Skip to comments.Want to help me? DON'T help me! [must read]
Posted on 07/08/2005 7:21:29 AM PDT by sionnsar
Like Bob Geldof, Bono, Madonna, Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, that British guy Gwyneth Paltrow is married to and just about every other wealthy liberal in the world, the Episcopal Church thinks that the way to help Africa is to send it a whole lot of money:
We believe the time is now to stand together as communities of faith, and people of conscience, and embrace our poorest sisters and brothers in the global community, reads a portion of the petition published on the internet. The petition states further that its principles apply both [to] those living in well-run economies and those not so fortunate.
Episcopalians for Global Reconciliation is the umbrella network for bishops, clergy and laity who have mobilized to obtain commitments from all church institutions to dedicate 0.7% of their budget toward a global economic plan to end poverty known as Millennium Development Goals (MDG). The fraction of 1 percent is used as a benchmark, because economists theorize that if 0.7 percent of the developed nations annual wealth was dedicated to eradicating global poverty it would be possible to realize the MDGs.
In January 2003, a core group of bishops and presenters from the 2001 meeting re-convened in Cambridge, Mass., with a multi-generational group of like-minded clergy and lay leaders to live into their mutual commitment to waging global reconciliation, according to a historical account published on the organizations website.
This gathering acknowledged that over the past century, the Episcopal Church has had a leading role in the social gospel movement in the United States and beyond, mobilizing in support of civil rights and raising issues of nuclear arms, human rights, and debt relief. The Episcopal Church has worked on a global scale and generated a sense of connectedness and shared purpose with its Anglican and other faith partners in pursuit of justice and peace.
The German publication Der Spiegel asked Kenyan economist James Shikwati about this idea. BIG mistake, that one, as Shikwati demonstrates that Western aid hasn't aided much of anyone.
SPIEGEL: Mr. Shikwati, the G8 summit at Gleneagles is about to beef up the development aid for Africa...
Shikwati: ... for Gods sake, please just stop.
Stop? For God's sake? Talk about schadenfreude; the reporter's squirming desperation during this interview must have positively delightful to watch. He kept hanging breaking ball after breaking ball and Shikwati kept jacking them into the outfield seats. Enjoy the rest of it:
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 Africas problems. If the West were to cancel these payments, normal Africans wouldnt 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 theres 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. Its only natural that they willingly accept the plea for more help. And its 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 UNs 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. Its a simple but fatal cycle.
SPIEGEL: If the World Food Program didnt do anything, the people would starve.
Shikwati: I dont 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, theres a sense that Africa would go under without development aid. But believe me, Africa existed before you Europeans came along. And we didnt do all that poorly either.
SPIEGEL: But AIDS didnt 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. Its not three million Kenyans that are infected. All of the sudden, its only about one million. Malaria is just as much of a problem, but people rarely talk about that.
SPIEGEL: And whys that?
Shikwati: AIDS is big business, maybe Africas biggest business. Theres 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 doesnt 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. Thats 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. Theyre 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 Nigerias 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. Wouldnt that qualify as successful development aid?
Shikwati: In Germanys 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 its unacceptable that the aid workers 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. Thats just crazy!
SPIEGEL: The German government takes pride in precisely monitoring the recipients of its funds.
Shikwati: And whats the result? A disaster. The German government threw money right at Rwandas 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.
That, as they say, is going to leave a mark.
That's a lot of institutional pressure to resist and, as Der Speigel shows, a great number of media outlets to try to be heard over.
Think the NYT will even report this? If they do, please ping.
This is an actual case of what the slapstick left calls 'speaking truth to power'.
My parish has a Wednesday Evening Prayer service at 6 PM. We are a small parish, currently seeking a part-time priest, so it's led by a lay minister and I'm often the only attendee. The G8 meeting was mentioned in the intercessionary prayer, so after the service I engaged the lay minister in conversation about it.
I said, "I can understand forgiving the debt. If one is not moved by the spiritual aspect, practically speaking it's highly unlikely it'll ever be collected anyway, so why not get the good press by forgiving it? But there's no question that the people who have gotten most of the aid so far have been corrupt and have wasted or stolen it. So, then, is is moral to simply do more of the same?" In other words, is it actually Christian to give aid money to people who will steal or waste it?
She found that a worthy question, but had no answer. I suggested that we don't give any money at all. Instead, we buy the things that Africans actually need with the money, load it up into C-130s, and start flying it in and giving it out; agricultural tools, well digging and pumping equipment, sanitation gear, etc., etc., and bypass the existing governments entirely. Sure, some of it will end up on the black market, but give a farmer the tools and equipment he needs to farm and he's unlikely to sell it. Give a village the ability to get fresh water and they're unlikely to give it up.
She noted that this might be viewed as (I can't remember her word, but close to) presumptous by the U.S.. I said that many of the governments in Africa don't control half of their country, and the people of those countries have no illusions about their governments. I don't think they'll mind too much. We need to bypass the U.N. (I didn't say that to her - didn't think of it) and the local "governments" if we want to actually give effective aid. My final point was that in my opinion we are spiritually/morally obligated to make sure that any aid we give is actually received by the people who need it and is effective.
Hey, don't fault the Live8 musicians. Their record for giving money to the right people is probably just about as good as the U.S. Government's.
Amazing article sionnsar!
Definitely deserves a BUMP, and you might want to consider contacting a moderator to move it out of religion. Nothing against the religion forum, obviously, but this deserves a much wider audience. It is truly a "must read" for every FReeper!!
Bump to the top.
Why aren't more people saying this? Why do the dems keep thinking/saying that throwing money at people will help them?
It looks evil, truly it does.
When I was in Israel on a Fulbright, I bought a rug in the Old City of Jerusalem that had been woven from yarn recycled from donated sweaters. Entrepreneurship is a state of mind.
Seems to me that I recall this little line in the Bible..something about teaching a man to feed himself and his family by teaching him how to fish....Well, like, duh....
On the economics level, if one is to ever get the African countries off the dole...that will involve the free flow of capital, with market forces determining success and failure. If the expectation of debt forgiveness is always there..then capital will never be able to flow rationally....and it will go elsewhere..directly related to this is absence of the rule of law....you see in Russia today what happens whne that is lacking...
FANTASTIC article!!! One of my best friends is from Zaire, and he first told me back around 1990 that a number of African economists were dead set against international aid. But I've never heard it put so plainly and forcefully as this...I'm definitely going to send this to him.
Like I said above, until this appears in the New York Times, nobody who needs to read this will have read it.
Appearing at FreeRepublic is fine, but only the choir sees it. Everyone else can simply ignore it.
Sad, isn't it?
Request to Admin
... and answered!
OUTSTANDING POST! Thanks.
Excellent article. I'm going to forward it to some of my economist friends.
Again, Basic Economics, by Thomas Sowell, should be required reading, including a competency test, for any person applying for employment that includes authority to spend tax revenues. Any person.