What Should America do for Africa?

[drbrumley]

July 11, 2005

At the G8 summit in Scotland last week, we heard once again how the wealthy nations of the world have not done enough to raise Africa out of poverty. At the Live 8 music festival that preceded it, we heard angry demands for “Justice, Not Charity” in Africa. Implicit in such demands is the collectivist fallacy that wealth is a zero sum game, and therefore western prosperity is possible only at the expense of African misery. As usual, Americans and other western nations are portrayed as villains who somehow conspire to keep Africa poor.

The White House attempted to quell criticism that America is “not doing enough” to save Africa by announcing that the U.S. would double its economic aid to the continent, from $4.3 billion to $8.6 billion, over the next few years. Neither Congress nor the American people were consulted prior to this pronouncement, I might add. I think the public might not share the administration’s generous mood, especially as we spend billions in Iraq and face single year deficits of $500 billion. Frankly, a federal government with nearly $8 trillion in debt has no business giving money to anybody.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair went a step further, promising that the G8 nations will provide $50 billion in economic aid to Africa by 2010, along with canceling hundreds of millions in debt owed to taxpayers of several western governments. But why should foreign leaders have any say over how American tax dollars are spent? Is our annual federal budget now subject to foreign scrutiny and approval? America is an incredibly charitable nation, as evidenced by the hundreds of millions of dollars donated by private citizens for tsunami relief last year. We don’t need lectures or guidance from the world when it comes to foreign aid.

African poverty is rooted in government corruption, corruption that actually is fostered by western aid. We should ask ourselves a simple question: Why is private capital so scarce in Africa? The obvious answer is that many African nations are ruled by terrible men who pursue disastrous economic policies. As a result, American aid simply enriches dictators, distorts economies, and props up bad governments. We could send Africa $1 trillion, and the continent still would remain mired in poverty simply because so many of its nations reject property rights, free markets, and the rule of law.

As commentator Joseph Potts explains, western money enables dictators like Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe to gain and hold power without the support of his nation’s people. African rulers learn to manipulate foreign governments and obtain an independent source of income, which makes them far richer and more powerful than any of their political rivals. Once comfortably in power, and much to the horror of the western governments that funded them, African dictators find their subjects quite helpless and dependent. Potts describes this process as giving African politicians the “power to impoverish.” The bottom line is that despite decades of western aid, more Africans than ever are living in extreme poverty. Foreign aid simply doesn’t work.

Despite this reality, western political leaders who offer to increase aid are always praised for their compassionate and progressive policies. But what about the people who are suffering here at home, whether from hunger, illness, or poverty? Are their lives and well being less important? Where is the constitutional provision allowing American tax dollars to be sent overseas?

The president is promising money we don’t have to solve a problem we didn’t cause. Americans have the freedom to do everything in their power to alleviate African suffering, whether by donating money or working directly in impoverished nations. But government-to-government foreign aid doesn’t work, and it never has. We should stop kidding ourselves and ignore the emotionalist pleas of rock stars. Suffering in Africa cannot be helped by delusional, feel-good government policies.

 

[Zakath]

I would agree with Mr. Paul's assessment of the cause of the problem... does he have any suggestions about possible solutions???

 

[logos_x]

If we want to help Africa, we would have to cut off all aid.
Why?
Because what we are really doing is supporting thug dictators, and none of our "aid" does what we want it to.
The only other solution is take over Africa ourselves and kill all the thugs.

 

[Delmar]

I would agree with Mr. Paul's assessment of the cause of the problem... does he have any suggestions about possible solutions???

I doubt that there are any solutions that would not, on the short term, lead to chaos.

 

[Holly]

Some of the best thinking on the subject has come from Jeffrey Sachs, in my opinion.
http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidinthenews/articles/sf9108.html

 

[Crow]

Same old "the nice places in the world are the reason we live in dung huts and it's their responsibility to fix what we screw up" argument.

The people who could best address these problems, the Africans themselves, can't find the time to do so because they're too busy serving as bad examples to the rest of the world by running some of the most screwed up and corrupt political free for alls imaginable.

Africa would be in a far better position if the farmers could practice sustainable agriculture, but alas, that requires a fairly stable political system. I'm not going to plant a field if it'd doubtful that I'll be the one to harvest it. Even if I do, I'm not going to invest the time and resources to preserve soil that I'll likely be thrown off of in a couple of years because property rights are nil in a land of constantly shifting regime.

There is a way Africa can get out of it's mess, but it isn't the way Sachs is proposing.

1. There must be political stability for agriculture and industry to be successful. If this issue is not addressed first, there's no point in doing anything. People have to be secure in the possession of their lands and property to grow adequate food, produce goods, and provide services. No one will plant, till, build a factory or start a dairy if he has every reason to believe that it will be taken from him at any minute. Political stability is key to any change for the better. Improved food and consumer goods production and better general living conditions procede from a stable non-oppressive government, not vice versa.

2. Agriculture that is capable of providing a reasonable food supply needs to be in place before anyone starts worrying about vaccines. It is sheer idiocy to waste money trying to address the problem of lack of modern medical care when there is inadequate food to keep the people one treats alive.

3. Once agriculture capable of feeding the population is developed, then it's time to worry about developing vaccines, cures, etc. The people are no longer being cured so that they starve to death. With productive agriculture and industry come the surpluses that permit a country to address public health problems.

Stable government-->private property rights secure-->agriculture and industry resume and make improvements to property-->increased nutritional and standard of living-->resources to address public health problems.

Throwing money, bags of Purena Famine Chow, and bottles of vaccine at the Africa's problems will not solve them. Most likely it will contribute to the cycle of destruction that bad government has spawned.

 

[dRock]

I agree with the stated fact that we should cut all aid to Africa to help it out.

 

[Delmar]

I agree with the stated fact that we should cut all aid to Africa to help it out.

No political party will be willing to take the heat for such a move so it won't happen.

 

[Zakath]

I doubt that there are any solutions that would not, on the short term, lead to chaos.

Sometimes a bit of short-term chaos and even pain is necessary to accomplish a good goal.

Ask any woman who's gone through labor...

 

[Servo]

Same old "the nice places in the world are the reason we live in dung huts and it's their responsibility to fix what we screw up" argument.

The people who could best address these problems, the Africans themselves, can't find the time to do so because they're too busy serving as bad examples to the rest of the world by running some of the most screwed up and corrupt political free for alls imaginable.

Africa would be in a far better position if the farmers could practice sustainable agriculture, but alas, that requires a fairly stable political system. I'm not going to plant a field if it'd doubtful that I'll be the one to harvest it. Even if I do, I'm not going to invest the time and resources to preserve soil that I'll likely be thrown off of in a couple of years because property rights are nil in a land of constantly shifting regime.

There is a way Africa can get out of it's mess, but it isn't the way Sachs is proposing.

1. There must be political stability for agriculture and industry to be successful. If this issue is not addressed first, there's no point in doing anything. People have to be secure in the possession of their lands and property to grow adequate food, produce goods, and provide services. No one will plant, till, build a factory or start a dairy if he has every reason to believe that it will be taken from him at any minute. Political stability is key to any change for the better. Improved food and consumer goods production and better general living conditions procede from a stable non-oppressive government, not vice versa.

2. Agriculture that is capable of providing a reasonable food supply needs to be in place before anyone starts worrying about vaccines. It is sheer idiocy to waste money trying to address the problem of lack of modern medical care when there is inadequate food to keep the people one treats alive.

3. Once agriculture capable of feeding the population is developed, then it's time to worry about developing vaccines, cures, etc. The people are no longer being cured so that they starve to death. With productive agriculture and industry come the surpluses that permit a country to address public health problems.

Stable government-->private property rights secure-->agriculture and industry resume and make improvements to property-->increased nutritional and standard of living-->resources to address public health problems.

Throwing money, bags of Purena Famine Chow, and bottles of vaccine at the Africa's problems will not solve them. Most likely it will contribute to the cycle of destruction that bad government has spawned.

Can't Positive Rep yet! :doh:

 

[Gerald]

If we want to help Africa, we would have to cut off all aid.
Why?
Because what we are really doing is supporting thug dictators, and none of our "aid" does what we want it to.
The only other solution is take over Africa ourselves and kill all the thugs.

Or we could cut off all US aid, interdict all aid from other countries, let all the thugs kill each other off, and then we deal with whoever's left.

Interestingly enough, I've advocated that same approach for the Arab/Israeli problem...

 

[Delmar]

Sometimes a bit of short-term chaos and even pain is necessary to accomplish a good goal.

Ask any woman who's gone through labor...

I agree. Now how to we convince the wimps in DC and the weasels at the UN?

 

[novice]

I would agree with Mr. Paul's assessment of the cause of the problem... does he have any suggestions about possible solutions???

Well, we could have this big rock concert and have like all these old rock stars sing and stuff, and we could raise a bunch a money and then like we could give the Arficans the money. Wouldn't that be like awesome dude?

 

[dRock]

totally tubular?

 

[novice]

totally tubular?

Fer sure dude, ROCK ON!

 

[Zakath]

I agree. Now how to we convince the wimps in DC and the weasels at the UN?

The only thing that comes to mind is power of the purse strings...

 

[Truth Hunter]

I glad you guys don't let christian values like love, mercy, or compassion get in the way while you justify holding a cup of water away from a man dying of thirst. We are supposed to help the oppressed, the weak, and the lowly, whenever we can. You can always work on a better solution, but you don't let people die over your opinions of their leaders, no matter how justified.

Matthew 5: 7 - How blessed are those who are merciful, for it is they who will receive mercy!

Matthew 25
35. For I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger, and you welcomed me.
36. I was naked, and you clothed me. I was sick, and you took care of me. I was in prison, and you visited me.'
37. "Then the righteous will say to him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and give you something to eat, or thirsty and give you something to drink?
38. When did we see you as a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?
39. When did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?'
40. The king will answer them, 'Truly I tell you, in that you did it for one of the least important of these my brothers, you did it for me.'

 

[Nineveh]

TH,
Throwing money at the problem won't make it go away. Mugabe just made a deal with the Chinese. He wants them to back him up in his brutality towards his own people in return for his nation's wealth. More money isn't going to fix the problem, it hasn't yet.

Welcome to TOL

 

[Truth Hunter]

There are not quick fixes to complicated problems like these. The question is not, will more money fix the problem, but will debt relief, political pressure, and more money help save lives. As a christian, when do you stop trying to help others. There are over 50 countries in Africa, Zimbabwe is just one small place.

Luke 10
25. Just then an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. He asked, "Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
26. Jesus answered him, "What is written in the law? What do you read there?"
27. He answered, "You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind. And you must love your neighbor as yourself."
28. Jesus told him, "You have answered correctly. Do this, and you will live."
29. But the man wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"
30. After careful consideration, Jesus replied, "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho when he fell into the hands of bandits. They stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead.
31. By chance, a priest was traveling along that road. When he saw the man, he went by on the other side.
32. Similarly, a Levite came to that place. When he saw the man, he also went by on the other side.
33. But as he was traveling along, a Samaritan came across the man. When the Samaritan saw him, he was moved with compassion.
34. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
35. The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, 'Take good care of him. If you spend more than that, I'll repay you when I come back.'
36. "Of these three men, who do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the bandits?"
37. He said, "The one who showed mercy to him." Jesus told him, "Go and do what he did."

 

[Nineveh]

TH,
True, but Mugabe is just one of many tyrants over there. And now has ties to China. I don't think anyone has been against the idea of of actual help for these folks, but money isn't it. Africa is a rich nation, they don't need wealth, they need tyrants to quit stealing it from them.