Trouble in Africa
The BBC has a couple of articles up that are worth talking about. One describes the slow movement of food aid into Niger. The other article is about the charge from Oxfam that hunger in Mali is being ignored.
This leads me to revisit and reiterate a couple of the major points that floated around the blogosphere during the coverage of Live 8 a few weeks ago.
First off, the solution is not aid, and the problem is not lack of money, or poor national credit. The problem is corruption, and the solution is to institute tangible measures to end that corruption and put African nations on a sound footing, economically, socially, and politically. Throwing money and grain at the problem isn't going to solve anything in the long run.
Second, Africa's plight is not being ignored, and for some jackass at Oxfam to accuse Western nations of ignoring Mali's need for help less than a month after Live 8 is the height of ivory tower ignorance. I mean, look at this passage from the second article:
I realize that the problems in these countries are urgent. However, suggesting that the solution is more money donated from "rich donor countries" is about as helpful as U.N. humanitarian operations chairman Jan Egeland claiming that rich countries weren't generous enough after the tsunami, and that they needed to raise taxes so that they could throw more money at the problem.
Hear me now and believe me later, starving children in Mali and Niger are not my problem, they're not President Bush's problem, they're not the problem of the United States of America, they are not the problem of France, or Spain, or Italy, or Germany, or Ireland, or Japan, or China, or any other country. Even so, I fully support intervention and assistance in many forms, particularly if they're carried out by private organizations, as opposed to taking the form of a blank check signed by Congress and handed over to the government of Mali or Niger.
I don't want to go off on a rant here, but let's be honest about this. These so-called "humanitarian groups" are the first ones crying foul whenever the United States does anything. Texas executes a serial killer, and Amnesty International throws a fit, et cetera. Further, many of the countries of the world are content to beg America to put their fires out for them. A drought, and a locust plague hit West Africa? "Get America to help with it!" they say. America wants political support for removing a brutal dictator? "Screw America!" they say. And now, after the "humanitarian organizations" have made a policy of assisting terrorist regimes through their criticism of anyone who seeks to enforce international law, and after these corrupt African nations screw us over every chance they get, they're not only continuing to criticize our foreign policy, but also the amount of aid we give, and to whom? And this is how they elect to ask us for more money?
Screw 'em.
I made a point of not giving any money to the charities that worked to provide relief after the tsunami; aside from the compulsory assistance of my tax dollars, I refused to give them one red cent. Why? Because the same organizations that criticize America on a weekly basis for things like our operations in Iraq were now begging to suck at the successful teat of American prosperity. What was my other reason? I saw a picture of an Indonesian guy wearing an Usama bin Laden T-Shirt, and nobody in the picture was tackling him.
Oxfam, and all of these other "humanitarian organizations" should learn a lesson from places like the YMCA, or the Boys & Girls Clubs: if you want people to give you their money, the best way to do it is to ask nicely, and demonstrate tangible results. Criticizing them for not giving enough is the best way to convince people not to give you their money, and that's why I'll be sure to walk past any Oxfam used book shops the next time I'm in the United Kingdom.
Angry? You bet I'm angry.
This leads me to revisit and reiterate a couple of the major points that floated around the blogosphere during the coverage of Live 8 a few weeks ago.
First off, the solution is not aid, and the problem is not lack of money, or poor national credit. The problem is corruption, and the solution is to institute tangible measures to end that corruption and put African nations on a sound footing, economically, socially, and politically. Throwing money and grain at the problem isn't going to solve anything in the long run.
Second, Africa's plight is not being ignored, and for some jackass at Oxfam to accuse Western nations of ignoring Mali's need for help less than a month after Live 8 is the height of ivory tower ignorance. I mean, look at this passage from the second article:
Rich donor countries are ignoring the food crisis facing Mali, the international charity Oxfam has warned.
The United Nations launched a $7m appeal for the more than 1m people in need of food aid in December, but only 14% of this has been raised.
This contrasts with neighbouring Niger where media attention has helped the UN raise $16m, although it says three times as much is needed there.
[...]
"Now that the media spotlight is focused on Niger, the world has finally started responding to the crisis there. But this is not just about Niger," Oxfam's Natasha Kofoworola Quist said.
[...]
"Governments must fully fund the World Food Programme appeal... Every moment that they delay, more lives are put at risk," Ms Quist said.
I realize that the problems in these countries are urgent. However, suggesting that the solution is more money donated from "rich donor countries" is about as helpful as U.N. humanitarian operations chairman Jan Egeland claiming that rich countries weren't generous enough after the tsunami, and that they needed to raise taxes so that they could throw more money at the problem.
Hear me now and believe me later, starving children in Mali and Niger are not my problem, they're not President Bush's problem, they're not the problem of the United States of America, they are not the problem of France, or Spain, or Italy, or Germany, or Ireland, or Japan, or China, or any other country. Even so, I fully support intervention and assistance in many forms, particularly if they're carried out by private organizations, as opposed to taking the form of a blank check signed by Congress and handed over to the government of Mali or Niger.
I don't want to go off on a rant here, but let's be honest about this. These so-called "humanitarian groups" are the first ones crying foul whenever the United States does anything. Texas executes a serial killer, and Amnesty International throws a fit, et cetera. Further, many of the countries of the world are content to beg America to put their fires out for them. A drought, and a locust plague hit West Africa? "Get America to help with it!" they say. America wants political support for removing a brutal dictator? "Screw America!" they say. And now, after the "humanitarian organizations" have made a policy of assisting terrorist regimes through their criticism of anyone who seeks to enforce international law, and after these corrupt African nations screw us over every chance they get, they're not only continuing to criticize our foreign policy, but also the amount of aid we give, and to whom? And this is how they elect to ask us for more money?
Screw 'em.
I made a point of not giving any money to the charities that worked to provide relief after the tsunami; aside from the compulsory assistance of my tax dollars, I refused to give them one red cent. Why? Because the same organizations that criticize America on a weekly basis for things like our operations in Iraq were now begging to suck at the successful teat of American prosperity. What was my other reason? I saw a picture of an Indonesian guy wearing an Usama bin Laden T-Shirt, and nobody in the picture was tackling him.
Oxfam, and all of these other "humanitarian organizations" should learn a lesson from places like the YMCA, or the Boys & Girls Clubs: if you want people to give you their money, the best way to do it is to ask nicely, and demonstrate tangible results. Criticizing them for not giving enough is the best way to convince people not to give you their money, and that's why I'll be sure to walk past any Oxfam used book shops the next time I'm in the United Kingdom.
Angry? You bet I'm angry.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home