of the aids crisis

we need to stop throwing money at corrupt governments and find ways to spend it to the benefit of the people.

Most of Africa did not gain its independence until the 50s and 60s, with several nations not achieving independence until the 70s, and a few, such as Namibia, not until the 90s. That's not really enough time to reverse a century of destruction.

Then explain how Pinochet was able to take Chile, which was on the brink of utter ruin under Allende (several hundred percent inflation, massive unemployment and debt, etc.) and turn it into an economic powerhouse in the space of a few years. Africans had plenty of time to reverse the destruction. Their leaders just suck, is all.

I agree 100%. Sending money to Africa is a waste of tax-payers money and does little or nothing. At the very least we need a MAJOR cange in how money is used and given out to the people of Africa.I disagree that it does little or nothing. It does a great deal of harm. Just ask this guy (http://www.charlesadler.com/index.php?p=latestnews&action=view_story&id=1345).

It may sound corny, but catch a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime.

The people of Africa spent a century without any say in their government. Teaching them how to run a government and providing incentives to farm will do a lot more than well meaning but misguided aid.Farming does not require incentives. To suggest so is to say that it's not otherwise worth doing. There are two reasons that agriculture sucks in Africa.
1. Lack of private property rights - you need land to grow food.
2. Farmers can't compete with the free food we send.

African AIDS is a scam, BTW.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/suprynowicz/suprynowicz15.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/spectator/spec192.html

As much as the African political scene disgusts me at this moment, I highly recommend you do not bang your head against the wall every time your government does something silly, for you will not have many brain cells left. :p

This topic is terribly flawed and morally bankrupt.

It is sickening to think that human beings would be so selfish and uncaring towards their fellow human beings. One must realize that a great many Africans work harder than almost any American for their entire life (no/scarcely enforced child labor laws, rock-bottom minimum wage, etc.) and get nowhere. I mean, honestly. I work four hours a day on minimum wage and would be a rich man in most other countries. And I seem to remember a time when it was not uncommon in the United States to have quite large families. You can't just expect somebody to hold back their natural and ingrained desire for intercourse in the absence of information warning against it.

And what kind of moral high ground to europeans and americans have? Never mind the fact that the United States committed genocide and practiced slavery, eh? Most African countries have spent a good generation under white colonial rule, where they were taught that the Black African is naturally inferior to the white european and incapable of governing himself. People were discouraged from entering the political process (outright banned from it).

After living under such a system for a number of decades, those former imperial powers began to either attempt to hold onto their colonies through violence and warfare, or cast them off by themselves. Who is supposed to run the country? Nobody knows how to run a democracy, since Black Africans were prohibited from participating in government. Those with power to back them up, like military leaders, seize power and use their military to stay in power.

Too much aid is going into the wrong hands, but that does not mean that the wealthy western world should cease the entire program and allow those same men to continue getting rich and starve millions of others. There is an acute shortage of trained specialists in the fields of medecine, agriculture, science, and politics, and unless someone steps in to help Africans help themselves, the cycle of poverty and disease, perpetuated by poor governance, will continue for an unacceptably long time.

Canceling all foreign aid, besides being insensitive and downright inhumane, would do nothing except worsen the situation.

We could all do a little bit more than sitting at General Forum of NationStates ranting.
When was the last time you made any physical effort/sacrifice to alleviate the troubles of the African masses?

Canceling all foreign aid, besides being insensitive and downright inhumane, would do nothing except worsen the situation.Prove it.

I agree with The Crooked Beat. Let's remember that 'Africa' is a continent of 50+ nations. Many of those nations were created at the whim of European colonialists. For complicated reasons, Europe began a mad dash for technological excellence following the industrial revolution. This drove an already growing imperialism aimed largely at the then 'backward' Africa. Having already been ravaged by slave traders, who let's not forget, took whole generations of people away from their homelands, the continent was taken hostage by a civilisation that had no regard for human rights nor tribal traditions. For 300 years, this mangled mass of nations has been stripped of its dignity, its rights, its sense of self regard and not by any means least, Africa has lost millions of people that may have produced an African Einstein, Newton, Michaelangelo or a Ghandi. If Africa had not been raped and pillaged, it might have had a chance at joining the modern world at the middle of the last century, just as Japan did at its beginning. And we should give thought too, that maybe parts of Africa would have preferred to stay what we like to call 'developing', IE leading an ecologically and socially higher way of life. Instead, it was grabbed whilst still 'primative', sucked dry of its human and geological resources, its natural social boundaries completely smashed, and eventually dumped into the 20th century bereft of any experience for managing a 20th century society and economy. Of course many improvements can be made to the way aid is administered but I'll continue to give what little I can meantime and not resent some of my money going astray if just part of it helps to save a life or educate a child, who may one day help end the corruption that we know exists.

I've got to say, I'm rather tired of hearing about how we screwed over Africa. It's not up for debate. Liberals agree that we caused the problems and care. Conservatives agree that we caused the problems and don't care. It shouldn't matter anyway. A productive Africa is in our own best interests. Regardless of whether or not we owe it to Africa, we owe it to our people to help them be productive, and a strong Africa will accomplish just that. It's easy to point out how we screwed over Africa. Find a good long term solution and you'll impress me. This thread is "morally bankrupt" because we got past the why we need to fix it and moved on to the how to fix it. It's not immoral to look at issues practically: it's smart.

When fourteenth century Europe was swarmed by war, plague and famine, nobody was around to give us a hand up. We eventually began the Industrial Revolution and built empires as yet unrivalled. When America achieved independence, it was a handful of largely agrarian colonies perched tenuously on the edge of a massive undeveloped land mass. They became the last remaining superpower.

Everyone agrees that the current situation in Africa is unsustainable. But Europe and America constantly pump money in to keep the rotten, shambolic edifice of the African culture of victimhood alive. It will be hard for them to crawl out of the trap that relentless dogooders have dug for them, hard and brutal. But none of the modern continental hegemonies have a history unstained by suffering or bloodshed - indeed, in many cases those that suffered most lasted longest. Once the dead wood has fallen away, the corrupt governments and unsustainable population, the continent has the strength in resources both human and natural to become a worthy equal and perhaps successor to the current powers.

Some call this viewpoint immoral. How immoral is it to remove a gangrenous limb, rather than let its slow necrosis kill the healthy body?

The best way to save afrrica would be to restore a colonial system for 50 years and then hand over power properly in stead of them seizing independance and ruining themselves. British Rule worked French rule worked Belgian Italian and german rule did not work wZimbabwe used to be the breadbasket of Africa, now look at it. That is the prie of freedom, freedom to starve.

Was anyone else banging their head against the wall the past week with G8 and the Live 8 concert demanding more "aid" to Africa? First of all, I want to get this quite clear. IN NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM AM I RACIST! Ok, now that that is out of the way, let me get down to my argument. For the last, what, 60 years? Their has been nothing but Civil War after Civil War after Civil War, and Despot after Despot after Despot in Africa. The entire continent is an economic hell hole. We (we being the industrialized nations of the world), pump in billions and billions of dollers worth of money and aid year after year, with nothing in return.

You're not supposed to get anything in return. That's why it's called aid, not trade.


AIDS is running rampent in that country, so what do we do? We spend more money! AIDS IS A PREVENTABLE DIEASE! KEEP YOUR FRIGGIN PANTS ON AND YOU WONT GET AIDS! DON'T SHARE NEEDLES AND YOU WON'T GET AIDS! What is so hard about this? .


Misinformation's a big problem. There are Catholic missionaries over there telling people that condoms don't work so they shouldn't bother using them- great!

Oxfam's doing a lot of good work with aids sufferers in Africa. They are funding peer educators who help people cope with having the disease.

Why not make trade fairer and allow Africa to EARN its improvement. Something given is not as valued as something earned. Let Africa pull itself out of its pit like others have done, through trade.

We aren't giving them anything. Live8 was just raising awareness. We still shouldn't turn our backs on innocent people. And the people of Africa do earn. But then big companies go and give them pitiful amounts so that they can earn money. There is fair trade, but not enough.

Sadly fair trade does not go nearly as far as it should do, and the EU also underminds fair trade at times, which is wrong. Going back to a comment on aids I'd like to make two points, firstly, there is almost no education in most areas of the poorist countries by naything other than word of mouth from friends and relatives, they have never had Aids and HIV explained to them and do not understand what it is, secondly they do not share needles, almost all of HIV and Aids in LEDCs are spread by sexual activites, there is also often no access to condoms, so even if they knew what it was they would not be able to get hold of protection, or just pop in to thier local GUM clinic (sexual health center, GP, helth center, etc). But the money is not just for takling aids, it is also for vital things, there are people straving all over the world in LEDCs and it is wrong, thier is no good reason for people to die from starvation in this day and age, also a third of americans are over weight, and it is something like a quater in the UK too. If all the extra food over weight people ate was given to other people think how many lives that could save! One final thing, if all the extra taxes you were complaing about save just one persons life then surley it is worth it.

:) Scott.

One final thing, if all the extra taxes you were complaing about save just one persons life then surley it is worth it.

That is, of course, unless the money could be used to save more than one life if put to use elsewhere.