Aid and Africa
When British Prime Minister Tony Blair asks President Bush, and other G-8 leaders, to increase the amount of aid provided to Africa, and to eliminate the foreign debt of African nations, he is unlikely to be addressing the continents woes with the mindset of Global War on Terror. President Bush is set to announce that the U.S. will further increase aid to Africa, to the tune of $674 million, while continuing his opposition to the remainder of Blair’s plan. He is right to do so for both humanitarian purposes, as well as for national security.
Addressing the humanitarian aspect, I’ll be brief. Provide fish or teach to fish? Provide economic aid via grants (or the elimination of debt) or provide economic incentives to aid (or require) the development of civil systems capable of supporting foreign investment, the development of educational systems, and the legal rights of the people of Africa. I would applaud Blair for his passionate argument for doing more to help Africa, yet I believe he is mistaken in his plan, discounting both the nature of man and the realities of our world. All aid to Africa, beyond the essentials to prevent malnutrition, should be focused on building the infrastructure needed to get beyond subsistence, both in real terms, as well as in terms of cultural and social essentials. It is largely in this area that we have failed, and in this area that money alone will not change anything.
For years the U.S., and the world at large, ignored the spread of Islamist ideals that lead to terrorism in the name of Islam. Our focus was singular… ensure that the U.S. maintained influence in the region, the Middle East, equal to or greater than that of the Soviet bloc. Post Soviet policy was even narrower. Now we fight a war that is likely to outlast many of us, and our former allies have been exposed as at least partially responsible for the development of the hatred of the west built on the regions bigotry, religious and cultural. Despots have largely governed Africa, like the Middle East, and with the cultural value of ethnicity, bloodlines, religious affiliation and race, Africans have waged war on each other while the outside world fed the victims.
The U.S. must address African nations with higher standards. We must not eliminate debt or make grants with the hope that the economic relief felt by the governments will translate to opportunity for the individual. It would merely extend the life of those in power. In place of donations (by the government – I’m completely supportive of individual donations through charity organizations dealing directly with the needy), the U.S. should ratchet up our requirements. This should include direct investments, binding the governments to support and encourage civil opportunities, development of legal and banking systems, expansion of communications, and most importantly - the inclusion of all citizens in a liberal education program. In addition, it should be clear to Africa's leaders that military aid and support of non-democratic leaders will not be an option. You play poorly in the playground, we don't invite you in and serve you dinner, instead, we cut you off and feed those who will work to make things better. If not, we will again silently wait for the next Somalia, Sudan or Zimbabwe to develop. And we’ll pay the man who leads the transition.
Of course, none of this addresses how to end the suffering under the hands of mad men already in place. That’ll have to wait.
[Originally posted at The Fourth Rail.]
Comments (2)
Interesting argument. I'm not certain that I agree with all of it. I mean, as memory serves, very few nations given aid in the wake of World War II actually paid it back, and few of those countries were as destitute as most of Africa. If we didn't ratchet up our repayment requirements on those nations, I wonder why we should do so here.
Still, this is a thought-provoking argument largely because you are taking an unpopular position (in terms of generalized, or amorphous, notions of "fairness" or "equity") but you address it seriously. It requires a serious response from those who would support some sort of debt amnesty to demonstrate that doing so will actually encourage the results they want to stimulate.
The biggest question really is how to go about structuring involvement in nations which are arguably teetering on the brink of being "failed states." There was an article in the Economist a while back which documented that failed or rogue states are economic black holes that affect far more than themselves, so there is clearly an incentive to prevent such things from happening. The question must be whether financial aid, debt forgiveness, and the like will achieve the purpose. Clearly, such things could help; it's a question of how to make them work.
Posted by: Bill Wallo | June 9, 2005 3:14 PM
How true, Marvin, how true. Most of the time our aid is simply a response to feelings of guilt. We throw them some money, then sit back and go about our business. As often as not we don't look again to see if the money did any good. Consider the charity concerts for this or that diasaster. Or, for that matter, the massive donations for the tsunami relief. Where did the money go? Did it do any good? Dunno, as it has completely disappeared from the news. I recall a Mark Steyn column a few weeks ago that told of aid shipments still sitting on a pier in Indonesia because the paperwork had not been completed correctly, but that's about it.
As for debt relief, all that would do is encourage more irresponsible spending on their part. The issue preventing (most) Africans from achieving economic well being is not lack of money, it is lack of decent government. As you point out, we should "rachet up our requirements". We must provide incentives to reform, and debt relief will hardly achieve that.
Posted by: The Redhunter | June 11, 2005 7:52 PM