A ridiculous article.
How can it pretend to address the underlying cause of Africa's desperate needs, when it ignores the scale of the ever-increasing numbers having them.
There is no reference to the 1992 Cairo conference which identified the most important step in addressing such needs - one which focused on enabling women to have some choice in their lives, especially that relating to their own fertility.
While Africa continues to increase its population at the present rate (doubling in about one generation)attempts at help which ignore that fact are whistling in the wind. In fact it is worse than that - it takes attention away from what needs to be done.
In 1950 world population was some 2.5 billion, now in 2005 it is about 6.5. We all face high and increasing pressure on environmental resources and social cohesion as a result. Africa, already under grave population pressure, with a rate of natural increase of 2.4 per cent, is in the vanguard of these advancing problems.

I wouldn't call the article ridiculous by any means. Whilst the issue of fertility is important, it won't have much of an impact on what is happening today, Wednesday 13th July 2005. Prevention of a future problem is necessary, but a cure to the current problem is just as important.

Irrespective of who the contributors to African poverty, and indeed any third world poverty, are, perhaps it is the responsibility of the developed nations to assist. If we want to do something long-term, perhaps we could set up infrastructure and create conditions of funding related to environmental protection (and not in contracts with US companies) to stop desperate people woodchipping forests, etc. to make a meagre income. We benefit because it means we may all still be able to breathe the air in 50 years time, etc.

It doesn't seem wise to dismiss an article because it fails to highlight a certain point. Sure, women's rights are important but so are the points raised in the article. The causes of poverty are multi-faceted and so are the solutions.

I tend to view rapid population growth as exacerbating the effects of poverty rather than as a root cause. Africa has the resources to trade itself out of poverty and become self-reliant if it weren't for the dictates of neoliberalism, the conditions attached to aid and debt relief, and global trade policies that favour the rich over the poor. It is this that allows western multinationals to make obscene profits through the exploitation of Africa's natural resources at the expense of the poor and their continued dependence on handouts, and sadly it is this that is set to follow. A poor family of three suffers, just as a poor family of sixteen suffers, albeit on a greater scale. The point is, the structural causes of poverty remain no matter what the scale of the problem is. The increasing scale simply makes it more pressing and urgent.

The comments made by Timmy83 reminds me of a proposal made recently by Joseph Stiglitz, who put forward the notion that developed countries should pay developing countries (as part of their aid programmes) in equatorial regions NOT to chop down their rainforests for foreign currency and instead set up conservation programmes, as these forests represent major carbon sinks. Good idea.

Mbd, be careful when you say “allows western multinationals to make obscene profits through the exploitation of Africa's natural resources at the expense of the poor and their continued dependence on handouts.”
It sounds like that the Africans nations are helpless and cannot deal with the MultiNats. Why would that be? They are just as capable as any one else. Lets not think that because they are not Caucasian they cannot trade on equal footing. Sounds almost racist.
Asia has/is doing it. How soon we forget where Asian countries were just a few decades ago.

Africa’s troubles are a mix of several issues. But external influences e.g. aid, debt relief are harder to manipulate and are not always going to be there. But what Africans can try to influence are the local factors such as fertility, environmental factors, tribal warfare as well as bad governance. I mean who is exploiting who when Ethiopia spend more % GDP on defence (defence against what?) than the US. South Africa is increasing spending on defence when AIDs is hitting hard. Africans can at least tackle these issues by correcting priorities

Looking back it is no surprise that the ascent of globalisation in the late 1970s, the return of the old grab-all free-market, "the get big or get out" economic catchcry, not only has seen increasing problems in the genuine third world - not including the tiger economies of south-East Asia - but more so in black Africa. Even in Islamic North Africa, there is a studied case of Algerian tomato growers who formerly exported tomatoes to European buyers. But they began to lose out when the free-market allowed European nations to grant loans to European producers to build hothouses to produce better and cheaper tomatoes than North Africa.

To be sure apart from changes in World Bank lending conditions, most of it is caused by low-down dirty economics by the US and the EU, who as well as allowing loans to buld expensive hothouses, are ruining the original principles of the WTO with massive subsidies to their farmers.

Certainly Australian farmers are hurting somewhat with America and Europe practising downright economic robbery with their market stealing through agricultural protection, but while such so far is only an annoying hurt to Australia, to black Africa, it becomes a festering incurable sore. Bushbred-WA

Big Fish,

You took my comment completely the wrong way. I never brought up the issue of race, and I'm left wondering how you came to that conclusion and what exactly you're inferring. That's quite a leap.

Of course the people of Africa are just as capable as any other peoples of the world, that goes without saying. My point is that developing countries cannot trade on equal footing when the world's rich and powerful decide the rules - rules that are designed to maintain the status quo and ensure the world's resources remain in the hands of the few. I mean, once upon a time water was considered a basic human right but now it is being forcibly turned into a commodity for western corporations to sell back to local populations at unaffordable prices.

It's a severely unbalanced playing field in terms of global trade, and the odds are stacked highly against developing countries. It is exactly because there is no equal footing that African countries cannot compete, not because they are black.

But it is obvious from the outcome of the g-8 summit that the world's richest countries are only interested in maintaining their privileged and powerful position by adding conditions to aid and debt relief that will only keep developing countries in the same cycle of poverty. This is what I meant when I said "their continued dependence on handouts", because it is my opinion that this is exactly what g8 countries want. Such dependence provides a powerful lever of control over the governments of developing countries, something their not willing to give up easily, as it provides access to these country's vast resources and subsequent huge profits that have little to no benefit for the local population, not to mention the local environment.

You make valid points with regards to problems of bad governance and corruption, etc, but it seems you are falling into that category mentioned in the article - "Africans need to fix these problems before rich countries can do anything".

Rich countries can start by levelling the playing field.