What can we do for Africa?

WindSock

Just thought I'd put that question out there after reading that car crash of another thread.

Dades

What have Africa ever done for Us?

Is that the correct question, however? I mean, what has the homeless person you buy a cup of tea ever done for you? The concept of charity is not to do something so it can be reciprocated, but to do something to improve someone's lot.

The real question I got from the notorious article in question, is does sending hard cash to certain African countries achieve anything for the people there in the long term...

WindSock

Yeah that's probably a better question. Mine was just a knee-jerk reaction.

AngryBadger

Dades wrote: »

The real question I got from the notorious article in question, is does sending hard cash to certain African countries achieve anything for the people there in the long term...

In that case i'd say no it doesn't. Twice the population 20 years on, and all the same problems that existed decades ago.

The only way for outsiders to get a corrupt government to bend knee is sanctions, but of course the first people to get hit by sanctions are the lay-people who already have nothing anyway.

Catch-22

brianthebard

seriously op?i don't think global relations should be about what countries do for each other,but africa was/is raped of all natural resources including its people for centuries,so i think colonial powers owe the continent.if you mean ireland specifically,why shouldn't we try to help africa rise from 3rd world poverty?if nothing else it might create markets for trade in the long run.

karen3212

Current research is that we are all decended from about 1000 Africans, so it's given us the human race.

Earthhorse

AngryBadger wrote: »

In that case i'd say no it doesn't. Twice the population 20 years on, and all the same problems that existed decades ago.

Guess it depends what you mean by long term. If I'm facing starvation and foreign aid saves me, allowing me to live out the rest of my expected life, that's done something for me in the long term. So individuals are helped.

Are the nations and peoples of Africa helped by such aid? It's varied from nation to nation. Africa would take a thousand threads to properly debate.

Earthhorse

karen3212 wrote: »

Current research is that we are all decended from about 1000 Africans, so it's given us the human race.

Okay, but what have they dont for us lately?

WindSock

The Aqueduct?

Seriously though, forget the title of the thread I will try and change it...

AngryBadger

Earthhorse wrote: »

Guess it depends what you mean by long term. If I'm facing starvation and foreign aid saves me, allowing me to live out the rest of my expected life, that's done something for me in the long term. So individuals are helped.

Are the nations and peoples of Africa helped by such aid? It's varied from nation to nation. Africa would take a thousand threads to properly debate.

Sure you can help the individual, but all we seem to wind up doing in a lot of cases is helping people to stay alive to pass these horrors onto their own children without any hope of being self-sustaining.

In which case I think it's reasonable to ask the question, are we really doing any good?

Earthhorse

AngryBadger wrote: »

In which case I think it's reasonable to ask the question, are we really doing any good?

Like I say, that would take a thousand threads to answer. You can't really look at "Africa" in the round, I don't think. You'd have to look at specific countries, specific time periods and specific initiatives to find out what good was or wasn't achieved.

tallaght01

The problems in Africa need to be looked at in the long term. Solutions and assistance from developed countries are often tailored towards a resuts within the tenure of teh government. Seeing results in 20 years time won't be any use to the current government in the next election.

Also, solutions to complex problems have sometimes been too simplistic. I'm no expert on Africa, but I do know about healthcare.

The Clinton foundation are on TV today announcing moves to get cheaper malaria drugs to Africa. That's a good move, and could make some real change in a disease that kills more Africans than most others every year.

But simplistic options like this aren't always effective. Look at HIV. 40+ million Africans are positive. It mostly affects those in the 18-40 age group. These are the most economically active group in a population, with most dependents. Their ill health has so many knock-on consequences. In Africa you're lucky if you live 10 years with HIV. So, there's millions of AIDS orphans. These children are very likely to fall into the poverty trap...and so are more likely to catch HIV themselves.

So, the calls from the western world lobbyists is to make HIV drugs cheaper, so Africans can afford them. That's all very well. We could send over plane loads of these drugs, and it would be politically expedient. It would look great. Bono would back it.

But lets look at the reality.

To give out drugs to HIV patients you need to find out who has the disease. So you need a lab. In countries where up to 20% of people are positive, that's gotta be a busy, well resourced lab with good, durable equipment.

You need to train scientists to work in the labs. So you need money for that...and a university!!!

You need a pharmacist, too, to dispense the drugs

Then you need to counsel those who are tested. Those who are positive need education in how not to pass the virus on, so you need some more healthcare professionals there (the studies that I've read show limited effectivenes of community or peer educators).

So, then you get the drugs to the patient. He starts his course, and feels a bit better. But you need to bring them back regularly for blood tests to make sure the drugs are working. So, you need some kind of transport. It's the poor who are mostly at risk of getting HIV, so they may not be able to afford a bus, and may have no way of getting to your clinic. The roads might not even be safe. Will the poor fisherman be able to take a day off work to travel to your clinic? These monitoring blood tests add extra work to your overburdened lab,too.

When you diagnose people with HIV and give them a big box of tablets to bring home to their village, you're labelling them. So we need education in the community so these peope aren't stigmatised (as they are currently). If a positive test result means you're ostracised from your community, or people won't buy your "infected" fish or whatever, then you won't go to get tested, and your whole scheme falls onto it's arse.

So, even if your patient gets his drugs and manages not to pass the virus onto his wife, and his daughter, you still have external risks. Say the local militia decide that their village is the subject of today's raid, and they gang rape our patient's wife and daughter. The spread continues.

So, it's not as simple as saying we should make drugs cheaper. We need a transport infrastructure so the patients can travel and the drugs can be shipped. We need primary and secondary education, so as the population can embrace the programme withouth stigmatising, and we need teriary education so the drugs can be controlled and dispensed by the appropriate people. We need safety of women and children, and their protection against the sexal violence epidemic that has infected Africa. We need doctiors and nurses and scientists and labs, and police to protect the guy driving the truck full of these valuable drugs that would be worth a fortune on the black market.

In short, we need an infrastructure. But infrastructure doesn't make headlines. Infrastructure doesn't get you a press conference with Bono singing your praises.

The above may seem rambley, and very specific to HIV. And it is. But I've just posted it because it's illustrative of how a seemingly simple solution can in fact be very complicated, and can require significnat investment and long-term planning to implement.

I don't have the solutions, but I'd start with tackling conflict and dictatorship. That woud be my gut feeling, but I'm no expert.

AngryBadger

I think the above sums up the situation very well.

In short it's not JUST about food, or medicine, or education, it's all of these things and more.

What Africa and countries like it need is a complete do-over. And that's never gonna happenb, it will take generations to solve these problems and mainly because the change needs to come from within Africa itself in order to work in the longer term.

WindSock

What happens then, when all these people are prevented from malaria and HIV/AIDS? there are too many mouths to feed as it is. This will create many more.

Rev Hellfire

I'd question why it is our responsibility to do anything about Africa at all.

tallaght01

WindSock wrote: »

What happens then, when all these people are prevented from malaria and HIV/AIDS? there are too many mouths to feed as it is. This will create many more.

Sick mouths are much more difficult to feed than well ones.

The issue in Africa isn't, by and large, that there isn't enough food for all the people. But, even if t was, if Africa improved economically, then there would be enough for everyone.

But the health of the population is an important step towards that goal. I mean, if a fifth of your workforce are dying, then what chance has your economy got?

Earthhorse

AngryBadger wrote: »

What Africa and countries like it need is a complete do-over.

Part of the problem is thinking about Africa as "Africa", I think.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'd question why it is our responsibility to do anything about Africa at all.

Well, I would say that as members of the human race we have a responsibility to help other members of the human race but that's just my opinion.

WindSock

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'd question why it is our responsibility to do anything about Africa at all.

Well, it would help stop them from coming over here and taking our jobs/women/horses.

WindSock

tallaght01 wrote: »

Sick mouths are much more difficult to feed than well ones.

The issue in Africa isn't, by and large, that there isn't enough food for all the people. But, even if t was, if Africa improved economically, then there would be enough for everyone.

But the health of the population is an important step towards that goal. I mean, if a fifth of your workforce are dying, then what chance has your economy got?

Education would be a huge priority as well. Malaria may be prevented/cured with the use of drugs but AIDS can only be prevented through education. Then there is the issue of healthy people with nothing to do for themselves. Maybe that's why they are all too busy fighting each other rather than doing productive things for their countries?

Rev Hellfire

Earthhorse wrote: »

Well, I would say that as members of the human race we have a responsibility to help other members of the human race but that's just my opinion.

But why ?
Lets be honest we owe them nothing. You don't get missions heading off to help the homeless in the US since people haven't been guilted into feeling some how 'responsible'.

tallaght01

WindSock wrote: »

Education would be a huge priority as well. Malaria may be prevented/cured with the use of drugs but AIDS can only be prevented through education.

Education and the rest. That was the exact point I made in my first post. I agree with you. Education is one the best predictive factors for whether a poor African is going to catch HIV,

WindSock wrote: »

Then there is the issue of healthy people with nothing to do for themselves. Maybe that's why they are all too busy fighting each other rather than doing productive things for their countries?

I don't think civil war in Africa is a result of boredom. It's a result of poor government in a continent that has great mineral wealth. Armies get soldiers by kidnapping them, or drugging them, or by offering them power and money, which is the kind of opportunity your average young African doesn't get every day.

DadaKopf

Okay, but what have they dont for us lately?

Hmm...

• Slaves
• Cheap imported labour
• Cheap oil, gas, diamonds, copper, aluminium, uranium, coltan, rubber, etc.
• Cheap agricultural goods
• Music and musicians

I mean basically the core ingredients of Western consumerist society.

Lets be honest we owe them nothing. You don't get missions heading off to help the homeless in the US since people haven't been guilted into feeling some how 'responsible'.

People did contribute money and volunteer to help the victims of hurricane Katrina. The huge difference is a country like America has the resources to fix their problems if those in power chose to do that (they don't). Countries in Africa do not have the capacities to do that so there is rational reason for foreign agents to get involved. Bear in mind, I'm only talking about emergency humanitarian assistance here. And don't forget that most refugees flee to other developing countries, again countries without the capacities to meet those challenges.

Why are we obliged? I'll tell you. One, the pragmatic (and self-interested) motive to ensure global stability and to ensure that the problems 'over there' aren't revisited on us 'back here'. Two, the moral argument: it is the right thing to do. Third: our obligations and commitments under the UN and other international bodies.

Earthhorse

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Lets be honest we owe them nothing. You don't get missions heading off to help the homeless in the US since people haven't been guilted into feeling some how 'responsible'.

Well, what you get is people from richer nations heading off to help people in poorer nations. The US idn't poor.

DadaKopf wrote: »

Hmm...

• Slaves
• Cheap imported labour
• Cheap oil, gas, diamonds, copper, aluminium, uranium, coltan, rubber, etc.
• Cheap agricultural goods
• Music and musicians

I mean basically the core ingredients of Western consumerist society.

Okay, but other than slaves, cheap imported labour, cheap oil, gas, diamonds, copper, aluminium, uranium, coltan, rubber, etc, cheap agricultural goods, music and musicians, and the human race, what have they really done for us?

Rev Hellfire

The simple fact is Africa will never step out from the shadow of the west until such time as the west ceases sending unconditional aid.

What can we do for Africa is the wrong question, what should Africa be doing to help itself is the correct one.

DadaKopf

The simple fact is Africa will never step out from the shadow of the west until such time as the west ceases sending unconditional aid.

Have you any evidence to support this statement?

djpbarry

tallaght01 wrote: »

Education is one the best predictive factors for whether a poor African is going to catch HIV...

Absolutely - prevention is better than cure. Preventing the spread of the disease through education is (potentially) much easier (and cheaper) than treating the infected.

Earthhorse wrote: »

Okay, but other than slaves, cheap imported labour, cheap oil, gas, diamonds, copper, aluminium, uranium, coltan, rubber, etc, cheap agricultural goods, music and musicians, and the human race, what have they really done for us?

Samantha Mumba.

Oh, and this.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

The simple fact is Africa will never step out from the shadow of the west until such time as the west...

...allows Africa to trade freely.

DadaKopf

...allows Africa to trade freely.

AND to pursue trade policies in their own interests. That means doing as richer countries did if they want, such as raising tariffs and setting up state enterprises.

Rev Hellfire

DadaKopf wrote: »

Have you any evidence to support this statement?

Well lets face it the 'aid' currently been sent isn't exactly helping. As for proof nope that's pure opinion.

I totally agree that African nations should band together and create viable economic blocks, much like the west has. But that would require functioning governments.

Kama

A primary issue for me is whether/to what extent African debt, such as that of the HIPC countries, is legitimate, and how much was fraudulently siphoned off by corrupt elites, essentially never seeing the country on its trip to the Cayman Islands. To assume our interests have not been complicit with the corrupt elites we blame for African woes seems as naive as the converse proposition that Western interests are responsible for all of the continents problems. Corruption has often been favoured for reasons such as 'stability', or as a lower business cost than, oh, paying tax to a strong and legitimate government.

Its interesting to get comparisons of debt flows (which are virtually never unconditional btw) and aid flows. The former often exceeds the latter by a significant distance. The symbiosis of this debt/aid structure was an element in the critiques by the altermondialiste/anti-globalization movement, especially in the Global South. Studying the role of the Bretton Woods institutions in African countries such as the SAPs, and the reconstruction of these countires on export crops such as coffee (where increased supply led to a crash in coffee prices, so the 'cash crops' depreciated in value) is often depressing, and leads one to suspect a certain level of either selfish manipulation, or incompetence.

I'd consider that stopping the 'unconditional' aid would be just fine, if the economic warfare of trade policies and debt slavery went with it.

AngryBadger

Earthhorse wrote: »

Part of the problem is thinking about Africa as "Africa", I think.

Not trying to be smart, but how should people be thinking of Africa if not as "Africa"????

Nevyn

Because it is a diverse continent of different countries and more cultures and languages then countries.

Rev Hellfire

Yes its not like its a geographical entity of any shape or form, man its like those people who go on about Europeans... why I oughta !

WindSock

tallaght01 wrote: »

Education and the rest. That was the exact point I made in my first post. I agree with you. Education is one the best predictive factors for whether a poor African is going to catch HIV,

I would actually prioritise education over health for the first while. There's no point on wasting money and resources when people and their children are just going to keep on getting sick from ignorance. But that's not to say to turn a blind eye to health completely.

I don't think civil war in Africa is a result of boredom. It's a result of poor government in a continent that has great mineral wealth. Armies get soldiers by kidnapping them, or drugging them, or by offering them power and money, which is the kind of opportunity your average young African doesn't get every day.

Yeah I understand that the main problems with many African nations are the corrupted generals and government officials, but it is easier to assemble an Army when the Men/Boys have no jobs and nothing else to do. Your average young African can be given more oppertunities with a decent education.

Earthhorse

AngryBadger wrote: »

Not trying to be smart, but how should people be thinking of Africa if not as "Africa"?

What Thaed said. You can't really talk about cutting off aid or how effective aid has been when talking about Africa. You need to drill down to the country level, to the regime level, to the level of communities and villages. What works in one area mightn't work in the next. It's a question of finding the appropriate solutions for the appropriate problems.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Yes its not like its a geographical entity of any shape or form, man its like those people who go on about Europeans... why I oughta !

Yeah, lol, let's pretend that's what people said in this thread to make the point seem silly even though it's not, rofl!

Rev Hellfire

Earthhorse wrote: »

Yeah, lol, let's pretend that's what people said in this thread to make the point seem silly even though it's not, rofl!

Most if not all of the countries referred to here could be classified as Sub-Saharan, so as such it makes sense to refer to them collectively.
The problems referred here seem confined to that area of Africa, so I'll give you much.

So its not Africa that's mess but Sub-Saharan Africa. The region needs to be dealt with as whole since the trouble, civil unrest, etc in one effects its neighbours. Looking at it at a country level is only issuing short term fixes in my view.

Earthhorse

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Most if not all of the countries referred to here could be classified as Sub-Saharan, so as such it makes sense to refer to them collectively. The problems referred here seem confined to that area of Africa, so I'll give you much.

The thing is, no one's referring to individual countries in their posts at all. They might be, by default, referring to certain regions but they don't appear to be concious of it. This just ads to the problem rather than helping because we can't have a "some solutions are working, some aren't" debate, instead we get left with a zero-sum game.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

So its not Africa that's mess but Sub-Saharan Africa. The region needs to be dealt with as whole since the trouble, civil unrest, etc in one effects its neighbours. Looking at it at a country level is only issuing short term fixes in my view.

Each of those conflicts needs to be looked at on its own at some stage though. Peace is going to involve getting the disputed parties to negotiate and not those parties who are adversely affected by it intermittently. The entire region may be unstable but you're going to find it hard to stabilise it all at once.

Kama

Besides working out what exactly the problem is, rather than referring to 'Africa' as the problem then letting everyone fill in their own blanks, yeh a level of analysis would be nice.

Well, chunking to the level of talking about 'Africa' is unhelpful due to zooming too far out, loss of clarity, and carries a hint of White Man's Burden tbh; splitting to micro or zooming in to a village level loses breadth instead, and loses sight of areas where common and structural problems impinge on peoples lives, and so forth.
Its a tradeoff, rather than one position being right or better.

Similarly, should one look at sectoral solutions, to say water supply, malaria, local warfare, displacement, sanitation and so forth (which loses sight of their interconnections and causal links) or go for integrated plans?
Tradeoff either way.

SubSaharan is a good place to start, as Hellfire says. It contains most of what people 'expect' of Africa (rampant AIDS, heavily indebteded, resource curse, generally low GDP, famine, etc) while also having sufficient difference between countries experiences to contrast. For instance, why is Botswana doing so well relatively, has lower corruption, effective democratic structures, 6% growth for 2 decades?

Btw I have no problem with the term 'Europe' or 'European', even though there is a wide variety of cultures and countries within this area; there's a definite problem doing the same with 'Africa' as an entity, however the African Union and the Black Panthers seemed to get away with it, regardless of the postmodern trend to difference and all that; a Pan African hearing 'there is no Africa, only diverse African countries' could very well find that as arrogant a claim as its opposite. Just a thought.

Bottle_of_Smoke

This article's worth a read on this topic, bit harsh but probably true.

Kevin Myers article wrote:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/africa-is-giving-nothing-to-anyone--apart-from-aids-1430428.html

Africa is giving nothing to anyone -- apart from AIDS

No. It will not do. Even as we see African states refusing to take action to restore something resembling civilisation in Zimbabwe, the begging bowl for Ethiopia is being passed around to us, yet again. It is nearly 25 years since Ethiopia's (and Bob Geldof's) famous Feed The World campaign, and in that time Ethiopia's population has grown from 33.5 million to 78 million today.

So why on earth should I do anything to encourage further catastrophic demographic growth in that country? Where is the logic? There is none. To be sure, there are two things saying that logic doesn't count.

One is my conscience, and the other is the picture, yet again, of another wide-eyed child, yet again, gazing, yet again, at the camera, which yet again, captures the tragedy of . . .

Sorry. My conscience has toured this territory on foot and financially. Unlike most of you, I have been to Ethiopia; like most of you, I have stumped up the loot to charities to stop starvation there. The wide-eyed boy-child we saved, 20 years or so ago, is now a priapic, Kalashnikov-bearing hearty, siring children whenever the whim takes him.

There is, no doubt a good argument why we should prolong this predatory and dysfunctional economic, social and sexual system; but I do not know what it is. There is, on the other hand, every reason not to write a column like this.

It will win no friends, and will provoke the self-righteous wrath of, well, the self-righteous, letter-writing wrathful, a species which never fails to contaminate almost every debate in Irish life with its sneers and its moral superiority. It will also probably enrage some of the finest men in Irish life, like John O'Shea, of Goal; and the Finucane brothers, men whom I admire enormously. So be it.

But, please, please, you self-righteously wrathful, spare me mention of our own Famine, with this or that lazy analogy. There is no comparison. Within 20 years of the Famine, the Irish population was down by 30pc. Over the equivalent period, thanks to western food, the Mercedes 10-wheel truck and the Lockheed Hercules, Ethiopia's has more than doubled.

Alas, that wretched country is not alone in its madness. Somewhere, over the rainbow, lies Somalia, another fine land of violent, Kalashnikov-toting, khat-chewing, girl-circumcising, permanently tumescent layabouts.

Indeed, we now have almost an entire continent of sexually

hyperactive indigents, with tens of millions of people who only survive because of help from the outside world.

This dependency has not stimulated political prudence or commonsense. Indeed, voodoo idiocy seems to be in the ascendant, with the next president of South Africa being a firm believer in the efficacy of a little tap water on the post-coital penis as a sure preventative against infection. Needless to say, poverty, hunger and societal meltdown have not prevented idiotic wars involving Tigre, Uganda, Congo, Sudan, Somalia, Eritrea etcetera.

Broad brush-strokes, to be sure. But broad brush-strokes are often the way that history paints its gaudier, if more decisive, chapters. Japan, China, Russia, Korea, Poland, Germany, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in the 20th century have endured worse broad brush-strokes than almost any part of Africa.

They are now -- one way or another -- virtually all giving aid to or investing in Africa, whereas Africa, with its vast savannahs and its lush pastures, is giving almost nothing to anyone, apart from AIDS.

Meanwhile, Africa's peoples are outstripping their resources, and causing catastrophic ecological degradation. By 2050, the population of Ethiopia will be 177 million: The equivalent of France, Germany and Benelux today, but located on the parched and increasingly protein-free wastelands of the Great Rift Valley.

So, how much sense does it make for us actively to increase the adult population of what is already a vastly over-populated, environmentally devastated and economically dependent country?

How much morality is there in saving an Ethiopian child from starvation today, for it to survive to a life of brutal circumcision, poverty, hunger, violence and sexual abuse, resulting in another half-dozen such wide-eyed children, with comparably jolly little lives ahead of them? Of course, it might make you feel better, which is a prime reason for so much charity. But that is not good enough.

For self-serving generosity has been one of the curses of Africa. It has sustained political systems which would otherwise have collapsed.

It prolonged the Eritrean-Ethiopian war by nearly a decade. It is inspiring Bill Gates' programme to rid the continent of malaria, when, in the almost complete absence of personal self-discipline, that disease is one of the most efficacious forms of population-control now operating.

If his programme is successful, tens of millions of children who would otherwise have died in infancy will survive to adulthood, he boasts. Oh good: then what?I know. Let them all come here. Yes, that's an idea.

tallaght01

One of the reasons people refer to "Africa" is because a LOT of it's problems (and the search for solutions) involve the surrounding countries.

In Johannesburg, the Soweto for example is full of refugees from other African countries. The police say that weapons there come in from neighbouring countries, particularly Zimbabwe. Johannesburg has one of the world's highest murder rate. It's immigrants are riddled with HIV, which gets spread into the general community. Strains of HIV that are common there come from all over the continent.


We all know that conflict is the cause of many of Africa's problems....in the Congo, several surrounding governments had troops fighting on the ground there, or were giving military aid. Liberia supplied military aid to rebels in Sierra Leon...the list could go on for ever.

AIDS, TB and malaria etc should be looked at on a local level to an extent, but the issues are Africa-wide, too. Gender inequality, poverty, lack of education, warfare are all large scale problems, affecting the majority of the continent. The solutions certainly do.
We should look to South Africa, as the big power in the region, to provide some leadership on this issue. Is anything happening? Well, the president of the ruling party slept with an HIV positive girl, without using protection. He figured it would be fine, as he had a shower afterwards. The South African president has a pretty shaky history with regard to HIV policy himself. In the hospital where I worked, in this pretty wealthy country, you weren't entitled to a bed in intensive care if you were HIV positive, as you were thought to be a lost cause.


So, who DO we turn to for solutions? The African Union are pretty useless. Sorting them out could potentially change the climate of fear in many countries. But, the fact that Sudan have even asked the AU to join together in condemning the arrest warrant for Omar Al Bashir says something itself about them. They are probably the only authority who could execute that warrant, but I'm sure none of us are holding our breath. In the meantime, refugees continue to flood over the border into neighbouring coutries, thus involving them.

African heads of state continually choose to turn a blind eye to Robert Mugabe's craziness, too. They turn a blind eye to a lot of craziness.

Africa is a huge big mess. Some of the problems are local, and local solutions should be sought. But getting a few tribal leaders onside will result in very limited change. Sorting out HIV in one coutry will be useless, if there's a continuous influx of refugees bringing it in from neighbouring countries. Negotiating with 2 sides in a conflict is of limited use when other neighbouring countries are encouraging the warring factions and giving aid.

I think that if the likes of South Africa took a bigger leadership role in the continent, with a foreign policy that wasn't just self interested, we would see a lot of change in the region. Similarly, if the African Union was tidied up a bit, there could be great strides made in terms of conflict resolution.

Kama

Hmm, the question is What can we do?

Trade policy and the illegitimacy of debt I regard as things that we can, in theory influence.
These are issues where we are affecting countries in a negative manner.

Equally, increased investment is a must. Notice that China has arguably done more for African countries with its nasty selfish trade-based approach than the Western aid system achieved.

Solar thermal farms could realistically make African countries massive energy exporters in a few decades. The tech is well developed and implementable, and the geographical conditions are ideal. Many Gulf countries are already on this, and planning the interconnecters. The Mediterranean Union could be a step in this direction of development.

Earthhorse

Goddamnit!

I was around 15 minutes into a massive reply when I made a small mistake which ended in a big mistake (me hitting refresh) and losing it.

In summary, Kama, I agree that zooming to a micro level is just as unhelpful but nobody's doing that. Talking about integrated solutions is also fine. Imagining you can somehow integrate a solution that knits everything together across an entire continent is sheer folly.

Questions regarding Botswana et al. are exactly the questions I'd like to see asked and answered.

Also, I do not suggest we cannot use the word Africa or its derivitaves, merely that doing so is often unhelfpul in these debates.

Bottle of Smoke, that Kevin Myer's article is a piece of trash. There are far more learned and insightful people commenting on the problem all the time.

tallaght01, the idea that we can solve all conflict on the continent, or all gender inequality is ludicrous. So when you say that it is a problem across Africa you aren't recognising the unique history and logistics of each conflict nor will you be able to identify the tactics and strategies required to bridge gender equality if you don't recognise the individual barriers in your way.

It's not like Europe, even today, is in line on gender equality. It varies from state to state depending on their own history. Ditto education, health and pretty much every other problem you've listed. Similarly it'd be nice if everyone put their guns away at once but you generally have to get them to do it one at a time (well, two at a time but you know what I mean).

We'd all like South Africa to be the anchor of the continent but it's too busy dealing with its own problems.

And yes folks, this was the shortened reply!

tallaght01

Kama wrote: »

Notice that China has arguably done more for African countries with its nasty selfish trade-based approach than the Western aid system achieved.

.

I agree with you, except for the above. China have had a great opportunity to pressurise the Sudanese government regarding the current conflict there. The fact that they choose not to, in favour of not jeopardising their cosy trade agreements is helping to further state sanctioned murder and terror, aswell as fuelling the spread of HIV through the region. I'll never be able to understand how the people who make those choices sleep at night.

Earthhorse wrote: »

Questions regarding Botswana et al. are exactly the questions I'd like to see asked and answered.

tallaght01, the idea that we can solve all conflict on the continent, or all gender inequality is ludicrous. So when you say that it is a problem across Africa you aren't recognising the unique history and logistics of each conflict nor will you be able to identify the tactics and strategies required to bridge gender equality if you don't recognise the individual barriers in your way.

It's not like Europe, even today, is in line on gender equality. It varies from state to state depending on their own history. Ditto education, health and pretty much every other problem you've listed. Similarly it'd be nice if everyone put their guns away at once but you generally have to get them to do it one at a time (well, two at a time but you know what I mean).

We'd all like South Africa to be the anchor of the continent but it's too busy dealing with its own problems.

The Botswana question is difficult to answer. I'm no expert on botswanan (Botswanian?) economics, but I've heard all the chat about their economics. I know the world bank told us that the kind of economic turnaround was something the likes of which the world had never seen. They told us that their mineral wealth was a contributor, and they were lucky that mineral wealth didn't result in conflict. We were told that disciplined fiscal policy was a big contributor. So, I guess those are the reasons.

BUt, thos of us involved in healthcare haven't neccesarily seen where these benefits have translated into benefits for the population. As far as I remember, the gini co-efficiant (a mathematical measure of financial equality within a country) hasn't changed much in decades.

Also, they've hardly touched their HIV problem.

Their life expectancy is about 50. "Healthy life expectancy" is about 35 years.

About 15% of their babies die at birth (as far as I remember, this has gone up!)

This is all strange, considering we keep getting told that they're now a "middle income" country.

That's about the extent of my Botswana knowledge. A lot done, a LOT more to do, as Tony Blair used to say.

Also, Earthhorse I think you've misunderstood me. I'm not saying we'll simultaneously deal with gender inequality isues and conflict and AIDS all over Africa in one foul swoop.

I'm saying these problms are pan-African. I'm making the point that it's very legitimate to say, for example, "The HIV problem in Africa stems from poverty, conflict, gender inequality and lack of education". It's also legitimate, ona continent with such a disenfranchised population, that many of the solutions will have to be pan-African. For example, the Dharfur conflict can be solved by getting African leaders onboard, or it can be solved internally bu just letting the sudanese government get on with the killing until there's no-one left to kill.

I don't think we should just give South Africa a "we're too busy" get out card. Fair enough if they never get involved in African politics, but they do. They just do very little that's not self interested. With their political background, I'd have expected something different.

Not saying there's no local solutions. Just saying they won't work in isolation, and many of these countries aren't in a position to sort out their problems themselves. For example, how on earth could the the Somalian people be expected to have dealt with their problems, with no central government?

Thinking that problems in African countries have many if the same root causes is very different to saying that there are no individual issues to be solved, or potential for small scale intervention.

AARRRGH

Do humans have the right to life and a decent standard of living, or is that just something we made up?

tallaght01

dublindude wrote: »

Do humans have the right to life and a decent standard of living, or is that just something we made up?

There's a UN declaration of human rights, which "protects" your right to life. Not sure about your right to a good standard of living, though. It's been a while since I read it. It's worth having a flick through for a giggle. It's an even bigger joke than the UN itself.

And if you REALLY want a laugh, you should read the UN convention on the rights of the child...and then look at some of the countries tha have signed up to it!!!

Rev Hellfire

dublindude wrote: »

Do humans have the right to life and a decent standard of living, or is that just something we made up?

Well the answer to the first one is no, otherwise we couldn't legally have the death penalty.

As for a 'decent standard of living' what exactly does that mean, who defines it.

So I guess ultimate answer is yes its just something we made up.

AARRRGH

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Well the answer to the first one is no, otherwise we couldn't legally have the death penalty.

Well isn't that more a right not to be killed by someone else, rather than a right to life?

What if there's "supposed" to be suffering and early deaths in the world (by "supposed" I mean according to mother nature) and no matter what we do we're fighting a losing battle?

We're already seeing what happens when poor countries get their act together and become consumers (India and China's energy/food demands). What would happen if Africa got their act together? Would there be enough food and energy for everyone? Probably not.

So maybe we're supposed to have a smaller population, or perhaps a large population with a large amount of people who die off young...

I'm not saying I agree with this.

Rev Hellfire

dublindude wrote: »

Well isn't that more a right not to be killed by someone else, rather than a right to life?

Well isn't the right to life the right to live, ie. not be killed.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: "Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life."

As per the Irish constitution.
Your right to life also means a right to have nature take its course and to die a natural death.

Earthhorse

tallaght01 wrote: »

The Botswana question is difficult to answer. I'm no expert on botswanan (Botswanian?) economics, but I've heard all the chat about their economics. I know the world bank told us that the kind of economic turnaround was something the likes of which the world had never seen. They told us that their mineral wealth was a contributor, and they were lucky that mineral wealth didn't result in conflict. We were told that disciplined fiscal policy was a big contributor. So, I guess those are the reasons.

Even that gets us somewhere. Why didn't the material wealth cause conflict? Can the disciplined fiscal policy be replicated elsewhere? I'm not saying you, or other posters, have the answers but these are the kinds of discussions we should be having rather than: "AID: Good or Bad?".

tallaght01 wrote: »

BUt, thos of us involved in healthcare haven't neccesarily seen where these benefits have translated into benefits for the population. As far as I remember, the gini co-efficiant (a mathematical measure of financial equality within a country) hasn't changed much in decades.

Again, it's worth looking at why that is and this is exaclty why I believe in deconstructing the problem. Wealth may not have spread in Botswana for different reasons to why it didn't spread elsewhere.

tallaght01 wrote: »

Also, Earthhorse I think you've misunderstood me. I'm not saying we'll simultaneously deal with gender inequality isues and conflict and AIDS all over Africa in one foul swoop.

But when we talk about the problems in those terms that's exactly what people think about.

tallaght01 wrote: »

I'm saying these problms are pan-African. I'm making the point that it's very legitimate to say, for example, "The HIV problem in Africa stems from poverty, conflict, gender inequality and lack of education". It's also legitimate, ona continent with such a disenfranchised population, that many of the solutions will have to be pan-African. For example, the Dharfur conflict can be solved by getting African leaders onboard, or it can be solved internally bu just letting the sudanese government get on with the killing until there's no-one left to kill.

That's a little different though. That's Africa acting in unity to put pressure on one nation to fall into line. Europe, or more specifically the EU, can do this because it has political stability; it can say to members wishing to join, and there are a lot of incentives to join, "Do away with the death penalty, reduce your debt, watch less TV" because it has political stability and economic influence. Africa doesn't really have that yet, not to the same extent, so we're putting the cart before the horse.

tallaght01 wrote: »

I don't think we should just give South Africa a "we're too busy" get out card. Fair enough if they never get involved in African politics, but they do. They just do very little that's not self interested. With their political background, I'd have expected something different.

I'm not giving them a get out clause. I'm just recognising the reality of their current position.

tallaght01 wrote: »

Thinking that problems in African countries have many if the same root causes is very different to saying that there are no individual issues to be solved, or potential for small scale intervention.

Permit me to re-iterate; it's not that I don't recognise the commonality of the problems encountered throughout Africa but that when we talk about them at that level our brains can't digest the issues. We shrug our shoulders and say "Not much has changed has it?". If people could see the success of initiatives at local levels I think there'd be little debate over sending aid and what we can and can't do to help.

dublindude wrote: »

We're already seeing what happens when poor countries get their act together and become consumers (India and China's energy/food demands). What would happen if Africa got their act together? Would there be enough food and energy for everyone? Probably not.

There'll more than likely be an adjustment period. I realise that sounds euphimistic but as incomes rise population growth is likely to slow until it stabilises. There is plenty of food going to waste and I think there is enough fertile land to feed everybody on the planet. But you need to cultivate properly and you need to plan a food strategy, especially in extreme climates. As Kama pointed out Africa is also ripe to get much energy from solar power, I mean really it's a perfect fit. So I think the gap is not as big as you imagine it to be.

djpbarry

dublindude wrote: »

Do humans have the right to life and a decent standard of living, or is that just something we made up?

I'm not sure what you mean by "something we made up"? In the sense that is something that humans decided was morally correct, yes, it is something that we made up.

According to the UN Declaration on Human Rights, Article 3:
“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”

Are we entitled to a decent standard of living? Minimum standard might be a better way of putting it. According to the declaration, no-one shall be held in slavery (article 4), no-one shall be subjected to torture (article 5), no-one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest (article 9), etc. Having said all that, I’m inclined to agree with tallaght01; many of the countries who have signed the declaration have made an absolute mockery of it.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Well the answer to the first one is no, otherwise we couldn't legally have the death penalty.

We don’t.

dublindude wrote: »

We're already seeing what happens when poor countries get their act together and become consumers (India and China's energy/food demands). What would happen if Africa got their act together? Would there be enough food and energy for everyone?

If Africa “got it’s act together”, wouldn’t it be producing far more food and energy itself?

tallaght01

Earthhorse wrote: »

Even that gets us somewhere. Why didn't the material wealth cause conflict? Can the disciplined fiscal policy be replicated elsewhere? I'm not saying you, or other posters, have the answers but these are the kinds of discussions we should be having rather than: "AID: Good or Bad?".



Again, it's worth looking at why that is and this is exaclty why I believe in deconstructing the problem. Wealth may not have spread in Botswana for different reasons to why it didn't spread elsewhere.



But when we talk about the problems in those terms that's exactly what people think about.



That's a little different though. That's Africa acting in unity to put pressure on one nation to fall into line. Europe, or more specifically the EU, can do this because it has political stability; it can say to members wishing to join, and there are a lot of incentives to join, "Do away with the death penalty, reduce your debt, watch less TV" because it has political stability and economic influence. Africa doesn't really have that yet, not to the same extent, so we're putting the cart before the horse.



I'm not giving them a get out clause. I'm just recognising the reality of their current position.



Permit me to re-iterate; it's not that I don't recognise the commonality of the problems encountered throughout Africa but that when we talk about them at that level our brains can't digest the issues. We shrug our shoulders and say "Not much has changed has it?". If people could see the success of initiatives at local levels I think there'd be little debate over sending aid and what we can and can't do to help.



There'll more than likely be an adjustment period. I realise that sounds euphimistic but as incomes rise population growth is likely to slow until it stabilises. There is plenty of food going to waste and I think there is enough fertile land to feed everybody on the planet. But you need to cultivate properly and you need to plan a food strategy, especially in extreme climates. As Kama pointed out Africa is also ripe to get much energy from solar power, I mean really it's a perfect fit. So I think the gap is not as big as you imagine it to be.

Like I said before, I'm no expert on Botswana, but I imagine that the reason they haven't been able to convert their economic success into radical change in the health of their citizens are multiple.

HIV keeps pouring into their country from across the border. Same with the likes of TB. It's gotta be very difficult to control an epidemic that's out of control in the surrounding countries.

It's also gotta be difficult to maximise your economic potential when some of your closest neighbours have no real trade infrastructure to speak of.

I think their lack of conflict is down to luck, pure and simple. There wasn't a Charles Taylor trying to seize power like there was in Liberia, or a Sam Normal like there was in Sierra Leon. I guess they were also lucky enough to have mineral wealth in different forms. In Sierra Leon, they were reliant on their diamonds, and these fell into the hands of the wrong people. This isn't the case in Botswana, to the best of my knowledge.

I think their disciplined fiscal policy isn't reproduced elsewhere because it's not neccesarily in the interests of their leaders. This is made worse by lack of pressure from other African leaders. robert Mugabe does what he wants, without any sanction from anyone else in the region. Somalia hardly has an economy, and so on.

Ive made my position clear. I think we have to look at Africa's problems as being continent wide, aswell as being local.

Uganda was the first (probably still the only one) developing country to ever reverse the increase in HIV infections, by local (ie Uganda-wide) strategies. But, despite massive effort, they could only get so far.

I think that countries like Uganda are in a reasonable position to make changes. But they're facing a massive struggle, when there's 40 million infected individuals in the surrounding countries.

What I think we need:

1) An effective African Union that aren't self interested. This way we can apply pressure to the more corrupt governments to pursue more ethical economic policies, and to help with conflict resolution.

2) A South Africa that bothers it's collective arse taking risks in the region. They've only now done anyhting constructive in Zimbabwe. Thery're not too busy. They have a department of foreign affairs. They are the wealthiest country in the region. They have denied the Zimbabwean opposition the same assistance they relied on during the aparthied era. Their "no-action" stance on Darfur will be a shameful blot on their history, as it will be on ours.

3) Tougher acion against the real nutcases in Africa. Mugabe, Al Bashir and the likes. An arrest warrant out for them? Well, go and get them. Problem is that people are wary of this type of action after the Somalian disaster. But it's gotta be better than doing nothing. Military intervention was successful in Sierra Leon and Rwanda (albeit way too late).

Ask Morgan Tsangarai if he thinks the problems in Zimbabwe should be left up to theselves to sort out. Same with the people of Somalia. Ditto to the people of the Congo, who are being raped and killed and beaten simultaneously by members of the Congolese army, aswell as Rwanadan militias. Similarly, Darfur isn't going to sort itself out until the janjaweed militia have killed everyone in their path.

The above is my non-expert, possibly naive, view of the situation.

But I also think we need to act locally. We need aid to be directed towards infrastructure, and education and health, and the safety of vulnerable people.

Both typs of approach are, in my opinon, needed.

Earthhorse, this is why I tend to look at Africa as a single entity in some instances. I've laid out (perhaps misguidedly) where I think the pan-African approach ties in with a local approach. It's probably your turn to lay out your view on how the local approach can solve the region's problems, without reliance on the other contries. I'm interested to hear other opposing opinions to mine, as I'm far from an expert on this stuff.

Kama

I think to know what we can do for them, we need to know what we have been doing to them. I'm slavishly following the thread title here...

On the Pan-African line of thought, I find it more helpful to look at structural factors in the world-economic system than individual countries. Prior to the 80's Africa wasn't deteriorating relative to other Third World countries in Asia for example, when most similar countries were working on Import-Substitution Industrialization. With the turn to export-led growth, the East Asian economies pulled ahead, and African countries competed at producing raw materials, with declining terms of trade due to the consequent glut in the market.

Africa's dependence is not a willing one. Yes, we send food aid for the food they do not produce; but the food aid itself often crashed the indigenous farming producers, while removing it from the surplus stores of the West, where it would depress our internal prices. (The more conspiratorial consider that this was its function) Similarly, the native textile markets were often crushed by charity, or displaced by 'dumping' our exports.
Some view this as a deliberate process of deindustrialization, similar to the strategy used by the British in India in the colonial period.

As to what we can do, there was a suggestion to link funding to progressive demilitarization measured by proportion of GDP that goes to armanents, as a ratcheting peace effect. (I forget who proposed, possibly Susan George?) Similarly linking trade terms to democratic development, rather than the aid/debt conditionalities being on adopting a neoliberal agenda, as has been the case. 'Course, I think you can be sued in the WTO for such thoughts

Europe has a choice as to whether it tries to hold closed the gates of the Mediterranean against the Moor, on the 'Fortress Europe' model; or to help peacefully develop the continent, in our own selfish best interests, ofc... ^_^