The G8 summit spent a great deal of time discussing more aid to Africa. The prior week's concert had millions singnig and dancing in support of more aid to Africa. But is more aid really gonna help?

We're not being stingy. We've sent hundreds of billions there already, as have other nations, and how much good has come from it?

Sorry for how long this post is, but this info. is amazing to me. Seems like more aid is liek pouring the money down a rathole.

The Scotsman (http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=730652005) recently reported that:

"US donations to Africa outstrip Europe by 15 to 1. PRIVATE American citizens donated almost 15 times more to the developing world than their European counterparts, research reveals this weekend ahead of the G8 summit. Private US donors also handed over far more aid than the federal government in Washington, revealing that America is much more generous to Africa and poor countries than is claimed by the Make Poverty History and Live 8 campaigns.
Church collections, philanthropists and company-giving amounted to $22bn a year, according to a study by the Hudson Institute think-tank, easily more than the $16.3bn in overseas development sent by the US government. American churches, synagogues and mosques alone gave $7.5bn in 2003 - a figure which exceeds the government totals for France ($7.2bn) and Britain ($6.3bn) - according to numbers from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development which deal a blow to those who claim moral superiority over the US on aid.
Carole Adelman, the author of the Hudson Institute report, has discovered that a further $6.2bn a year is donated by independent US organisations, $2.7bn by US companies and $2.3bn by US universities and colleges, mainly through scholarships, to reach an overall private US donations total of $22bn.
In stark contrast, in separate exploratory work for the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), Adelman found that the maximum EU figure was a mere $1.5bn in private sector donations, 14.6 times less than the comparable US figure.

Even more shocking, an African economist speaking to a German reporter has lobbied for all African aid to end. (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html).

The Kenyan economics expert James Shikwati, 35, says that aid to Africa does more harm than good. The avid proponent of globalization spoke with SPIEGEL about the disastrous effects of Western development policy in Africa, corrupt rulers, and the tendency to overstate the AIDS problem.

Economist James Shikwati: "Despite the billions that have poured in to Africa, the continent remains poor."
SPIEGEL: Mr. Shikwati, the G8 summit at Gleneagles is about to beef up the development aid for Africa...

Shikwati: ... for God's sake, please just stop.

SPIEGEL: Stop? The industrialized nations of the West want to eliminate hunger and poverty.

Shikwati: Such intentions have been damaging our continent for the past 40 years. If the industrial nations really want to help the Africans, they should finally terminate this awful aid. The countries that have collected the most development aid are also the ones that are in the worst shape. Despite the billions that have poured in to Africa, the continent remains poor.

SPIEGEL: Do you have an explanation for this paradox?

Shikwati: Huge bureaucracies are financed (with the aid money), corruption and complacency are promoted, Africans are taught to be beggars and not to be independent. In addition, development aid weakens the local markets everywhere and dampens the spirit of entrepreneurship that we so desperately need. As absurd as it may sound: Development aid is one of the reasons for Africa's problems. If the West were to cancel these payments, normal Africans wouldn't even notice. Only the functionaries would be hard hit. Which is why they maintain that the world would stop turning without this development aid.

SPIEGEL: Even in a country like Kenya, people are starving to death each year. Someone has got to help them.

Shikwati: But it has to be the Kenyans themselves who help these people. When there's a drought in a region of Kenya, our corrupt politicians reflexively cry out for more help. This call then reaches the United Nations World Food Program -- which is a massive agency of apparatchiks who are in the absurd situation of, on the one hand, being dedicated to the fight against hunger while, on the other hand, being faced with unemployment were hunger actually eliminated. It's only natural that they willingly accept the plea for more help. And it's not uncommon that they demand a little more money than the respective African government originally requested. They then forward that request to their headquarters, and before long, several thousands tons of corn are shipped to Africa ...

SPIEGEL: ... corn that predominantly comes from highly-subsidized European and American farmers ... Ruandan President Kagame has over a million deaths on his conscience, says Shikwati.

Shikwati: ... and at some point, this corn ends up in the harbor of Mombasa. A portion of the corn often goes directly into the hands of unsrupulous politicians who then pass it on to their own tribe to boost their next election campaign. Another portion of the shipment ends up on the black market where the corn is dumped at extremely low prices. Local farmers may as well put down their hoes right away; no one can compete with the UN's World Food Program. And because the farmers go under in the face of this pressure, Kenya would have no reserves to draw on if there actually were a famine next year. It's a simple but fatal cycle.

SPIEGEL: If the World Food Program didn't do anything, the people would starve.

Shikwati: I don't think so. In such a case, the Kenyans, for a change, would be forced to initiate trade relations with Uganda or Tanzania, and buy their food there. This type of trade is vital for Africa. It would force us to improve our own infrastructure, while making national borders -- drawn by the Europeans by the way -- more permeable. It would also force us to establish laws favoring market economy.

SPIEGEL: Would Africa actually be able to solve these problems on its own?

Shikwati: Of course. Hunger should not be a problem in most of the countries south of the Sahara. In addition, there are vast natural resources: oil, gold, diamonds. Africa is always only portrayed as a continent of suffering, but most figures are vastly exaggerated. In the industrial nations, there's a sense that Africa would go under without development aid. But believe me, Africa existed before you Europeans came along. And we didn't do all that poorly either.

SPIEGEL: But AIDS didn't exist at that time.

Shikwati: If one were to believe all the horrorifying reports, then all Kenyans should actually be dead by now. But now, tests are being carried out everywhere, and it turns out that the figures were vastly exaggerated. It's not three million Kenyans that are infected. All of the sudden, it's only about one million. Malaria is just as much of a problem, but people rarely talk about that.

SPIEGEL: And why's that?

Shikwati: AIDS is big business, maybe Africa's biggest business. There's nothing else that can generate as much aid money as shocking figures on AIDS. AIDS is a political disease here, and we should be very skeptical.

SPIEGEL: The Americans and Europeans have frozen funds previously pledged to Kenya. The country is too corrupt, they say.

Shikwati: I am afraid, though, that the money will still be transfered before long. After all, it has to go somewhere. Unfortunately, the Europeans' devastating urge to do good can no longer be countered with reason. It makes no sense whatsoever that directly after the new Kenyan government was elected -- a leadership change that ended the dictatorship of Daniel arap Mois -- the faucets were suddenly opened and streams of money poured into the country.

SPIEGEL: Such aid is usually earmarked for a specific objective, though.

Shikwati: That doesn't change anything. Millions of dollars earmarked for the fight against AIDS are still stashed away in Kenyan bank accounts and have not been spent. Our politicians were overwhelmed with money, and they try to siphon off as much as possible. The late tyrant of the Central African Republic, Jean Bedel Bokassa, cynically summed it up by saying: "The French government pays for everything in our country. We ask the French for money. We get it, and then we waste it."

SPIEGEL: In the West, there are many compassionate citizens wanting to help Africa. Each year, they donate money and pack their old clothes into collection bags ...

Shikwati: ... and they flood our markets with that stuff. We can buy these donated clothes cheaply at our so-called Mitumba markets. There are Germans who spend a few dollars to get used Bayern Munich or Werder Bremen jerseys, in other words, clothes that that some German kids sent to Africa for a good cause. After buying these jerseys, they auction them off at Ebay and send them back to Germany -- for three times the price. That's insanity ...

SPIEGEL: ... and hopefully an exception.

Shikwati: Why do we get these mountains of clothes? No one is freezing here. Instead, our tailors lose their livlihoods. They're in the same position as our farmers. No one in the low-wage world of Africa can be cost-efficient enough to keep pace with donated products. In 1997, 137,000 workers were employed in Nigeria's textile industry. By 2003, the figure had dropped to 57,000. The results are the same in all other areas where overwhelming helpfulness and fragile African markets collide.

SPIEGEL: Following World War II, Germany only managed to get back on its feet because the Americans poured money into the country through the Marshall Plan. Wouldn't that qualify as successful development aid?

Shikwati: In Germany's case, only the destroyed infrastructure had to be repaired. Despite the economic crisis of the Weimar Republic, Germany was a highly- industrialized country before the war. The damages created by the tsunami in Thailand can also be fixed with a little money and some reconstruction aid. Africa, however, must take the first steps into modernity on its own. There must be a change in mentality. We have to stop perceiving ourselves as beggars. These days, Africans only perceive themselves as victims. On the other hand, no one can really picture an African as a businessman. In order to change the current situation, it would be helpful if the aid organizations were to pull out.

SPIEGEL: If they did that, many jobs would be immediately lost ...

Shikwati: ... jobs that were created artificially in the first place and that distort reality. Jobs with foreign aid organizations are, of course, quite popular, and they can be very selective in choosing the best people. When an aid organization needs a driver, dozens apply for the job. And because it's unacceptable that the aid worker's chauffeur only speaks his own tribal language, an applicant is needed who also speaks English fluently -- and, ideally, one who is also well mannered. So you end up with some African biochemist driving an aid worker around, distributing European food, and forcing local farmers out of their jobs. That's just crazy!

SPIEGEL: The German government takes pride in precisely monitoring the recipients of its funds.

Shikwati: And what's the result? A disaster. The German government threw money right at Rwanda's president Paul Kagame. This is a man who has the deaths of a million people on his conscience -- people that his army killed in the neighboring country of Congo.

SPIEGEL: What are the Germans supposed to do?

Shikwati: If they really want to fight poverty, they should completely halt development aid and give Africa the opportunity to ensure its own survival. Currently, Africa is like a child that immediately cries for its babysitter when something goes wrong. Africa should stand on its own two feet.

Interview conducted by Thilo Thielke

Translated from the German by Patrick Kessler

Good post, though too long-winded. Africans don't need more money, which just props up corrupt governments. It needs assistance to get to the people who are in need, and that's not something the G8 is going to accomplish just by writing a friggin' check!

More financial aid, absolutely not! Send people who can educate and train a workforce, bring them the physical equipment to manufacture, build, farm, whatever. Provide food and medicine. All real, tangible goods, but not as likely to be diverted from the intended as money. There are loads of volunteer organizations with folks willing to go over there to help. Utilize them!

In fact, there are organizations over there right now who are doing exactly those kinds of things. Give THEM the money, not the corrupt governments who would just use it to support themselves and keep the people down.

If the mafia can find a way to get "protection money" imagine what a corrupt government can do.

Their governments are so corrupt that the African people will never see any of the money, you would think our politicians would understand that.

IMO, they need a different kind of aid. Media pressure to show the world how bad the crisis is and put the world face to face with it. Political pressure for the corrupt governments to change or new people to take control. And military backing by the UN or a coalition of countries willing to help to topple the peolpe in charge of these atrocities.

I know this is going to sparks some debate, BUT, shouldn't we take care of our own first?

Oh Lord, no, we can't do that. It'll be Bush's war for...uh...umm...diamonds. And he'll wanna have slaves to get the diamonds for him cheap. They never attacked the US! Jeez! No sir, Idiot and TB and their liberal ilk would never stand for that!

We definitely do things differently here in the U.S. - and the rest of the world doesn't really "get" it.

We give most of our assistance by means of non-governmental charitable organizations (NGOs), many of whom operate in-country and are able to work around the corrupt regimes. We also choose to provide assisance by means of private donations, rather than via our government/tax dollars. I heard recently that when it comes to private charitable giving/philanthropy, the average U.S citizen outgives the average European 15-fold. Yet they persist in calling us greedy SOBs.

Since the rest of the world doesn't do it that way, they don't give us much credit for it. The rest of the world EXPECTS us to give big sums of money via our government, and complains when we don't. Yet we know darned well that such is basically the least effective means of providing assitance. So here we are at the G8, playing the rest of the world's game, promising big sums of government money, much of which will go to waste.

Good post, BMIC. I tried to type these same thoughts last evening, but couldn't express it properly.

yes



I bet you would be suprised. I'm sure a lot of you would consider me to be part of the "liberal ilk" by some of my posts. At least it would be a war for a rightful and just cause. I have thought this since the begining of the Iraq war. It is a shame we can't afford to send any serious troop strength to a part of the world where genocide is occuring. As soon as Powell and folks at the UN suspected genocide we should have went in. The UN should have spear-headed the event. The atrocities in Dafur and other parts of Africa have gone on for far to long. Everyone seem to throw money at it and then turn a blind eye. These are the situations the UN should be heavily involved in.

This a good post I agree with Sman.

I think the worlds view of our donations comes from GNP gross national product. I don't know off hand what the percentages are. But the world at large gives a much bigger percentage of their GNP than we do. We just have a much bigger income so even though the overall amount we give is greater, the perentage is small compared to other countries. If other countries can afford to give a higher percentage of GNP we could too.

But as cfulmor said I too believe we should take care of our own first.

Why? So they can pass resolutions and be afraid/unwilling to enforce them?

I don't know what the answer is, but I have zero confidence in the UN.

I wouldn't be surprised in the least. Remember Somalia? Remember the war in the Balkans? Clinton got us into all sorts of stuff we shouldn't have messed around with, all in the name of playing the World's Policemen and supporting "right" causes. He's the one who sent our boys off to die in UN uniforms taking orders from foreign officers for causes in which we had no vested interest whatsoever.

Snoopy I'm really surprised you forgot about all of that.

P.S. if you factor in our private giving and those government gifts that are excluded from the usual calculations, IMO you'll find our giving as a percentage of GNP is quite high. But the rest of the world accounts for things differently as I said, and they manipulate the figures to make us look bad. IMO we don't need to do anything to prove ourselves to be far and away the world's leaders when it comes to giving aid to others.

Just like anything else it has its problems. It needs some reform(and no John Bolton is not the person for the job). But if the press played a proper role it would but presser on the UN and individual nations. What is ever more important than ending genocide? It should be on the news every night. Not all this other celebrity BS.

You mean just like bush is doing in Iraq?



This says a lot about the American people not their government.

NO! In Iraq, we went in to defend the interests and ensure the safety of the citizens of the United States of America.

As far as the U.N. goes, they are totally irrelevant to us now. They had and gave up their FINAL CHANCE (in my eyes and those of many others) to be anything other than a waste of everyone's time and money in the days leading up to the invasion of Iraq.

From what?

Nothing.

There were not any terrorists or weapons there that could have done any damage to us at the time. And it is very questionable as to wether there would have been any in the future.

I agree the UN has slipped in some areas but the Iraq war doesn't count IMO. Because they were right on their position, IMO.

There was an interesting article about the UN in US News back around the time of the Pope's death. Basically, it came down to Annan can't bring about change, just as none of his predecessors could, because of nepotism and differing ethics within the member countries.

IMO, the UN is a useless, powerless body that is so disfunctional it needs to be disbanded and reformed from a fresh group of representatives. I wouldn't entrust the security of my cat's litterbox to these morons.

WRONG. The stockpiles of WMDs - enough to kill millions of Americans (are you even aware of what you could do with even just a few kilos of botox?) - were moved into Syria while the UN was wasting time obstructing justice. The terrorists are STILL there.

You've bought the liberal media's lies and propaganda hook line and sinker. FOOL!

P.S. - Part of the problem with the UN is that in order to do what they PRETEND to be able to do, each nation must give up its national sovereignty and allow it's representatives to make treaties that it's citizens may never support. I for one will never agree to allow anyone to give up our nation's sovereign rights to self-determination, nor allow any representatives to commit to passing laws which "we the people" may not agree to. Our nation is run by the elected representatives of her citizens, in accordance with her Constitution. Not by the UN.

The Iraqi insurgents that don't want us in their country are still there.

The terrorists came when we did.

Good. Kill them there instead of them killing themselves in the streets/subways of New York, London, Paris, Madrid, etc.

This statement makes us no better than the terrorists. Us bringing the fight to Iraq is killing several times more innocent civilians than all of New York, London, and Madrid lost in attacks combined.

In your eyes that makes us no better.

Sorry, if it's us or them that's gotta go, I'm choosing them.

What's the practical difference between the genocide you advocate us getting into now and the mass killing and torture Saddam perpetrated in Iraq? I'll bet those freed from the torture chambers and those who would have been murdered by now think it was a pretty just cause. Yet you convieniently ignore the fact we stopped the killing of innocents in Iraq and pretend there is no good in us going in there. Are African lives worth more than Iraq lives to you?

"The terrorists are STILL there." Not the thousands we've sent to see Allah.

Its the worlds eyes as well. Instead of calming the already tense Muslim American
situation we went into one of their nations without just cause. By doing so we have given them another reason to breed further generations of hate. IMO, we are not helping we are making the situation worse. I'd be willing to bet the amount of active terrorists in the world today is greater than pre Iraq. London is a prime example. We are still at risk just as the rest of the world is.

They hated us before Iraq and would have hated us without invading Iraq. Last time I checked 09/11/2001 occurred before the invasion of Iraq. 1993's WTC attack, the USS Cole, the African embassy bombings, etc. all happened before Iraq.

I stand by my sentiment that I hope all these "new" terrorists flock to Iraq to meet a swift death at the hand of the infidels.

They don't understand calming and negotiation. It isn't what they do. Isn't that obvious by now?

The atrocities in Africa are far greater than those of Iraq and are taking a much bigger life toll. No a African life is worth no more than anyone elses. If we had the two places to choose from Africa would have been a better cause.

http://www.mediamonitors.net/robinmiller10.html


These numbers are far less than the millions being killed and uprooted from their homelands in Dafur and the rest of Africa.

Saddam should have been removed from power when these things occured. By Bush's daddy not him. You can not come back a decade later to finish the job.



You will never be able to kill them all. For everyone we kill 5 will replace them. The replacements will be their sons and in some cases daughters. We need to change perceptions within the Muslim communities as a whole. We have not even begun to do this. Our sons and daughters will be inheriting this war on terror if we are not careful. We need to start thinking in future contexts.

This gets my vote as "post of the day". Short, sweet, reasoned, and 100% correct.

But the Chamberlains will never understand it.

What say we call a 2 day stop to all hostilities and let anyone who wants to, go into Iraq or Afghanistan to talk to the terrorists and get them to accept reasonable terms? Let them go in and do their thing.

This attitude has only increased the amount of attacks that are occuring. Look at the span of time the attacks you mentioned occured in. How close together have 911, Madrid, London and all the other attacks since 911 been?

More frequent more severe.

I'm pretty sure the ceasefire to end Gulf War I included UN resolutions that Saddam repeatedly violated. I know this wasn't Bush stated reason for deposing Saddam, but it's still valid. The UN was too impotent to enforce their own resolutions.



Terrorists do not reason or negotiate. They've decided on a war to the death with the West. I don't know how to make you understand that.

I posted this a few weeks ago and will post again to prove my point.

Story here.




Read this line again:
"PEACEFUL CHANGE WAS IMPOSSIBLE"

By your reasoning...

These African despots and dictators should have been removed from power when these things occured. By Clinton, not Bush. You can not come back a decade later to finish the job.

I don't have the time to verify it right now, but from the time of the African embassy bombings on, we've averaged about one high profile Al Qaeda attack a year.

As for severity, Madrid and London don't touch the casuality and economic losses of 9/11. Not even close.

Edit for a timeline:

African embassies attacked - 1998
USS Cole - 2000
9/11 - 2001
Iraq War 2 - 2003
Madrid bombings - 2004
London bombings - 2005

If anything, the severity has decreased since Iraq 2 and none in the United States.

You make a common error in reasoning. Even if the terrorist attacks were more frequent after we went into Iraq again, correlation does not equal cause and effect. You have no way to know that the attack frequency and severity would not have gotten worse had we not gone into Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe they would have. If these punks see no resistance, just like common thugs, they get bolder, IMO. Only God can know for sure.

They had been violating since the resolutions were put into place. Just because the UN didn't enforce the resolutions doesn't mean it is our job to do so. We are NOT the world police. We faced no threat.



Zawahri had little power before the Iraq war and may not have even been aligned with al Queda at that time. We gave him the power he now uses to wage war by doing his recrutiting for him and giving him a podium.

Your right he should have done something just like every other world leader should have and should be. But these things in Africa are still occuring everyday at an alarming rate. If we were going to pick now as a time to take up a cause pick the best one.

I have been saying for a long time we need to change the worlds perception of the US. Africa would have been a great start.

Just because I think Bush is a liar and making wrong decisions doesn't mean I think Clinton was some great individual. He is human like all of us he has made mistakes also. Bush's are just of greater consequence. I wasn't a member of a forum during Clinton's admin. nor did I keep up with things like I do now. But I would have called him on his failures just as I do with Bush.



Is has gone back to pre 911 severity but occurs more frequently.



Over time yes they would get have grown worse. But not as quickly. I am not an advicate of no resistence I am an advicate of proper resistence. Secure the Homeland borders check our cargo work on illegal immigaration so the terrorists don't get in. Throw the illegals here the hell out. There were and are more pressing issues than Iraq to deal with.

It's the Muslims who decided to pick a fight with us, not vice versa. They want to fight a war to the death with America, and heck the only hope they think they have of getting into their version of heaven is to die in battle, so I say we give them what they want: death.

You say we shouldn't have gone to war in Iraq because it would just make Muslims' hatred of us worse, but you fail to understand that many of the atrocities occurring in Africa are also being perpetrated by Muslims.

No I say we shouldn't have gone to war in Iraq because it was unjustified. There were no WMD's and no al Queda links. We should have finished in Afganistan before we did anything else. Bin Laden is still in the run and so are a lot of Taliban.

I fully understand that a lot of what is going on in Africa is perpetrated by Muslims. That does not mean all Muslims are to blame. Nor does it mean we can attack them where ever we see fit. The Muslims in Iraq are not the same Muslims perpetrating violence in Africa.

Wow, I didn't realize you worked for the CIA, please share this information with the FBI, CIA and the defense department. Apparently you know for sure which Muslim extremists are causing the problems in the world.

Some people use 20-20 hindsight to make it appear they're brilliant. But the fact is most thoughtful people who looked at the best knowledge the CIA could generate at the time, felt there WERE WMD's in Iraq, and the 9-11 commission did detail alQueda links to Iraq.

No intel is ever 100% perfect. After 9-11, could we take the chance, with a rougue like Iraq, who was murdering his citizens and violating UN resolutions with impunity? Most experts said no. I supported Clinton when he said it, but he was too otherwise occupied to do anything about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict


I don't claim to know. I have read the information available. The Janjaweed militia are the group of Arab Muslims in Africa resposible for the genocide. They are Africans.

From 911 Report


http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3741646/


The best they had was the Atta meeting and it probably never happened. Al Queda was known to have strong contacts with other countries Iraq was a weak connection at best.

It matters nada what anyone or any report says, it hasn't and cannot ever be proven that there were no WMDs in Iraq. Huge freakin' stockpiles were never necessary to constitute a major threat to the United States - one that would make 9-11 seem like child's play. You glossed over my comment about what you could do with only a few kilos of botox. For anyone to assert that the WMD threat was not significant , much less to say it was nonexistent, simply demonstrates a total ignorance of the nature of WMDs. You've bought into bogus propaganda designed to support an agenda.

If we go over to Africa and start bustin' those African Muslim's heads open, I'll bet you any amount of money you want that the Arab Muslims will jump at the chance to use it to justify escalation on their part.

Very true, BMIC, as long as we fight them somewhere other than here, I ok, with it.