Dead aid

[Fragony]

Have yet to read the book but it sounds very interesting. I often argued that we should stop the aid to Africa and stop flooding their markets instead, been treated with many angry looks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBH47mByATc

Now it's never going to happen the show must go on, they will probably decide that she was traumatized by something, but it's refreshing to hear it from an African, especially when it's a hot one.

[Furunculus]

haven't got audio at work, but in principle i approve of what she's saying.

western aid destroys nascent african markets, and in effect keeps them poor.

[CountArach]

The sad fact of the matter is that the governments in those areas are unwilling to help their citizens in so many cases and as such Aid is the only option.

[rory_20_uk]

The sad fact of the matter is that the governments in those areas are unwilling to help their citizens in so many cases and as such Aid is the only option.

Aid ensures that the governments can continue doind what they're doing, and also preying on the aid that comes in. Same story in North Korea - threatens the West until gets the food it needs, and lo and behold it's making new, deadlier weapons to threaten for more...

Imperialism has ended.
The countries have the freedom they've yearned for.
So, good luck and goodbye.

Rhodesia was justified in that Black Africans can't govern themselves. Zimbabwe hardly provides weight to the counter argument...

There should be two states of affairs. Either the countries are independent, or they're not. In the second case, choose a country to come in and replace the existing government, rather like if a company is bankrupt the management is stripped out and a new one put in.

The populace of many african states might prefer to be a well fed colony rather having the right to starve to death as a free man. But either way, their choice.

[CountArach]

Rhodesia was justified in that Black Africans can't govern themselves. Zimbabwe hardly provides weight to the counter argument...

Wait...

What?

[Adrian II]

Wait...

What?

He says black Africans can't govern themselves. And I guess he means 'govern themselves decently, with an eye to the common interest, maybe even democratically'. He has the record on his side. In Zimbabwe's case for instance, the white minotory regime was replaced by a black majority regime. The result of this has been that most people are eating grass except for the happy few who drive around in stolen limo's.

My understanding is that Rory doesn't say blacks are inherently incapable of governing themselves, only most Africans, and that maybe, just maybe, something in African culture should change before they can - and that maybe we should stimulate such change by reviewing our aid practices.

Even if I am wrong in interpreting his words, that is certainly how I feel about it.

[Furunculus]

The sad fact of the matter is that the governments in those areas are unwilling to help their citizens in so many cases and as such Aid is the only option.

there are better ways then keeping them on life support in the terminal cancer ward.

bi-lateral trade agreements would be just one good idea.

[tibilicus]

I'm on bored with this.

Quite frankly whilst the billions of $ worth of aid which does go to africa saves lives, in the short term it actually doesn't improve things.

Until we invest that money in Africa's economy and the government system employed by many African countries is overthrown with stable governments Africa will remain in a state. I quite frankly find Bob Geldoffs "feed the world" campaign a joke, what planet do these rock stars live on?

In other news did any one see Sudan's president call the decision to bring him to justice for genocide an attempt by "colonists" to destroy Africa?

[rory_20_uk]

Africans were fighting long before Imperials got there. Zulus anyone?

Yes, the leaders play on the fear of the poor. So did Hitler in Germany, the BNP in the UK - and let's not forget the "Yellow Peril" in America. Fact it is, but not an excuse.

Borders are a problem. So sort it out - not the West's problem. We killed each other for ours, I don't see why we have to pay them to do the same.

[Fragony]

Should be done differently, we cannot just let them starve. But it's one big ego-trip.

[rory_20_uk]

So, the pattern will be / has been: leaders skim off the money. Locals starve. Aid comes in, keeps locals happy / fed. Leaders give land to mates, sell off mineral rights and pinch as much of the aid as they can.

Can't let them starve? They trash their own infrastructure (often put in place by the Evil Colonials), fight intercene wars and somehow we're obligated to waste money on them? Most of the countries worked under Colonial rule. Not fairly, not equally, but they worked. That was our attempt to sort the mess out. It wasn't wanted - fine.

Look at states that were given their independence. See how they're doing. Look at states that fought for their indipendence. See how they're doing.

[Fragony]

It aren't states it are borders, what do you expect from them. Can't let them starve no, must be me but that would be kinda wrong. Stop aiding champaid let them find another hobby