Reply to: Africa and why waste money on them?

I think there is a difference between socialism and bad policy.

I think it will work out in practice that Africas worst and most corrupt leaders get the lions share of the aid.

IMHO its got nothing to do with socialism. Take Iraq for example. When the politicians real reasons for attcking Iraq became obselete(IE It was proved to be bullsh1t) , the invasion was justified morally by advocating the "liberation" of the Iraqi people.

The net result was the creation of an anarchic wasteland where there once was a country, albeit a dictatorship.

However Mugabe can bulldoze down peoples houses on CNN and all he gets is a weak condemnation and a tacit statement indicating that Africa should sort out its own problems(Jack Straw), AND .... now we are going to give him billions for food for the starving masses.

So then why shouldnt Iraq sort out its own problems?

Zimbabwe, Belarus, Burma.... they all have to.

I just get p!ssed off when our taxes go to fighting wars that nobody wants, then our taxes go to aid for corrupt leaders who should be drawn and quartered and then some, and then we are expected and made to feel obliged to contribute further in the form of charitable aid by patronising g!ts like Bono and Geldof looking for their place in history as iconic saviours.

But then I am an idealist not a politician.

It's the socialist way, sunnysan. It's the same sort of principle as NL's policy towards the retirement saving problem: p1ss all your money up the wall and the state will look after you, save hard and you get nowt.

I am watching the TV profile of Botswana, who have managed their economy well, created reliable public services and have a higher GDP per head than South Africa.

So , becuase the country has suceeded in relative terms , they do not qualify for any debt relief or upliftment from the West.

So , the message to African leaders is, kill and torture your political opponents and destry the infrastructure and then you will recieve more aid?

Yet the farmers cannot compete against Europen farmers, the industry is labouring under unfair tariifs and they still need to pay off a massive debt to the IMF.

So we will p!ss money away to leaders who have no commitment to their countries and their people and not invest in the countries whose leaders have proven a commitment to uplifting the living standards of their citizens.

Whose God?

"Africa and why waste money on them"

Famine, Disease...just Gods way of saying there's too many of them

Re: Racist?

A story from IPS News, a small website

How Much Chewing Gum Will Save a Continent?
Analysis by Sanjay Suri

LONDON, Mar 18 (IPS) - All that is needed from the rich to save Africa is the price of ''half a stick of chewing gum a day from everyone,'' rock star and now star Africa activist Bob Geldof declared Friday.

That, he figured, would add up to the 25 billion dollars a year that the Commission for Africa has recommended by way of extra aid to Africa until 2010. After that, the Commission appointed by the British government recommends a further 25 billion dollars a year extra aid. Which would mean the equivalent of a full stick of chewing gum a day, going by the new 'Bob-onomics' for Africa.

But chewing gum, or the sacrifice of its cash equivalent, might not be necessary at all, Robert Guest from The Economist pointed out to Geldof and hundreds of others at a one-day conference called by the BBC in London to discuss the report of the Commission for Africa.

Think, Guest said, of the 350 billion dollars or so a year the West pays out in agricultural subsidies. That could add up to ''a jumbo bag of chewing gum.'' And the ''only losers would be a small number of relatively well-off farmers in the rich world.''

The recommendations of the Commission for Africa were coming unstuck over chewing gum. Because it was showing that fair trade rules would do more for perhaps Africa than this extra donation that Bob Geldof and the Commission for Africa was making such passionate appeals for.

Geldof and the Commission have turned out to be far more closely linked than most people had believed; Bob Geldof had in fact made the Commission for Africa happen, he told the conference.

Deeply concerned on a visit to Ethiopia by ''false bananas'' on trees that looked like banana plantations but in fact produced nothing, Geldof said he called Prime Minister Tony Blair at 10 Downing Street. Blair invited him to come and see him on his return. He did, and the Commission for Africa was born.

Blair, a guitarist of sorts in his spare time, has been more than a little indulgent of Geldof. At the release of the Commission for Africa report last week Geldof described Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe as an ''ageing creep'', and condemned Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni for trying to be president for life. Blair spoke later to support Geldof. That support crossed usual diplomatic limits.

Blair and Geldof have apparently remained in close touch over this new Africa initiative. Geldof told the Friday conference that Blair had taken the recommendations of the Commission for Africa on board as British government policy. That made this, he said, ''a moment of incredible political influence.''

All that the rich G7 nations (the United States, Canada, France, Germany, Britain, Italy and Japan) had to do was to spare another 0.1 percent of their gross domestic product (GDP) for Africa, Geldof said. Besides, he said, British Chancellor of the Exchequer (finance minister) Gordon Brown had thought up the International Finance Facility (IFF) to raise more money for aid. ''It is so easy to do it, why would you not?''

Easy or not, and whatever the reason, the conference became an exhibition that the rest of the 'developed' world is paying little attention to the Blair-Geldof produce.

European trade commissioner Peter Mandelson acknowledged at the conference, as did others, that the United States, Canada and Japan did not seem interested either in the Blair-Geldof Commission for Africa, or in Gordon Brown's IFF. ''I hope the EU alone will take the lead,'' Mandelson said.

But a lack of hope was inherent in that expression of hope; this was admission that none of the remaining European members of G7 -- France, Germany and Italy -- had made any firm commitment either on the IFF or the Commission for Africa recommendations.

That leaves only Britain -- and the leading non-governmental organisation War on Want has pointed out that Britain itself is not doing what the Commission for Africa recommends on many fronts.

In the end it emerged that what would matter most is what Africa can do for itself. ''Africa is not going to get richer through charity,'' Guest said. ''We first need to put our own act together,'' said Anna Tibaijuka, executive director of UN-HABITAT in Nairobi. Not dramatic words, but to Africa perhaps more meaningful.

For the BBC cameras filming the conference, Bob Geldof was the story. He is the hero also of a series of BBC reports in an upcoming 'Africa season'. Chewing gum economics is more television friendly; never mind Africa.

Re: Racist?

There really is no point feeling guilty about history. Where do you stop? If we have a debt to Africa/India etc then ok, why not reverse the Ottoman conquests and chuck the Muslims out of Kosovo? Why not ask the Arabs to pay lots of oil dosh to Africa?, they were trafficking black slaves for centuries before we were. Let's turf the Jews out of Palestine and make them wander around Europe.

It's all history. Nasty things happened in history. If there are some cultures who never inflicted problems on others it wasn't because they were enlightened human beings but because they were backward and lacked the ability.

Some love to play the victim card and they only play it when the "opressors" have the means to pay.

Racist?

Chico, I'm only stating what's obvious.

I'm being honest, not trying to be politically correct.

If fewer people minced their words, we might get to the heart of problems.

Re: come on

Chico I am not racist. I just have the view that we as humans need to work hard and think clearly to deal with the challenges of life.

I resent being blamed for something that people did before I was born.

I did not invade Africa.

I did not crucify Christ.

etc etc.

Please, can people get on with their life and not bleat and beg for me to pay donations and taxes for thing I did not do and had no control or influence over.

I would gladly punch Bob Geldoff in the face if I had the misfortune to ever meet the smelly sack of tulipe, for his role in making me feel guitly about things that I did not do.

Where was Bob Geldoff when his ex wife was dying a tragic life in a London mews? He could not even save members of his own family let alone the world.

We have the technology right now to stop world overpopulation and hunger in its tracks.

We just need to stamp out religion and bigotry and superstition and just get on with the challenge of living from one day to the next.

A good start would be for black people to stop killing other black people.

Is that racist?

Is that a bad thing to ask for?

come on

Why does every discussion have to be dragged into the gutter - every problem in the world essentially boils down to this - the black man is inferior. snaw and hattra were having a healthy discussion with dodgy and then it went downhill. Bum why are you so racist? Did your wife or daughter run off with a black man? What?I am sure you are much more intelligent than your posts suggests. This is not primary school.

London -- Little Africa

The same money should be spent on London as London appears to be an African city these days.

Re: to be fair

Western colonisation was a mere blip in the history of Africa.

Africans were tribal savages fighting and butchering each other for thousands of years before the "white man" arrived. (lets not forget that Europeans were also tribal savages themselves until very recently in history) . It was easy to colonise Africa because they were cultural cot cases.

Its part of human nature for the strong to dominate the weak. Blame the engineer (God?) who designed human nature.

Western society is unique in having some sets of beliefs and member of its society that try to moderate these tendencies. The concepts of charity and altruism are very wierd and foreign conceptst to any cultures that have not been influenced by Hellenic philosphy.

That is the main reason why we have to drag rich countries like Japan that do not have roots in Western thought, kicking and struggling to any world-wide attempts to help the poorer countries.

I suspect that history will judge the attempts of Western countries to save the world as an odd side show and dead end.

The native populations of Western countries are diminishing rapidly and the original european stock is stealthily being replaced by more aggressive human beings from cultures that do not have the baggage or scruples of Hellenic and Christian do-gooder philosophy.

Check your crime figures in most Western society and the ethnic makeup of the ciminals and you can see the trends of the new dog eat dog, take no prisoners, post Western approach to life.

I am leaning to the view that it will be for the better.

Re: to be fair

Mr snaw, what did you mean by this?

I wouldn't argue that colonisation caused the economic problems faced by Africa

You now seem to be arguing that you didn't suggest any such thing.

The fact of the matter is that, whereas indians, chinese, and everywhere else in the world has moved on from whatever colonisation they had, including England by the way, black africa has not.

However un-PC it seems, this suggests to me that black africans are incapable of running a bath, let alone a country, and especially an economy.

I don't know whether they had economic problems before they were colonised. I doubt they were as we understand them anyway - they lived in tribes roaming the countryside in middle africa, or in simple huts.

Re: to be fair

I think debt relief has to be partially earned. I don't think that the people of a country should be penalised for the bribes that we paid to their (In most cases former) rulers. We definitely should "forgive" that part of their debt. For the rest of it, I think we should continue with our time-honoured traditions, and use the prospect of debt relief as a "bribe" to wean them away from corruption and misuse. What will really be interesting, is how most of these countries use the money liberated by the current round of debt relief - will they pass the test, or continue as before.

Re: to be fair

or maybe they are the ones feeling guilty

I accept your points hattra. My point is that we should not all jump on the liberal bandwagon (as you say) fuelled by guilt. Giving away money is always the worst thing that you can do.
Debt relief for example is basically and morally wrong. Debt relief has to be earned.