I disagree very much with the way this person has framed their argument.
But I agree with some of the actual points he makes.
Too much of the effort to help African countries has been a guilt-based thing. "Oh, look at those poor people...let's send them money, they they'll be better off, and I can rest content that I've done my bit to help out."
The result? Almost all the aid to Africa has been bandaid packages, programs that address short-term, temporary situations, without addressing the larger, long-term problems.
Feed a starving kid? Sure, that's a good thing to do. Pay for a kid to get an education? Sure, that's a good thing to do, too.
But what about when he grows up? Will the problems that caused his difficulties and struggles as a child have improved at all? Or will his kids be born into essentially the same situation, starting the cycle all over again? Or an even worse situation?
The vast majority of aid to Africa, for all that I'm sure it was sent with every sincere desire and intent to help, has not really helped them at all. In my opinion.
And its not just my opinion. In Beijing, I had the opportunity to attend various embassy functions hosted by different African nations, and to discuss these issues with diplomats and leaders from those countries. And almost all of them expressed the sentiment that while they greatly appreciated efforts to help, and certainly wouldn't say they'd prefer for children to starve to death for lack of food, that nothing much had been done about improving the overall situation.
"But that's their fault"
In some ways, yeah.
But what about the fact that medical programs funded by the U.S. government are forbidden from mentioning or promoting the use of condoms? Overpopulation and sexually transmitted diseases are two of the biggest problems facing many African nations, and the country that is contributing the most money to help them is at the very same time imposing restrictions that virtually guarantee the problems will continue. Add in the influence of the Roman Catholic church (any form of birth control is wrong), and Islam (female circumsision).
There's a lot to be said for helping people one at a time...and I certainly wouldn't criticize those who desire to do so. But we've gotta' take a step back, and see the bigger picture. Helping people one at a time isn't gonna' make a hell of a lot of difference if the nations they live in are not improving also.
Right now, our African aid programs just seem to guarantee that we'll be feeding starving children forever. This generation. Next generation. The generation after that one. And the one following that.
I don't have concrete answers...in fact, even viewing it as an "African problem" that has some sort of "African solution" is wrong. Africa is a collection of diverse countries and cultures, that all face different problems and challenges.
I don't have concrete answers...but I do have a personal strategy that I think would be better. That we stop putting money into the countries that are the most impoverished, that have the most abuse. That instead, we identify the countries that are doing the best, that are providing the best examples, and help them. And, by helping them, provide a model for other African countries to copy, and build upon.
Right now, the poorer your country is, the more money you'll get. The more developed it is, the less money you'll get. So exactly what incentive is there to improve?!? If you just sit on your butt and do nothing, you'll continue to get handouts.
But if the leaders of these countries see that they'll get more money by changing and improving...then it would be a very different situation.
Problem is, its a very hard sell. Show pictures of one country with starving children living on the street, and another with healthy children studying in school...which one are people more likely to end up giving money to?
