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.

Let's narrow it down a bit about the possible contributors to African poverty. We can at least rule out Sir Bob G and Bono. A country/continent that has been exploited ever since being discovered by the rest of the world, exploited by the "enlightened West". Having now been raped and pillaged by the First World, it is now devoid of any resources coveted by the West and now left to its own devices. Reduced to a beggar status, where they rely on celebrities and rock concerts to maintain them at barely starvation level. A poverty disaster with bad governments with sanctioned, incompetent, fanatical despots ruling. What does Africa need from the outside world? More handouts, a benevolent dictatorship? Debt relief? There is great work going on re the grass roots level, but nobody cares about Africa unless it's shoved in our face. They seem to be the disabled infant of the global village. I have no answers, but to keep hacking back to past history as to why it's the way it is provides no answers on how she can move forward anyway. I would love Africa to surge ahead without being hideously industrialised.

I think the quick dismissal of corruption as a key part of the problem is too superficial. Another explanation for the decline since the 80's is that the economic reforms and change in loan types were petrol on the flames of the private corruption and public incompetence that were smouldering away in the background. Similar reforms in China and Russia have similarly accelerated corruption, but the devastating effects have been offset by vast economic resources, well established social services and infrastructure, temperate climates, and lots of foreign investment and corporate reform.

Globalisation has contributed to Africa's woes by freeing up and expanding markets for natural assets such as diamonds, minerals, oil, fish, and timber. This has made illegal asset stripping easier and faster. Rapid growth in China, India, Russia etc have recently increased demand for cheap resources, no questions asked about their provenance. Globalisation has also made it easier for stolen African capital to flow out to more prosperous economies.

I imagine the change in loan structure also facilitates theft - it would be easier to identify corrupt use of short term credit for specific purposes, and harder to see if large long term loans for vague structural reform had been pilfered.

Either way, the reform of economic institutions advocated by Michael would be very beneficial provided it were accompanied by a strong emphasis on reducing corruption and increasing government competence and accountability. Without this we will just get more Zimbabwes - a relatively prosperous nation ruined in a few years by the corruption and incompetence of its own government; we can't blame that on the IMF, G8, World Bank, multinationals, or neoliberal and neoconservative elites.

Why did you not blame the Tooth Fairy?

How about about six hundred or more years of history or go back a bit further. Why are people that write these articles so incapable of looking back about five historical minutes. Why don't we get really superficial.

Any mention of geography, parasitic diseases, climate, and cultural factors? I did not major in geopolitics but I did parasitology and tropical medicine. What were things like before Henry the Navigator got the boys out with compass and astrolobe to start snooping around Africa? Were the noble Africans all living like kings. Were the Arabs trading in slaves then. What of North Africa and even the links with India etc.
Get real. Go brush up your Ladybird Book of African history and do another draft.

"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."

Just another thought: who are the main suppliers of arms to these governments in the first place? You can rest assured that G-8 countries are at the top of the list, and there's a long and continuing campaign by international NGO's to put an end to such arms trade which only fuels these conflicts even more. This is not to say that African governments are devoid of all responsibility, and i'm sure other countries such as China would jump in to fill the gap in the event of Western countries putting a stop to such arms trade. But that's no excuse to continue a shameful business as usual.

The US spends 30 times more on defence than it does for development programmes. I dare say the figure is similar for the rest of the G-8 countries. The US accounts for almost half of global military spending, more than the combined total of the 32 next most powerful nations. What does that say about US priorities?

Yes, corruption is a big problem. Just look at Shell in Nigeria. It is estimated that they have drilled $30 billion worth of oil since the 1950's while today 70% of the population live on less than $1 a day. When people began to protest the fact that their resource-rich country was so poor, corrupt government elites simply hanged dissenters to protect their super-rich lifestyles. Yet how much responsibility also lies with Shell for these human rights abuses? Western governments and companies have a long history of propping up corrupt elites in power to ensure 'stability' and a 'favourable investment environment'.

The waters become even muddier when, for example, a woman who was peacefully protesting the bulldozing of her crops in preparation for a Shell pipeline is shot dead by Nigerian troops called in by Shell. Or when villages are destroyed by Nigerian soldiers in helicoptors and boats owned by Chevron.

Well, why don't you enlighten us then Big O? Contribute rather than slag off on the sidelines. So far all posters are making sense. What's your take?

The decline of Africa started with the the expulsion of their colonial masters.Africa is just going back to the reality of pre-colonial times.

There is a price for civilisation ie work ethic,discipline,sacrifice for family,education,ethics in business, sense of fairness etc.

We in the west are losing these values and may well go the way of Africa.

I thought I raised some important historical, medical, and geopolitical clues to the causes of poverty in Africa which in any case is a large bit of real estate. This is a forum where hopefully one may provide dissenting views in the western intellectual tradition.
To discuss these issues I have raised in 350 words is akin to a brief discussion on the meaning of life. Modern journalism tends to simplistic articles by mass educated people who know no history, have no sense of mentally rigorous arguments, precision or scholarship or have any sense of their own simplistic folly.
Africa is one of the most bountious regions on the planet. Uganda was once the jewel in the crown of the British Empire.

African poverty is caused by:-

1. Political corruption and failed institutions.
2. Poor property rights.
3. High taxes.

A farmer in ethiopia who makes an annual profit in excess of US$4000 faces a marginal tax rate of 89%. No wonder he/she does not invest in increased output. No wonder he/she does not produce excess income to save for the lean years. No wonder he/she starves when the rains don't come

When one talks about African poverty, what does one mean? Africa is a continent and not a company. The reasons are complex. How does one define poverty? Poverty of what? Read the Sermon on the Mount. The West has a poverty of spirit but a richness in material things. We must not impose materialism on any people. How did people in African regions live for tens of thousands of years? Were they always poor? What do you mean by poor?
The West imposes these key selection criteria on non-western countries. Were our Australian aborigines poor for 40,000 years? It is all relative and our value system is based on things, not families, social life, communal relationship with Nature, the environment or the Dreamtime.
So when you talk of poverty, tell me how well you know your neighbours, your street and your community, and divide the equation by the numbers of cars, dishwasher, and computers and give me the answer.

Give me a village well and a place where the old men can hold hands and talk and the old women make shawls.

Odysseus, although I understand what you're getting at, there's a danger in romanticising 'village life', or whatever you want to call it, as perfectly harmonious and free of worry and hardship. Not having enough to eat or watching family members die unnecessarily from preventable diseases would be a start in defining poverty. You say we must not impose materialism on anyone, but who are we to deny a tv or a computer to someone who can afford it? What if these things were used to promote and conserve local cultures and traditions? They don't neccessarily have to be conduits of crass western commericalism and hollywood celebrities.
The life of which you envisage sounds nice, but does it really exist? and who are we to dictate such a lifestyle? What about the agency of Aficans themselves? their desires and dreams for the future?

I totally agree. I have no romantic notions of life in "those days". On the other hand I think we impose what we think as "poverty" on other cultures. Is having a well rather than running water "poverty". When I was a boy in the country we had a man who collected the stinking dunny can every week and toilets were out the back yard even in winter and at night. Now in an Australia city, this would be regarded as a sign of "poverty". We are becoming obese and developing type 2 diabetes because we no longer have to split wood for the fire like my parents did, or ring out washing in a tub. Who is "poor". My uncle and aunt lived in a shed with a dirt floor for ten years out west while he was clearing his block in the bush for sheep.
I have been to "under-developed" (read...under-exploited) countries and think we have much to learn about our concepts of "poverty".

In our country it is often said the rich are getting richer and the poor, poorer but in reality, the richer are getting richer and the poor are getting richer. How many poor people in Oz don't have a car or a TV? It's all relative. Our government encourages us by taxation (or lack thereof) to have houses with three bathrooms and monogrammed bathmats. Perhaps we can't afford this too. Perhaps we are the poor rich.

I would regard starvation as a good indicator of poverty. When people die of hunger on mass you know that you definitely have some form of material poverty.

I still can't get over the fact that Ethiopian farmers pay a marginal tax rate of 89%. Its just so cruel and stupid

Mbd,
On one hand you say “of course they are as capable, that goes without saying” but then continue with western MultiNats and governments have pressured these governments, or have leverage because of aid and debt relief with conditions. Why would that be?
Why has Asia been different to Africa in development?
Resources do not move countries so governments must utilise the MultiNats which will be vying for a slice of the action for the best of the country (good governance). If they line their pockets or buy the latest weaponry for “defence” but health & education suffer. (bad governance)

As to the arms dealing. If I buy a gun from a store because a sales men said I need it when I do not and then I use it later against neighbours or, god forbid, family who should the jury convict? I suppose I believe in taking responsibility for one actions. Some errors can be forgiven as nobody is perfect but what we seeing in Africa are endemic.

The US spending much more on defence? They can afford it.

As to that tragic Shell and Chevron scenarios you mention. Either the government was bullied (bad governance but since we agree African people are just as capable as any other race, therefore unlikely) or the government wants the job done no matter the cost to the people it is meant to serve (bad, sorry, evil governance).
Interesting to note that just recently Venezuelan government has taken some MultiNats to task (legal raiding offices etc) about unpaid taxes – Good governance.

As to your comment “it seems you are falling into that category mentioned in the article - "Africans need to fix these problems before rich countries can do anything"
Please tell me where I said that?
Please read what people write not what you THINK they write.
Developed nations should help, but what is the most effective way for Africans to improve the success of any aid? See Terje posts for an interesting insight on that?

g'day Bigfish, I do read what other people write, and very carefully. Plenty of good points have been raised, and I'm simply taking the position I have to avoid repeating the valid and important points made by other posters, including yourself, on issues such as bad governance and corruption. I also agree that these are important points that need to be dealt with.

I never said you are actually part of "that category mentioned in the article - Africans need to fix these problems before rich countries can do anything". That's simply the impression I got from your previous postings, not a direct quote from them. I said "IT SEEMS you are falling into that category...." not that you are actually part of it, or said that you are part of it. Big difference. Please read what people write not what you THINK they write.

cont'd...

"...but then continue with western MultiNats and governments have pressured these governments, or have leverage because of aid and debt relief with conditions. Why would that be?"

I've already explained why I think that would be. But I'll reiterate once again. Have a look at what the G8 have actually said and the various documents they have produced concerning aid and debt relief. To qualify, these governments have to meet certain conditions before they receive anything. Much publicised was the conditions for good governance and democratic reforms - fair enough - but what passed virtually silently were the conditions demanding the opening up of the economies of these countries as well as increased liberalisation and privatisation of public services. It has been well documented that such conditions and policies (in tandem with local problems of corruption, warfare, etc) keep local populations in a cycle of poverty and despair. Once services such as health, education, and water are privatised, prices go up and people can no longer afford them. With privatisation, more and more power is sold off to multinationals, away from the hands of the people (so much for promoting democracy), while a handful of local elites get filthy rich. Maybe I'm being too cynical, but it just seems that the relationship between corrupt local elites and multinationals (and their respective governments) is just too cosy and convenient to give up.

Tell me, why do you think developing countries should have to compete on such an unequal playing field? It doesn't seem fair to me.

We all know the US can afford to spend what it likes on defence, that wasn't my point. Why can't it afford to increase its spending on foreign aid to a measly 0.7% of its GDP?

And finally, what if there were no gun stores in the first place? C'mon, where's the morality in profiting from selling arms to governments we know are involved in long running conflicts? Can’t you see the hypocrisy in promoting aid and good governance while at the same time supplying arms that contribute to poverty and suffering?

Mdb, wiggle wiggle, my previous postS. When untruths start to creep in I start wondering. One post actually on this forum, and if that single post gave the impression you say, (honestly, really) I suppose I will say sorry !!?

I thought the last paragraph said that Africa couldn’t influence external factors eg. developed countries aid, as greatly as its internal factors? Any way what ever you seem to think.
Have you noticed that I have not disagreed with you on the non-level playing field? Or the presence of evil MultiNats, Or the unfair conditions on aid? Developed countries can START DOING SOMETHING THERE! I hope that is clear.

I suppose a last comment or two from me for this forum since I have lost my passion for honest discussion on this. What is the true worth of all the aid given if governments do not utilise it and their precious budgets responsibly. And again I ask why has Asia and Africa development over the last 50 years been so different?

Bigfish, apologies if i'm the reason you've lost your passion for honest debate, only continued with my viewpoint because you again asked "why would that be?" not because i thought you disagreed with me outright, although there were some uncertainties on my part up until your last post, which perhaps informed my posts more than they should have. - which i guess highlights the difficulties of debating online, eg. lack of nuances in speech, long turn around time, lack of space, etc - which force you to form impressions based on scant info for the sake of an angle or viewpoint. thanks for picking me up on the plural, got carried away i guess. oops, blame youthful exuberance.

"What is the true worth of all the aid given if governments do not utilise it and their precious budgets responsibly?"

Not much. And at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I would ask:

What is the true worth of all the aid given if the conditions attached negate much of its good intentions before it even reaches these government's coffers?

At least we agree that both issues need to be tackled.

As for Asia/Africa disparities - good question that would require a complex answer. But I would start with differences in agricultural production - 'green revolution' in asia but not africa - and in climate conditions. Perhaps greater infrastructure and more entrenched political systems left over by colonial powers in Asia than in Africa?

Africa will remain doomed until African leaders stop playing ploitics with the fundamentally important issues of starvation, AIDS, and economic links with the west.
My father was born in Rhodesia in 1948, and watched as the world handed power to Robert Mugabe in 1980. He never wholly supported Ian Smith's politics, and truly believed that Zimbabwe had a bright multicultural future. However blind freddy could have predicted disaster. Mugabe was a terrorist not a freedom fighter. His Chinese trained ZANLA organisation murdered women, children, black and white with impunity. He pursued a program of mass murder against the Matabele whom had largely supported Joshua Nkomo's Russian backed ZIPRA.But still he was elevated as a prime candidate to lead the country ahead of many worthy candidates.
Today Mugabe commits the same attrocities against his people daily. Thabo Mbeki stands by as South Africa pursues appeasement with thugs in Burundi, Diamond Thieves in the Congo, and Angola's hardliners. All while most African leaders continue to maintain a fleet of mercedes, and deny that AIDS even exist-until recently the official line in Africa was that HIV was a 'white mans'ploy' to stop Africans breeding!
Yes MNC's actively court these corrupt relationships, and do relatively little to improve the plight of the average African. However what good could they do if African leaders continue to be whimps, thugs, and worms? It would be wonderful to see Sir Geldoff, and the WTO protesters banging on the gates of Robert Mugabes palacial estate in Harare...

MNCs are supposed to represent the interests of their shareholders. And on the whole they probably do.

African Leaders are in theory supposed to represent the interests of their people. Clearly they have a very poor track record