I think about Africa. Actually, for a white dude living in the Ohio Valley with no personal stake in the place, I think about Africa a lot. There is an opinion, expressed in various quarters, that Africa is a "write off", that the continent is insalvable. I'm not prepared to write of an entire continent and it's peoples, and I'm not the only one. But helping the peoples of Africa requires some serious rethinking, and that rethinking requires the participation of African thinkers. The thing is, we need to exclude African thinkers with ties to African Governments, NGOs and the UN. Since 1950, these groups have not solved a damned thing in Africa.
And we need to be very wary of European "experts" on the the problems of Africa. We Catholics have hear so much about the failed attempts to reduce AIDS, and the European powers interference in successful efforts in order to impose the "solutions" that Europeans thought up that we're sick of it. Recall the remarks of the president of Uganda, when the EU began to press them to abandon the ABC approach to prevention, which stressed first abstinence outside of marriage, then faithfulness inside of marriage, then the use of condoms. This approach worked, and was virtually the only program in Africa to reduce the number of new infections. yet Uganda was pressured, especially by Belgium, to reduce emphasis on abstinence and monogamy, "This is an African Problem, and we need an African Solution, not a European one." The Belgians, and the EU tied other forms of aid to the compliance of Uganda to their idea of an effective program, despite the fact that Uganda had the only effective program in Africa. The end result, increasing rates of infection.
As for trusting the leaders of governments and factions in Africa, well, the unfortunate fact is this: corruption is the way things are done, and the average African wouldn't notice any change if aid was reduced, for the simple fact that of the aid given 60% ends up in foreign bank accounts, under the names of the leaders.
As for NGOs, well, one lady, who was made an M.B.E. for her efforts, said that it was hard to get funding for long term efforts, so keep things in crisis, because crisis funding was readily available. Put this together with the rate of aid being diverted, and you see why there is constantly crisis in Africa.
I had the privilege of meeting with a Methodist Bishop from Africa. Aside from a wonderfully mellifluous accent, and a sly sense of humor, the meeting was instructive. Two of the biggest problems in his diocese were hunger--poor nutrition as apposed to starvation--and malaria. This man had a very simple solution that over a period of five to seven years would go a long way towards alleviating the problem. Corrugated metal roofing. These two problems were exacerbated by the fact that the villages in his area moved every five to seven years, because ants ate the wooden and fiber houses the people lived in, and they had to relocate because the are become infested with the hungry insects, so they could not repair the houses fast enough. The idea was that they could build houses of bricks--bricks which they could make--and the ants wouldn't be able to eat their houses. Metal roofing also wouldn't get eaten, which was what happened to wooden and thatch roofs. This meant that the agricultural practices, which were almost on the level of slash and burn, could be stabilized. This meant that they could practice crop rotation, preserving soil fertility and avoiding the erosion of abandoned fields. The brick houses were also easier to keep mosquitoes out of, which reduced the malaria rate. He had a very hard time getting money for roofing--not sexy enough, although it would present a long term solution. That's why he was talking to churches outside of the Methodist charity system. this would also have created employment opportunities--making bricks, etc, that were lacking in his area.
Speaking of Malaria--one of the most effective agents Africa has in this fight is DDT. DDT is persistent, and yes, in the industrial world it caused problems. It caused problems because we sprayed it all over everything. The Africans spray it on interior walls of houses, and on bed nets. Because it's persistent, the disease vectors that land on it die, before they can pass on the disease, or breed. Yet despite the great concern over Malaria, and billions spent on "finding a solution" African nations are under great pressure to discontinue the use of DDT. This points out something else: although nothing else works as well, and DDT can be, and is, made in Africa, and part of their attempts to create viable economies there, they can't buy it from the Europeans or America. Instead of an economical, local solution, the industrialized world wishes to keep them on a profitable string, imposing solutions from elsewhere. Here we se something remarkable; The convergence of special interests that would at first seem divergent. On the one hand, you have the industrial interests of chemical companies and agribusiness who seek markets for their products (the root and basis of colonialism) and of environmental activists and conservationists, who seek to tell other peoples how to conduct their affairs and lives (the root and basis of cultural imperialism).
The activities of environmentalists and conservationists has also been deleterious. In their home countries they lobby to block funding for infrastructure, dams for hydroelectricity and drinking water, roads and rail roads for transportation, etc. And in Africa they lobby for the establishment of game preserves and parks--often through the use of bribery. One African, interviewed for a magazine put it vividly: 'Whites do not understand. In Africa, the animals eat our crops, destroy or farms and homes and kill people. Africa is not the white mans zoo." This too is a form of imperialism and colonialism. We--the industrialized word--have no right to Africa. Yet many of us have declared that Africa's animals and land is something that must be preserved "for all of mankind". We have decided that resources, land, animals, that do not belong to us should be managed for us by unwilling peoples, who often are done injury--injury that leads to social disruption, hunger and death--so we can look at pictures of wild animals.
Disruption, hunger and death. That's a part of life in Africa. Africa is a land of famine. And most of the famine is caused by violence and disruption. Violence fueled mountains of weapons, fueled by mountains of arms, almost all of European origin. (American arms, thank God, are rare in Africa!) these disorders are also abetted, all to often, by former colonial powers and other European states (Russia is European!) jockeying for advantage to gain more of Africa's rich natural resources--resources which they do not own, but covet, and wish to take from African peoples through shady deals with corrupt regimes. The famines win Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, were all created by conflict. The Industrial nations response was to send food, food which made the problem worse. In some cases, the factions engaging in the conflict either stole the food to feed their fighters, or to resell at higher prices to finance their fights. In others, the food distribution system caused peoples to gather into camps and centers where they became targets. The efforts made things worse. When the Industrial nations sent troops there, to restore order, they did not good. We were all about it, until we realized that it would require a bit of fighting for justice, a bit of sacrifice. It was fine to look noble, but to be noble, to bleed for the oppressed and tormented, well, that was too much to ask. (Far, far better to wage war against nations that hadn't done a thing to us, to steal their oil, than to man up and fight for right over evil. Welcome to Iraq, America.)
Other famines in Africa also elicited unhelpful responses. In Niger, the famine struck the northern portion of the country so severely that in large areas, 90% of the children under twelve died. there were entire villages and districts devoid of young children. At the same time time, southern Niger had food--a glut of food. The response was to bring in food from outside the nation, to feed the starving. However, there was problem--there was no road from the south to the north, so the food was flown into the north. There are limits to how much can be flown in to anywhere--so the nutritional level was till low, low enough that the deaths from malnutrition slowed, but did not stop. More than that, in the manner of corrupt states everywhere, a significant portion of the relief food was diverted in southern Niger, and food prices already low, were depressed, leading farmer to be unable to sell their produce and the loss of farms. That meant a decrease in the food supply over all. Yet, for the amount of money spent, it would have been very possible to build a road to the north, with subsidiary roads, purchase food in the south, and take it north--preserving the agricultural infrastructure, the price system and feeding the people with a more balanced diet than the porridge made for famine victims. But no one did this, even though it was suggested by Africans, and Europeans and Americans, who were familiar with the situation. And children died in droves.
Then there is the economies of the African nations. Do you remember the kerfuffle a few years ago about the boxes set up on street corners soliciting used clothing for Africa? People were donating, thinking it was for a charity, only to find out they were giving their clothes to a corporation that was then selling them in the Africa, to end up in clothing Markets? There was an African who said to a couple of years ago, that if we really wanted to help the African economies, we would stop sending them our old clothes. Textiles were the basis of the industrial revolution, and the basis of international trade before it. Africa is quite capable of producing it's own textiles, except it cannot compete with our cast off clothing. By acting from altruistic motives, and sending our old clothes off to Africa, we are preventing them from developing the first stage of a viable industrial base. We do this to a continent that is plagued by unemployment at a rte that would result in instant and bloody revolution in the Industrialized world. We respond, out of the best of motives sometimes, to problems in Africa as described by either white people from Europe and America, or despots who hope to loot the aid we send, or get rich from the bribes that are part and parcel of doing business in Africa. In so doing, we are hurting, in the long and short term, the vary people we seek to help. We shouldn't be giving them things they could make for themselves, if they didn't have to compete against our misplaced charity, and we shouldn't be building the industrial facilities we want them to have. Rather, we should allow them to build the facilities they need, for in the long term that will allow them to build the ones we wish for, and engage them in the world markets as players, not peons.
I am not prepared to write of the continent of Africa, but I have written off our thinking and policies concerning it.
And we need to be very wary of European "experts" on the the problems of Africa. We Catholics have hear so much about the failed attempts to reduce AIDS, and the European powers interference in successful efforts in order to impose the "solutions" that Europeans thought up that we're sick of it. Recall the remarks of the president of Uganda, when the EU began to press them to abandon the ABC approach to prevention, which stressed first abstinence outside of marriage, then faithfulness inside of marriage, then the use of condoms. This approach worked, and was virtually the only program in Africa to reduce the number of new infections. yet Uganda was pressured, especially by Belgium, to reduce emphasis on abstinence and monogamy, "This is an African Problem, and we need an African Solution, not a European one." The Belgians, and the EU tied other forms of aid to the compliance of Uganda to their idea of an effective program, despite the fact that Uganda had the only effective program in Africa. The end result, increasing rates of infection.
As for trusting the leaders of governments and factions in Africa, well, the unfortunate fact is this: corruption is the way things are done, and the average African wouldn't notice any change if aid was reduced, for the simple fact that of the aid given 60% ends up in foreign bank accounts, under the names of the leaders.
As for NGOs, well, one lady, who was made an M.B.E. for her efforts, said that it was hard to get funding for long term efforts, so keep things in crisis, because crisis funding was readily available. Put this together with the rate of aid being diverted, and you see why there is constantly crisis in Africa.
I had the privilege of meeting with a Methodist Bishop from Africa. Aside from a wonderfully mellifluous accent, and a sly sense of humor, the meeting was instructive. Two of the biggest problems in his diocese were hunger--poor nutrition as apposed to starvation--and malaria. This man had a very simple solution that over a period of five to seven years would go a long way towards alleviating the problem. Corrugated metal roofing. These two problems were exacerbated by the fact that the villages in his area moved every five to seven years, because ants ate the wooden and fiber houses the people lived in, and they had to relocate because the are become infested with the hungry insects, so they could not repair the houses fast enough. The idea was that they could build houses of bricks--bricks which they could make--and the ants wouldn't be able to eat their houses. Metal roofing also wouldn't get eaten, which was what happened to wooden and thatch roofs. This meant that the agricultural practices, which were almost on the level of slash and burn, could be stabilized. This meant that they could practice crop rotation, preserving soil fertility and avoiding the erosion of abandoned fields. The brick houses were also easier to keep mosquitoes out of, which reduced the malaria rate. He had a very hard time getting money for roofing--not sexy enough, although it would present a long term solution. That's why he was talking to churches outside of the Methodist charity system. this would also have created employment opportunities--making bricks, etc, that were lacking in his area.
Speaking of Malaria--one of the most effective agents Africa has in this fight is DDT. DDT is persistent, and yes, in the industrial world it caused problems. It caused problems because we sprayed it all over everything. The Africans spray it on interior walls of houses, and on bed nets. Because it's persistent, the disease vectors that land on it die, before they can pass on the disease, or breed. Yet despite the great concern over Malaria, and billions spent on "finding a solution" African nations are under great pressure to discontinue the use of DDT. This points out something else: although nothing else works as well, and DDT can be, and is, made in Africa, and part of their attempts to create viable economies there, they can't buy it from the Europeans or America. Instead of an economical, local solution, the industrialized world wishes to keep them on a profitable string, imposing solutions from elsewhere. Here we se something remarkable; The convergence of special interests that would at first seem divergent. On the one hand, you have the industrial interests of chemical companies and agribusiness who seek markets for their products (the root and basis of colonialism) and of environmental activists and conservationists, who seek to tell other peoples how to conduct their affairs and lives (the root and basis of cultural imperialism).
The activities of environmentalists and conservationists has also been deleterious. In their home countries they lobby to block funding for infrastructure, dams for hydroelectricity and drinking water, roads and rail roads for transportation, etc. And in Africa they lobby for the establishment of game preserves and parks--often through the use of bribery. One African, interviewed for a magazine put it vividly: 'Whites do not understand. In Africa, the animals eat our crops, destroy or farms and homes and kill people. Africa is not the white mans zoo." This too is a form of imperialism and colonialism. We--the industrialized word--have no right to Africa. Yet many of us have declared that Africa's animals and land is something that must be preserved "for all of mankind". We have decided that resources, land, animals, that do not belong to us should be managed for us by unwilling peoples, who often are done injury--injury that leads to social disruption, hunger and death--so we can look at pictures of wild animals.
Disruption, hunger and death. That's a part of life in Africa. Africa is a land of famine. And most of the famine is caused by violence and disruption. Violence fueled mountains of weapons, fueled by mountains of arms, almost all of European origin. (American arms, thank God, are rare in Africa!) these disorders are also abetted, all to often, by former colonial powers and other European states (Russia is European!) jockeying for advantage to gain more of Africa's rich natural resources--resources which they do not own, but covet, and wish to take from African peoples through shady deals with corrupt regimes. The famines win Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, were all created by conflict. The Industrial nations response was to send food, food which made the problem worse. In some cases, the factions engaging in the conflict either stole the food to feed their fighters, or to resell at higher prices to finance their fights. In others, the food distribution system caused peoples to gather into camps and centers where they became targets. The efforts made things worse. When the Industrial nations sent troops there, to restore order, they did not good. We were all about it, until we realized that it would require a bit of fighting for justice, a bit of sacrifice. It was fine to look noble, but to be noble, to bleed for the oppressed and tormented, well, that was too much to ask. (Far, far better to wage war against nations that hadn't done a thing to us, to steal their oil, than to man up and fight for right over evil. Welcome to Iraq, America.)
Other famines in Africa also elicited unhelpful responses. In Niger, the famine struck the northern portion of the country so severely that in large areas, 90% of the children under twelve died. there were entire villages and districts devoid of young children. At the same time time, southern Niger had food--a glut of food. The response was to bring in food from outside the nation, to feed the starving. However, there was problem--there was no road from the south to the north, so the food was flown into the north. There are limits to how much can be flown in to anywhere--so the nutritional level was till low, low enough that the deaths from malnutrition slowed, but did not stop. More than that, in the manner of corrupt states everywhere, a significant portion of the relief food was diverted in southern Niger, and food prices already low, were depressed, leading farmer to be unable to sell their produce and the loss of farms. That meant a decrease in the food supply over all. Yet, for the amount of money spent, it would have been very possible to build a road to the north, with subsidiary roads, purchase food in the south, and take it north--preserving the agricultural infrastructure, the price system and feeding the people with a more balanced diet than the porridge made for famine victims. But no one did this, even though it was suggested by Africans, and Europeans and Americans, who were familiar with the situation. And children died in droves.
Then there is the economies of the African nations. Do you remember the kerfuffle a few years ago about the boxes set up on street corners soliciting used clothing for Africa? People were donating, thinking it was for a charity, only to find out they were giving their clothes to a corporation that was then selling them in the Africa, to end up in clothing Markets? There was an African who said to a couple of years ago, that if we really wanted to help the African economies, we would stop sending them our old clothes. Textiles were the basis of the industrial revolution, and the basis of international trade before it. Africa is quite capable of producing it's own textiles, except it cannot compete with our cast off clothing. By acting from altruistic motives, and sending our old clothes off to Africa, we are preventing them from developing the first stage of a viable industrial base. We do this to a continent that is plagued by unemployment at a rte that would result in instant and bloody revolution in the Industrialized world. We respond, out of the best of motives sometimes, to problems in Africa as described by either white people from Europe and America, or despots who hope to loot the aid we send, or get rich from the bribes that are part and parcel of doing business in Africa. In so doing, we are hurting, in the long and short term, the vary people we seek to help. We shouldn't be giving them things they could make for themselves, if they didn't have to compete against our misplaced charity, and we shouldn't be building the industrial facilities we want them to have. Rather, we should allow them to build the facilities they need, for in the long term that will allow them to build the ones we wish for, and engage them in the world markets as players, not peons.
I am not prepared to write of the continent of Africa, but I have written off our thinking and policies concerning it.
