Letters to the Editor
-
Is donating really equivalent to giving money to corrupt governments?
Is giving money to nonprofit NGOs such as the Red Cross, MSF or Development and Peace equivalent to giving money to "corrupt African governments"? I have been operating on the assumption that it is not, and it surprises me to hear this view expressed in many of these letters. It reminds me of the justification I heard many Americans give for not donating to relief efforts after the earthquake in Pakistan - that they did not want to give money to a state that harbours terrorists. It struck me as a non-sequitar, but maybe I am naive.I realize that such donations relieve pressure from governments to invest money into the problem of hunger, and can exist parallel to government policies actively aimed at creating famine(eg recent policies in Zimbabwe), but I operate on the assumption that these nonprofits are able to operate with a relatively high degree of autonomy from local government. Perhaps the reluctance being expressed here is specific to food-relief (e.g., because grain shipments can be confiscated, etc.) and/or government to government payments?
-
Empathy and reality don't alwasy mesh.
"There is never any excuse for not feeling empathy and moving yourself to activity when you see people starving or suffering."
There is plenty of reason for feeling empathy for a situation and doing nothing, in fact, sometimes doing nothing is the more moral stand, because doing something only makes the situation worse.
Spending money to feed or sending food to Africa is not a solution to starvation, in fact, in only equals more starvation and more dieing children.
How exactly is sending money and food this time going to be any different than last 50 years? Has starvation stopped? No, it's only gotten worse, and that's partly our fault.
In the 1980s food was used as a weapon in Ethiopia, it's currently used as a weapon in Zimbabwe. The governments use foreign aid food to reward supporters and withhold food to opponents. It’s immoral and participating in its continuance is immoral.
-
Irony
But a month later, Hurricane Katrina knocked Niger out of the news cycle. The donations disappeared as quickly as they'd arrived.
Call it the 15-minutes-of-fame cycle of starvation.
This article is surrounded by ads to aid Katrina victims.
-
We already know why aid to Africa hasn't worked
Several people who wrote letters ask why we haven't seen improvement in the Third World in the last 50 years, despite the billions of dollars that the West has donated. To those who want to know about this, go to William Easterly's book, "The White Man's Burden: Why the West's Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good." Easterly is a former economist for the World Bank. We literally cannot move forward in actually fixing these problems without learning about, acknowledging, and changing the way international aid works. It is the best and most honest book about foreign aid that I have ever read. Now I understand why nothing ever seems to get done.
-
Aid only makes it worse.
I know its cold, but as an economist I can tell you that food aid will never solve the situation it can only make it worse. Time and time again we have seen that when food aid allievates the starvation cycle citizens in those poverty stricken countries immediately have more babies. You give them food and they'll give you another mouth or two to feed. Western food aid is not the solution, these are not sustainable governments with sustainable populations, unfortunately more countries are going to have to make the hard decisions made by North Korea, the decision to let the surplus population that is not capable of feeding itself starve until your population is down to a manageable level. And who decided it was the job of richer nations to support the worlds poor anyway? Some aid certainly, and granted what aid we do give is riddled with political considerations and innefficiencies, but it is not the job of the United States to feed the citizens of every country that cannot feed itself especially when these countries have the highest population growth rates and the highest levels of environmental degredation in the world. Stop yanking the pity string and start looking at what's feasible in the long term, and what's best for humanity and the planet.
-
Re: "Reading these..."
The answer to your question is no because some are still making the points they made earlier and which were addressed in the article (particularly about the aid stuff). Anyway, Africa is making some strides. Sure, it's more of the "one step forward two steps back" variety of progress in a lot of places but it's certainly not all doom and gloom.
For example, I think it's wonderful that Liberia elected a female president. Here's a poor civil war torn country that managed to hold an election and do what was probably unthinkable a few years ago - elect a female president. It appears some of the main items among her first priorities are improved ties with the West and bringing the infamous warlord Charles Taylor to justice. Not a bad start.
But hey, at least we movers and shakers here in the US can congratulate ourselves for discussing the idea of electing a female president and debating how well a fictional one is doing on TV. Oh also, those $3 bottle of Fiji water do taste great.
-
Re: "Aid only makes it worse."
Hmmnn, too bad the Native Americans didn't follow your philosophy. Think how much better they would've been if they let those excess Puritans who couldn't feed themselves starve. It wasn't their job to fed every stray who washed up on their shores. And look what happened! They fed them and what did they get for their troubles (besides eventually killed)? More Puritans and other foreigners looking for a handout and trying to take over. Damn, too bad they didn't have a "cold hard facts" economist around to explain it to them.
-
Thanks Salon
Thank you for bringing light to such an important issue. I am disgusted at the callous ignorance of so many Salon readers. I suggest that these readers conduct a thorough review of the historic and contemporary uses of Africa and the "third world" by the West. I expected Salon readers to to understand that poverty and exploitation do not exist in vacuums and am disappointed at the sheer ignorance displayed in these letters.
I am certain that we owe Africa and the rest of the "third world" much more than simple humanitarian aid.
I would also like to encourage all readers to sponsor a child in the "third world". For about $300 a year, you can send a little one to school as well as ensure that he or she has clean water, food and vaccinations. We sponsor a little girl through Childreach/Plan (www.planusa.org) because they respect children's religions and traditions. While this certainly isn't the only sollution to global poverty, it does improve lives and is a move in the right direction.