Listening to:Mambo Diablo, Tito Puente
Thinking of:
Going in line with the Live8 theme that the British media has been promoting and sort of with the "Make Poverty History" band on the top right corner of the blog, after 20 years, why is Africa still in its current state?
In a span of 50 years, approximately 1 trillion dollars has been pumped into the continent, however the condition in countries such as Ethopia ended up on a totally different outcome unlike their eastern counterparts (hint, hint... Asia) who in the same period of time has recorded growth in terms of standard of living and in terms of general economy.
Handouts have been given to these nations with the intention of helping them out and little has been shown with regards of improving ailing nations. 20 years ago with the high profile Band Aid rock concerts aimed at improving the life of the residents of these countries, surprisingly the general average income of has dropped in Ethopia from 120 dollars a year to 100 dollars a year and decrease of population lifespan and increasingly high infant mortality rate. Could the blame for such problems that plague this continent endowed with natural resources such as minerals and oil be attributed singularly to corruption? Possibly a large cause of the problem, though unfair, selfish exploitation of aid can't be the only cause. Some argue that it is aid in itself that is the problem. Taking a que out of the "helping the butterfly out of its cocoon" story. The trail of ineffective aid is out there for all to see. Quoted off the times...
"Aid advocates insist that they are ready to learn from their mistakes. They attribute part of the failure to the abuses during the Cold War, when the West and Soviet bloc provided aid to their client-states, regardless of development needs. America pumped money to President Mobutu of Zaire, who spent it on private jets, limousines and palaces; the Soviet Union supported its client-states with money, arms and its own aid projects. Guinea was sent snow-ploughs by its friends in the Kremlin instead of tractors."
Some advocates of direct aid would argue that there are several success stories such as Uganda (as some of my friends have expirienced it), Ghana and Mozambique. However countries such as Ethiopia, Congo and Nigeria have failed. Nigeria, rich in oil(corruption) and Congo, rich in minerals... (war). A school of thought was mentioned the other day from a visiting friend how aid in itself would increase the dependence of several families and since are paid out based on the number of children, do the math, it encourages larger families which would place further strain on the already heavily burdened agricultural sector to provide food. It can be easily be attributed to famine and draught. That said, most of the population live in rural areas far away from irrigation and aid in terms of fertiliser and seed.
Mismanaged projects and wasteful projects. Enough said...
Please O' Lord give us an answer.
Thinking of:
Going in line with the Live8 theme that the British media has been promoting and sort of with the "Make Poverty History" band on the top right corner of the blog, after 20 years, why is Africa still in its current state?
In a span of 50 years, approximately 1 trillion dollars has been pumped into the continent, however the condition in countries such as Ethopia ended up on a totally different outcome unlike their eastern counterparts (hint, hint... Asia) who in the same period of time has recorded growth in terms of standard of living and in terms of general economy.
Handouts have been given to these nations with the intention of helping them out and little has been shown with regards of improving ailing nations. 20 years ago with the high profile Band Aid rock concerts aimed at improving the life of the residents of these countries, surprisingly the general average income of has dropped in Ethopia from 120 dollars a year to 100 dollars a year and decrease of population lifespan and increasingly high infant mortality rate. Could the blame for such problems that plague this continent endowed with natural resources such as minerals and oil be attributed singularly to corruption? Possibly a large cause of the problem, though unfair, selfish exploitation of aid can't be the only cause. Some argue that it is aid in itself that is the problem. Taking a que out of the "helping the butterfly out of its cocoon" story. The trail of ineffective aid is out there for all to see. Quoted off the times...
"Aid advocates insist that they are ready to learn from their mistakes. They attribute part of the failure to the abuses during the Cold War, when the West and Soviet bloc provided aid to their client-states, regardless of development needs. America pumped money to President Mobutu of Zaire, who spent it on private jets, limousines and palaces; the Soviet Union supported its client-states with money, arms and its own aid projects. Guinea was sent snow-ploughs by its friends in the Kremlin instead of tractors."
Some advocates of direct aid would argue that there are several success stories such as Uganda (as some of my friends have expirienced it), Ghana and Mozambique. However countries such as Ethiopia, Congo and Nigeria have failed. Nigeria, rich in oil(corruption) and Congo, rich in minerals... (war). A school of thought was mentioned the other day from a visiting friend how aid in itself would increase the dependence of several families and since are paid out based on the number of children, do the math, it encourages larger families which would place further strain on the already heavily burdened agricultural sector to provide food. It can be easily be attributed to famine and draught. That said, most of the population live in rural areas far away from irrigation and aid in terms of fertiliser and seed.
Mismanaged projects and wasteful projects. Enough said...
Please O' Lord give us an answer.
Comments