The UN is desperately pleading with the world to send food to Niger. Perhaps they could use a lesson from Mr. Qadaffi?
World ‘ignores’ Niger food crisisThe United Nations top aid official has accused the international community of neglecting the food crisis in Niger. Some 150,000 children will die soon without aid, out of 2.5m who need food, said Jan Egeland. “Niger is the example of a neglected emergency, where early warnings went unheeded,” he told the BBC.The UN’s Niger appeal in May initially failed to attract a single pledge. But the government there has also sought to downplay the scale of the crisis. It has refused demands to distribute free food and has been criticised for not doing more to prepare for the food shortages.
Why is the world ignoring this crisis? The cold hard truth is:
1) We have bigger problems at hand, i.e. those that threaten more people in more areas than a localized problem.
2) Because we’ve donated billions to Africa in the past and have almost nothing to show for it.
3) Because is keeping thousands or even millions just barely alive really worth it? This is the Terry Schiavo case on a country-wide scale. Next year the same will happen. Perhaps a smaller population wouldn’t experience shortages. That or they need to move to an area with arable land and potable water.
A past post by Curzon, Fishing Rods Not Fish made similar suggestions. African poverty warriors begin from the faulty premise that what the world needs now is more generosity and good intentions. ComingAnarchy’s list of solutions so far are:
1) Ending the subsidies
2) Ending the brain drain
3) Hand up not a handout
I recall Thomas Barnett once posed the following question in response to criticism about the US’s interest in oil. Do you know what a country without oil looks like? Central Africa. And we know how well they are doing. Readers and poverty warriors, what further suggestions do you have for effectively ending, or at least reducing, poverty in Africa?
Get the RSS
Comments to this entry
Curzon
July 20, 2005
5:07 pm
Rarely is it as simple as droubt or shortage. Often there are political games going on, with those with the power demanding that their enemies surrender or starve. In these situations, food aid just strengthens those tyrants and decimates our credibility as an effective outside force. Might I recommend Kaplan's readings on this subject...
So we need to look at what's happening in Niger very carefuly. Money and aid may be necessary, but we don't want to throw it at the problem blindly. We have a growing security relationship with Niger, and it's important that we not let that unnaturally upset whatever aid and support we give the current government.
Chief Wiggum
July 20, 2005
11:31 pm
Curzon is right. It may very well be that a "surrender or starve" scenario is being played out in Niger.
Dan
July 21, 2005
2:42 am
Discouraging Africans from migrating to the West, where their power is greatly leveraged by capital, is a good thing??
snow
July 21, 2005
2:50 am
Chirol
July 21, 2005
11:46 am
Dan: I was taking that from a previous post, not saying I agree. Brain drain is inevitable and could onlybe reversed or slowed over a long period of time.
Anonymous Coward
July 23, 2005
5:30 pm
Because the government there is completely corrupt and let its ppl starve for a few more millions from other countries. What, you're surprised that your fucking money got wasted by "Africa"? Get to the point, who misused the money?? NGOs try so often to get this money directly to protect it from governmental misuse and stealing as it is so often the case here, but on the national level, it's usually donated. You have failed states all over the place, but to sit on your fat back, choke on potatos chips and say ppl shouldn't help in the face of hordes of dying poor ppl is complete first-world attitude bullshit.
Your country too was build with black blood, you owe them, but since there's no oil and not everywhere ressources, lets say diamonds, you and almost every other nations rather chooses to sit back and see three thirds die from hunger and aids!
You want to know what's neccessary to improve the situation?
1. Get serious with the Democratization aim, get the dictatorships away from power and install rule of the ppl - will need military action in many cases, therefore not popular with the first world
2. eliminate corruption and introduce first world structures for free institutions like the media and the government - will need lots of money, therefore again not popular with the first world
3. get medicine against aids to the ppl YESTERDAY or most of them will have to die and the rest will spill into europes and americas borders pulling them down, too - again not popular since the parmacy companies lobby hard enough to keep prices high enough
4. disarm the whole fucking continent. africans were able to buy weapons for decades and the US, Germany, Russia and everybody of the big manufucktures was happy with it. now, small arms are one of the biggest threats to security - still long after aids, but then, hey, who's counting anyway? - and forbid weapons exports! Again, not popular for obvious reasons.
5. so much more, but since you think this is only a fucking local problem, so do many others and not much will change - it will be you all back when the shit starts cooking up for real, give it 20 years. That's your number 3), just wait and see where they'll find the arable land and water.
Any questions?
Kenneth
July 23, 2005
6:39 pm
Good god. Democracy isn't a cure-all for political instability- that was the miscalculation made by the architects of the Weimar Republic- but something that can only emerge under the right conditions,ie, a high level of socioeconomic development. This is evinced by the fact that all the countries that have gone from third world to first world (Singapore, for instance) or generally have greatly improved their economic lot, have been authoritarian.
_2. eliminate corruption and introduce first world structures for free institutions like the media and the government "“ will need lots of money, therefore again not popular with the first world_
And how, praytell, are we going to do this in a timely and non-costly manner on a continent that is unstable from the ground up? We'd have to cut deep into the budget for social programs, education, ect for what would be chancy at best (getting Africa out of the crapper). We'd also have to effectively recolonize the place to ensure that it was done.
_3. get medicine against aids to the ppl YESTERDAY or most of them will have to die and the rest will spill into europes and americas borders pulling them down, too "“ again not popular since the parmacy companies lobby hard enough to keep prices high enough_
Oh yes, these Africans are definetely going to begin a mass migration across either the Atlantic or the Sahara and Mediterrean, despite completely lacking the resources, both financial and physical, to do so. Logic 101!
_4. disarm the whole fucking continent. africans were able to buy weapons for decades and the US, Germany, Russia and everybody of the big manufucktures was happy with it. now, small arms are one of the biggest threats to security "“ still long after aids, but then, hey, who's counting anyway? "“ and forbid weapons exports! Again, not popular for obvious reasons._
But how the friggin hell are we gonna do that!? Much weaponry is in the hands of warlords and guerrillas, of which there are many, meaning that we would have to undertake many intensive search-and-find efforts that may or may not succeed. As well, debarring the sale of arms to Africa would drive the price of them way up, which would induce shady weapons companies or terrorist organizations to sell them weapons. This would actually be a lot worse than what we have now, since we couldn't monitor the flow of arms. _The Law of Unintended Consequences!_ There is, however, a potential upside in that they'd get somewhat more primitive weaponry, but it isn't really worth it.
_5. so much more, but since you think this is only a fucking local problem, so do many others and not much will change "“ it will be you all back when the shit starts cooking up for real, give it 20 years. That's your number 3), just wait and see where they'll find the arable land and water._
Worse case scenario: Africa collapses completely, but with a marginal impact on the developed world given its comparative economic unimportance.
_Any questions?_
As a matter of fact, yes:
1. How much is this going to cost?
2. What are the odds of success?
3. Were you iodine deficient as a child? You sound retarded.
Kenneth
July 23, 2005
6:48 pm
Chirol
July 24, 2005
11:09 am
Anon Coward: I find it interesting you advocate disarming the continent. You must therefore agree that the only possible way to do that is through military intervention. Surely millions of soldiers in armed militias aren't simply going to wait in line to trade their AK47's for harmonicas. Perhaps a few, but overall it wouldn't make a difference, thus do you favor militarily intervening in such cases in order to save the population from brutal dictators and or armies? And since your comment essentially says you do favor that, are you in favor of the war in Iraq where the same argument was made?