Posted on 06/24/2002 7:09:38 PM PDT by Pokey78
Tony Blair arrives this evening in a remote village in the Canadian Rockies to join the other leaders of the Group of Eight industrialised countries in discussing one of the most intractable issues of world development: how to stop Africa sliding ever further into the abyss. For the first time, routine commitments by the rich nations to “do something” about the most impoverished have been codified, costed and put at the top of the agenda. The New Partnership for Africa’ s Development (Nepad) has been likened by its proponents to a Marshall Plan for Africa. It commits America, Japan and Western Europe to spending huge new sums on health, education, infrastructure and development to rescue Africa from the vicious circle of poverty, disease and war. In return the African recipients are supposed to guarantee better government, less corruption, economic reform and an end to war. Fewer bargains have ever been struck with such poor prospects of delivery. Africa’s record since the continent threw out its colonial rulers is largely one of misery. More than half its 820 million people live on less than $1 a day; 200 million have no access to healthcare; 250 million have no drinking water; southern Africa is home to two thirds of all the world’s Aids cases; life expectancy is static or falling; and one in five Africans is a victim of war. Poverty and hunger have been exacerbated by disasters, natural and man-made. Drought and floods have devastated southern Africa in equal measure. Desertification is advancing inexorably across sub-Saharan Africa. Tribalism is endemic, civil war has destroyed agriculture and cities alike and elderly dictators cling to power through corruption, violence and intimidation. To throw money indiscriminately at such conditions would prove as wasteful as most of the early aid projects, which in many cases exacerbated inequalities, entrenching corruption and impoverishing millions. The best aid now comes with stringent conditions. Comparisons with the Marshall Plan are misleading: this is not a continent with a pool of human capability able to use capital to fund reconstruction. Money alone will never resolve Africa’s difficulties, as wiser African leaders recognise. Nepad’s emphasis therefore is on investment, totalling an extra $64 billion a year, to stimulate the economic activity that could produce growth of 7 per cent or more a year. For investment to work, however, Africans must make basic changes in their political and economic systems. Half-baked mishmashes of state socialism and cronyism must be replaced by genuine market economies. The mistrust of government provoked by rigged elections, the repression of minorities and state kleptocracy must be replaced by the good governance that can, as a few shining examples show, make all the difference. Senegal’s extraordinary performance in the World Cup is grounded in a society based on fairness and democracy that has brought out the best in its people; Botswana, although devastated by Aids, has stuck to its commitment to democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Canada has a huge diplomatic task to bring home to African leaders their responsibility in making Nepad work: several, including President Mbeki of South Africa, will attend the G8 summit. Where Jean Chrétien, the host, may find his task harder is in getting President Bush to devote much time to the subject during this 30-hour summit. He may recognise that combating poverty is a way to eliminate breeding grounds for terrorists, but it will take some persuasion to stop this summit being dominated by the war against terrorism. The war on poverty is vaguer, costlier, more diffuse and more frustrating, but it must be fought.
Precisely right. Of course, the world could decide that people with dark skin can't run their own affairs and that people with lighter skin should rush in and rescue their darker brethren. But I think that might be seen as a barbarous and backwards way of looking at the world.
I'm just wondering why so many "smart" folks seem to feel that way. It couldn't be because they're the true racists, right?
Good grief, Bush has been fighting a war on terrorists, stopping a war between India and Pakistan, and trying to solved a 50 year old middle east problem that has been bubbling for years. In the meantime, Iran and Iraq are developing WMD and have to be taken care of, and the world economy is sinking fast. We'll take care of Africa when we can, but NOT NOW!
Sadly, yes. Africa will have to wait in line. Besides, shouldn't this be an EU problem? They were the ones who created this mess. They keep on talking how they want to be full partners in world affairs. Well, here is their chance.
Let them clean up their mess in Africa. Shouldn't be that hard for the all-wise Europeans they certainly are free with their advise on everything else. Besides, the way things are I really don't see how they could screw the place up any more. Although, they have proved quite ingenious at doing so in the past.
(No insult to our European Freepers intended)
a.cricket
Why?
When Africa straightens up we sent em the loot.
So sorry, but with so many third world countries alternating between declaring war against the USA and/or demanding MORE money from us, we are just a little busy right now.
I feel sure, if you think about it for just a moment, you can understand a certain degree of USA self-interest is called for.If you cant see that as reasonable, tough.We will get back to them, perhaps, eventually.Care to let them deal with their own problems for a few years?
The USA has never held world domination as a national goal.Why is it "our" problem when other countries hit the skids? How much money must we pay to "save" the world? And if we pay it, do we own it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.