luckydevil Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 pretty interesting interview with an Kenyan economist http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html SPIEGEL INTERVIEW WITH AFRICAN ECONOMICS EXPERT "For God's Sake, Please Stop the Aid!" The Kenyan economics expert James Shikwati, 35, says that aid to Africa does more harm than good. The avid proponent of globalization spoke with SPIEGEL about the disastrous effects of Western development policy in Africa, corrupt rulers, and the tendency to overstate the AIDS problem. SPIEGEL: Mr. Shikwati, the G8 summit at Gleneagles is about to beef up the development aid for Africa... Shikwati: ... for God's sake, please just stop. SPIEGEL: Stop? The industrialized nations of the West want to eliminate hunger and poverty. Shikwati: Such intentions have been damaging our continent for the past 40 years. If the industrial nations really want to help the Africans, they should finally terminate this awful aid. The countries that have collected the most development aid are also the ones that are in the worst shape. Despite the billions that have poured in to Africa, the continent remains poor. SPIEGEL: Do you have an explanation for this paradox? Shikwati: Huge bureaucracies are financed (with the aid money), corruption and complacency are promoted, Africans are taught to be beggars and not to be independent. In addition, development aid weakens the local markets everywhere and dampens the spirit of entrepreneurship that we so desperately need. 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. SPIEGEL: Even in a country like Kenya, people are starving to death each year. Someone has got to help them. Shikwati: But it has to be the Kenyans themselves who help these people. When there's a drought in a region of Kenya, our corrupt politicians reflexively cry out for more help. This call then reaches the United Nations World Food Program -- which is a massive agency of apparatchiks who are in the absurd situation of, on the one hand, being dedicated to the fight against hunger while, on the other hand, being faced with unemployment were hunger actually eliminated. It's only natural that they willingly accept the plea for more help. And it's not uncommon that they demand a little more money than the respective African government originally requested. They then forward that request to their headquarters, and before long, several thousands tons of corn are shipped to Africa ... SPIEGEL: ... corn that predominantly comes from highly-subsidized European and American farmers ...Shikwati: ... and at some point, this corn ends up in the harbor of Mombasa. A portion of the corn often goes directly into the hands of unsrupulous politicians who then pass it on to their own tribe to boost their next election campaign. Another portion of the shipment ends up on the black market where the corn is dumped at extremely low prices. Local farmers may as well put down their hoes right away; no one can compete with the UN's World Food Program. And because the farmers go under in the face of this pressure, Kenya would have no reserves to draw on if there actually were a famine next year. It's a simple but fatal cycle. SPIEGEL: If the World Food Program didn't do anything, the people would starve. Shikwati: I don't think so. In such a case, the Kenyans, for a change, would be forced to initiate trade relations with Uganda or Tanzania, and buy their food there. This type of trade is vital for Africa. It would force us to improve our own infrastructure, while making national borders -- drawn by the Europeans by the way -- more permeable. It would also force us to establish laws favoring market economy. SPIEGEL: Would Africa actually be able to solve these problems on its own? Shikwati: Of course. Hunger should not be a problem in most of the countries south of the Sahara. In addition, there are vast natural resources: oil, gold, diamonds. Africa is always only portrayed as a continent of suffering, but most figures are vastly exaggerated. In the industrial nations, there's a sense that Africa would go under without development aid. But believe me, Africa existed before you Europeans came along. And we didn't do all that poorly either. SPIEGEL: But AIDS didn't exist at that time. Shikwati: If one were to believe all the horrorifying reports, then all Kenyans should actually be dead by now. But now, tests are being carried out everywhere, and it turns out that the figures were vastly exaggerated. It's not three million Kenyans that are infected. All of the sudden, it's only about one million. Malaria is just as much of a problem, but people rarely talk about that. SPIEGEL: And why's that? Shikwati: 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. SPIEGEL: The Americans and Europeans have frozen funds previously pledged to Kenya. The country is too corrupt, they say. Shikwati: I am afraid, though, that the money will still be transfered before long. After all, it has to go somewhere. Unfortunately, the Europeans' devastating urge to do good can no longer be countered with reason. It makes no sense whatsoever that directly after the new Kenyan government was elected -- a leadership change that ended the dictatorship of Daniel arap Mois -- the faucets were suddenly opened and streams of money poured into the country. SPIEGEL: Such aid is usually earmarked for a specific objective, though. Shikwati: That doesn't change anything. 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. The late tyrant of the Central African Republic, Jean Bedel Bokassa, cynically summed it up by saying: "The French government pays for everything in our country. We ask the French for money. We get it, and then we waste it." SPIEGEL: In the West, there are many compassionate citizens wanting to help Africa. Each year, they donate money and pack their old clothes into collection bags ... Shikwati: ... and they flood our markets with that stuff. We can buy these donated clothes cheaply at our so-called Mitumba markets. There are Germans who spend a few dollars to get used Bayern Munich or Werder Bremen jerseys, in other words, clothes that that some German kids sent to Africa for a good cause. After buying these jerseys, they auction them off at Ebay and send them back to Germany -- for three times the price. That's insanity ... SPIEGEL: ... and hopefully an exception. Shikwati: Why do we get these mountains of clothes? No one is freezing here. Instead, our tailors lose their livlihoods. They're in the same position as our farmers. No one in the low-wage world of Africa can be cost-efficient enough to keep pace with donated products. In 1997, 137,000 workers were employed in Nigeria's textile industry. By 2003, the figure had dropped to 57,000. The results are the same in all other areas where overwhelming helpfulness and fragile African markets collide. SPIEGEL: Following World War II, Germany only managed to get back on its feet because the Americans poured money into the country through the Marshall Plan. Wouldn't that qualify as successful development aid? Shikwati: In Germany's case, only the destroyed infrastructure had to be repaired. Despite the economic crisis of the Weimar Republic, Germany was a highly- industrialized country before the war. The damages created by the tsunami in Thailand can also be fixed with a little money and some reconstruction aid. Africa, however, must take the first steps into modernity on its own. There must be a change in mentality. We have to stop perceiving ourselves as beggars. These days, Africans only perceive themselves as victims. On the other hand, no one can really picture an African as a businessman. In order to change the current situation, it would be helpful if the aid organizations were to pull out. SPIEGEL: If they did that, many jobs would be immediately lost ... Shikwati: ... jobs that were created artificially in the first place and that distort reality. Jobs with foreign aid organizations are, of course, quite popular, and they can be very selective in choosing the best people. When an aid organization needs a driver, dozens apply for the job. And because it's unacceptable that the aid worker's chauffeur only speaks his own tribal language, an applicant is needed who also speaks English fluently -- and, ideally, one who is also well mannered. So you end up with some African biochemist driving an aid worker around, distributing European food, and forcing local farmers out of their jobs. That's just crazy! SPIEGEL: The German government takes pride in precisely monitoring the recipients of its funds. Shikwati: And what's the result? A disaster. The German government threw money right at Rwanda's president Paul Kagame. This is a man who has the deaths of a million people on his conscience -- people that his army killed in the neighboring country of Congo. SPIEGEL: What are the Germans supposed to do? Shikwati: If they really want to fight poverty, they should completely halt development aid and give Africa the opportunity to ensure its own survival. Currently, Africa is like a child that immediately cries for its babysitter when something goes wrong. Africa should stand on its own two feet. Interview conducted by Thilo Thielke Translated from the German by Patrick Kessler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 An interesting article. I can certainly see the need for separating out different types of aid--for example, distinguishing among development aid, relief aid, medical aid, and food aid--and evaluating the success of each program separately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 I'm not sure that anything we do is going to help. The single best way we could possibly help these nations is to end our subsidies of domestic agriculture. Everything else is just there to make us feel better about ourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 Originally posted by Ignatius J. I'm not sure that anything we do is going to help. The single best way we could possibly help these nations is to end our subsidies of domestic agriculture. Everything else is just there to make us feel better about ourselves. Yep, totally agree. If we must help someone, help the people here in the US first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 Great article. Iwas having a similar discussion about this last week with a couple friends. The best thing you could do for these countries would be giving them open access to US markets. Trade, not aid. Unfortunately, sound reasonable policies conflict with the special interests of farmers and labor unions in the industrialised world, so we continue to simply throw money and food at them as a quick fix to assuage our guilt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 Originally posted by Ignatius J. I'm not sure that anything we do is going to help... Everything else is just there to make us feel better about ourselves. I think this is a bit cynical. There are certainly some types of aid that provide tangible and lasting benefits. If you build a school, it doesn’t matter who built it – as long as kids attend, it’s a lasting benefit. If you go over there and teach people new farming techniques that will let them get more food per square mile of land, that’s a lasting benefit. If you go over there after a war and provide medicine and health care, that’s a tangible benefit. Sure, conscience may be involved, but I think it’s a bit extreme to say that we’re just assuaging our guilt. Originally posted by codeorama Yep, totally agree. If we must help someone, help the people here in the US first. As far as I know, Americans are relatively immune to famine and civil war for the moment. Why should I abandon an orphan who has lost has parents to grenades just because he isn’t American? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 Heard a commentator today talking about this subject. One point he made was that flooding a small country with gift currency has the effect of destroying that country's currency. He was also claiming that Republican aid was better than Democrat aid, because the Democrats think in terms of building housing, and shipping food, whereas Republicans think in terms of building schools and roads. He also was claiming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 Shut it all off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a_good_brotha Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black As far as I know, Americans are relatively immune to famine and civil war for the moment. Why should I abandon an orphan who has lost has parents to grenades just because he isn’t American? Because charity begins at home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted July 7, 2005 Author Share Posted July 7, 2005 Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black As far as I know, Americans are relatively immune to famine and civil war for the moment. Why should I abandon an orphan who has lost has parents to grenades just because he isn’t American? Because aid is the problem, not the solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 Originally posted by luckydevil Because aid is the problem, not the solution. Please clarify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herrmag Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 There are a few African American leaders in this country (not only African Americans, but Repub's as well) that believe welfare results in similar outcomes. I'm not saying I agree one way or another, and I'm not trying to get off topic, but those of you that are so quick to say that aid is bad and that we need to worry about those in the U.S.; How do you feel about Welfare? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted July 7, 2005 Author Share Posted July 7, 2005 Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black Please clarify. basic welfare How do you feel about Welfare? against it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herrmag Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 Originally posted by luckydevil basic welfare against it :laugh: Very succinct! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted July 7, 2005 Author Share Posted July 7, 2005 Originally posted by herrmag :laugh: Very succinct! yep, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 Originally posted by luckydevil basic welfare That's a bit glib. Take a child whose parents have just died. They are orphaned and have no one who can provide for them. Without medical treatment and aid, they will die. With medical treatment and care, they will live. How, in this case, is aid the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herrmag Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black That's a bit glib. Take a child whose parents have just died. They are orphaned and have no one who can provide for them. Without medical treatment and aid, they will die. With medical treatment and care, they will live. How, in this case, is aid the problem? Maybe I'm wrong, but does this constitute aid? I don't think this is considered "aid" in the sense we're talking here. But, then again, how do you differentiate one type of aid from another? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted July 7, 2005 Author Share Posted July 7, 2005 Take a child whose parents have just died. They are orphaned and have no one who can provide for them. Without medical treatment and aid, they will die. With medical treatment and care, they will live.How, in this case, is aid the problem? The situation is truly tragic and I certainly understand why many people feel the need to help (the intentions are truly noble). I am not going to stop you from helping. But it does nothing to help the overall situation in Africa. Africa is not lacking in aid, billions upon billions have been poured into Africa. Aid is strengthening dictatorships and cronyism. But when Aid does reach in the hands of the poor, in the long-term it perpetuates dependency and creates a false sense of entitlement (and as the economist pointed out it stifles entrepreneurship). We need to move away from the idea that simply throwing money at the problem will solve extreme poverty. To truly defeat (extreme) poverty; Africa needs foreign investment (among many solutions), not foreign aid. A great deal of people tend to confuse the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 Originally posted by herrmag Maybe I'm wrong, but does this constitute aid? I don't think this is considered "aid" in the sense we're talking here. But, then again, how do you differentiate one type of aid from another? I think we're in agreement. That's why my initial post dealt with the need to differentiate different types of aid. Originally posted by luckydevil But it does nothing to help the overall situation in Africa. Africa is not lacking in aid, billions upon billions have been poured into Africa. Aid is strengthening dictatorships and cronyism. I agree with you philosophically, but you are applying the theory very broadly. In general, aid to Africa is weakening the populace and strengthening corrupt leaders. In particular, however, certain types of aid are benefiting the people (partly by counteracting the effects of the other "aid"). Yes, foreign investment and the end of (First World) government-supported protectionism would be nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 For me, I'm against welfare as it is. If we want to help americans, don't give them money to sit on their ass at home, put the welfare assistance to provide daycare and place the freeloaders, eh, I mean people in jobs. I realize that we need to help in some ways, but doing it for them isn't going to help. They have to WANT to become a productive citizen. We can't want it for them. My views on Aid, Welfare and the current war are all the same. We can't go around fixing everything for everyone else, they need to attempt to do it themselves. Take care of home first. Provide aide to people here in the US first, Provide security and border protection here first rather than going out and trying to clean up other countries. Just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 My ex(now friend) worked in the Gambia. She said basically the same thing and she is know libertarian or right-wing economist. I'd throw in, apparently more than a few well-qualified AIDS researchers have now punctured the idea of the 'heterosexual' transmission of HIV in Africa is a myth(or overblown, at least.) It's non-sterile punctures by legitimate and 'cultural' doctors and anal intercourse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 Originally posted by luckydevil To truly defeat (extreme) poverty; Africa needs foreign investment (among many solutions), not foreign aid. A great deal of people tend to confuse the two. They need a combination of both. You still have to take care of the ones who are dying while trying to fix the overalll problem, you can't just leave them to die there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 Originally posted by Ignatius J. I'm not sure that anything we do is going to help. The single best way we could possibly help these nations is to end our subsidies of domestic agriculture. Everything else is just there to make us feel better about ourselves. Originally posted by codeorama Yep, totally agree. If we must help someone, help the people here in the US first. I think you missed the point of his post code. What Ignatius was trying to say is that we're taking away $1 with one hand and giving back .50 cents with the other. That is, we take away local food production capability and the livelyhoods of 3rd world farmers via the subsidies we pay American farmers then send the food they've produced to the 3rd world as food aid. The American farmer gets fat on artificially high commodity prices while the 3rd world farmer is run out of business. The money we use to artificially inflate commodity prices would be much better for all concerned (except the American farmers of course) if it were used instead to pay down the deficit, improve roads, improve affordable housing...or just about anything else besides keeping American agribusiness fat. There's an excellent article about this here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 Summary: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." See also, American welfare system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 Aid to kleptocracies is worse than welfare. Welfare instills a cycle of dependency, but aid provides tyrants with the ability to buy loyalty and quite often, carry out ethnocide. Fear isn't enough to sustain a dictator; he needs to create a privileged class with a significant interest in seeing him retain power (see Sunnis and Saddam). Aid is all too often what makes this possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.