Options
Giving money abroad to Africa - It has to stop
MiresiaVerteta
Posts: 1,242 Forum Member
✭✭✭
I will probably offend a few people on these forums, but this is something I feel strongly against.
I am sick of the adverts and appeals to give money to Africa. Over the last thirty years, the money given out would probably rival a middle income country, and you would think by now they'd have found solutions to their problems.
Whilst I know it's a shame, it's time to close the bank. Nothing is happening at all in those countries, and any progress that has happened and has been through small investements.
We're struggling in the UK at the moment. Children are going hungry here. What's happening abroad is not. Charity begins at home.
Personally I feel the only ways are: cut the funding and make the countries stand on their own too feet. Another alternative is to install puppet governments controlled by the former rulers when colonised, and if anything goes wrong such as war - pull out asap.
I am sick of the adverts and appeals to give money to Africa. Over the last thirty years, the money given out would probably rival a middle income country, and you would think by now they'd have found solutions to their problems.
Whilst I know it's a shame, it's time to close the bank. Nothing is happening at all in those countries, and any progress that has happened and has been through small investements.
We're struggling in the UK at the moment. Children are going hungry here. What's happening abroad is not. Charity begins at home.
Personally I feel the only ways are: cut the funding and make the countries stand on their own too feet. Another alternative is to install puppet governments controlled by the former rulers when colonised, and if anything goes wrong such as war - pull out asap.
0
Comments
That is the solution to the problem! Perhaps stop these Christian fundies from going out of there, and make their governments introduce a contraception drive!
The best way to do that would be to educate women. If you look around the world the countries that give women a decent education have the lowest birth rate. Educate the so they can get a job, dig themselves out of poverty and they will have less kids. Also a lot of the population is Africa live in largely rural areas, so may not have access to it, it needs to be much more widely available.
..Thats because dumb liberal Brits don't understand that almost EVERY African country (perhaps with the exception of Ghana...perhaps) is plagued by intense corruption & tribal warfare...from the Kikuyus & Maasais at war in Kenya to the Igbos & Yorobas in Nigeria who also have a hatred for each other. With leaders living in lavish compounds driving Mercedes limousines, with the rest of the public drinking puddle water.
Joe Britain has no idea about this and thinks tossing money at them will solve all these extremely complicated problems.
Well said.
Perhaps re-colonisation with a puppet government is the way forward? Or...leave them to rot.
It's a much bigger issue then money. The reasons why Africa is the way it is is much more complex then not having enough money.
The money may rival a middle income country but Africa is a continent, and a very big one. While it may sound like a lot of money to your or i, its actually stretched pretty thinly.
Finances of the madhouse really.
It is almost impossible to address such bottomless ignorance. Of COURSE there have been immense strides in Africa. Do you honestly think that nothing has improved over the past years? Have you ever in your lives read a sensible article about development work in Africa or watched an intelligent, analytical tv programme? Rwanda is a good example of a country that has improved enormously on every measure over the last few years. Are you not pleased that so many more children are surviving in good health, that their agriculture is much more productive, their financial institutions are thriving, and literacy rates are improving in leaps and bounds?
'Aid to Africa' is often nothing more than a weasel word for surplus dumping (especially by the US) to protect their own agricultural markets. Not surprisingly, it has a toxic effect on the agricultural success of the countries they victimise. 'Aid' is for short-term crisis use, or should be targeted (eg in education) in such a way that it actually helps a country, not destroys its competitiveness.
If you want to help Africa, and stop seeing those advertisements that make you so very cross:
1. Concentrate on fair TRADE, not aid. All African exporters want is a level playing field and the chance to trade with the big players. The percentage of EU imports that are open on equal terms to African markets is TINY; the big picture is all of special deals and protectionist policies.
2. concentrate aid spending, other than during a major humanitarian crisis, on education. It was the colonial rulers (UK, France, Belgium) who stripped African countries bare without investing anything back in a proper educational infrastructure; there is a degree of pay-back in contributing to their future. No African country wants to depend on foreign aid for one second longer than they need; they want their own professionals, trained in-house, to lift standards. And as Never Nude says, this is by far the best way to reduce the birth rate. As soon as girls have a proper education, they give birth to FAR fewer children, on average.
3. Untie aid from unpleasant tie-ins. No dirt-poor country should be tied into crippling debt payments, compulsory purchase of foreign goods, or (now here's a lovely idea for dumping produce on Africa profitably) 'suicide seeds'.
4. Stop poaching all their desperately scarce professionals. If our health service is running out of doctors, train more; don't lure over the one doctor that a poor African town has.
Have you ever looked at a map of Africa and compared it to a map of Europe? Lots of straight lines dividing countries in Africa, very few in Europe. It was never going to work other than to the advantage of the Europeans.
I don't understand why you have such a issue with it. I mean it has no effect on your life.
Also their are charities that are based in the UK that you can donate to if you want.
A lot of people in this country are facing austerity measures doled out by the governement they then borrow to send to otehr countries that makes it very much everyones business.
Just wow.
I think of them all this is my favourite phrase: 'Whilst I know it's a shame...'
A shame - really? Is that ALL it is?
Although - 'and it's still a shithole' comes a close second for the underlying tone of personal offence you seem to have taken for having to share a planet with these people.
Genuinely quite shocked.
Erm, no what I do with my money has nothing to do with you. Find a hobby please.
why not save time and just kill them all now. vile.
I think several people, including the OP, are muddling up 'aid' (as given by us as a state) and charitable donations.
Charity donations from the UK have an excellent record on the whole. (I say 'from the UK', because some American organisations do not; funding clinics that can never offer contraceptives to single people, or abortion to anyone, for example, is a poor use of money). Sightsavers, one of my favourites, has often been singled out as one of the charities that produces the greatest positive effects for the least money. Eye operations are often very cheap, and in a third world country can lift an entire family out of destitution and dependency. No one, surely, is suggesting that individuals should not be allowed to give their money wherever they want.
'Aid', as part of government spending, is a different matter. The motivation for it is not 'we are such nice people and must send money to the poor'; the mixed motives are part of the reason it has been so problematic. Countries will donate aid money to build future trade links that will hopefully be to our benefit; (there is a reason, for example, why China is pouring vast sums into Equatorial Guinea, and it is not that they are regularly reduced to tears by the sight of thin black people; it is because they want the oil). At best (from our point of view) African countries may have minerals that we want - and don't want someone else to get; at worst, they at least have people, who might be persuaded to buy our stuff and sell stuff back on advantageous terms.
They will also donate aid money to buy political allies. The US, for example, has invested hugely in Pakistan, because they want a friendly ally that borders Afghanistan. And vicious turf wars tend to be bad for the global economy generally, drawing in neutral countries, flooding surrounding areas with refugees, disrupting financial trading, transport and communications. On the whole, even if it costs, it is better for us to help keep wars to a minimum.
And finally, 'aid' is often not the benign thing that we like to think. Agricultural and trade supluses are often dumped in huge quantities into African countries, with the nominal value described as 'aid'. It may feed some destitute people, but it also has a catastrophic effect on the local food markets. Even apparently benign acts like shipping in containers full of mosquito nets are not nearly as unselfish as they might appear. Africa MAKES mosquito nets; as soon as we start sourcing and buying them at home, we destroy their manufacturing base over there.
So...charity giving is all good, unless you actively seek out a poorly run or culturally insensitive charity; state 'aid' can be good, bad or anything in between. What we really DON'T need is ignoramuses pretending that nothing has changed in Africa, but that all giving has just been wasted.