Posted on 07/03/2005 8:33:11 AM PDT by nwrep
Africa has received intermittent U.S. attention over the decades, with periods of neglect interspersed with spasms of activity. To the surprise of many, President Bush has been very much in the latter camp.
As he heads into the Group of Eight summit meeting this week in Scotland, Bush seems almost to have a fixation with getting the troubled continent on the right track.
The administration said two weeks ago that aid to Africa has tripled since 2001; it plans to double the 2004 level to $8.6 billion by 2010.
"Helping those who suffer and preventing the senseless death of millions of people in Africa is a central commitment of my administration's foreign policy," Bush said recently, with British Prime Minister Tony Blair at his side.
Blair has pushed the president to join with other G-8 leaders to attack Africa's suffering. In Scotland, he will seek agreement with his colleagues on an Africa aid plan.
The Blair-led Commission for Africa issued a report in March that called for doubling foreign aid from wealthy nations to Africa to $50 billion per year by 2010. It also recommended a second $25 billion increase in aid to Africa, to $75 billion annually, by 2015.
Bush has rejected the proposals, saying an incumbent government cannot tell a future government how to spend money. Blair's proposal, he said last month, "doesn't fit our budgetary process."
Nonetheless, Bush's own Africa aid targets are far higher than any previous administration's.
Generosity toward the less fortunate in Africa appears to play well among some important domestic constituencies; it is particularly welcomed by some conservative Christian allies of the president.
But there is a strategic component to the policy as well. The Sept. 11 attacks called attention to the way in which terrorists can thrive in unstable environments on any continent, and none has a greater stability problem than Africa.
Money alone will not eliminate poverty in Africa, said Andrew Natsios, administrator for the U.S. Agency for International Development. Changes in how programs are managed and the rule of law also are needed, he said, citing corruption as an impediment to economic development.
"If you don't have those other conditions, you can put huge amounts of money into aid programs and they'll be ineffective," Natsios told CNN's "Late Edition" on Sunday.
Natsios said if the U.S. were to provide a portion of its gross domestic product, as some allies have suggested, it would be criticized for "imperial aid" and dominating the African assistance system. That occurred during relief efforts for victims of the Asian tsunami, he said.
"They were criticizing us for providing too much assistance," he said.
Conflict throughout Africa has created suffering on a mass scale, as well as the need for costly U.N. peacekeeping operations.
Six of the world's seven most at-risk countries are in Africa, according to a recent study by the Fund for Peace and Foreign Policy magazine.
Among them was Sudan, where tens of thousands have died and more than 2 million displaced since 2003 mostly as a result of a brutal counterinsurgency campaign waged by government-backed Arab militias against black African rebels. Bush has made peace in Sudan a high administration priority.
Energy is another component of Africa's growing importance to policymakers, given the increasing role of West Africa as a supplier of oil to world markets.
The AIDS pandemic in Africa also has the administration's attention. A U.N. estimate released on Friday said that AIDS claimed 1 million lives in southern Africa last year and that life expectancy in the region has plummeted by an average of 20 years.
Bush has sought $15 billion over five years to combat AIDS, mostly in Africa. On Thursday, Bush called for spending $1.2 billion to cut malaria deaths in half by 2010 in Africa.
Africa also is prospectively the largest beneficiary of a Bush foreign assistance initiative that rewards countries that are led by effective governments.
Of 17 countries deemed eligible for money from the program, nine are in Africa. But the program could suffer sharp congressional cuts from the administration's $3 billion request for 2006 because of the slow pace of the program's disbursements.
Can anyone point out where in the US Constitution is allows the president or Congress to take part of the public treasury and give it away as a gift to others?
But remember, we're supposed to revere him because of the way he really sticks it to the libs...
you cant throw money at Africa and expect it to solve any problems.....That continent needs to be left to its own devices and maybe...sooner or later....the right people will rise up turn this huge continent, just full of natural resources, into a great productive world class land of opportunity.
Throwing money at the problem props up petty dictators who ravage the land and fill their own pockets.
Bush is just playing the feel good game to try to endear himself to eurotrash and American leftist sob sisters... and he will accomplish nothing by it.
Will this be a credit against reparations?
Africa, Africa, Africa, is So. Africa better after the fall of apartheid, is Zimbabwe better than Rhodesia.
The blame fostered on the United States for the failure of Africa is the much akin to the teaching of History in the United States School system. The Brain drain of Africans qualified to run Countries on the Continent is constant and the major cause of African failure. Why would educated individuals stay in a countries run by Dictators and thugs? This you do not see in the Media.
You also do not see in the Media that the United States had little to do with the Actual transportation and removal of slaves from Africa. The Muslims were among the first slave traders walking slaves out of Africa East. The seafaring nations, Portugal, France, Holland, Spain, England, escalated the trade. 5% of all slaves eventually came to the United States. The American school system's perception would have one believe that the United States was totally responsible for all African slavery.
The only problem Bush is going to solve is his image problem. He is trying to buy respect from the left.
I also agree that though it might help a few individuals (very small return for the billions spent), the only real solution to Africa's problems is the overthrow of its tyrants, followed by the establishment of the rule of law and the protection of private property.
I'm sorry to see the President's continuing belief in big government action.
If that's true, then he really is as clueless as he's been accused of being. Otherwise, if you and I both know that this sort of thing only perpetuates the problem rather than alleviates it, then he and his advisers certainly know as well.
If we are going to shovel money at Africa, why don't we try to do some good through regime change? Zimbabwe looks like a nice place for a test of this strategy.
You'd think. But aren't you frequently amazed by people who come to different conclusions than we do? He doesn't seem like the kind of man to do this just for public relations. Maybe I'm being unrealistic, but I think he's just let his heart rule his head. He's WRONG, but I think he's sincere in his mistaken thinking.
Actually I'm not amazed, when we're talking about people who aren't in power and just giving their uninformed opinions. But people who have all the informational resources they could possibly need should absolutely know better than to keep shoveling money into corrupt governments. We could do so much better for Africa by leaving them alone and letting these governments fall.
It's not in the Constitution, but it's in the other writings this country treasures. The bible.
In Matthew 22:17-21, Jesus said, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
Is this what you are referring to? Some people read that and say that Jesus was saying it's OK to pay taxes. And that by his saying so we should pay "what we owe Ceasar" even if the government is corrupt. Which was the case with the Romans. Some would say that applies to the US government too.
Personally, I have no problem paying taxes. I do take note that because the Romans did collect taxes they had the tools necessary to capture, torture and crucify Jesus.
My view is that the government should not be in the charity business. I think it's a better idea for this to be handled by individuals. For example, supposedly 100' s of millions of people watched or were involved in Live 8 yesterday. A few bucks from each person would have gone a long way. But no, instead of working on the problem themselves a bunch of rich folks organized something that's goal is to shake down others. They used the Jesse Jackson model. I didn't see them referring to the Bible. And if they played and Christian music I missed it.
Oh, and another thing, charity should come from those that can afford to be charitable. The US is hardly in the position to be giving away billions since when we do so we are doing so using credit cards.
All this government charity reminds me of Amway. It seems like magic, but at some point someone has to sell the soap and in our case someone has to pay the taxes for all this kindness. There is no free lunch, well, not unless you were one of the performers yesterday or one of the people that will get our tax dollars to "help" the poor.
Bottom line? If you wish to point to the Bible as the basis for the government taxing me and then giving the proceeds (supposedly) to third world countries count me out.
It's a bit more subtle than that. Jesus was asked by a Pharisee whether or not it was "lawful" to pay taxes, as a way of trapping him - if he said no, he'd have the Romans on his case, if yes, he could be arrested by the Pharisees for sanctifying what they considered to be an illegal tax. He simply asked his questioner, Whose face do you see on this coin? "Caesar", came the obvious answer. Well, then let Caesar have what's his and give God what's God's.
In other words, don't use his coins if you don't like paying his tax. Just give them all back to him. (they didn't want to do that of couse, because they liked the convenience of his coins; they just didn't want to pay the tax that went along with using them)
thanks Bush...
http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=2191
It's not in the Constitution, but it's in the other writings this country treasures. The bible.
---
Thou Shalt not steal is also in the bible. Charity has no purpose in Government:
http://www.neoperspectives.com/foundingoftheunitedstates.htm
The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.
James Madison
I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan to indulge in benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds. ... I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution.
Grover Cleveland
I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity.
Franklin Pierce
The article, "Not Yours to Give," has been posted a nunber of times on FreeRepublic, so I'll just link the most recent, during the Congressional spending spree that resulted from last December's tsunami in the Indian Ocean.
You'll note the usual suspects.
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.