• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.
    Register

Should we remove all aid from Africa?

Saki

The Fire Fox
168
Posts
10
Years
Preamble:

I have to start this off with a couple very very preliminary concepts that most likely won't enlighten anyone here because they already know. It's a necessary caution from my experience though. Please forgive me if you read this and already know these things though!
  • Africa is a continent, not a country.
  • Not every country is full of "starving kids". I will use "Africa" as a term to refer to those who we deem "in requirement of aid". I am not actually referring to the entirety of Africa.

Now that's over with we can move on...
I want to hear your honest opinions about one of these "sides", or both of them... or why you stand somewhere in the middle of them. I have opened up this discussion to be a bit "black and white" but you're welcome to discuss your opinions freely as well as take it on as though it's a debate and give some real citations. The reason I am doing this is because I believe this discussion can be conducted either way and I don't want to discourage anyone from simply stating their personal opinion on the topic.

The question at hand here is Should we remove all aid from Africa?. This would consist of removing any "Make a well", "Adopt a children", "Save the Elephants", "Assist in Medical facilities" and "Assist in orphanages" programs. The list could go on, but it essentially includes both "volunteer" aide and financial aid given to the continent of Africa. It is up to you to decide if you consider assistance with natural disasters and other complex issues such as the Ebola outbreak. You may consider that sort of assistance in the same category as hurricane relief that we deliver, of you may lump it in with the rest of the aid we provide. Some may see it as different, others will not.

Here is an article discussing this topic to get your though going if you wish to learn a bit more about it before stating your opinion: http://www.academia.edu/202805/Fore...t_the_literature_says_and_what_the_reality_is

Here is an interesting excerpt from this:
It appears as though most African countries are so dependent on aid that without it almost half of their yearly budgetary commitments cannot be fulfilled. For example in 1992, aid is said to have accounted for 12.4% of gross national product (GNP), over 70% of gross domestic savings and investments in Sub-Saharan Africa and over50% of all imports (Ampaw, 2000). Under the age-old saying that "you cannot bite the fingers that feed you,"leaders of these countries are unable to speak out when fake and unwanted goods flood their markets. It seem said is not meant to ensure recipients become self-reliant since if it is the case, powerful states can no longer brag about who is giving more than the other. The conclusion we can deduce here is that since aid is not a "joystick by which donors can manipulate macroeconomic or political outcomes" (Edgren, 2002).
Click to expand...

Thought Questions
The following questions are meant to get you thinking, you may answer all, or none, or some of them in your reply. It's up to you!

Is all aid good? Can "every little bit help"? Or could we be creating problems as well? Some well building programs have resulted in abandoned wells that are invested with bacteria, creating unsafe drinking water due to the lack of maintenance and up keep as the workers and foundations that provided them did not keep up with maintaining the well nor teach someone(s) to do so. Not all well programs work in this way, however.

Is catering our aid to what they can use a better alternative to halting completely?

Should we leave them to establish their own self sustaining nature?

Should we only intervene when substantial issues are occurring that may impact the rest of the world and/or are a question of human rights?

A Word of Caution:
I have provided articles and readings that I believe will help people learn more, these may appear biased but that wasn't my intention. I am truly unsure of where I stand on this on a personal level and hope to hear your thoughts. If anyone has more articles they believe should be added to the OP I will happily add them.

___________​

Further reading:
If interested.

Dambisa Moyo, author of Dead Aid: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dambisa_Moyo, http://www.dambisamoyo.com/
 
Last edited:
Ivysaur

Ivysaur

Grass dinosaur extraordinaire
21,082
Posts
17
Years
Limerent said:
Impossible because a lot of people would have to die and that would look bad on TV
Click to expand...

Obviously. Because the only thing wrong in the concept of "people dying a painful death from starvation" is that it looks bad on TV. I'm 100% sure that nobody would ever give a crap about fellow human beings dying from hunger if it didn't look so bad on TV.

Limerent said:
Removing all aid completely is the most pragmatic and logical approach for the worst parts of Africa because it's a money sink into a losing battle, for every starving child we save they'll go on to produce several more offspring in the process, continuing the strain on resources. It's not exactly uncommon for culls to occur on other animals because their population is unsustainable but whenever it's human beings we get all teary.
Click to expand...

Of course. It's not like people have a crapton on children in underdeveloped countries because a) it's the only way to make sure at least a few of them survive and b) to make sure at least some can take care of them when they grow old because retirement pensions hahaha what is that.

And, of course, we all know people in developed countries always had an average birth rate of 1.5%, and there is no correlation whasoever between underdevelopment and birth rate, what are you talking about. We all know that if a formerly underdeveloped country increases its wealth, the birth rate will always and forever stay at 6%: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_rate#mediaviewer/File:Birth_rate_figures_for_countries.PNG

Oh, and why not make a "starvation cull" of population around Europe, China, Australia, Japan and North America? Why only in African and Asian countries?

Limerent said:
As most people are ruled by emotion they would not be supportive of such a policy, the best you could hope for is much stricter guidelines into proving that African nations meet the criteria for aid and it will actually go to where they say it will go, with gradual drawbacks in the amount provided as they can be seen to be making measurable progress.
Click to expand...

I must agree though, that is the most rational thing you have said.

Limerent said:
Is all aid good? No. NGO's in particular give more money to the continued running of the organisation and paying workers rather than reaching those in need. It should be government only.
Click to expand...

Sources?

Limerent said:
In my opinion I wouldn't be averse to removing aid because in my eyes it's a losing battle. Another possible alternative is to put failed states into full administration by a league of more developed nations who know what they are doing, everyone hates South Africa because of apartheid but they are the richest and most developed nation on the continent, having Europeans with experience in implementing Western development would have helped with that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm pretty sure a league of Western Countries would know how to make wonders out of those countries- as they did when they ruled over them during the past few centuries. Oh wait.

Also a tiny little thing: South Africa is not the most developed country in Africa- it's the 9th, behind Libya (¡!), Botswana or Egypt. And please do not tell me you think it's okay to treat a large share of humans as fourth-rate walking animals in return for money.
 

ANARCHit3cht

Call me Archie!
2,145
Posts
15
Years
  • Seen Sep 25, 2020
I don't feel like giving a long drawn out response currently so I'll summarize my views with this: Assistance towards an outside country should be minimal unless your country is currently not suffering from any major problems. If there are people starving in YOUR OWN COUNTRY, make sure that THEY GET FOOD before you try to feed the people of another country. The only exceptions I see to this rule are emergency situations such as natural disasters and terrorist attacks. I wouldn't classify the ongoing hunger/aids/etc issues in Africa as an emergency situation because they did not suddenly arise from nowhere and there are many factors contributing to the longevity of these problems.

I'm not saying we should outright ignore them, merely that in order to provide them with the best aid possible, we need to be secure ourselves. And we just aren't. As a result, it is sort of a lost cause until we can develop methods that are going to increase stability and create an environment where they can begin to provide for themselves. The old adage "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and eats for life" is never more true than it is in this situation. By providing emergency supplies when it is a non-emergency situation we are merely enabling them to continue living in this manner--and that's unacceptable.
 
Gardevoir the Dragon Slayer

Gardevoir the Dragon Slayer

I burn!
1,277
Posts
10
Years
I am not going to answer the question because I simply do not have the expertise or experience to reach an objective conclusion. However I will raise some points I feel:

Firstly many African Aid programs have distorted our view of Africa (That we often think of it as a land full of poverty, starvation and AIDs), for starters why do we always say Africa and not individual nations. Africa is a very diverse continent Arabs in the Far North, as indeed most of the northern African are Islamic and the more South you go the nations are Christian (Ethiopia even has a sizable Jewish population) and in some Southern and Eastern Nations there are many Hindu and Sikhs. Many different languages are spoken and many different cultures exist.

Secondly nowadays the charity industry (yes in many respects its an industry) make large amounts of cash which they pay staff (working in the charitable sector is quite desirable and some charity chairmen/woman get a lot of money). Not all charity's are like this but many big ones are, the money may be better used.

Thirdly Corrupt governments are an Issue taking lots of Aid and using the money for their own ends rather than improving their countries economy.

Fourthly many aid projects miss the point just giving food or supplies, rather than educating in sustainable agriculture, industry, health and infrastructure etc.

Finally many aid projects are obsessed about the environment/global warming/climate change so don't introduce productive agriculture method (pesticides, Intensive farming, Tractors, GM foods even) and focus on (currently) less productive energy generation such as solar power rather than coal power/oil power etc.
 
Last edited:
Circuit

Circuit

[cd=font-weight: bold; font-style: italic; backgro
4,815
Posts
16
Years
Eugh, I need to sleep, so for now I will keep this short and sweet, and divulge on my points later.

  • Aid is not all good, and in most circumstances hinders progress rather than helps it.
  • The countries themselves currently do not have the infrastructure and governmental stability to ensure that this aid is actually useful to those who need it
  • Not all charity organisations give the money to cause, and sometimes not even half actually reaches the countries they supposedly support.
  • The aid we send can be helpful if it is the right aid
  • Populations in most LEDCs are unsustainable as is, and the money we give could be used differently to improve education, rather than spoon-feeding a country that needs to learn how to look after itself.

I have studied this previously, so I will come back to hopefully put my knowledge into an argument that can help stimulate this debate. Feel free to discuss these points, but as I said, I will detail my reasoning and understanding later.
 
Star-Lord

Star-Lord

withdrawl .
715
Posts
15
Years
Colonialism has been speculated to be the cause of both the Biafran War and the Rwandan genocide. I think it's fair game that the western world pays reparations to the continent.
 
Last edited:

CoffeeDrink

GET WHILE THE GETTIN'S GOOD
1,250
Posts
10
Years
I had to take a double take at the title of this thread, and all I can say is: "Really? We're going to be discussing this? Really? Seriously?"

Sometimes. . .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Her
Entermaid

Entermaid

2,138
Posts
11
Years
The ignored elephant in the room, China, is a big part of this discussion on how much aid Western nations should provide (particularly the US) and how that aid is dispersed among African countries.

Economically, there is a huge stake in African-US relations.
Further, the China-Africa relationship, is a form of colonialism, which impacts culture and attitudes.

This debate is framed as "should we (western countries) forgo African aid?"
Unless, "we" is vaguely expressing that no country ought to provide aid, including China.
Which can be confusing in taking a policy position and maximizing outcomes when we have no subject to advocate on behalf of. Is it, what's best for the world, a particular country(countries), or Africa?

In either case, countries are rational actors, and there is investment potential both diplomatic/political and economic (resource, trade, and industry) in African development/aid. For countries that do provide aid, and are not overextended financially, are striving toward investing in diplomacy and economy. (Thus, US and other foreign entanglement with oil producing nations)

My personal, nationalistic stake in this would tend to favor continuing African investment, though, seeking ways of developing long-term solutions and increasing economic development, which may lend itself for better living conditions and ability to support stable democratic government. An indebted trade partner with tons of resources in addition to being a diplomatic ally (and perhaps foothold), may serve the US (myself) beneficially. Though, in theory that is how it ought to play out, there are always risks incurred with foreign entanglement. Though, is allowing for China to maintain that strong economic and cultural foothold more risky? (especially to democratic and westernized states)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Her

Saki

The Fire Fox
168
Posts
10
Years
CoffeeDrink said:
I had to take a double take at the title of this thread, and all I can say is: "Really? We're going to be discussing this? Really? Seriously?"

Sometimes. . .
Click to expand...

Can you expand upon your post? is it that you think it's so ridiculous to remove aid or that it's so obvious it should be removed, or something else?
 
zakisrage

zakisrage

In the trunk on Highway 10
500
Posts
10
Years
I think we should continue giving aid to Africa as long as evil dictators like Mugabe don't steal the money.

One think they should stop is having stupid super groups singing insincere Christmas songs every 10 years thinking it's gonna help impoverished Africans. (I'm talking about those social justice warriors Bob Geldof and Bono.)
 

Sir Codin

Guest
0
Posts
^Yeah, I pretty much agree with the above.

Aid should definitely continue, but we need to be aware and regulate that it goes to the right people and that it actually helps with the development of the nations.
 
Alexander Nicholi

Alexander Nicholi

what do you know about computing?
5,500
Posts
14
Years
Went said:
Obviously. Because the only thing wrong in the concept of "people dying a painful death from starvation" is that it looks bad on TV. I'm 100% sure that nobody would ever give a crap about fellow human beings dying from hunger if it didn't look so bad on TV.



Of course. It's not like people have a crapton on children in underdeveloped countries because a) it's the only way to make sure at least a few of them survive and b) to make sure at least some can take care of them when they grow old because retirement pensions hahaha what is that.

And, of course, we all know people in developed countries always had an average birth rate of 1.5%, and there is no correlation whasoever between underdevelopment and birth rate, what are you talking about. We all know that if a formerly underdeveloped country increases its wealth, the birth rate will always and forever stay at 6%: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_rate#mediaviewer/File:Birth_rate_figures_for_countries.PNG

Oh, and why not make a "starvation cull" of population around Europe, China, Australia, Japan and North America? Why only in African and Asian countries?



I must agree though, that is the most rational thing you have said.



Sources?



Yeah, I'm pretty sure a league of Western Countries would know how to make wonders out of those countries- as they did when they ruled over them during the past few centuries. Oh wait.

Also a tiny little thing: South Africa is not the most developed country in Africa- it's the 9th, behind Libya (¡!), Botswana or Egypt. And please do not tell me you think it's okay to treat a large share of humans as fourth-rate walking animals in return for money.
Click to expand...
Newsflash: Humans aren't that special. They're just as much animals as anyone else. You don't see anywhere near as much help being given towards stray pets or dingos, do you? There are still people around today who are 100% cool in killing those things for sport. That's a load of self-righteousness if I ever saw it. We're not all great and wonderful merely because of self-interest.

All of the statistics you shared are far worse for both feral, endangered, and non-endangered animals so it leads back into my original question of how we're so much more deserving of help than some other sentient beings with just as much emotion and livelihood as our own. That's bullshit.

As far as the OP's Africa goes, it's a lost cause. There's too much turmoil that's socially impenetrable to justify aid that we can have confidence in - ergo, it won't get stolen or wasted; or, as Limerent mentioned, jacked through mass murder or other hideous human shit going on in Africa that no one on the pity-party boat wants to mention.
 
twocows

twocows

The not-so-black cat of ill omen
4,307
Posts
15
Years
I think if our motivation is truly to do good, we need to look at both the short-term and long-term implications of our actions and move forward in a way that allows those we aid to grow strong on their own without fostering dependency. As the line goes, "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

I do not presume to have the best answer as to how to accomplish this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top