African Debt Relief

[corplinx]

You do realize that you are putting responsibility everywhere but where it should reside, don't you? You do realize that your attitudes are elementally racist, don't you?

Maybe you could explain it to me, I don't see how what he posted was so racist. He may have just been exaggerating (heavens forbid).

 

[Drooper]

There is a lot of talk about suspending aid to Uganda, because the opposition parties there see it as a way to pressure the government into accepting democracy. The UK has already held back some aid, in fact.

But it's not necessarily the best plan for other African nations. Rather than cutting the money and saying "That's an end to it" we should use it (a) as leverage (as in Uganda) and (b) in directly funded projects (as the Live Aid and Comic Relief funds do) rather than into government pockets.

You're way off the mark.

Nothing to do with the politics, it is the economics. It is about moral hazard and excessive demand.

The former is about the way these governments behave when given large sums of money. Imagine what would happen if you gave you 16 year old son £100 per week pocket money over the summer, but actually wanted him to go out and earn something for himself. It wouldn't happen. Same with governments.

Other facets of the moral hazard include governments that effecitvely subcontract services out to aid organisations. Why both provide needed services (say fresh water, medical treatment etc.) when "Team Intertnational Rescue" will fly in and do it for you at someone elses expense.

Second, the NGOs, including the Live Aids etc. cause a surge in demand via the cash inflows that occur, including the demand created by the aid money and the spending from the massively paid (by local standards) aid workers.


The somple fact is that this movement (the aid debt movement) is driven by social conscience, not by what is the best policy for these countries. The more cynical might suggest that is the reason why these aid and debt relief movements tend to be the brainchildren of lesser intellects of the entertainment business.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

BTW, you'll have to explain how you reconcile your opinion of African politicians not even having the brains of slugs when it comes to management, but it is racist to assume they are too childish and irresponsible with arms ...

That's not how I read Jon's post. What I thought he was saying is that given a choice and all things being equal a government that decides it's is better to buy expensive imported arms then say expensive imported tractors when the tractor will feed a village (so to speak) and an APC will feed no one has the management skills of a slug. That is a long way from saying African governments are "too childish and irresponsible with arms".

 

[Ed]

Maybe you could explain it to me, I don't see how what he posted was so racist. He may have just been exaggerating (heavens forbid).

Maybe but I, like Jesse Jackson, have a way of sniffing out racism.

My interpretation follows.

The article I quoted from is quite old, I believe that was just the start of the program. It was just one of the first the google popped up.

This is simply an exercise in excuse generation. It is a way of deflecting responsibility by pointing to something that in the world of the paranormal would be referred to as a statistical abberation.

One thing that I believe would help is control of the international arms trade, which is a disgrace. Many countries around the world profit from arms sales to African countries.

Come on. This is a PC way of saying that the darkies can't handle weapons. It begs the core question of what the problem is: rapacious dictators that happen to be black which gives them a pass.

Another is education. Half of the problems in africa, as far as I can tell, is just sheer lack of education on such basic matters as health, eg, controlling the spread of AIDS

He is correct in his assessment but coy and

Edited by Darat: 

Announcement

as to the cause.

Edited by Darat: 

Announcement

 

[richardm]

Other facets of the moral hazard include governments that effecitvely subcontract services out to aid organisations. Why both provide needed services (say fresh water, medical treatment etc.) when "Team Intertnational Rescue" will fly in and do it for you at someone elses expense.

If you are suggesting that if "TIR" were not doing it then the governments would, I can only ask why the services were not available in the first place?

The problem with this is that many of the governments were not providing services. People were (and still are) dying because the services and infrastructure are not available. Yes, obviously it would be better if the work was funded and done locally, but just because a government is spending all its money on a war with its neighbouring government surely doesn't mean that we should stand back and let people suffer and die through neglect?

So yeah, perhaps there is a good deal of social conscience involved. I, for one, am not content to sit back and watch while people die because, in the long run, it'll be better for them when their own government wakes up and does something about it.

Or am I misunderstanding you?

 

[Jon_in_london]

Of course, the various countries that have sold and keep on selling them those arms would applaud to such a resolution, and have kept on pointing this out to the various govts in Africa all those years. Pity those nasty Africans didn't take the hint.

I honestly dont know what the hell you are on about

And given how debt relief and help are linked to solutions that have insured everywhere that only the current "elites" will have access to education, healthcare and infrastructure, we can be assured that African governments will be positively encouraged to start programs ensuring these commodities are accessible to the majority of the population the way "the West" got its head start (state run waterworks, roads, and education systems), we're sure we'll see a steady progress in the near future ...

Again, your post makes absolutely no sense to me


BTW, you'll have to explain how you reconcile your opinion of African politicians not even having the brains of slugs when it comes to management, but it is racist to assume they are too childish and irresponsible with arms ...

I never said they are too childish and irresponsible to buy arms. They are welcome to them! What they are not welcome to is great fat wads of my taxpayers cash to fund their own personal campaigns of self-agrandisment when they should be investing in infrastructure, education and healthcare etc..

 

[Ed]

Maybe but I, like Jesse Jackson, have a way of sniffing out racism.

My interpretation follows.



This is simply an exercise in excuse generation. It is a way of deflecting responsibility by pointing to something that in the world of the paranormal would be referred to as a statistical abberation.



Come on. This is a PC way of saying that the darkies can't handle weapons. It begs the core question of what the problem is: rapacious dictators that happen to be black which gives them a pass.



He is correct in his assessment but coy and

Edited by Darat: 

Announcement

as to the cause.

Edited by Darat: 

Announcement

edited?

Edited by Darat: 

Please take any discussion of the "special" Moderation here to the Forum Managment section.

 

[Drooper]

If you are suggesting that if "TIR" were not doing it then the governments would, I can only ask why the services were not available in the first place?

The problem with this is that many of the governments were not providing services. People were (and still are) dying because the services and infrastructure are not available. Yes, obviously it would be better if the work was funded and done locally, but just because a government is spending all its money on a war with its neighbouring government surely doesn't mean that we should stand back and let people suffer and die through neglect?

So yeah, perhaps there is a good deal of social conscience involved. I, for one, am not content to sit back and watch while people die because, in the long run, it'll be better for them when their own government wakes up and does something about it.

Or am I misunderstanding you?

I am saying that:

- we are/have been putting attention and resources in the wrong place
- we haven't been putting enough pressure on Africa nations to sort out thier governance, corruption issues etc.
- we have been using aid as a sop to our consciences, to the extent that we have helped support the mismanagent that has increased the death and suffering in Africa over a long time.

It is not about Governments spending money on arms, that is a piffling amount of the sums involved. It is more about toler5ance of corruption, belief in socilist ideals, regimes based on holding on to power and tribal rivalries. It is about many things that can be desrcibed in single phrase - poor governance.

The most eloquent example one can give is the experience of Zimbabwe. From the bread basket of Africa to basket case in a couple of decades. What have regional power brokers in the region done to correct this? Less than nothing. They have given all the needed support for the country to drive itself back a century or more.

I for one am not happy supporting something (the Bono/Geldof strategy) that I believe will only continue to support the status quo only prolong the suffering and death. I just can't fool my conscience into believing that I am doing anything good at all. For a comparison, while I will always shell out for the Big Issue, I rarely give money to random beggars.

 

[richardm]

I am saying that:

- we are/have been putting attention and resources in the wrong place
- we haven't been putting enough pressure on Africa nations to sort out thier governance, corruption issues etc.
- we have been using aid as a sop to our consciences, to the extent that we have helped support the mismanagent that has increased the death and suffering in Africa over a long time.

I think it's possible to agree with all of this and act upon it without pulling the rug out from under the feet of the people who would (in the short term) simply die without our support.

We need to whip up the political will to make sure that these things are resolved. This is what the Live 8 thing is supposed to do, it is not a fundraising event.

 

[Drooper]

I think it's possible to agree with all of this and act upon it without pulling the rug out from under the feet of the people who would (in the short term) simply die without our support.

We need to whip up the political will to make sure that these things are resolved. This is what the Live 8 thing is supposed to do, it is not a fundraising event.

I can't see where I am suggesting we pull any rugs. Failing to double foreign aid (or even increase it), or write off debt is not going to have any measurable impact on welfare in Africa.

However, I certainly don't believe that "doubling foreign aid" - which is one of the Live 8 policies - would do anything but harm when measured up against what we should be doing.

All Live 8 is doing is whipping up political will to support and reinforce what I see are shockingly poor policies.

 

[Orwell]

Mmm, I think some people are failing to mention that many of these corrupt African dictators were propped up and supported for decades by the West in the name of anti-communism.

And that, on the other side, corrupt African dictators also have been propped up by the old Soviet Union in the name of anti-imperialism.

Some of the worse African dictators are (or were) relics of this time.

Large sections of the African continent were used as stages for a proxy war between the old USSR and its satellites and the US of A and its allies.

 

[CBL4]

Debt relief and free trade could jumpstart economic growth. Microloans and aid via NGOs have shown themselve to be effective. However, corruption, war and bad economics will overwhelm everything else.

Conditional aid seems to make sense. Aid that helps the people (e.g. clean water, education, AIDs prevention) in a country that is moderately well ruled should provide results. Unfortunately, the results will not be instant and some have some bad short term consequences (ending gas subsidies). This makes even good leaders unstable.

CBL

 

[aerocontrols]

I think it's possible to agree with all of this and act upon it without pulling the rug out from under the feet of the people who would (in the short term) simply die without our support.

We need to whip up the political will to make sure that these things are resolved. This is what the Live 8 thing is supposed to do, it is not a fundraising event.

It is a fundraising event. Perhaps it is not wholly a fundraising event, but your words as written merely deny what is obviously true.

 

[Orwell]

The word "socialism" is often cropping out in this discussion. What kind of "socialism" are you referring to? The "social-democratic" type that respects private property and representative government, or the hard-core Marxist-Leninist type of socialism?

 

[Orwell]

About "conditional" aid: which conditions and who gets to set them? You know, the IMF and the world bank have been providing "conditional aid" for decades now, usually with disastrous consequences. It was these conditions that caused the collapse of the Argentinean economy, amongst other things.

 

[Darat]

It is a fundraising event. Perhaps it is not wholly a fundraising event, but your words as written merely deny what is obviously true.

How is it a fund raising event? Is it you are defining "fundraising" because they are lobbying for aid, which of course means money via the taxpayers?

 

[Darat]

About "conditional" aid: which conditions and who gets to set them? You know, the IMF and the world bank have been providing "conditional aid" for decades now, usually with disastrous consequences. It's these conditions that cause the collapse of the Argentinean economy, amongst other things.

Whoever is giving or making the aid available.

It’s my understanding that aid packages were not tied into "good governance" conditions in the past. Am I mistaken?

 

[Darat]

The word "socialism" is often cropping out in this discussion. What kind of "socialism" are you referring to? The "social-democratic" type that respects private property and representative government, or the hard-core Marxist-Leninist type of socialism?

The only use of the word "socialism" in this whole thread is in your post that I quote above. There has been a reference to "Marxism" but that is a pretty well understand word.

 

[Orwell]

Whoever is giving or making the aid available.

It’s my understanding that aid packages were not tied into "good governance" conditions in the past. Am I mistaken?

What is "good governance"? And how do we make sure that the criteria for "good governance" doesn't get mixed up with idiotic counterproductive economic measures i.e. who gets to decide what "good governance" is? If you are going to say "the country that provides the help", then I see a lot of potential conflicts of interest.

 

[Orwell]

I said this on another thread, but I think it applies here too:

Different regions, countries and cultures demand different strategies when it comes to encouraging development. What has worked in, say, Southeast Asia won't necessarily work in Africa. Opening up one country to commerce may be a mistake, while opening up another country might be an good idea. It is counter-productive, I believe, to impose a single model of economic development.

All the countries that have managed to slowly increase their levels of living (China, Malaysia, Thailand, etc., even Brazil and India are improving their situation) have one thing in common: they mostly took things into their own hands, they came up with their own policies. Most of the countries that are now even worse than they were before also have something in common: they did what the World Bank and the IMF told them to do. Argentina is an excellent example of this.