R4, Bliar and Africa.
Discussion
So war criminal Bliar is on bended knee to Bush to throw yet more wasted billions at Africa. Yet on Radio 4 they are wheeling in expert after expert saying the government policy is wrong and will make no difference. Last night one of these experts revealed that of every pound of aid that goes to Africa 80 pence leaves the continent as corrupt capital flight within one year. Can't Blair and Brown get their heads round this. Geldoff is just as bad.
The idiots are saying they will prioritise democracies, what difference does that make to corruption? Malawi is an ex British colony and is democratic so we give them massive aid. They are more than self sufficient for food though with a variable climate. So they keep a big food reserve for the bad years. A couple of years ago they had a bad year and found that the food reserve had gone. One of the Government ministers had sold it, pocketed the proceeds and built himself a hotel with it. So to prevent a famine the country needed food aid. And who paid? This is one reason why Labour need so many stealth taxes.
The idiots are saying they will prioritise democracies, what difference does that make to corruption? Malawi is an ex British colony and is democratic so we give them massive aid. They are more than self sufficient for food though with a variable climate. So they keep a big food reserve for the bad years. A couple of years ago they had a bad year and found that the food reserve had gone. One of the Government ministers had sold it, pocketed the proceeds and built himself a hotel with it. So to prevent a famine the country needed food aid. And who paid? This is one reason why Labour need so many stealth taxes.
bruciebabe said:
The idiots are saying they will prioritise democracies, what difference does that make to corruption?
At least with a democracy the people can kick the government out of power so it is some constraint on corruption.
On these grounds and also on moral ones I entirely agree that aid should favour properly functioning African democracies.
JagLover said:
The idiots are saying they will prioritise democracies, what difference does that make to corruption?
At least with a democracy the people can kick the government out of power so it is some constraint on corruption.
On these grounds and also on moral ones I entirely agree that aid should favour properly functioning African democracies.
Go to Transparency International and see how corrupt Greece is. Yes the cradle of democracy is riddled with corruption and it is an EU country.
JagLover said:
The idiots are saying they will prioritise democracies, what difference does that make to corruption?
At least with a democracy the people can kick the government out of power so it is some constraint on corruption.
On these grounds and also on moral ones I entirely agree that aid should favour properly functioning African democracies.
Yes, but there's democracies and there's democracies. The people who really need help don't necessarily get to have an opinion. Political influence or monetary gain rarely hits the roots of the problems. That's why money needs to be spent by the west, guided in the right directions, or presented to these countries in such a way that they can't cock it up - i.e. in food.
titiany said:
That's why money needs to be spent by the west, guided in the right directions,
I agree, democracy should be one criteria for how much development aid/loans is given, other criteria should be the policies the government have in place, whether they are maintaining a stable environment for business and so forth.
If the right policies are not in place the money just pours away down a vast drain.
Are these the type of "democracies" where members of the armed forces have 100 votes each and they all vote for the ruling party? Or are these the sort of democracies where the electorate has no choice, as all major political movements are equally corrupt (hang on that second one sounds like this country 
).
The amount of aid given and the amount of debt relief proposed is bugger all. Look how much it costs the US military to keep a single aircraft carrier at sea for a month...... The aid/debt relief is akin to your mortgage company sending you a free bic biro!
The Western powers have pretty much given up on Africa. The continent has huge natural resources that don't need fighting for so the West will let the continent self destruct and exploit it in 30 years time in some sort of cynical post colonial humanitarian rescue plan
). The amount of aid given and the amount of debt relief proposed is bugger all. Look how much it costs the US military to keep a single aircraft carrier at sea for a month...... The aid/debt relief is akin to your mortgage company sending you a free bic biro!
The Western powers have pretty much given up on Africa. The continent has huge natural resources that don't need fighting for so the West will let the continent self destruct and exploit it in 30 years time in some sort of cynical post colonial humanitarian rescue plan
MilnerR said:
The Western powers have pretty much given up on Africa. The continent has huge natural resources that don't need fighting for so the West will let the continent self destruct and exploit it in 30 years time in some sort of cynical post colonial humanitarian rescue plan
Well what do you propose they do instead?
MilnerR said:
Are these the type of "democracies" where members of the armed forces have 100 votes each and they all vote for the ruling party? Or are these the sort of democracies where the electorate has no choice, as all major political movements are equally corrupt
More like the sort of democracies where the hardcore population don't even get to hear about their power to vote, because they can't read, write, and they all speak different languages.
That's the sort of thing I experienced in Tanzania, anyway.
Selective cut and pastes from the BBC website:
As an African, I am full of anger knowing that my people have become mere pawns in this very cynical and self-serving antic of doing something for Africa - whatever this means. This is a game in which the real obstacles to our people's economic emancipation (i.e., African rulers) are gratuitously indulged at every opportunity, while our people become increasingly poorer.
I just wish that the Blairs and the Geldofs of this world would stop exploiting my people's suffering in this way. It is, after all, the case, that no impoverished African has ever asked anyone for aid. If the Blairs and the Geldofs of this world cannot join us in demanding responsible governance on our continent, I say, leave us alone; stop prolonging our suffering with these antics. Enough is enough!
UE, UK/Nigeria
As an African who spent the early part of my life in Africa, saddens me to know that we (our leaders) cannot effectively handle our finances because of corruption and mismanagement. Britain and the US should not continue to help by sending money but to teach us how we can effectively manage our finances. This is such a shame.
Abou Jalloh, African living in Durham, North Carolina, USA
After reading the numerous reports about the debt of Africa, it seems that just throwing money at is not the answer. Essentially, there have been eight times the amount of original Marshall plan swallowed up by this continent. Where has this investment in services gone? Additionally, I think Bono, Geldof and Brown are equally trying to vie for Sainthood here and I would like to know how much they have donated, considering that all three of them are millionaires.
I agree that Africa needs help, but I think whatever solutions we try to provide are squandered by corrupt officials and forgotten by absent minded charity organizations, whose only answer is, give them more money. I wish I could have my debt cancelled!
Paul, Moscow, Russia
For those that would like the US to send more money that way, be careful what you wish for. US citizens, including myself, do not believe in taxation without representation. If we send our money, we will also expect to have some influence there. If you don't want our influence, don't ask for the money.
Mike, USA
Africa is indeed a dying continent that needs help, but why must America, or any other country, keep donating vast sums of money over and over again. It is obviously not the answer. I get angry when I see America donating millions and forgiving millions of dollars in debt to aide the poor in Africa when I can not get a break on medication or health care or education. I am one of America's working poor making $15,000 a year.
I work two jobs, have two degrees in both graduate and undergraduate universities and have to take a small loan out of the bank and go deeper into debt if I get sick or need to go to hospital. Why should my government which is paid by my tax dollars keep giving and forgiving billions of dollars to a continent that doesn't get better because of it while her own people are suffering?
Marie Howey, Philadelphia, USA
I have no desire at all to help Africa. There are enough things that need doing in our own country. Right now I contribute to four British charities, run a youth group for disadvantaged kids, and am campaigning to prevent a business development on common land. Britain is the responsibility of Britons; Africa is the responsibility of Africans.
James Farley, UK
What is plundered is gone and no measure of financial aid can relieve an erstwhile colonised country to prosperity. The only way it can benefit the Dark Continent is by taking active interest in their infrastructure development. Giving money to one warlord for the time being wouldn't help. Invest in democracy.
Varun Tandon, Calgary, Canada
Just another example of Blair attempting to earn his place in history at the taxpayers' expense. First of all it was as the saviour of democracy in Iraq but as that's failed he's looking elsewhere, as the saviour of Africa. One thing is for certain, he will never be considered as the saviour of his own country.
Trevor, Cambs, UK
Blair and Bush should be concentrating on ridding Africa of those tyrants who are destroying it. They should ensure democratic government there. We have seen the terrible atrocities taking place in Zimbabwe, which other African states and the West are ignoring. Stop paying public money, little of which feeds the starving. Most of it finds its way into the pockets of corrupt politicians who are kept in place by these hand outs.
Robert Obako, Guildford, Surrey
I don't support the long-term subsidization of countries by richer nations. It provides no incentive for the countries to maintain themselves or evolve from anything other than countries waiting to be saved by other countries. Countries don't become prosperous nations by surviving on the welfare of others.
Robert, Middlesex, UK
Debt relief will only frighten away potential investors. Who is going to provide loans when they know they will never be paid back? If I ran my personal finances like most African governments ran theirs I'd be sitting in jail courtesy of the Internal Revenue Service.
Zach Smith, Bloomington, IN, USA
As an African, I am full of anger knowing that my people have become mere pawns in this very cynical and self-serving antic of doing something for Africa - whatever this means. This is a game in which the real obstacles to our people's economic emancipation (i.e., African rulers) are gratuitously indulged at every opportunity, while our people become increasingly poorer.
I just wish that the Blairs and the Geldofs of this world would stop exploiting my people's suffering in this way. It is, after all, the case, that no impoverished African has ever asked anyone for aid. If the Blairs and the Geldofs of this world cannot join us in demanding responsible governance on our continent, I say, leave us alone; stop prolonging our suffering with these antics. Enough is enough!
UE, UK/Nigeria
As an African who spent the early part of my life in Africa, saddens me to know that we (our leaders) cannot effectively handle our finances because of corruption and mismanagement. Britain and the US should not continue to help by sending money but to teach us how we can effectively manage our finances. This is such a shame.
Abou Jalloh, African living in Durham, North Carolina, USA
After reading the numerous reports about the debt of Africa, it seems that just throwing money at is not the answer. Essentially, there have been eight times the amount of original Marshall plan swallowed up by this continent. Where has this investment in services gone? Additionally, I think Bono, Geldof and Brown are equally trying to vie for Sainthood here and I would like to know how much they have donated, considering that all three of them are millionaires.
I agree that Africa needs help, but I think whatever solutions we try to provide are squandered by corrupt officials and forgotten by absent minded charity organizations, whose only answer is, give them more money. I wish I could have my debt cancelled!
Paul, Moscow, Russia
For those that would like the US to send more money that way, be careful what you wish for. US citizens, including myself, do not believe in taxation without representation. If we send our money, we will also expect to have some influence there. If you don't want our influence, don't ask for the money.
Mike, USA
Africa is indeed a dying continent that needs help, but why must America, or any other country, keep donating vast sums of money over and over again. It is obviously not the answer. I get angry when I see America donating millions and forgiving millions of dollars in debt to aide the poor in Africa when I can not get a break on medication or health care or education. I am one of America's working poor making $15,000 a year.
I work two jobs, have two degrees in both graduate and undergraduate universities and have to take a small loan out of the bank and go deeper into debt if I get sick or need to go to hospital. Why should my government which is paid by my tax dollars keep giving and forgiving billions of dollars to a continent that doesn't get better because of it while her own people are suffering?
Marie Howey, Philadelphia, USA
I have no desire at all to help Africa. There are enough things that need doing in our own country. Right now I contribute to four British charities, run a youth group for disadvantaged kids, and am campaigning to prevent a business development on common land. Britain is the responsibility of Britons; Africa is the responsibility of Africans.
James Farley, UK
What is plundered is gone and no measure of financial aid can relieve an erstwhile colonised country to prosperity. The only way it can benefit the Dark Continent is by taking active interest in their infrastructure development. Giving money to one warlord for the time being wouldn't help. Invest in democracy.
Varun Tandon, Calgary, Canada
Just another example of Blair attempting to earn his place in history at the taxpayers' expense. First of all it was as the saviour of democracy in Iraq but as that's failed he's looking elsewhere, as the saviour of Africa. One thing is for certain, he will never be considered as the saviour of his own country.
Trevor, Cambs, UK
Blair and Bush should be concentrating on ridding Africa of those tyrants who are destroying it. They should ensure democratic government there. We have seen the terrible atrocities taking place in Zimbabwe, which other African states and the West are ignoring. Stop paying public money, little of which feeds the starving. Most of it finds its way into the pockets of corrupt politicians who are kept in place by these hand outs.
Robert Obako, Guildford, Surrey
I don't support the long-term subsidization of countries by richer nations. It provides no incentive for the countries to maintain themselves or evolve from anything other than countries waiting to be saved by other countries. Countries don't become prosperous nations by surviving on the welfare of others.
Robert, Middlesex, UK
Debt relief will only frighten away potential investors. Who is going to provide loans when they know they will never be paid back? If I ran my personal finances like most African governments ran theirs I'd be sitting in jail courtesy of the Internal Revenue Service.
Zach Smith, Bloomington, IN, USA
JagLover said:
The Western powers have pretty much given up on Africa. The continent has huge natural resources that don't need fighting for so the West will let the continent self destruct and exploit it in 30 years time in some sort of cynical post colonial humanitarian rescue plan
Well what do you propose they do instead?
I'm not making any propositions as to what the western governments should do instead because they won't effectively do anything at all. Compare the situation in the middle east to that of africa. The reason America is expanding it foriegn policy in the middle east is to stop a natural resource (oil wealth) from falling under the control of countries not friendly to the West (or maybe its a deep seated desire to see peace harmony and democracy in the middle east
). Africa also has huge natural resources (largely untapped) but there's no point in actively pursuing them as the individual african countries are unable to exploit them. It is better for the Western governments to kick their heals until the situation reaches a point where heavy handed intervention from the west will be welcomed. Its a cynical and inhuman why of conducting your affairs but that's the reality of state craft, I'm afraid. The best we can hope for is the current piecemeal lack lustre attempts at poverty relief (being seen to something). The humanitarian problem in africa can be solved in a generation but until its in the direct interests of those governments who have the resources to help then the problem will continue.... MilnerR said:
It is better for the Western governments to kick their heals until the situation reaches a point where heavy handed intervention from the west will be welcomed. Its a cynical and inhuman why of conducting your affairs but that's the reality of state craft, I'm afraid. The best we can hope for is the current piecemeal lack lustre attempts at poverty relief (being seen to something). The humanitarian problem in africa can be solved in a generation but until its in the direct interests of those governments who have the resources to help then the problem will continue....
Is it cynical and inhuman, or is it recognising that colonialism is dead?.
One possible option is indeed to take over these African countries and run them, but is it the right option.
My own personal opinion is that the west should contribute on basic humanitarian aid, (food in times of famine) and medicine-and only give development aid to countries which meet a strict criteria-ie offering an incentive for good government, beyond that there is little they can do and it is up to Africans to do the rest. It may take them many generations, but their future is in their own hands.
its evolution in action, just because some african nations are evolving slower than western countries and we can see it happening on tv, does not mean that we should interfere!
we have interfered before and rhodesia was known as the garden of africa under colonial rule, but its much more pc to have a brutal bigot in power as long as he is black!
if roles were reversed and mugabe had been a white man suppresing black africans i can guarantee that billy liar and co in westminster would have made more effort,
but its ok he is a black man he is free to starve his people to death!
we have interfered before and rhodesia was known as the garden of africa under colonial rule, but its much more pc to have a brutal bigot in power as long as he is black!
if roles were reversed and mugabe had been a white man suppresing black africans i can guarantee that billy liar and co in westminster would have made more effort,
but its ok he is a black man he is free to starve his people to death!
Hmmm. I'll start off by say that I'm african - I am several generation's worth of South African. I also have worked in and with NGOs that received financial aid. I do know of what I speak.
There are numerous problems with aid, the most serious being that it is used to further political ends by the people giving it in a number of instances. Naturally, and as you would expect, the worst offenders in this area are the septics.
Another problem is that aid is given without hearing or heeding the specific needs of the people for whom it is supposedly going to help. This is often a by-product of the fact that what is often labeled "aid" is actually just an expedient way to dump a lot of unwanted goods and garner great PR mileage at the same time.
This is not to excuse or condone or hide any mismanagement of resources that undeniably occurs along the way, but rather to enlighten as to exactly why there are so many issues with aid on this continent, and show that it isn't simply a one-sided problem.
There are numerous problems with aid, the most serious being that it is used to further political ends by the people giving it in a number of instances. Naturally, and as you would expect, the worst offenders in this area are the septics.
Another problem is that aid is given without hearing or heeding the specific needs of the people for whom it is supposedly going to help. This is often a by-product of the fact that what is often labeled "aid" is actually just an expedient way to dump a lot of unwanted goods and garner great PR mileage at the same time.
This is not to excuse or condone or hide any mismanagement of resources that undeniably occurs along the way, but rather to enlighten as to exactly why there are so many issues with aid on this continent, and show that it isn't simply a one-sided problem.
I feel sorry for anybody who is in a trap of disease, hunger and squalour.
The best solution is to get the UN to administer aid, organise it in an efficent manner, and use the massive resources in the African Nations to fund it.
A bit like an oil for food programme, only run competently.
The thing that frustrates me is that there are dictators who spend the money on weapons, Mercedes Benzes, war and genocide.
Mugabe also committed the ultimate act of stupidity - kicking white farmers out without a solid plan of having experienced farm managers to replace them. As such, they are in trouble.
I am not in favour of cancelling debt, unless the collateral put against it is collected. It will simply fuel more poor practices instead of focusing the priorities of those that lead these nations.
The best solution is to get the UN to administer aid, organise it in an efficent manner, and use the massive resources in the African Nations to fund it.
A bit like an oil for food programme, only run competently.
The thing that frustrates me is that there are dictators who spend the money on weapons, Mercedes Benzes, war and genocide.
Mugabe also committed the ultimate act of stupidity - kicking white farmers out without a solid plan of having experienced farm managers to replace them. As such, they are in trouble.
I am not in favour of cancelling debt, unless the collateral put against it is collected. It will simply fuel more poor practices instead of focusing the priorities of those that lead these nations.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Yes, but call me cynical, but would such countries' first priorities be defence? I can only imagine a sudden, accessible income going straight into weapons and lining the pockets of those in control.
Yes, we could provide support and expertise in making sure the money gets to the right people, but how much would that cost
? Plus, put in simpleton terms, I can't imagine many countries being that keen on being told what to do. Just a thought.
titiany said:
Yes, but call me cynical, but would such countries' first priorities be defence? I can only imagine a sudden, accessible income going straight into weapons and lining the pockets of those in control.
Yes, we could provide support and expertise in making sure the money gets to the right people, but how much would that cost
Just a thought.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff