BONO - RED INITIATIVE LAUDABLE - ROCKS
We can't rely on individuals cutting philanthropic cheques every so often out of their disposable incomes.
That is why the RED idea is so clever - it is sustainable.
Mind you the overheads are so minimal that in excess of 95% of the money raised goes to programs on the ground in Africa.
This initiative is relatively new and should be given a chance.
Remember:
"A beggar's knees are supple" -Burdens by John Ruganda.
It is foolish to refuse AID just because we ought to be helping ourselves. If you are sitting in a comfortable recliner, sipping coffee somewhere in Nairobi, you should be the last person to criticize noble initiatives such as Bono's and others of similar nature. Think about the unfortunate among us who are suffering. Do you think they care from whence the AID comes??
To ameliorate the effects of HIV/AIDS, I dare say we take ANY aid, even from the proverbial devil himself. Otherwise, it would be a great travesty to allow people to suffer because of politics. In this issue, there can be no necessary evil.
posted by jm at 8:00 AM
7 Comments:
Hey Beggars are not choosers. We welcome all type of help.
I did love burdens too. Kwanza i was viewing your hi5. Young dude eeh?
cheers pal
mmm ... shiroh ... i juss started school late ...lol ...i am a ka-stone ...jk.
"a man's age is how he feels, a chille's , how she looks ...
this initiative by Bono is remarkable. Plus the guy is one of the few celebrities who honestly are trying to make a change in the world.
@ 3N: yup. The argument that "dependence on aid makes us slaves to the west" just does not sell when lives are at stake. I think it is political, and to the extent it doesn't make life better for the suffering, should stay in the political realm.
You unwittingly provide a telling example of why "aid" is so pernicious. To approve of Bono's idea for the sole reason that "we can't rely on individuals cutting philanthropic cheques" is the height of dependency.
I'm sure that some people do benefit from aid. But let us look at the bigger picture. For now I will restrict myself to food aid. Take the case of Ethiopia. There, food aid results in a 35% discount on the price of wheat The net result? While it is true that the poorest Ethiopians benefit disproportionately (which is a good thing), crop yields stagnated (which is bad). More than 20 years after Live Aid, the country is still receives more food aid than any other (very bad).
According to Oxfam, in 2002/2003 food aid donors over-reacted to a projected 600,000 metric tonne food deficit in Malawi, causing a severe decline in cereal prices and hurting local producers. And in 2000, Guyanese rice exports to Jamaica were displaced by US food aid which suddenly doubled following a bumper crop in the USA. The cure has become worse than the disease.
Also food aid is not a charitable thing. 90% of it is supplied in commodities rather than cash to purchase local production. This harms the farmers in two ways. First by depriving themof a market. Secondly, increasing volumes of food aid provided for development projects is sold straight onto local markets displacing local farmers’ produce and slashing their income by reducing prices.
Finally, food aid is not about charity. It is a way for the developed countries to:
a) get rid of agricultural surplus (and thus is a euphemism for dumping)
b) develop new markets: According to Oxfam, US legislation for Title I food aid programs states that priority is given to export of US agricultural commodities to those developing countries which have demonstrated the potential to become commercial markets. This is a major, and unfair, subsidy to exporters of the donor country.
Once again, apologies for the long post.
Gathara:
To the extent that local procurement allows a resource transfer to the economies of recipient countries, it is highly desirable and preferable.
With food aid however, import parity (the cost of importing the same commodity from a regional or international market)plays a crucial role in determining whether the food is bought locally.
When local prices exceed the import parity price [due to currency devaluation,informal, rural based trade, etc], purchasing locally can have the sam enegative effects that you decry. Buying large quantities locally above import parity could inflate food prices, affecting food
access for poor households that rely on the market for their food consumption - especially in urban areas. Seriously, think about, during times of drought, if local traders not only anticipate but also have high confidence that donors/aid agencies will only buy locally, don't you think they will be prone to hoarding, in anticipation of a bumper price??
That said, I do not mean to exonerate develop[ed economies. The flip side of the argument benefits them... if most of the food will be bought from them, obviously they are stimulated to oversupply, in full knowledge that the price differential will be subsidized.
The quagmire here is:
How can we remain humane - not allow people to starve- and at the same time establish a dependency free system for solving our problems??
It feels like we are caught in a perpetual trap. I mean we cannot just say, "let us start afresh" unless we kill off all the starving, HIV-Infected countrymen and women ... we are morally obliged to look out for them. The question is: Can we do it without outside assistance? Can the transition be automatic, without incurring any neglect on the said individuals?
If the answer is no, then aid is inevitable.
If it is yes, and I believe it is, then it behooves our leaders to act.
But I feel like their attitude is like " If s'one else is willing to take care of the problem, why not let them?"
It is an unfortunate attitude but perhaps a necessary evil - again I make a humane appeal. I fear that unless humanitarian efforts are somehow "privatized" woe unto the suffering. The government lacks the capability [technical, or otherwise] to respond to acts of nature in a timely, efficient and responsible way.
Until such a time, I'd rather dine with the devil and stay alive ...
How can we remain humane - not allow people to starve- and at the same time establish a dependency free system for solving our problems?
That's the million dollar question. My point has been that foreign aid as it is now practised is not the answer. You're absolutely right when you say that governments have used such aid as an excuse to abdicate their responsibilities. The dependency foreign aid breeds will impoverish and kill many more people than it saves in the short term.
Back to the question. Do we need help? Yes. But it should be the kind of help that leaves us standing. And the first thing is to wean ourselves of the notion that disasters are caused by natural events. Disasters are almost always man-made. Famines are not caused by drought but by poor (or mostly non-existent) policies. A friend once told me "No country with a free press ever faced a famine."
Look at how the US responded to Hurricane Katharina. Did they blame the gods or the elements for the disaster? No. They blamed their government's incompetence and in so doing ensured that when the next storm struck, they were better prepared.
In Africa we starve, we lack water, we don't get electricity, our roads disintegrate...and we blame all this on the elements or "acts of God".
What we need from the rest of the world is some tough love. Till we come to recognise that we are our own saviours. Then we can accept aid to build up capacity, not as a crutch to help us hobble from one disaster to the next.
Post a Comment
<< Home