James Shikwati: stop flood of African aid

TomF

A very interesting article in Der Spiegel, "For God's Sake, Please Stop the Aid!"
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html
The article is translated from German.

You really have to wonder if we are just making things worse for Africa by treating it like a basket-case. Ex-colonial masters' guilt aside, maybe Europe should just let Africans get on with developing their own economies.

"As absurd as it may sound: Development aid is one of the reasons for Africa's problems. If the West were to cancel these payments, normal Africans wouldn't even notice. Only the functionaries would be hard hit. Which is why they maintain that the world would stop turning without this development aid."

"AIDS is big business, maybe Africa's biggest business. There's nothing else that can generate as much aid money as shocking figures on AIDS. AIDS is a political disease here, and we should be very skeptical."

"Millions of dollars earmarked for the fight against AIDS are still stashed away in Kenyan bank accounts and have not been spent. Our politicians were overwhelmed with money, and they try to siphon off as much as possible."

bonkey

A very interesting article in Der Spiegel

I'm not sure that its that interesting at all. The proponents of aid for Africa have broken into three camps for a long time now.

One says "we need more".
One says "we need less, because we're nto using what we get properly"
One says "we need more, and we need to use it more effectively"

This article falls squarely into category 2. There's nothing new it whatsoever that I can see.

What is interesting is how many people can apparently decide that one perspective is the right one because the person offering it basically says "those who tell you other than what I am are trying to mislead you for some reason". I mean...how exactly does that sway anyone? There are three main perspectives, and the African proponents of each insist that their one is correct and that supporters of the others are misrepresenting the situation.

Isn't that little more than deciding something is worthwhile/interesting because it agrees with a pre-formed opinion? Is it, indeed, any more than that?

TomF

Well, I thought the article was very interesting because Shikwati gave such concrete examples supporting his thesis, for example:

big shipments of donated corn end up being sold on the black market, and local farmers can't sell their home-grown crops because the price of the donated corn is so low, and

donated old clothes from Europe flood the markets in Africa and the African tailors go broke because the donated clothing is so cheap.

bonkey

I'm not saying he's wrong, Tom...l'm saying that this is hardly anything new. Ppl have been pointing out for a long time that there are problems with both the nature of aid given, and the manner in which it is managed.

However, its the suggestion/conclusion that the solution is simply to stop giving aid that I was more questioning.

Its a bit like saying that the solution for a patient who has managed to (say) get hooked on painkillers because of shoddy medical practice is actually to stop treating them for anything, including whatever it was they originally needed the pk's for.

jc

TomF

I'm sure some of the criticisms have been voiced before, but this is from a black African, and he seems to bat Der Spiegel's objections right back across the net at them.

bonkey

<shrugs>

Maybe the news over here is different to that in Ireland, but thats still nothing new.

The entire concept behind the initiatives spurred on by the likes of Geldof et al is simple. The current approach isn't working. No-one denies the corruption, the large-scale bureaucracies, etc. The questions and differing opinions come when one asks how to tackle it.

Blair et al want more conditionality. More selling of national resources in return for aid, with a requirement to sell/privatise even prior to the establishment of the necessary structures to prevent widescale corruption.

Other people don't want the African nations given control fo the monies at all...effectively asking them to put themselves in thrall to other nations who will decide how to rescue them.

Other people suggest that stopping aid and letting the Africans sort out issues like corruption etc. is the way forward.

I don't think anyone is actually suggesting that the current system is working, so in that sense, Shikwati isn't making any revelations. All he's doing is offering his view of how to make things better, and its not a new view. Its remarkably similar to the one Chill was espousing here recently.

The day of Live8, CNN ran an interview with three Africans (of whom I recall little about their qualifications I'm afraid, except that they were relevant to their cmmentaries). Each gave a completely different solution.

One wanted more aid. Now. With better oversight but fewer illogical preconditions.
Another said that it was the type of aid that needed changing, and that it wasn't a question of more or less.
The third more or less said that aid didn't matter in the slightest in terms of the solution, and that what was mostly needed was for the developed nations to stop their protectionist games, and to stop using aid as a tool to fund their own indigenous industries (paying some national industry to produce what the Africans need so it can be sent to them for free).

Ultimately, if the development nations aren't willing to use aid altruistically rather than as a tool to prop up their indigenous industries in the name of helping others, then Shikwati is possibly correct - that the best thing to do for the Africans will be to stop taking advantage of Africa and calling it aid.

However, I still stand by the notion that he offers little reasoning as to why his solution is the way to deal with these problems. No-one is denynig these problems exist, so its still just a case of "here's a known problem, and that means my solution is right because its one way of addressing this problem".

jc

DadaKopf

Can't we also continue providing aid while letting developing countries sort out their own poverty reduction policies?

Clearly developing countries have investment gaps and capacity constraints which need to be filled, not to mention a lack of political strength in multilateral institutions to defend their interests. If they were truly freer to set their own growth and poverty reduction strategies - which is, in principle, the official norm in the aid business - they'd probably be much better off. Every country that's got rich has done things on their own terms.

Instead, you have situations where rich countries tell developing countries how they want them to spend the money. So you have insane situations where universal health and education are identified as sectors vital to development but the governments can't spend money on providing education and health care because the IMF says they're not allowed.

That's not to say penalties shouldn't apply when developing countries siphon off money or spend it on non-priority sectors (i.e. break openly agreed aid contracts), but these should be openly discussed when problems arise and money should not be instantly cut off, only medium-term future commitments should be on the table. This has been successful in Tanzania and Uganda, to name but two examples.

I don't buy what he says that cutting aid overnight won't be missed by Africans. Huge amounts of aid are directed to the most vulnerable people: subsistence farmers and women in isolated rural and urban communities. Cutting off assistance aimed at providing free health care, education and fresh water, technical and financial assistance to help them help themselves to increase their crop yields and start small and medium enterprises, connect with markets and improving their political empowerment to demand rights (especially women) and a fair deal through their local governments would seriously affect them.

I don't think anyone is actually suggesting that the current system is working, so in that sense, Shikwati isn't making any revelations. All he's doing is offering his view of how to make things better, and its not a new view.

Bits of it work, bits of it don't work.

Sand

Can't we also continue providing aid while letting developing countries sort out their own poverty reduction policies?

No, I doubt it. I know its hip to be cynical about how terrible and corrupt and evil our governments are, but its even more cynical to accept that our governments are the most upright, honest, and competent governments in the world.

Africas governments *are* one of the two main problems. The other is the trade barriers created against African bussinessmen.

The continent has fantastic natural resources, a cheap work force, and has had 450 Billion in aid sent to it over the years. There is no excuse for it being poor. It is an absolute *crime* that it is poor. South Korea and Uganda were equally as poor back when in the 1960s. South Korea is now 32 times richer than Uganda. Its not impossible for a post-colonial country to become rich.

Aid hasnt helped - that 450 Billion has only created a culture where politicians get themselves elected so they can control the bribes and skim the money off for themselves. Is another 450 Billion really going to be any different? In such a situation bad government is inevitable - Look at Musenevi - He was the latest African leader to be hailed as a reformer but hes clearly angling to declare himself President for life. And why shouldnt he - Its an extremely lucrative position. You really want him to decide how hes going to spend the billions saved by debt relief?

Weve got to get over the post-colonial white guilt and accept that were not doing Africans any favours by funding tyrants and dictators lavish lifestyles and giving them every incentive to crush democracy. Weve also got to get over the socialist clap trap and accept that free trade is what Africa needs. These guys can compete with us, they dont need to be constantly asking for aid. The danger is of course, they can compete with us. The very people who campaign loudest for aid for Africa are often the same ones who campaign most strongly against European jobs being threatened by foreign competition. The obvious conclusion is that they want -whether they realise it or not - Africa kept poor and dependant, real neo-colonialism.

If we really want to help Africa we need to most definitly impose conditions on debt relief - ringfence the funds so they cant be sent to buy guns or mercedes benz, we need to end the trade barriers weve errected to crush African bussiness and we need to stop making Africa dependant on us. As the man in the article said, how can you expect local business to develop when you dump cheap subsidised food on the market and thus annialate the local farmers? Farming stops, aid dependancy results.

I wouldnt argue for ceasing aid altogether suddenly but we need to source it from within Africa to actually kickstart trade and development. We need to end CAP and stop using it to dump food, lets buy the food from African farmers instead and help them help themselves.

Other people don't want the African nations given control fo the monies at all...effectively asking them to put themselves in thrall to other nations who will decide how to rescue them.

I think the World Bank proposal for funding oil developments in corrupt countries is that a indig panel of academics, human rights types and so on administer and release the funds resulting from the oil exports and that spending is locked into certain sectors such as Health, Education, Infrastructure. The corrupt government itself might only get 15% or so to play around with and demonstrate their commitment to spending the money wisely.

And lets be honest, the governments are already in thrall to aid. More aid on the same style has gone before will only make them more in thrall to aid donors, over and beyond their obligations to their tax base who become increasingly irrelevant as aid provides more and more of their budget.

Like I said, we need to get over the post-colonial white guilt.

KnowItAll

Aid should not be a problem, it's the type of aid thats the problem. The real problem with Africa like europe is over population (though different types of problems). There are families of say 10 when in reality the family can only feed 3.

I would use the aid money to educate people about things like family planning and how to avoid dieases and how to run farms etc. Also they need to be educated not to be taken in by the materialistic western world where traditions and culture mean nothing.

Karl Hungus

I'd agree 100% that aid is only holding Africa back, and cutting it off would force Africa to sort itself out ASAP.

As silly a point as it is, I think they got it right in Star Trek where they don't interfere with lesser advanced worlds. An analogy for today's developing countries? I think so.

mycroft

Karl Hungus wrote:

I'd agree 100% that aid is only holding Africa back, and cutting it off would force Africa to sort itself out ASAP.

As silly a point as it is, I think they got it right in Star Trek where they don't interfere with lesser advanced worlds. An analogy for today's developing countries? I think so.

Ah yes, what those shiftless starving buggers need is to lift up their bootstraps and chin up and and greet the day with a smile.

Never mind stopping the crippling interest on debt repayment, the dumping of first world goods, while stopping them from setting up tariffs to protect local industry, pharmaceutial industries enforcing patents so generic aids drugs can't be sold.

Karl africa isn't some sullen 22 strumming a bass in his parents attic, loafing while "he gets his big gig together", and all it needs is a clip around the ear to get going, and cop itself on, it's not like villages in Zambia are going "What the US are stopping aid, gosh I think we'd better stop subsistance farming, starving to death, and occasionally for the diversity of it, daying of cureable diseases. **** we've got to get our act together and get a job! and maybe a haircut!"

What? we can't get a job because our major government expenditure is on debt repayments so theres no infrastructure? And hey it turns out the US is dumping cheap cotten and rice so we sell our produce, because their government heavily subsidises their rice and cotten imports while restricting my government's ability to set tariffs to help me?

Jesus thats a pisser.

Knowitall wrote:

Aid should not be a problem, it's the type of aid thats the problem. The real problem with Africa like europe is over population (though different types of problems). There are families of say 10 when in reality the family can only feed 3.

I would use the aid money to educate people about things like family planning and how to avoid dieases and how to run farms etc. Also they need to be educated not to be taken in by the materialistic western world where traditions and culture mean nothing.

We're still waiting for you to define what Irish culture is btw.

Also WTF how are we supposed to educate them to ignore our culture, how do you go about doing that.

Also for a ruthless free trader you throw around phrases like "materialistic western world" with gay abandon, I kinda see your vision of Ireland as Pol Pot meets Padrig Pearse.

But yes they need education in family planning that means both crossing the catholic church and the current US administration, and what they really need is debt relief, and a fair global playing field where they can trade without dumping and with the ability to impose their own tariffs.

Karl Hungus

mycroft wrote:

Ah yes, what those shiftless starving buggers need is to lift up their bootstraps and chin up and and greet the day with a smile.

Never mind stopping the crippling interest on debt repayment, the dumping of first world goods, while stopping them from setting up tariffs to protect local industry, pharmaceutial industries enforcing patents so generic aids drugs can't be sold.

Karl africa isn't some sullen 22 strumming a bass in his parents attic, loafing while "he gets his big gig together", and all it needs is a clip around the ear to get going, and cop itself on, it's not like villages in Zambia are going "What the US are stopping aid, gosh I think we'd better stop subsistance farming, starving to death, and occasionally for the diversity of it, daying of cureable diseases. **** we've got to get our act together and get a job! and maybe a haircut!"

What? we can't get a job because our major government expenditure is on debt repayments so theres no infrastructure? And hey it turns out the US is dumping cheap cotten and rice so we sell our produce, because their government heavily subsidises their rice and cotten imports while restricting my government's ability to set tariffs to help me?

Jesus thats a pisser.

Certainly, while I might be a little miffed at what's basically a personal attack right there, I'm moreso boggled at why you seem to be jumping down my throat for saying nothing more than I agree with previous sentiments. But maybe I missed something, and where I thought I said "I agree" I had in actually fact said "Those lazy bastards should stop starving and get a job!"? Or could it be that you took what I had said, made some flagrant assumptions, ran with it, and threw in a healthy dose of insulting sarcasm?

Tell you what, to avoid any confusion here, when I said that Africa would "Sort itself out", I didn't for one second mean that governmental policies or even the type of government would change rapidly, or that the instrests would be geared more towards building a proper infrastructure and making use of the continent's resourses instead of dictators lining their pockets with aid money, or that the people might be more encouraged to uprise. To use Sand's comparison of South Korea in the 60's to point out just how rapidly things change. Right now they're 13 years out of Military Dictatorship and they've got the best Telecommunications in the world? Miles ahead of most western countries by all accounts. Or might I take us as an example here, and how we went from starving to death, to indipendance, to one of the richest countries in Europe, and we achieved all that without billions of aid?

No, like I said, I didn't mean any of that. I meant "Those lazy bastards should stop starving and get a job."

Never mind that my post was simply an agreement with previous posters, just feel free to jump down my throat without broaching the points raised by those I was agreeing with. Argue with Sand about post-colonial guilt, the world bank, Africa kept dependant by Neo-colonialism, kick-starting development? Naw... Too hard. Why bother when you can invent some precieved comment and go wild with facetious insults on someone who simply said they agree?

DadaKopf

Sand wrote:

Look at Musenevi … You really want him to decide how hes going to spend the billions saved by debt relief?

Sand wrote:

]If we really want to help Africa we need to most definitly impose conditions on debt relief - ringfence the funds so they cant be sent to buy guns or mercedes benz, we need to end the trade barriers weve errected to crush African bussiness and we need to stop making Africa dependant on us.

So we need to get rid of aid, but not now? And you want an end to neo-colonialism, but we need to impose conditions on debt relief to do that? But Africans really need to sort out their own problems, but you don’t trust Africans to do that? (And you’re right to point out corruption in the rich countries – none of the G8 countries have ratified the Convention on Corruption.)

But why impose conditions on debt relief, but not provide aid when effectively it’s the same thing: a chunk of money bestowed by the rich with strings attached? The debt relief deal isn’t really 100% debt relief anyway – it’s about $1bn a year for a handful of countries if they do what the rich countries say.

I don’t disagree with you entirely, but you seem to think that letting Africans sort out their own problems while ensuring the money is spent on poverty reduction isn’t already happening. Donors now pursue partnerships with developing countries in which developing countries devise their own poverty reduction strategies, identify clear objectives and priority sectors, and submit to monitoring to ensure the money goes to where the partners (donors, governments, stakeholders) have agreed. If they go off-track, stakeholders negotiate further funding. Unfortunately, this doesn’t happen the way the policy statements say it does but it has been effective in Uganda, where Museveni’s attempt to shift aid to the military was met with retaliation by the UK, Ireland and others. Another leading example of this is Tanzania. In practise, though, partnership through the World Bank/IMF PRSP process, means Western-imposed, mercantilist conditionality such is the nature of power in the aid regime.

But let’s be clear of one thing: nation-states are sovereign, and there’s only so far donors can and should go in interfering in a country’s internal affairs. Keeping this distance can actually have the very positive effect of building national ownership of their development process which enhances the poverty reducing impact of aid. However, in my opinion, governments cede their rights to sovereignty when they systematically abuse human rights. But this must be handled very carefully.

Sand wrote:

We need to end CAP and stop using it to dump food, lets buy the food from African farmers instead and help them help themselves.

While at the same time guaranteeing against ridiculously low commodity prices. African countries need to diversify their economies into processing and manufacturing, which they’re not really permitted to do. Africa needs to trade, but they won’t get there through comprehensive liberalisation. They should be free to develop their own innovations to achieve higher growth as the Asian Tigers have done which involves things like providing free health and education, selective protectionism, export subsidies, institutional reform etc. Fair trade, not free trade.

Sand wrote:

I think the World Bank proposal for funding oil developments in corrupt countries is that a indig panel of academics, human rights types and so on administer and release the funds resulting from the oil exports and that spending is locked into certain sectors such as Health, Education, Infrastructure. The corrupt government itself might only get 15% or so to play around with and demonstrate their commitment to spending the money wisely.

I reckon oil extraction in Africa is the next big thing for good and ill. America has officially targeted West Africa as strategically important; the EU and China have done likewise unofficially. Mitigating the worst effects of this is vital and the Bank’s proposal makes sense. But if the experience of Latin America is anything to go by, maintaining an oil rents system to fund governments and social programmes for development will be difficult.

Sand wrote:

And lets be honest, the governments are already in thrall to aid. More aid on the same style has gone before will only make them more in thrall to aid donors, over and beyond their obligations to their tax base who become increasingly irrelevant as aid provides more and more of their budget.

Like I said, we need to get over the post-colonial white guilt.

Dunno about you, but I don’t remember Ireland colonising anyone. I think the opposite happened. Neither did other major donors (in percentage of GDP terms) like Norway, Denmark and Luxembourg. Most aid is presented by governments in terms of ‘enlightened self-interest’ – how much do we get back by giving aid to poor countries? But this doesn’t go far enough. We should give aid on the basis of ‘Enlightened Humanitarianism’. In principle, I think rich countries have a responsibility to redistribute wealth to help the worse off. A global system along these lines might actually be good economics: a global clearance system where countries in surplus would shift their surplus to countries in deficit to balance their payments could maintain global economic stability and fuel growth on a more equal basis.

KnowItAll wrote:

Aid should not be a problem, it's the type of aid thats the problem. The real problem with Africa like europe is over population (though different types of problems). There are families of say 10 when in reality the family can only feed 3.

I would use the aid money to educate people about things like family planning and how to avoid dieases and how to run farms etc.

The cool thing is that family sizes go down as countries develop. Only some areas of Africa are “overpopulated”, the real issue is that the land families live on, or labour wages, are so low that families can’t look after everyone. Women and girls suffer most, and many children die from disease before 5, hence bigger families – as social insurance. It’s not like people in Africa are stupid and horny and can’t help themselves – large family sizes are rational responses to poverty. This was an issue in Bangladesh, where poverty and land scarcity contributed to a crisis, but it’s been solved by Bangladesh’s economic growth.

Also they need to be educated not to be taken in by the materialistic western world where traditions and culture mean nothing.

It’s also been the case, interestingly, that indigenous societies, have found themselves in positions where they can take or leave many of the West’s trappings and modify them to suit their own culture as they see fit (but these people can do this because they’re isolated from the world system). Perhaps we’re wrong to assume that Western values and artefacts are absorbed by Southern societies without going through a process of modification to suit Southern people’s own needs (afterall, this is what culture is). This isn’t to say the imposition of Northern power on the South doesn’t happen, though. The problem is the poor countries, with very minor exceptions, aren’t free to take or leave the trappings of the “materialistic western world” as they wish, education or not.

KnowItAll

mycroft wrote:

We're still waiting for you to define what Irish culture is btw..

I gave a good example, the munster hurling final I went to. I'll come back to the immigration contracts thread soon. I need a break from it! I feel like I'm in court trying to defend myself against 10 lawyers!

mycroft wrote:

Also WTF how are we supposed to educate them to ignore our culture, how do you go about doing that.

Maybe I worded it wrong. I ment to say that they should be educated to know that western culture is based on a system of many poor and few rich people. There is not a pot of gold for everybody.

mycroft wrote:

Also for a ruthless free trader you throw around phrases like "materialistic western world" with gay abandon, I kinda see your vision of Ireland as Pol Pot meets Padrig Pearse.

I'm a traditionalist! I like the traditional values which can teach modern people alot.

mycroft

KnowItAll wrote:

I gave a good example, the munster hurling final I went to. I'll come back to the immigration contracts thread soon. I need a break from it! I feel like I'm in court trying to defend myself against 10 lawyers!

No people who have opinions and have the facts to support those opinions. You've yet to explain how it's under threat and from whom, Like the O'halpin brother from borneo?

You really don't live up to your nick.

Maybe I worded it wrong. I ment to say that they should be educated to know that western culture is based on a system of many poor and few rich people. There is not a pot of gold for everybody.

Yeah I'm thinking the living on under a dollar a day, dying of curable diseases, high infant mortality, low life expectancy, may have beaten you to the punch on teaching Africans that life lesson.

:rolleyes:

I'm a traditionalist! I like the traditional values which can teach modern people alot.

And what tradition do you adhere to?
The, pitchfork and torch greeting to "dem outsiders"?

karl hungus wrote:

Certainly, while I might be a little miffed at what's basically a personal attack right there, I'm moreso boggled at why you seem to be jumping down my throat for saying nothing more than I agree with previous sentiments. But maybe I missed something, and where I thought I said "I agree" I had in actually fact said "Those lazy bastards should stop starving and get a job!"? Or could it be that you took what I had said, made some flagrant assumptions, ran with it, and threw in a healthy dose of insulting sarcasm?

Karl if you're coming out with a statement like cutting "off aid will force Africa to sort itself out" suggests that

A) You didn't read Sands post

My reponse was accurate.

Tell you what, to avoid any confusion here, when I said that Africa would "Sort itself out", I didn't for one second mean that governmental policies or even the type of government would change rapidly, or that the instrests would be geared more towards building a proper infrastructure and making use of the continent's resourses instead of dictators lining their pockets with aid money, or that the people might be more encouraged to uprise.

Then instead of making that inane star trek reference you could have made a more lucid point.

Even if aid is cut incrementaliy what are you doing to stop dumping of foreign produce, IMF strings to aid which forces currency devaluation meaning foreign goods are cheaper, and exploitant of natural resources by western companies, Nigerian militas are funded by shell. You see you can't remove aid and assume that western intervention will go away. For example for every dollar we give in aid, we're taking ten in unfair trade practices.

To use Sand's comparison of South Korea in the 60's to point out just how rapidly things change. Right now they're 13 years out of Military Dictatorship and they've got the best Telecommunications in the world? Miles ahead of most western countries by all accounts. Or might I take us as an example here, and how we went from starving to death, to indipendance, to one of the richest countries in Europe, and we achieved all that without billions of aid?

And Sands comparison between Uganda and Sth Korea is incredibly flawed. South Korea was incredibly well funded, with a stable well supported regieme, who recieved massive amount of investment from the US, not least in which it has the largest US military presence outside europe.

Africa in the meanwhile has had US and Soviet regiemes actively destablising governments propping up dictatorships, funding rebels. Put simply do you think we'd have survived if oil had been found off our coast in the 30s and Franco began funding the IRA during WW2?

Oh and Karl, we've had billions and billions of aid, ever heard of the EEC?

Never mind that my post was simply an agreement with previous posters, just feel free to jump down my throat without broaching the points raised by those I was agreeing with. Argue with Sand about post-colonial guilt, the world bank, Africa kept dependant by Neo-colonialism, kick-starting development? Naw... Too hard. Why bother when you can invent some precieved comment and go wild with facetious insults on someone who simply said they agree?

Because broadly I agree with Sands, you just don't seem to understand or grasp his point Also I did not have the time to engage in a point by point economic debate vis a vie the relevative merits of no strings aid, verus the shoddy and dubious track record of organisations like the IMF and world bank to give aid and debt relief with Africa's best interest at heart.

sands wrote:

Like I said, we need to get over the post-colonial white guilt.

See Sands I take issue with that attitude, we're not talking about the elgin marbles here, this isn't the distant past we're talking about recent and current IMF and World Bank policy which has lead to this crisis, and these organisations are the ones who will manage this "aid and debt relief"

Theres a wiff of an attitude in your posts that scratch any african politican you'll find someone wanting the white dress uniform and row of dubious medals of a president for life, but the fact remains on a pure economic scale, mismanaged african aid and debt relief has caused more harm than the average dictator, and the west's condemnation and weary resignation for these corrupt regiemes which means "regretably aid will have to be controlled" is the flip side, the arms sales in, and natural resources out, and if the West is going to sanction the terms of debt relief to responsible regiemes its up to the west to ensure it doesn't trade or buy from the irresponsible ones.

It's why my sympathises are with the protestors outside the g8, fundamentally no matter how much aid and trade is given, the organisations who will manage it (IMF and world bank) have persistently damaged and harmed the 3rd world ultimately it's a flawed system.

Sand

Dadakopf

But let’s be clear of one thing: nation-states are sovereign, and there’s only so far donors can and should go in interfering in a country’s internal affairs. Keeping this distance can actually have the very positive effect of building national ownership of their development process which enhances the poverty reducing impact of aid. However, in my opinion, governments cede their rights to sovereignty when they systematically abuse human rights. But this must be handled very carefully.

I agree - especially on the point that sovereignty *should* (international law equates the government of Sweden with the government of Burma in terms of sovereignty) be limited on the basis of how representitive the government in question is, but theres a qualification I want to make to that.

The aid is *our* money. We are giving it because we want to help the weakest in the world attain basic standards of living. We have *every* right to attach whatever conditions we see fit to ensure that the money is spent wisely to achieve those aims, and moreover to ensure the aid requirment is reduced in future. Those conditions should be there to protect both us and the intended targets of such aid.

And if that tramples all over the sovereignty of the aid nations - tough. They can do without if they want. Were under no obligation to pay for their leaderships government jets and foreign junkets when weve plenty of our own homegrown chancers wasting our money already.

While at the same time guaranteeing against ridiculously low commodity prices. African countries need to diversify their economies into processing and manufacturing, which they’re not really permitted to do. Africa needs to trade, but they won’t get there through comprehensive liberalisation. They should be free to develop their own innovations to achieve higher growth as the Asian Tigers have done which involves things like providing free health and education, selective protectionism, export subsidies, institutional reform etc. Fair trade, not free trade.

Commodity prices are already ridiculously low. Ending CAP will if anything provide more demand and markets for African agricultural produce which shouldnt drive prices down. Whats really hurting Africa is that when they try to move up a level into low level manufacturing they run right into a wall of EU/US tarriffs and protectionism. Complete liberalisation isnt going to happen overnight - thats obvious given the glacial pace of concessions granted by the EU/US (who are under immense pressure from domestic interests to keep the subsidies) - but it will certainly be in Africas favour.

And whilst African states need to invest in stuff like education or health, the basic underlying problem is political instability and security. Nobody is going to invest in some crackpot nation where El Presidente is fighting 23 different rebel factions and the country threaten to break apart any second.

Dunno about you, but I don’t remember Ireland colonising anyone.

I remember plenty of Irish people serving in the army (up to half the British Army was recruited in Ireland at one point I recall), civil service and various trading interests of the greatest of the colonial empires. Lets face it, colonialism is as much part of our history as it is the history of Britain seeing as we were British ( I know, not popular amongest the provo fanboys but blame reality, not me) at the time of the Empires greatest expanse.

In principle, I think rich countries have a responsibility to redistribute wealth to help the worse off. A global system along these lines might actually be good economics: a global clearance system where countries in surplus would shift their surplus to countries in deficit to balance their payments could maintain global economic stability and fuel growth on a more equal basis.

Well, its a little Star Trekky to be honest and balancing the budget isnt always a sound economic goal in and of itself.

The other concern Id have is that the rich countries (who you think would be running the economies in a semi-decent fashion) would have no right to dictate that the poorer countries ( who obviously wouldnt have cracked the secret of economic success) spend their money correctly, or adjust policy to ensure the rich wouldnt constantly be bailing out a failed system. Itd be like constantly giving cash to that homeless alcoholic, without demanding that he go to the AA and clean himself up first as a condition of assisting him - itd make you feel generous but wouldnt help the alcoholic at all.

Mycroft

Even if aid is cut incrementaliy what are you doing to stop dumping of foreign produce, IMF strings to aid which forces currency devaluation meaning foreign goods are cheaper, and exploitant of natural resources by western companies,

By my understanding currency devaluation would make the local currency worth less, hence imports would be more expensive whilst exports would be more competitive in world markets. Did you mean forced upward revaluations?

And Sands comparison between Uganda and Sth Korea is incredibly flawed. South Korea was incredibly well funded, with a stable well supported regieme, who recieved massive amount of investment from the US, not least in which it has the largest US military presence outside europe.

Africa in the meanwhile has had US and Soviet regiemes actively destablising governments propping up dictatorships, funding rebels. Put simply do you think we'd have survived if oil had been found off our coast in the 30s and Franco began funding the IRA during WW2?

Whilst I dont want to get tied into what would essentialy be a side issue (South Korea and Uganda are only example after all) Id argue that South Koreas path to success wasnt without its difficulties, the Korean War and it being technically at war with its neighbour and the ever present threat of resumption that cant help attract investors. And being one of the front lines of the Cold War it and its neighbour have been as heavily invested in by the various powers as much as any African state.

I agree, Africa had its own difficulties but the sheer scale in difference of the outcome cant be written off as meaning that Africa is somehow exempt from the basics of running a decent economy - good government, trade, property rights. South Korea got it basically right, Africa didnt.

See Sands I take issue with that attitude, we're not talking about the elgin marbles here, this isn't the distant past we're talking about recent and current IMF and World Bank policy which has lead to this crisis, and these organisations are the ones who will manage this "aid and debt relief"

Well one has to ask - if the debt *repayments* are so crippling, then logically the sums of money lent in the first place must have been astronomical. Where has this money been spent? What guarantee do we have that when debt relief is granted that the windfall will be any better spent? Essentially, it is the fault of previous governments not spending the money wisely and previous World Bank IMF programs not forcing the money to be spent wisely. We shouldnt repeat that mistake.

I just dont find the attitude that "We owe them this money, and we have no right to attach conditions to it, and it would be neo-colonialism/arrogant to tell them how to organise their economies when theyve done such a fine job of it previously" is either justifiable or indeed helpful. Ask John O Shea of Goal, who states clearly that more aid is pointless in and of itself.

Africa isnt a hopeless cause. The good news is that Africa is actually having a bit of decent growth. According to the report on Newsweek recently, debt has fallen from 72% of the continents GDP in 1995 to 37% in 2005. The continent is growing at just under 6% GDP, which isnt good enough to really pull them out of the poverty trap but is better than the world average of 4.3% and a lot, lot better than the negative "growth" in the early 90s. South Africa seems to be serving as a bit of a role model.

We can either help or hinder this proccess, best place to start would be to source aid for Africa from within Africa so that we dont destroy the local economy with our well meant if misguided attempts to help. In cases like Museveni whose up to now been a good candidate for assistance before he removed the limit on his rule, he needs to be checked and guided to the "correct" decision not to breach the 2 terms limit, and set an example of peaceful, democratic handover of power. Even if it is neo-colonialism.