Posted on 01/04/2005 4:40:20 AM PST by Jakarta ex-pat
Irish rock star and campaigner Bob Geldof, a driving force behind the 1985 Live Aid appeal for Ethiopia, urged Tuesday that Africa's debt problems stay a priority despite the Asian tsunami disaster. "The tsunami must be dealt with, it is an act of God, an act of nature," he told BBC radio, voicing concern the disaster would sideline chronic issues elsewhere.
"Africa's an act of man. Millions die each year completely unnecessarily and that can be adjusted ... The issue is one of poverty and debt and it need not be," Geldof added.
He said the government should seize the chance to put Africa top of the world agenda with its presidencies this year of the Group of Eight rich nations' club and of the European Union.
The world's strongest earthquake in 40 years sent giant waves swamping the Indian Ocean rim nine days ago, killing more than 94,000 in Indonesia alone and thousands more in Sri Lanka, India and Thailand.
The former Boomtown Rats singer was speaking after a BBC program audience nominated him as candidate for a "people's peer" in the House of Lords, Britain's upper chamber.
The British death toll from the tsunami is expected to hit nearly 200, though only 40 have been confirmed dead so far.
Britons have so far outstripped official government aid donations, pledging $145.8 million by Tuesday in a response stoking memories of the Live Aid appeal.
Thousands of listeners took part in the radio poll, awarding 36 percent of the votes to Geldof and putting Sikh Messenger editor Inderjit Singh in second.
I heard about this.
The problem is that Tony Blair wants to replace the House of Lords with a Supreme full of his Cronies so it is unlikely many new lords will be made until he forces through his own plans for his Socialist Utopia.
The way I see it England has had this system for centuries and if we a re to change it then we should do it with a Prime Minister that people actually trust and we should have a referendum to decide.
Mostly self-inflicted - see Zimbabwe, Angola, Rwanda, etc.
There is a story about the "Mighty Congo" floating about the net, and man-made is right.
It is a combination of things.
Harsh Geography
Corrupt Leaders
The legacy of Colonialism
Corrupt Western States more interested in their companies profiting then actual improving the countries they deal with. We give them aid then sell them weapons.
As compared to what? Sweden? Alaska? Utah?
Corrupt Leaders
Socialist murderous tyrants does not even begin to describe them.
The legacy of Colonialism
Yeah damn those white people for bringing roads, electricity, medicine, engineering, the rule of law etc. Things got alot better when they were all kick out or murdered out...
Corrupt Western States more interested in their companies profiting then actual improving the countries they deal with. We give them aid then sell them weapons.
As compared to any other country in the world? Hate to tell you this but capitalism actually improves countries, socialism destroys them...
Give the African citizen two things - free enterprise and private property. Give them that and poverty will start to go away. There are millions who want to be entrepreneurs, gain self-sufficiency and make money.
In the summer of 2002, eco-fascists met in South Africa to push the UN’s “Sustainable Development,” more commonly known as global property theft. While eating imported bacon and eggs, steak, lobster and champagne in front of starving African children, Third World citizens had an Alka Seltzer moment.
Third World citizens pounded the table and issued their Declaration of Independence. The first sentence is: “We are people, too.” They demanded self-determination, free enterprise, clean drinking water and plentiful food that American ideas and technology can give them.
Harsh Geography
Africa is known for its harsh geography.
You have jungle, desert etc etc, you also have elephants, lions, poisonous snakes etc etc. Men without cars or guns are not at the top of the food chain.
While the Colonial cbuild orads and other infrastructure they did not dshare the wealth they exploited form the country with the indigens, so they remained poor and uneducated.
Capitalism can improve countries but only if the money is not spirited straight out of the country into someone elses pockets.
Free Trade anyone?
Why do you think most Western Countries still use protectionism?
Who can forget about Africa exspecially at this time of year. They are holding the Dakar Rally, and Robby Gordon is the current leader after 4 stages, with 2 stage wins!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1313069/posts
Exactly, I hate to say it like this but untill Africa straightens out its own messes we can do little to really help.
Harsh geography? They have some of the most fertile and crop friendly climate in the world - why do you think they have such lush jungles? Africa is one of the most mineral and resource rich land masses in the world.
Colonialism? There hasn't been a real colony in Africa for well over 50 years. As for exploiting and expropriating 'riches' there have been repeated studies that show the maintenacne of colonies were a net loss for the colonialists. Several African countries were left operating very well when the colonialists left (South Africa, anyone?) - corruption along with socialist and communist governments drove out anyone who stayed to try and help in a transition and the continent is a basket case again. As for the 'artificially' imposed boundaries between tribes that hate each other - nothing stopped the natives from re-arranging the boundaries OR GETTING ALONG with each other. However, it is far easier to continue to hate, murder and kill each other and then blame Westerners as economic exploiters and claim reparations!
Finally, misdirected and open-handed 'aid' to Africa mitigates against the development of any indigenous 'industry' free clothing donations decimate local economics for raising and processing cotton into clothing. Free food - frustrates incentives for a farming economy.
My arguement is that is combination of things.
Something that happens 50 years ago can very much affect the way the world works.
In my opinion there are 4 factors:
Harsh Geography - Having been to Afirca I can tell you I would rather set up a country anywherer but there. It is rife with disease. This is the place that Ebola and Aids came from! Malaria and Typhoid are rampant.
Corrupt Leaders - This is a given.
The legacy of Colonialism - They were ruled for centuries then all of sudden left to their own devices - BAD IDEA!
Western States either profitting or ineptly helping.
Companies support corrupt leaders. Look at Nigeria. They make Billions a year in bribes alone and not one penny goes to the public, and I eman literally not one penny.
Comapnies support the leaders, the leaders support the companies.
You also cannot compare a Virginian and a Marylander to a Hutu and a Tutu. The former had shared ideals, people who mostly identify themselves to place and less to "tribe". The Hutu and Tutu have had a blood feud that extends back to the age of Rome. It would be analogous to having an Indian nation with Sioux and Apaches and expect them to get along, they never did, so why would they now?
I am not saying that they are not their own worst enemy, they are, but I still think some of the current issues lie at the feet of France, Belgium, and Germany. Notice I did not include Great Britain, that is because they looked at their colonies as children that needed to have education, industry, and an educated middle class, sound familiar?
Also absent from Africa has been a George Washington, or Simon Bolivar. There has never been anyone that have been able to rally the various peoples to identify with country over tribe. This has meant that despot after despot have ruled many of these nations, and whenever there is a civil war to remove the current tyrant, it is only to replace him with another one.
I cannot see any easy solutions to Africa's problems. The idiocy of Geldof and his lot is that they do not see famine for what it is, a political tool used by authoritarian governments to eliminate enemies. To simply send money and food that will only go to feed the armies of these countries will do nothing to solve the continent's woes.
They are dying from debt???
I think this reflects the inherent racism of the left. They act as though the poor African were a pet, something less than human and therefore incapable of property ownership, entrepreneurship and, least of all, being free. It's kind of like the Democrat attitude toward America's inner-city dwellers. Gotta keep 'em dependent on government, whether the U.S. Congress or the U.N.
And of war, and of mismanaged economies, and of corruption, and of people having more kids than they can feed. All self-inflicted.
I agree that the current political and intellectual class would be of little use to help Africa overcome its problems, as they are generally the cause of the current problems. When I wrote of an educated class, I was not referring to the intellectual elite, but a literate society. Someone who can read is far more difficult to oppress. I am not saying that it cannot be done (see the Warsaw Pack countries), but literacy can lead to critical thought, which can lead to much better things while ignorance brings only more ignorance. You are also right that Africa has to change Africa, but I am not sure that it can be done as Africa is currently composed. I still contend that this would be less difficult if the borders were redrawn to reflect the realities of the peoples of Africa, and not how they were determined in the Age of Discovery.
As for aid, I believe that as it is currently given, it is more of a hindrance to change than a catalyst to it. Most of the aid flows into the hands of those that wish to keep the status quo of ignorance and oppression. I had mentioned in a previous post that the debt that most countries of Africa currently have is a good thing, as it limits the amount of money that the tyrants can borrow to further oppress their people.
The word "leave" is not incorrect. Yes they were pushed out, but they still left. The United Kingdom was pushed out of India, but they had established a middle class, industry, and an educational system. India is not perfect, they certainly have many problems, but they are a much brighter picture than anything in India (yes, even than the former British colonies). If other countries had prepared their African colonies for even a little self-rule I believe that Africa's future would be more positive. But Germany, France, and Belgium never looked at Africa with the eye towards the "White Man's Burden", but simply prolonging the mercantile system.
RE: Colonialist Europeans didn't have to leave when Africans were pushing them out. - Well, I guess anyone can decide to stay and try to 'fix' things or you could go there and 'teach them dumb natives.' Better yet take your wife, kids and scads of money, 'culturally appropriate' i.e. very basic machinery (like to build and operate sanitary wells, purify water, etc. and educational material. Of course, your wife might object to being tortured and raped, your children abused and either raped and murdered or sold into slavery. You might check on the fates of the missionaries and others who attemped to remain in Africa to help in the colonial transition. Your ideas are of course, all good and well intended but they HAVE ALL been tried before but failed. Where do you think the BILLIONS in foreign aid went?
As for the insects and swamps - DDT was very effective in cleaning things up - unfortunately the environmental wackos have effectively blocked its use (BTW - the EPA has publicly admitted DDT is not lethal to humans, animals and plant life even at dosages ridiculously higher than that needed to eliminate malarial mosquitos, flies, etc. unfortunately that didn't prevent them from caving in to the environmental wackos and banning it.
Read your history, the European wars among Christians was (is) every bit as nasty, brutal and viscious as what happens in Africa (check out Northern Ireland vs/ the Irish Republic or the death rate just in Germany when Catholics and the various Protestand sects had at it during the Reformation - the Inquisition gets all the bad press but the death rate in just 1 year during the Reformation exceeded the total deaths over 10 years of the Inquisition by a factor of at least a thousand) - it is just that most of us have learned to control ourselves for the common good.
India had to face up to its own fantasies - they had to suffer through the economic ignorance of Ghandi, Nerhru (spelling?) and a whole series of socialist and communist leaders before they even began to pull themselves together.
It sounds to me that your ideal solution would be to re-introduce colonialism, forcing your new 'natural' boundaries and then 'a miracle happens' all these natives that found so much satisfaction in slaughtering each other as well as missionaries, doctors and former educated and able colonials who were trying to help them - will let themselves be led into the promised land by another generation of 'liberal colonials'. And somehow all this is to get done with handouts from the West. Sorry, it just doesn't pass the "What does history tell us?" test.
!
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Great Britain left no great support base behind in the United States and Spain left none behind in Mexico. You are invited to explain why these instances divert from the 'colonial curse' left upon the African continent.
To kingsurfer - hit the "spell" button, it works for me.
As for DDT, I completely agree with you on this topic, it has been one of the greatest crimes against humanity perpetrated by ill-meaning liberals.
"Great Britain left no great support base behind in the United States and Spain left none behind in Mexico."
I never made the assertion that "love of country" had anything to do with the success of former colonies. I never even mentioned it. I will grant that those areas that left on peaceful terms have done very well, so have some that left on contentious terms. I do not think that the discussion of trying to compare the United States and Africa is germane to this discussion. When the Europeans colonized North America, they soon outnumbered the native populations, bringing with them Europeans with European ideals. In the African colonies the Europeans were always a minority in their colonies, so they were trying to convert the natives to their way of thinking. This is a much more difficult task. I would say that Mexico and Africa are less similar than Mexico and India. In Mexico and the rest of South America the Spanish left be a learned middle class similar to what GB did in India. None of these countries have been a particularly stellar success, but they also have not been resounding failures. Even in India's darkest days of Socialism it was in much better shape than most African nations (unless you were a member of one of the lowest castes, but that is a topic for another discussion).
I did not say that Colonialism itself was a curse on Africa, more the consequences of colonialism being removed from Africa became a curse, as none of the colonies were prepared for independence. There were no bureaucracies, or a middle class, both are necessary for stable society. As I pointed out Africa was not left with any industry. Now, would they have had any of these three things had colonization not occurred? Most likely not, so I am not saying that there was a 'colonial curse'. The reason why I had mentioned the "White Man's Burden" was that at the time it was given as a reason why Africa must be colonized, and the European nations that claimed to take on that burden did so only in words not in actions. Yes, they did send some missionaries to do the Lord's work, but not much beyond that.
The beginning of wisdom for Africa and Africans is to stop looking for non-African causes for their troubles. Unfortunately, this is against the spirit of the age and the oddly coincident interests of western donors and Africa's predatory, aid-enriched elites.
It is useless to debate the original sins of colonialism, particularly since I don't consider it to have been "bad" in any current sense. It was simply what the more dynamic societies were capable of doing and might profit from during the age of exploration. Of course, once a colony is established getting rid of it becomes a whole 'nother problem.
What we should learn from is the global rush to end colonialism that left us with the tyrants and splintered societies that represent africa, parts of Asia, and the middle east today.
Deep in the hearts of western liberals I think we even worked to defeat potential good guys simply because they might have been linked with previous colonial powers [Ho, Nasser, Castro, Mandela, all had support within western elites.]
Simple question-
WHY is Africa so poor?
Isn't it the richest continent in terms of natural resources?
I'm SO SICK of "gimme, gimme, gimme."
We agree. I was simply pointing out that the lifting of colonialism caused some of the current problems, problems I believe would exist if colonialism had not happened.
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.
