Africa, again

FoxEye · 28 Jun 2013 at 13:46

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-23087918

Is anyone surprised by this, at this point?

So even the 'good' charities, like Water Aid, aren't really helping much, it would seem.

The indigenous governments just aren't interested in helping their own people. We donate over a billion just on water aid alone, building wells and sanitary infrastructure, and it stops being used because there isn't the will to maintain it.

So once again, why do we bother? (in before inevitable 'you're heartless if you don't give to charity' arguments).

[FnG]magnolia · 28 Jun 2013 at 13:51

Genocide seems to be the only answer.

FoxEye · 28 Jun 2013 at 13:53

OK Mag, here's an honest question. If we withdrew all aid, and people died as a result, would that be genocide or just a natural balancing of the population vs the land's ability to sustain said population?

[FnG]magnolia · 28 Jun 2013 at 13:56

Look, I know you think you mean well but I find your sociopathic views a little cold. I'm sure you can answer your own question in a way that somehow makes sense to you even if to others it would appear abhorrent and grotesque.

pingwing · 28 Jun 2013 at 13:56

We do it because we owned it and feel responsible for owning it.

Probably wouldn't be as many people there if we didn't own it back in the days of empire so we're responsible....

Craterloads · 28 Jun 2013 at 14:01

pingwing said:
We do it because we owned it and feel responsible for owning it.

Probably wouldn't be as many people there if we didn't own it back in the days of empire so we're responsible....

I'd rather like to think we give aid because it is the right thing to do and from the goodness of our hearts rather than some perceived responsibility because of the actions of past governments. ( regardless of the wrongs commited then)

isonomicjedi · 28 Jun 2013 at 14:02

Moses said:
We didn't just own it. We raped and pillaged it, cut it up into stupid segments (making countries out of areas with multiple tribes, etc), then bailed out of there.

You missed the final part.

We then propped up genocidal governments for decades and helped flood the continent with weapons.

Robbo · 28 Jun 2013 at 14:02

I understand where you are coming from, it should be obvious to anyone with some common sense that continuing to throw money at Africa won't fix it, it's clear most of it doesn't even reach the people that need it.

I'm not sure what we can do, really.

Nico_Joey · 28 Jun 2013 at 14:07

Every now and then i honestly think we could do more good just going back and taking over some countries (ala colonial days and not make the same mistakes) and help get it self sustaining. And once it can actually sustain itself, we leave or stay based on public opinion(votes), if we leave we take a % of GDP or resources to pay off the costs of running the country.

Maybe its just a crazy idea..

It seems china is basically doing the above by proxy at the moment anyways

Tom_ed1987 · 28 Jun 2013 at 14:08

Would be better value for money to just send the army in to build the wells themselves.

elmarko · 28 Jun 2013 at 14:09

isonomicjedi said:
You missed the final part.

We then propped up genocidal governments for decades and helped flood the continent with weapons.

This also.

We destabilised the natural socio-evolution of the region by providing advanced weaponry to a society not yet ready for them (specifically to people who had no interest in improving the situation for the majority).

Now we've managed to saddle them with unsustainable debt, we can pillage the region of natural resources sold to us by corrupt leaders who hoard all of the wealth & steal the resources from the population.

For a start, we should refuse to to business to any African nation (regarding resource purchasing at least) until they increase the share of the wealth from the sale of the natural resources of the region, to be honest we should do the same with nations like Saudi Arabia & Bahrain in my opinion (as they suppress democracy, human rights abuses etc)

Hit the corrupt leaders in the wallet, stop selling them weapons & force change.

The point is, the west (well. not just the west - the entire developed world to be fair pretty much) doesn't care about democracy, it doesn't care about the suffering of the people in these nations - it only cares about obtaining materials required to make more money.

This is in part why I can't really support any military in the west, as in most cases they are no more than the strong arm of a corporate interests - hell-bent on monopolising global natural resources at great human cost for profit, which in my view makes them no better than mercenaries.

FoxEye · 28 Jun 2013 at 14:14

Robbo said:
I understand where you are coming from, it should be obvious to anyone with some common sense that continuing to throw money at Africa won't fix it, it's clear most of it doesn't even reach the people that need it.

I'm not sure what we can do, really.

I just think we maybe need to feel less guilty about it? Contrary to Mag's opinion of me, I do think that's what's happening is awful.

But reality sets in and you realise that we can't fix it because just be donating money.

So I don't know either what we can do... but all the nasty/begging/starving kids adverts on TV just want your money, and you read that your money isn't doing a whole lot...

But some people here still think you're a monster if you don't jump onboard with it. And talking to colleagues a lot of people do still think we're responsible for how things are out there. Personally, I don't think my conscience would be any cleaner if I gave £20 a month, I'd just be a bit poorer than I am now

elmarko · 28 Jun 2013 at 14:17

Moses said:
Such twee, ethical western notion would just be ignored the Chinese FDI arm, rendering it pointless.

If you're al-Bashir, do you sell your oil at 100% of its market price to the EU, then make sure you pump the profits into helping your people, or do you sell it at 80% of the market price to China, then build a nice palace, get supplied with cool weapons to oppress your people/maintain power... and get protected from 'humanitarian intervention' by the Chinese veto?

By the we I included the entire developed world (also China, not that I'd expect any of them to actually do it mind).

But yeah, in reality most of the world wouldn't do it (neither would the US or the UK stop dealing with say, Saudi Arabia over forcing the people to live under an absolute monarchy because it's about money, not ethics).

d_brennen · 28 Jun 2013 at 14:21

Robbo said:
I understand where you are coming from, it should be obvious to anyone with some common sense that continuing to throw money at Africa won't fix it, it's clear most of it doesn't even reach the people that need it.

I'm not sure what we can do, really.

[controversial]The best thing we, as in the UK, could do for much of Africa is take it over and run it like a colony[/controversial]

elmarko · 28 Jun 2013 at 14:22

Moses said:
And I wasn't assuming you just meant the UK. Even if the whole of the developed world was nice and ethical, you'd still have the BRICS acting questionably, probably (the main culprit still being China, of course). Therefore you'd still have dodgy governments being propped up, as ethical investment can't compete with investment which also maintains the position of awful African leaders.

I should have been more specific (my bad), I mean - the customers (the people buying the natural resources), when I say west I just mean any receptively wealthy nation (which includes the BRICS).

But I agree, I don't think anybody would do it as it would require better people in power globally than we have.

isonomicjedi · 28 Jun 2013 at 14:26

d_brennen said:
[controversial]The best thing we, as in the UK, could do for much of Africa is take it over and run it like a colony[/controversial]

I've often considered if something similar would work.

My thoughts were to disarm and relocate the majority of African population within the rest of the world and having the whole continent run as a tourist resort.

Replanting of large swathes of the country could take place and the resorts could be subsidised from the sale of natural resources.

If only United Nations weren't so bloody crap it would be an ideal job for them to do.

elmarko · 28 Jun 2013 at 14:26

d_brennen said:
[controversial]The best thing we, as in the UK, could do for much of Africa is take it over and run it like a colony[/controversial]

If it was turned into part of the country (as opposed to an odd arm to steal resources like old Colony's) which meant building an education system, healthcare, police & government system then they would be much better off.

elmarko · 28 Jun 2013 at 14:35

Moses said:
It wouldn't require better people in power globally, it'd require unrealistic people globally - we're in a race for resources, to ignore that and chase a utopia will just lead to the utopian dream not being realised AND any countries who do it being left behind.

Unknown factor, we don't know what would happen if we did try to chase a utopian dream - we have never tried.

By continuing the resources race it's far more likely it will cause our very destruction (once resources become more scarce) when we've finished using them all up chasing further economic growth (with no thoughts about sustainability).

Moses said:
Is China's FDI amoral? Well, perhaps in our eyes... but they're looking after number one. It'd be amoral in their eyes to neglect the future of their country, so they're doing what they have to do (combine that with the idea that they think human rights are a domestic affair, and one country shouldn't lecture any other on them, and you have the situation we have now).

They are doing the same as us, prioritising profit over human need.

d_brennen · 28 Jun 2013 at 14:36

isonomicjedi said:
I've often considered if something similar would work.

My thoughts were to disarm and relocate the majority of African population within the rest of the world and having the whole continent run as a tourist resort.

Replanting of large swathes of the country could take place and the resorts could be subsidised from the sale of natural resources.

If only United Nations weren't so bloody crap it would be an ideal job for them to do.

Under the right stewardship, much of Africa could be a paradise, and there is plenty of space to house the population as it stands. No need to move anyone, but the population would need to slow down it's growth

elmarko said:
If it was turned into part of the country (as opposed to an odd arm to steal resources like old Colony's) which meant building an education system, healthcare, police & government system then they would be much better off.

Quite, but I can see becoming part of the UK could prove profitable for everyone. We'd just need to crush all opposition and tell the rest of the world to gtfo for 50 years til it's fixed

platypus · 28 Jun 2013 at 14:39

The foreign aid agencies don't work.

Having been on the inside of the situation it's purely a money making exercise for everyone involved. The projects are mostly US run, and require tax exemption. The salaries paid are not to tanzanian accounts, so there is no investment from there. The people employed by these projects are given incentives and grants to buy American or British products for their houses, thus largely by passing locals who could potentially benefit from large ex-pat communities.

Whilst I realise this is a generalisation, by and large the locals have come to rely on handouts. They're not interested in hard work because if one aid project fails another will be along next week to take over.

The aid project I've seen from the inside is involved in water irrigation to support and bolster farms. It took almost a year longer than normal of planning and legwork before the project physically started in Tanzania, because they went to several communities who didn't want their aid. You can't start an aid project without approval of the local elders, and all they wanted was tractors. 'The Chinese will give us tractors, so give us tractors or go away'.