tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16603042.post112881401028253377..comments2023-03-10T01:20:28.269+13:00Comments on Long Ago and Not True Anyway: Four Fallacies of African DevelopmentTerencehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17321549651265388367noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16603042.post-1128977948974506292005-10-11T09:59:00.000+13:002005-10-11T09:59:00.000+13:00Terence, how your kind have fallen since your gran...Terence, how your kind have fallen since your grandfather's time: he, a minister of God (unless he was a government minister; your post was unclear on that point), you, an unbeliever! Ah well, there is always hope for your children to take up Christ, and maybe even you, one day.<BR/><BR/>Most colonials didn't care very much about their subject peoples: we agree on this point.<BR/><BR/>All right, so Ethiopia and Liberia may not have been all that independent, but then I cited Senegal, Ghana, Côte d'Ivoire, and Uganda, all of which are <I>relatively</I> well off and were quite exploited by their colonial masters.<BR/><BR/>And we'll agree to defer the South Africa discussion until later; I myself need to study it better. I think Alex Higgins would know quite a bit about the issue; perhaps he could be induced to become a commenter here.<BR/><BR/>Yes, I <I>appear</I> to have dramatically shifted on aid, until you note the caveat at the beginning of the comment, which states my belief that government-provided aid is immoral and should never be given. But as long as it is given (which it shouldn't be--charities should be doing this), then it does have the potential to be beneficial.<BR/><BR/>Theology is not meaningless. And in Uganda, C was only used as a last resort--according to doctors, most people didn't need to go beyond A and B. And starting at C, as Botswana and other nations show, is tragically ineffective. One state that has cut its HIV rate by rejecting condoms is, I regret to admit, the Holy See. As for larger countries, I'm afraid I don't know, but I would like it if Uganda simply did an AB programme, without the C--I think that would be even more effective.<BR/><BR/>Terence, you need to escape your <I>étatiste</I> thinking for a little while at least. How well did the Stalinist Soviet State report the deaths it caused in the Ukrainian Genocide of 1932-3? Or the Maoist Chinese State the deaths it caused during the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution? Or, for that matter, can we trust the Stalinist North Korean State in its recent assertion that it is AIDS-free? Really, your naiveté amazes me sometimes. Even if we look at some of Somalia's fellow African states--can Sudan be expected to provide an accurate casualty report in Darfur? Can the Central African Republic, Gabon, Malawi, and Togo really have such sophisticated AIDS-counting techiniques?<BR/>The point is, I find no reason to put less faith in Somalia's AIDS statistics than in those of any other sub-Saharan African nation. And yes, Somalia is, for now, Muslim; interesting point on circumcision and AIDS transmission, though I continue to oppose the practice as unsightly, unneeded, and of unproven benefit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16603042.post-1128919177522766282005-10-10T17:39:00.000+13:002005-10-10T17:39:00.000+13:00Oh and Chris,You have a blog don't you? well fair'...Oh and Chris,<BR/><BR/>You have a blog don't you? well fair's fair - tell me your blog address so I can return the favour and troll on your blog (and yes you do troll, at least as I understand the definition. And by any definition you were trolling on JH's website). If you don't give me your blog address and give me the fair chance to discuss your own posts - I'll just have to start deleting your comments here (or turn off the comments facility - which, given the number of people who comment on this blog - is, in effect, the same thing.)Terencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17321549651265388367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16603042.post-1128918957547654932005-10-10T17:35:00.000+13:002005-10-10T17:35:00.000+13:00Chris - Point 1.It's true that some colonials acte...Chris - Point 1.<BR/><BR/>It's true that some colonials acted out of altruism (my grand father was a minister and doctor in the Pacific, for example); but the fact is that most didn't - and the consequences can be seen today in Africa.<BR/><BR/>Liberia - the key word in your sentance there is <I> formal </I>. there was still plenty of intervention. Likewise the Soviets (if I recall correctly) propped up the horid Marxist government in Ethopia for a long time - more outside intervention.<BR/><BR/>Pollution - the majority of the World's GHGs still come from the developed world and (on a per capita basis, at least) will continue to do so for a long time to come. It's true that China and India's emmissions are increasing but, last time I looked, they weren't part of Africa.<BR/><BR/>Point 2 - So basically we are in agreement - corruption is an issue - not the only issue. Perhaps we can debate South Africa at a later date - although I think that the point that you are implying here is wrong.<BR/><BR/>Point 3 - We have some quibbles here (no time to address them all) but basically we appear to agree that Aid, when given propperly, can help. You appear to have changed your position here from your original post. But good on you for being able to adapt your position in light of evidence.<BR/><BR/>Point 4 - A lot of what you say is meaningless here; but let's just clarify one thing - what does the C stand for in ABC? Well hello, it stands for <B> condoms </B>. Can you provide me evidence of any state that has cut its HIV rate with a programme that specifically <I> rejects </I> condoms?<BR/><BR/>Somalia may have a 1% <I> reported </I> infection rate but I think you'll find that, in the absence of there being a state to actually collect statistics, under-reporting might be an issue. Another interesting point is that Somalia (if I recall correctly) is an Islamic (non)state. There is increasing evidence that circumcision dramatically reduces transmission of HIV - so, as an Islamic state, Somalia may be benefitting from this.Terencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17321549651265388367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16603042.post-1128899415759740762005-10-10T12:10:00.000+13:002005-10-10T12:10:00.000+13:00Wow, I elicited a whole post from you, Terence! No...Wow, I elicited a whole post from you, Terence! Not bad, I must say. But first, some preliminaries:<BR/>Given that 'trolling' involves disrupting an ongoing discussion, I'd say that that is quite hard to do on this board, given the extremely low level of comments, so I must declare myself innocent of the acts.<BR/>And for the purposes of this reply, I'll make two assumptions:<BR/>1. Africa is to continue to have governments for the time being (something I rue, but I'll accept as fact).<BR/>2. Western governments are to continue to send aid to Africa (again, rueful due to the immoral compulsory nature of the aid, but I'll accept that too).<BR/><BR/>Point 1:<BR/>To begin with, colonialism wasn't all bad. To be sure, as 'Heart of Darkness' alludes to, Europeans did some pretty horrible things in Africa, like the well-nigh genocidal practices of King Leopold in the Belgian Congo. But they also brought Christianity to parts of Africa, which is a good thing. And they also civilised the place by teaching European languages, culture, and technology to the natives. This last point is bound to be controversial, as one could respond that Africans already had their own civilisations, that Europeanisation had a negative effect both on precious local cultures and through the fact that many of its consequences were disastrous (eg, Belgian notions of race and ethnicity ultimately leading up to the Rwandan Genocide). That is true, but I would say that colonialism did still do some good through its civilising influence. Also, I would add that (probably) relatively few colonialists acted out of altruism; still, some, such as missionaries, did.<BR/>You're right that benign neglect isn't the only contributing factor in Botswana's relative success: after all, Liberia, independent all along and so without <I>any</I> formal Western intervention, isn't exactly a success story, and neither is Ethiopia, which withstood a mere five years of (wrenching) Italian occupation. By contrast, Uganda and Senegal, long occupied, are, relatively speaking, points of light on a dark continent. So are Ghana (the Gold Coast) and (at least until recently) Côte d'Ivoire (Ivory Coast), whose very names bespeak their history of being exploited.<BR/>I mentioned Sierra Leone, not Angola, but I'd be glad to discuss the latter. The diamonds, I imagine, are bought by people in the developed world. And they need not be a cause of civil strife: if the guiding hand of the free market were to operate without restrictions, then there would be no cause for war, but since various government monopolies intervene in the process, bloodshed results. And you're right that Portugal should have let go of Angola in 1961 (if you're implying that), but once the USSR tried to get a foothold there, the war against global Communism required an equally muscular US response, so I do have to defend great-power involvement there.<BR/>Guns are sold to Africa by Westerners, and rightly so, as the right to keep and bear arms is a vital human right that ensures freedom against tyranny. Those abusing this right by committing murder should, of course, be brought to justice.<BR/>Increasingly, pollution is the fault not of Western nations but of pooer industrialising ones--India and China are chief examples, and as Africa goes through this stage, it too shall contribute its fair share. Furthermore, as last year's deranged Nobel Peace Laureate Wangari Maathai reminds us in her more lucid moments, Africans themselves cut down countless trees in their own countries, so they too contribute to their own calamities.<BR/><BR/>Point 2:<BR/>There is definitely a correlation between corruption and poverty: broadly speaking, the poorer a nation is, the more corrupt it is. The solution to this is a more thorough inculcation of that cardinal Christian virtue: 'Thou shalt not steal'. Furthermore, as you did say, corruption and poor governance are indeed a 'major issue', so we are in agreement here. They're not the only issue, but they are nonetheless an issue, and African governments would be wise to look at South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore and see how those nations managed to lift themselves from poverty (especially the first two) through a movement toward full democracy and greater transparency.<BR/>But let me write here for a bit on South Africa. Why did it do so well during the apartheid period? Or did it really--was the nation's wealth almost exclusively in white hands? I have heard that blacks from neighbouring countries sought to enter SA even during apartheid, which, if true, would indicate better living standards even for them. I have no definite answers for any of this, and it would also be interesting to look at the country's direction in the last decade--but I did want to put the questions out there, because it is a rather anomalous case in several ways.<BR/><BR/>3. Aid can be good, but I think it needs to be done wisely. What bothers me is throwing money at a problem. Too often that just creates further problems. Aid should ideally be targeted with specific, manageable goals in mind, because too often the Live8-type platitudes of 'lift Africa from poverty!' or 'cure Africa's diseases' simply end up being hot air that fizzles very quickly. Plus, aid programmes need to see their goals met in concrete fashion--otherwise, money keeps on being pumped in but no results emerge.<BR/>I do think that aid still fosters corruption, though that could be fixed if the right measures are put in place. Interesting, too, about government watchdogs. This could work well in a semi-free, weak state like, say, Gabon or Guinea (at least I think those two match the description), but not so well in a confirmed dictatorship like Equatorial Guinea. I believe Kenya is a good example of a nation where independent groups criticise the government to good effect.<BR/><BR/>4. However, sex, even with condoms, outside of marriage, is sinful. But leaving theology aside and focusing on epidemiology: let's look at Uganda rather than Thailand. Uganda has been very successful at bringing down its AIDS numbers. How? Through the ABC method (http://www.techcentralstation.com/122704X.html): 'Abstain, Be faithful, or use Condoms if A and B are not practiced'. And indeed, abstinence must be the first and foremost practice. Do that, and you will be free from sexually-transmitted AIDS.<BR/>Still, there are those who claim (http://www.fumento.com/disease/aids2005.html) that poor medical practices are much more to blame than sexual activity. Could be. The point, then, is that sterilisation techniques must be improved, and, of course, sex reduced. After all, Botswana's anti-AIDS programme does include emphasis on condoms but not on abstinence; look at the results. And I'm not stereotyping either--at least some African men are indeed very promiscuous. Not all, of course, but some are.<BR/>Another component in Uganda's success story is the fact that Ugandans are increasingly embracing Christianity over paganism and Islam--the Lord is blessing them with good health in return.<BR/>Yes, women who are not promiscuous can and very often do get AIDS, but this is what I'd call second-generation promiscuity--they themselves are not to blame, but their husbands are, and if their husbands behaved themselves, then they would be disease-free.<BR/>In any case, I end with the observation that of course, one of Africa's least-infected countries is none other than that paragon of liberty, Somalia, with an infection rate that stands at a meagre 1%--comparable to levels in Western Europe and North America.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com