Aid to Africa? (was Odd American Points of View)

[Matt]

After all, this isn't some Ayn Rand-inspired fairy tale: just *wanting* and *trying* to improve your life isn't any guarantee of success.  Without the resources to permit effective action, you simply will not succeed.

I didn't mean to imply that. A dedication to change isn't sufficient but inasmuch as it is necessary for improvement itself, it is also a necessary precondition to getting my aid.

Can someone provide a concrete example of a country which is "actually trying to effect a change but simply lack sufficient resources"? That would make things a lot easier to discuss.

I would favor a solution that was more like: give them a little money, and see what they do with it. If you show that you can invest it wisely and make some real gains - improved infrastructure, education, et cetera - then you get a little more. If not, you get less. I don't agree that any kind of reform requires vast sums of aid. Certainly some kinds of improvement are only feasible at certain scales (highways for example), but improvement generally can be done at all levels of aid money (even $50 can buy a classroom some textbooks, or pay to teach a village how to farm a tough patch of land).

[Saucemaster]

After all, this isn't some Ayn Rand-inspired fairy tale: just *wanting* and *trying* to improve your life isn't any guarantee of success.  Without the resources to permit effective action, you simply will not succeed.

I didn't mean to imply that. A dedication to change isn't sufficient but inasmuch as it is necessary for improvement itself, it is also a necessary precondition to getting my aid.

Yeah, sorry, I realized after I posted that I might have unintentionally implied that *you* implied that.  I understand what you're saying, and I completely agree.  I just hear (other) people all-too-frequently hop on the "well if 'they' really wanted to get out of poverty, they'd just up and do it" train.  Now THERE's a Night Train.

I think my biggest point was simply that the reason that our monetary aid doesn't work has at least as much to do with our half-assed way of providing that aid and our general lack of empathy as it does with any inherent flaws in the concept of charity itself.  Assume for a moment that you're right, and that something like American troop presence would be required to really turn things around in Africa.  How many Americans would be okay with that?  Hell, we can't even muster up the energy to turn on the damn news when there's a GENOCIDE in progress over there.

[Matt]

I think my biggest point was simply that the reason that our monetary aid doesn't work has at least as much to do with our half-assed way of providing that aid and our general lack of empathy as it does with any inherent flaws in the concept of charity itself.  Assume for a moment that you're right, and that something like American troop presence would be required to really turn things around in Africa.  How many Americans would be okay with that?  Hell, we can't even muster up the energy to turn on the damn news when there's a GENOCIDE in progress over there.

Sadly, we aren't alone in this. Ten years ago Europe was unable or unwilling to prevent a genocide in Europe without our help. If Europe wants to truly offset American power then it's going to need more than just a strong economy, it's going to have to start working on its resume' - "Extracurricular activities: Prevented genocide in Sudan. Deposed dictator in Libya. Brokered lasting peace between warring nations."

And while we're on the subject of sheer dollar amounts, how much are you suggesting it will take to see some gains? In 2002-2003 sub-Saharan Africa recieved over $3,500,000,000 from the USA alone, plus whatever other nations gave. Can you honestly tell me that's such a paltry sum that nothing could be done with it?

[Saucemaster]

My inclination, without having done any significant research on this (something I'll rectify shortly--one good side effect of this conversation), is to say that the 3.5 billion probably came in the wrong form.  For example, how much do American and European trade barriers contribute to Africa's problems?  I don't really know, but I'm going to assume that they're not insignificant.  When we give aid to Sub-Saharan Africa, are we just saying "hey, you should, you know, build some roads and sewers with this cash we're giving you, but, you know, whatever", or are we providing capital for actual infrastructure projects that aren't going to get funding otherwise?  I'd like to believe the latter, but it's probably the former.  And how much of that is because we just can't be bothered?

Of course, in all of this we still haven't really mentioned the basic problem that most of the governments in the countries we're discussing are ineffective at best, corrupt at worst.

Anyway, I'm at work, so maybe more on that later, but this is an interesting discussion.

[dandan]

Concrete example. The WHO wants a programme of innoculation against completely preventable diseases such as malaria. Most African countries do not have enough money to finance such a scheme. I point to the eradication (outside of a few labs) of Smallpox as a concrete result. African countries are not going to be able to get on their feet if their future (the children) die from mosquito bites. I'm not sure how true the figures are but for malaria I've heard it is worse than a 911 every week for under 5s.

Matt - Europe has been just as inactive as America in the past. However EU finance ministers have just agreed to raise aid spending to 0.7% GDP, a massive amount. Whether this actually happens is another matter. The EU has also been successful (undoubtedly greatly helped by the implied threat of US military force) in getting Libya to pretend to act like a civilised country.

[controversial bit] Actually Gaddafi is, in relative terms, an African good guy. He has provided stability, and some of the oil money has gone into developing the country (the fresh-water pipelines to supply drinking water to the major cities are so big America initially claimed they were to be used for secret tank movements). By African standards, the people of Libya are well fed, well educated and have good health care. It is generally accepted that Libya has ceased all significant terrorist activities and development of WMD (kind of like Iraq). I mention this, not because I am a Gaddafi fan but merely to demonstrate that resolving African problems need pragmatism more than idealism[/controversial bit]

I think much of the aid that has gone to Africa has been wasted. An intelligent dictator can get greater funds for his military by relying in food aid even if the food aid actually goes to starving people (think Sudan and Ethiopia]. Because of this, I think only aid in tandem with political pressure can make a permanent change. We need to be careful with this though, as 'aid' in exchange for ideological agreement was what helped to get many of these countries in their current messed up state (although it certainly helped the leaders of those countries buy some nice cars and fancy palaces).

I do not think it is viable to station American or European troops in Africa, I do think it is possible to support the fledgling African peacekeeping forces.

As for 'will for change' I'm pretty sure most Africans would welcome their children not dying so frequently.



 

[SliverKing]

Not to sound horribly cruel, but they cant afford the children that make it...  eradicating a bunch of diseases is just going to make it worse.  Not that it doesnt need to be done, but while we're dreaming about a perfect world, how about we dream of them not having 8+ kids...
Look at the birth rates in the different social classes in Europe and the US.  You'll see a staggering correlation between number of children and lower incomes. Its the same in Japan and Australia. IF you want to talk about fixing the problems, you have to be willing to admit all the problems that are there...

Corrupt Inefficient Governments
Crushing Debt
Lack of eductated workforce
Primitive tribal alliagences/warfare
More people than ability to support
Completely made up countries, borders drawn by European colonists, putting together groups that dont get along.

I'm all for debt relief for the countries with non-corrupt government and transparent spending, even more direct aid if the situation calls for it... but not for throwing billions of dollars at a black hole of a continent.

[dandan]

As countries develop the death rate declines and slightly later the birth rate declines. If my only pension plan was to have several of my kids support me in my old age but half of them died before they got to 5, I'd damn well reproduce like a rabbit!

I think the current round of initiatives are tackling the issue of bad government as well as debt relief and aid for health/education and infrastructure. Regarding tribalism, this messed up Europe for centuries but development stops grievances turning into conflict (see Blair and Chirac playing out the age old France-England dispute ritual). A lot of conflicts are attempts to get rid of bad government but most rebels have turned out to be just as corrupt. There would be less rebellion if there were less to rebel about.

I have to take issue with you on the issue of more people than ability to support. Africa sells huge amounts of food and also has many non-food cash crops like rubber and cocoa (don't nitpick about cocoa being a food). The green and blue revolutions in agriculture have largely passed Africa by (South Africa is probably an exception).

Regarding the dodgy borders, it is very true but strangely few have proposed border changes. After the fall of communism, Slovakia agreed to move a few borders for practical reasons with the Czech Republic and Poland but I have heard little of this in Africa. Instead there are pointless conflicts over which bit of desert Eritrea wants from Ethiopia. If I were hungry I'd prefer dessert to desert.

[Saucemaster]

Look at the birth rates in the different social classes in Europe and the US.  You'll see a staggering correlation between number of children and lower incomes. Its the same in Japan and Australia. IF you want to talk about fixing the problems, you have to be willing to admit all the problems that are there...

This is off-topic, and dandan slightly covered it, but actually this has been pretty well-understood for a while by sociologists and anthropologists.  By far the best strategy to ensure your survival and the survival of your children in an area with poverty and/or high child mortality is to have as many children as possible.  That way more people are contributing to the family's ability to scrounge food/shelter/etc, the family is more likely to survive, and you don't just starve once you're too old to compete for resources.  The reason there's a correlation is not because poor people are dumb or have no control; it's actually adaptive.  There's a correlation for a reason.

[SliverKing]

Of course governments wont talk about border changes... it opens a huge can of worms that they are terrified of.  But if you're going to look at reasons for conflict...  putting blood enemies in the same country is a good place to start.

If high birthrates were helping Africa they'd be out of trouble by now. Just because something is typical of poverty existance doesnt mean its not part of the problem. And just like the people on welfare in America, it creates resentment between the donors and the recipients...  again... not helpful.

The birthrate was high in Europe and the US pre-industrialization.. but Europe and the US pulled themselves out of it. minus international conferences and billions in aid.  Japan likewise went from feudal to industrialized... even faster than the West did.  Does Africa even want to modernize?  Sure doesnt seem like it. 

I'm not against aid, but before people go chastizing those who are hesitant... remember how much money has been dumped into Africa already... and it looks little different today than it did in 1995 or 1985 or 1905.

[Saucemaster]

If high birthrates were helping Africa they'd be out of trouble by now. Just because something is typical of poverty existance doesnt mean its not part of the problem. And just like the people on welfare in America, it creates resentment between the donors and the recipients...  again... not helpful.

The birthrate was high in Europe and the US pre-industrialization.. but Europe and the US pulled themselves out of it. minus international conferences and billions in aid.  Japan likewise went from feudal to industrialized... even faster than the West did.  Does Africa even want to modernize?  Sure doesnt seem like it.

High birthrates don't necessarily help Africa as a whole, they're just the only really viable strategy for individuals and families in the kind of conditions that hold in much of Africa.  The real point is, in the examples you cited, the birthrate lowered AFTER the economic conditions became favorable.  Trying to force it lower before then is asking people to act against their own self-interest, which even if it was going to help wouldn't actually be feasible, since people won't do it.  Plus, it's not like it's necessarily a conscious choice in the first place, so you're actually trying to change culture and habit and subconscious behavior, which is even more difficult.

[Dr. Sylvan]

Fertility rates are on the decline in many places, even in Africa. Egypt and Zimbabwe (just off the top of my head) are already below 3.0 kids/woman. The real issue for Africa in particular is AIDS. 30% infection rate is insanity. If we had a 1% infection rate in the US, there would be riots.

As to private charity's effects: http://www.unicef.org/media/media_8000.html

Rotary International and UNICEF are on the verge of eradicating polio worldwide, at a pricetag of less than a billion dollars over the last twenty years. I think the difference is that private charity is more likely to succeed because it doesn't come from a veritable bottomless pit like US federal aid does. No one will be scandalized if a few billion dollars is misspent by our government---we expect that. Maybe if it was $100+ billion we'd mind, but no one was even really scandalized to learn that 14% of all Medicare spending is fraudulent (at least it was in the mid-1990s), and that's over $50 billion per year.

In 1985, when Rotary launched its eradication program, there were an estimated 350,000 new cases of polio in 125 countries. Last year, 1,263 cases were reported. More than one million Rotary members have volunteered their time or donated money to immunize two billion children in 122 countries. In 1988, Rotary money and its example were the catalyst for a global eradication drive joined by the World Health Organization, Unicef and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. In 2000 Rotary teamed up with the United Nations Foundation to raise $100 million in private money for the program. By the time the world is certified as polio-free -- probably in 2008 -- Rotary will have contributed $600 million to its eradication effort.

A letter to the editor of the WSJ in late April has already suggested malaria as the next target. Also note that Bill Gates' foundation just gave another $250 million (on top of the first $200 million) for global health research and actions. I think these two groups are probably doing more good than the entire US federal foreign aid budget. If the US is to be condemned, let it be for only doing some incredible things, rather than attempting to to all of the conceivable amazing things some would prefer.

[dandan]

I have pointed out that a relatively small amount of money could be used to tackle disease. You are correct in saying that my initial posts didn't distinguish clearly enough between the country USA and American citizens, although I have subsequently pointed out that I am merely pointing out the relatively low level of US state aid to Africa. I think the programme against polio is yet another example of how aid can make a difference.

I am amazed that this isn't a bigger issue in America especially amongst African-Americans. The far smaller Jewish minority certainly affect US policy towards the Middle-East but there doesn't appear to be much support for aid to Africa. There certainly isn't widespread support for aid here in the EU, apart from occasional Bob Geldorf rants and Tony Blair's search for a legacy (it certainly isn't a vote winner), most people (including me) don't really pay a lot of attention to Africa.

[Dr. Sylvan]

A lot of the reasons for that are just which group is in a position to be an effective political lobby. America's Jews are strong socioeconomically, so they can afford to care more about a foreign policy issue. They are also an important swing demographic in important states like Florida, so they have leverage beyond their numbers. Blacks, on the other hand, are much more prone to spend their political energy on domestic concerns because of horrifying incarceration rates of about 10% for black men ages 20-29 (in twelve states it's 10% of all black men ages 18-64). They also have much more at stake in the education debate because of the concentration of minorities in the worst school districts in America. Blacks also have serious health issues as a group, such as diabetes and obesity. They don't have time to worry about Africa.

[dandan]

Blacks also have serious health issues as a group, such as ...obesity. They don't have time to worry about Africa.

Quoted for unintentional irony

[Ben Kossman]

Rationalizing one's lack of empathy is the American pastime. It's a lot easier to waste vast amounts of space in your brain justifying things you know are wrong than it is to work hard to find solutions. Waiting on America to take meaningful steps in Africa is just silly. If the "EU" is comitted to making it happen they can do it on their own. After all they did colonize it in the
first place. We're tied up in our own misadventures in the Middle East right now anyway. Otherwise we really could make a difference 

[Matt]

After all they did colonize it in the first place.

And we all know how well that turned out.

For that matter I could say that blaming America is the entire world's pasttime. It's a lot easier to blame the U.S. than it is to fix your own problems.

But saying that would just be a drastic oversimplification, if not outright lie, and certainly lowering the level of debate. And I would never do that.

[dandan]

After all they did colonize it in the first place.

And we all know how well that turned out.

For that matter I could say that blaming America is the entire world's pasttime. It's a lot easier to blame the U.S. than it is to fix your own problems.

But saying that would just be a drastic oversimplification, if not outright lie, and certainly lowering the level of debate. And I would never do that.

I don't think I blamed America. I'd blame Africa and Europe (in that order) for the mess that Africa is in long before blaming America. I merely pointed out that America was doing relatively little to solve the problem, despite being in a strong position to do so. The EU is kind of committed but it is also very committee-ed, and waiting for 25 countries to agree on anything is a test of anyone's patience (especially when one of the 25 agrees with America on everything {although America feels no obligation to agree with it] and another disagrees with America on everything).

In any case, watch this space for an important announcement that is actually Magic-related........

[Matt]

Oh, I didn't think that you (or pretty much anyone else in this thread) were blaming America. I was just highlighting the ridiculousness of Ben Kossman's post.

[Klep]

I don't think I blamed America. I'd blame Africa and Europe (in that order) for the mess that Africa is in long before blaming America.

Actually I'd blame Europe first, specifically the Dutch and French.  When they pulled out of their colonies, they largely just abandoned them (especially the French), leaving them without a stable system of government (this also happened in Vietnam).  If you'll notice, the places where the British were in charge were largely able to have stable governments (even if not necessarily awesome governments like in South Africa) which prevented them from devolving into the chaotic nightmare worlds you see in other erstwhile colonies like the Democratic Peoples Republic of the Congo (which is neither democratic, of the people, or a republic).  Africa has its own problems, it's true, but they are largely a result of irresponsible actions by Europe and a lack of good examples.

[Ben Kossman]

Oh, I didn't think that you (or pretty much anyone else in this thread) were blaming America. I was just highlighting the ridiculousness of Ben Kossman's post.

What part of it was ridiculous? I didn't say anyone was blaming America for Africa's problems. Just that we're in no position to help due to piss poor leadership and a lack of anyone with any real influence holding the GOP accountable for their actions. Bush is practically a liberal. He's responsible for the largest re-distribution of wealth in our country's history (Tax Cuts) and expanding the federal government's power far beyond any reasonable limits (Patriot Act). But when it comes to " helping people" his "plan" involves destroying one of the oldest cities in the world with depleted uranium when the real therats we face are Saudi Arabia and China. Conservatives should learn to stop shouting insults long enough to listen to different points of view or things are going to get a lot worse in a hurry. Not that you were really being that bad Matt, I just don't get what made my statement incorrect.

[dandan]

No sermon – I have decided to sell my best cards and donote the money to sponsor an African child. If you are interested in buying seriously good cards (all Power cards except Walk plus Workshop, 4 Drains, etc, etc) have a look at this thread

(Yes, I have asked for permission to post a ‘sale’ thread)
http://www.themanadrain.com/forums/index.php?topic=23623.0

[Matt]

the Democratic Peoples Republic of the Congo (which is neither democratic, of the people, or a republic)

Hey, if they only open up to unrestrained logging and development, they can get the hat trick by not being of the Congo either!

Rationalizing one's lack of empathy is the American pastime.

That's the part of your post I took issue with. The unstated message there is "if only those greedy Americans would give up their wealth, we could solve some of Africa's problems" and I contend that that's not true at all.

Also, you mention depleted uranium. I've seen this mentioned here and there; it's been a darling of the extreme left for awhile now. I'd like to point out that the radiation threat posed by DU is almost nonexistant, and in fact DU is often used as radiation shielding - it's actually better at it than lead! It does have some chemical threat due to uranium being somewhat more soluble in elemental form that when it's locked up in minerals. But even this risk isn't that great. The biggest danger of leaving a bunch of DU in Iraq is having the Iraqis gather it up and remake it into bullets to use against us.  :shock:

[Godder]

That's the case for solid DU, but it's inhaling the DU dust that causes the problems with cancer and the like.

[Ben Kossman]

Is noting the fact that the weapons we're using to "liberate the Iraqi people" are going to poison them in the long run is an extreme leftist point of view then call me Noam Chomsky if it helps distract you from the reality that people are dying needlessly in Africa, Iraq and have done so throughout the course of human history because the people with the ability to do the right thing turned a blind eye or even worse tried to solve problems through totally counterproductive means like War or packaging international aid with idiotic dogma like the abstinence provisions attached to Bush's AIDS plan.

[Matt]

I've been reading up a bit more on DU. It seems likely that I've overstated DU's benign-ness as regards its chemical properties; however, every site I've seen caterwauling about how horrible it is also tries to tie that in with its supposed radioactivity, which does not do a lot for their credibility. They also make some extremely specious claims about cancer rates of certain areas and the like. My personal jury is definitely still out on this one.

Yes, people are dying needlessly in Africa. That isn't my fault, and it isn't my country's fault, and nor is it my or my country's responsibility to stop it. We might eventually have to step in anyway, because no one else - including the Africans themselves - seems willing or able to help.

What marks a person as an extremist are naiive statements like "war is totally counterproductive."

[wonkey_donkey]

I don't think I blamed America. I'd blame Africa and Europe (in that order) for the mess that Africa is in long before blaming America.

Actually I'd blame Europe first, specifically the Dutch and French.  When they pulled out of their colonies, they largely just abandoned them (especially the French), leaving them without a stable system of government (this also happened in Vietnam).  If you'll notice, the places where the British were in charge were largely able to have stable governments (even if not necessarily awesome governments like in South Africa) which prevented them from devolving into the chaotic nightmare worlds you see in other erstwhile colonies like the Democratic Peoples Republic of the Congo (which is neither democratic, of the people, or a republic).  Africa has its own problems, it's true, but they are largely a result of irresponsible actions by Europe and a lack of good examples.

Personally, I don't think the British did much better than the French and the Dutch. We seemed to use the "India and Palestine" model regarding pulling out of Africa - it was about time we went, but then buggering off when the going got tough. The Empire was no longer economically viable, so we decided it was time to get out. But after the 'Winds of Change' speech in 1960, we might have done a better job of leaving behind decent governments - take Zimbabwe, for example; there was unrest in the 1960s, but after 1965 there was a pretty horrible minority white government left behind. So who do we eventually find as a replacement? Mugabe. Stunning. Kenya's much the same.

Oh and when you say "awesome governments like in South Africa," I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at. After the Boer Wars, the British left Kruger in power, if memory serves, and it eventually evolved into Apartheid. Which bit of this was awesome? It may have been stable, but it was certainly not awesome.

Tom

[Klep]

Oh and when you say "awesome governments like in South Africa," I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at. After the Boer Wars, the British left Kruger in power, if memory serves, and it eventually evolved into Apartheid. Which bit of this was awesome? It may have been stable, but it was certainly not awesome.

I said "not necessarily awesome governments like in South Africa."  No question that apartheid was terrible.  My point was that the British had a tendency to leave stable governments behind, rather than nations embroiled in constant coups and civil wars.  Sure a given dictatorship may be nasty and evil, but it's generally better to have a stable dictatorship than a 50-year-long civil war.

When it comes right down to it, the countries in sub-Saharan Africa that are the best off are the ones the British were in charge of.

[Ben Kossman]

I've been reading up a bit more on DU. It seems likely that I've overstated DU's benign-ness as regards its chemical properties; however, every site I've seen caterwauling about how horrible it is also tries to tie that in with its supposed radioactivity, which does not do a lot for their credibility. They also make some extremely specious claims about cancer rates of certain areas and the like. My personal jury is definitely still out on this one.

Yes, people are dying needlessly in Africa. That isn't my fault, and it isn't my country's fault, and nor is it my or my country's responsibility to stop it. We might eventually have to step in anyway, because no one else - including the Africans themselves - seems willing or able to help.

I guess my point aside from just letting off steam was just that there are times to be cynical (dealing with one's own government) and times to stop nitpicking and do the right thing. American Conservatives seem to have serious problems drawing those distinctions nowadays and the more time we waste arguing over whether action is necessary in the first place only makes the problem worse. I'm sorry you choose to personalize what I said but really I know it's not your fault or anyone else's in America. However, if we're going to "lead the world" we should do it the right way by trying to alleviate disease and poverty instead of blowing shit up. I have no problem being labled an extremist. It's just a poor attempt to discredit my point of view instead of actually refuting it. Being an Extremist doesn't make me wrong, your gonna need facts to do that.

[Matt]

I guess my point aside from just letting off steam was just that there are times to be cynical (dealing with one's own government) and times to stop nitpicking and do the right thing. American Conservatives seem to have serious problems drawing those distinctions nowadays and the more time we waste arguing over whether action is necessary in the first place only makes the problem worse. I'm sorry you choose to personalize what I said but really I know it's not your fault or anyone else's in America. However, if we're going to "lead the world" we should do it the right way by trying to alleviate disease and poverty instead of blowing shit up. I have no problem being labled an extremist. It's just a poor attempt to discredit my point of view instead of actually refuting it. Being an Extremist doesn't make me wrong, your gonna need facts to do that.

You are not wrong because you're an extremist. If anything, it's the other way around. If I may quote H.L. Mencken: "There is always an easy solution to every human problem -- neat, plausible, and wrong."

You discredit yourself when you say things like "alleviate disease instead of blowing shit up." You discredit yourself when you make these drastic oversimplifications that betray a total lack of understanding about the complex reality of the real world, where medicinal aid packages are diverted and sold off for weapons, where food is hoarded to starve one's opponents to death.

But no. According to you, what we need is to abandon the idea of military intervention, despite its relatively strong track record for progress and betterment, and to empty our wallets in charity despite that tactic's extremely underwhelming track record, and we need to do it quick, without thinking about it. According to you, the proper thing to do is give give give, without ever asking anything of your charity case - such as asking them to please stop being a chairty case.

You whine about "the right thing" but it's time to present a hard truth: the "right thing" is not so easy to identify. It might make you feel nice when you hand over a couple tons of grain but in the real world that is not the end of it. Often, giving out aid only temporarily alleviates or even prolongs a problem by masking it;  it does not solve the problem. Often, the right thing to do IS to, as you so glibly put it, "blow shit up."

I can't help but imagine you as a doctor: a patient comes in with a gangrenous arm and you cover it with bandaids but cannot bring yourself to amputate - why, that would be violent, and violence is always wrong! That would make you just like those who "blow shit up"!

-----------------------------------------------------

We should indeed be discussing the facts, and I will do so now. It is a fact that the two biggest and most successful improvements projects America ever undertook - the rebuilding of Germany and Japan following WWII - succeeded only with the presence of huge numbers of American troops by their side. It is a fact that the despotic, horrible regimes and the mindsets which bred them were only broken by blowing stuff up - rather a lot of stuff, as it happens. It is a fact that the violence and destruction of the small proxy wars between the USA and USSR kept an unimaginable amount of shit from being blown up. It is a fact military intervention and violence and "blowing shit up" fixes problems and saves lives. That you don't seem to care about the long run, preferring only to focus on the here and now, does the discrediting work for me.

It is also a fact that a good chunk of the world has been dumping money into Africa for the last 30 years (or more!) and that continent still remains a cesspool of war and mass graves, having shown little or no improvement and in many cases falling resolutely backwards. The definition of insanity is repeating the same behavior and expecting different results. Again, I have to ask: what makes you think that increased foreign aid is going to work this time?


-----------------------------------------------------

I am not really satisfied with this post, despite working on it for like an hour. If I'm not being entirely coherent, please forgive me.

[waSP]

I was under the impression that the debt relief was going to simply be us not giving aid we would have.  If we give them this aid and make them pay their debts, surely, at some point in between, some of the money will be lost to corruption, etc.  Can anyone validate this or the opposite?

One of the big problems with passing out aid is the infrastructure.  International charity is not a terribly new thing, but the economic theory behind it has been slow to develop.  What is the best way for us to encourage this impoverished, corrupt government to improve?  I was under the impression that the World Bank was trying to reform its aid systems (Madagascar anyone?) to make everything more effective.

It is difficult to expect real progress when you elect a group of nattering semi-morons, don't you think?  Maybe we can expect to have another intellectual in office by 2010 to redefine the American vision (no more Bush doctrine..).  We just have to wait out another 20 year cycle (we're around year 14, I think).  I don't know if this paragraph will ring true with anyone.