America and its Policy on Africa
Last week, President Bush ignored a plea from prime minister Tony Blair which called for a doubling of aid to Africa. Mr. Blair, along with other European leaders, believe that their nations ought to help give more aid to Africa in an effort to fight poverty and assist those dying from Aids.
According to Mr. Bush, the U.S. provides a generous amount of money already to African nations, and there is no room in the U.S. budget to assist any more. Be mindful, that we are too busy spending billions of dollars in Iraq in an attempt to 'spread democracy' to all nations. (the issue regarding whether it is our business to take on such a task is enough for a separate post)
Be that as it may, the facts are quite different. The total annual U.S. aid for all of Africa, according to the Los Angeles, is about $3 billion, which equals roughly two days of Pentagon spending.Among the leading causes of death in Frica are HIV/Aids, heart disease, poor nutrition, syphillis. Need any of us forget what happened in Rwanda?
Here is the question of the day: Should the U.S. be doubling its aid to Africa? Why are we turning our back on Africa and not on countries like Iraq? Is our failure to help Africa a means of depriving the nations of democracy that Mr. Bush feels is so necessary to assist those in the world?
Thank you for your minds.
According to Mr. Bush, the U.S. provides a generous amount of money already to African nations, and there is no room in the U.S. budget to assist any more. Be mindful, that we are too busy spending billions of dollars in Iraq in an attempt to 'spread democracy' to all nations. (the issue regarding whether it is our business to take on such a task is enough for a separate post)
Be that as it may, the facts are quite different. The total annual U.S. aid for all of Africa, according to the Los Angeles, is about $3 billion, which equals roughly two days of Pentagon spending.Among the leading causes of death in Frica are HIV/Aids, heart disease, poor nutrition, syphillis. Need any of us forget what happened in Rwanda?
Here is the question of the day: Should the U.S. be doubling its aid to Africa? Why are we turning our back on Africa and not on countries like Iraq? Is our failure to help Africa a means of depriving the nations of democracy that Mr. Bush feels is so necessary to assist those in the world?
Thank you for your minds.
39 Comments:
I think this is a question for Bush -- you know, the person who considers all life to be so sacred. The US gives less than half of one percent of its gross national income to development assistance. I also wonder why we are spending billions--or even trillions--(Barbara, I had to chuckle when I saw that you wrote "millions" -- a bit of an understatement) in killing thousands of people in Iraq -- uh, I mean spreading democracy, while pretty much ignoring everyone else.
I know there will be people who will come on and bring up Clinton. The reason I have such a problem with Bush is mainly due to what I see as his hypocrisy. I don't think he cares a flip about your average Iraqi citizen.
Barbara, now that you're computer-savvy with your Astro Pez and all, you can go to costofwar.com and add the little icon to your blog. Or, just go there and take a look at what the money in Iraq could have been spent on. For example, insuring 105,579,252 children for one year. Or providing scholarships for public universities to 8,547,485 students. (And no, I am not naive enough to think that if we hadn't started a war that this is where the money would actually go, but it's interesting to see the amount of good that could come out of it if someone who truly cared about the "culture of life" -- there's that phrase again! -- had the power.)
meegan,
I agree with your assessment.
Thank you for noticing the error...it was not my attempt to be ironic, but my typing skillls (or lack thereof, as the case may be...) Thanks..
I am totally with you on this. I can't believe we're not doing more to help in Africa when we're spending so much money in Iraq.
This can be such a painful subject. As Meegan stated, there is so much good that could come from the riches of our country if we were only to focus on helping the rest of the world rather than imposing our will on others through force.
The United States as a country is not, in my opinion, a very generous nation. Sure if you just look at the dollar amount that we give to other nations we frequently come out near the top. But when compared as a percentage of our GNP it looks much more paltry.
The people of the United States on the other hand are very generous hearted. Whenever there is a crisis, be it small and local or huge and global we always reach into our pockets, search through our closets and volunteer our time and energy to help those in need. I think if more people were made aware of the full extent and severity of the crisis in Africa and were made to realize how our government falls short there might be a wave of pressure put on our government to step up to the plate.
Unfortunately, the media chooses to focus on important issues like Michael Jackson instead of educating our population on the true state of our globe.
You ask why we turn our back on Africa and not on Iraq? That's simple. OIL.
Don't you wonder if Tony Blair ever does cost/risk analysis on his "friendship" with Bush? Seems like Mr. Blair doesn't get all that much -- politically or any other way -- out of it. Should the U.S. be doubling its aid to Africa? Yes. But we can't afford it, because of the money and blood being spent in Iraq. Why are we turning our back on Africa and not on countries like Iraq? Because Africa is not a major oil producer. Is our failure to help Africa a means of depriving the nations of democracy that Mr. Bush feels is so necessary to assist those in the world? Ah well, there's democratization and there's democratization. I refer you to earlier comment re oil.
I just have a comment on aid to Africa- or aid to any nations "in need". first of all it is a HUGE subject with many interconnected issues but mainly what I think should be done is:
instead of just pouring money into these nations, countries like the US shoule be putting more programs in place that would help these nations to self rehabilitate. I understand that they do exsist already in some form- but there should be more of them.
maybe even something as simple as a website to sell all the artisan stuff-- just a juvenile idea but i'm sure would make a HUGE difference for some villages...
but the main idea is to fix certain issues within the countries, like war... and more trade opportunities would be more helpful than the billions of dollare that are only accomplishing the growth of debt--
We don't help Africa because,
1. They don't have oil.
2. They are black.
You cannot help someone else when you yourself need help. Let us put our own self interest first and when we have no poverty, AIDS, homeless, un-wed parents, univerisal health care, and a good education available for everyone, then we can offer aid to others.
Am I selfish for wanting to take care of us first?
Niobium, yes that sounds very selfish to me. I've never understood that way of thinking.
Meegan,
If your ill with cancer, say, and getting chemo, how can your care for a toddler effectively? You cannot. You need to heal yourself before you can care for someone elses needs.
It's time we took care of ourselves and solved our own problems. Then we can help others.
For me, the issue is not one of helping ourselves v. helping other countries. That is compariing apples with oranges, in my humble opinion. The question becomes, why do we spend so much money on countries, and deny Africa? This is not a new issue as the U.S. has been turning its back for years now.
I raise it in the context of Bush's mythology, that he is spreading democracy to the world. Somehow, poverty, aids, and other illnesses do not fall within this definition for him. Again, a contradiction, to me.
Niobium, I don't see much relevance in your cancer example. You said, "It's time we took care of ourselves and solved our own problems. Then we can help others." How do we even begin to figure out what our "problems" are? What I consider to be a problem and what you consider to be a problem could be two conflicting things. Who decides when we're "healed" and do you honestly think that will ever happen? Sorry if this is getting off topic, but this seems really bizarre to me.
Barbara, our posts crossed but getting back to the topic, yes, I agree that it's a contradiction. That's why it's so frustrating.
Not to mention how this entire subject fits into Bush's idea about the culture of life. He indicates that life is so important, but as you have pointed out, meegan, it seems that lives in being, up to the first 9 months have more importantce for this administration than lives as they exist in poverty, illness, helplessness on a world-wide basis.
I posted about this on my own blog.
cool! ;)
scott and the craig:
Are you denying that (1) Africa is in need of money for poverty and illness from HIV/Aids, and (2) that the Mr. Bush did not side-step this issue recently with Mr. Blair? There is an excellent article in this Sundays LOS ANGELES TIMES dealing directly with this very issue.
Well, he wasn't quite elected TWICE, now was he? He was appointed the first time by an activist judiciary, as I remember.
according to the article in the LA Times, Mr. Blair's plan is to provide about $50 billion a year to Africa by 2010, with the U.S. kicking in $15 billion to 20 billion. This does not contradict your statistics, which you do not mention where they are from, but my point is, is this amount really enough?
Not being a politican, or historian, I do not know the population of Africa and how it compares to Iraq, but my educated guess is that there are millions of Africans who die yhoung, go hungry and are victims of HIV/Aids.
Ultimately, it is a matter of what you think is important.
So you know, I call all men Mr. and women Ms. It takes too much time to spell out other pronouns, but I see m's point, and it is well taken!
Africa has nothing we want. Plain and simple.
One of the very first things Bush did in 2000 was to CUT ALL AID to any group that offered "family planning services". You know, because only married people should have sex and all others should just not do it. In this view, birth control devices are a waste of forigen aid because only married people would do the nasty and ONLY when they wanted a baby.
So, little or nothing has been done by the USA to stop the spread of AIDS in Africa. The evangelicals still look at Aids as "gay cancer" (as idiots called it here in the 80s...out loud) and as mystical punishment for having sex. Totally ignoring the fact that for many women in the poorest nations - selling sex is about the ONLY WAY they can get food. It is not like there is a Wal-Mart where they can get a minimum wage job in the middle of a war torn desert.
And not that I am a huge fan of Bubba, but remember Somilia? Clinton sent troops there to stabilize that nation and prevent the warlords (TERRORISTS) from stealing all the forigen aid food. When the USA went after one really nasty warlord/terrorist, some hellicoptors were shot down. What did the republican congress demand? That the USA CUT AND RUN. They said that Clinton oversteped his authority and that only congress had the power to declare war. Also, the general public (pre 9-11) was not into the whole idea of more troops being sent.
And then it was a scandal. Slick Willie who never served in the military sending troops off to be killed for pure political reasons. We should all be mad as hell!
Totally not like today, with a strong leader for a president that may have skipped out of his cushy national guard duty. NO WAY! No scandal here!
Now we have a war in Iraq WITHOUT a formal decleration from Congress and that is fine. Anyone who suggests that there needs to be an exit stragety wants to cut and run. And everything is STILL CLinton's fault because he allowed all "this" to happen and did nothing about it.
And meanwhile, the public has been dummied down enough by cuts to public education that only the "ivroy tower elite" can put 2 and 2 together.
Iguana has made some excellent points about the family issues, and the notion that AIDS is like gay cancer.
What I want to know, again, is how does this square with Bush's position that he is so sympathetic with preserving life???????????????????????????????????????? (ad infinitem)
No I cannot tell you how much would eliminate poverty, disease, or any other malidity that you discuss, which, you seem to know. The point being made is whether the amount offerred by the U.S. is enough money, or if some how, we are continuing to turn our heads on Africa because they have nothing to offer us in terms of resources, and because they are a nation made up of Blacks.
No I cannot tell you how much would eliminate poverty, disease, or any other malidity that you discuss, which, you seem to know. The point being made is whether the amount offerred by the U.S. is enough money, or if some how, we are continuing to turn our heads on Africa because they have nothing to offer us in terms of resources, and because they are a nation made up of Blacks.
No I cannot tell you how much would eliminate poverty, disease, or any other malidity that you discuss, which, you seem to know. The point being made is whether the amount offerred by the U.S. is enough money, or if some how, we are continuing to turn our heads on Africa because they have nothing to offer us in terms of resources, and because they are a nation made up of Blacks.
No I cannot tell you how much would eliminate poverty, disease, or any other malidity that you discuss, which, you seem to know. The point being made is whether the amount offerred by the U.S. is enough money, or if some how, we are continuing to turn our heads on Africa because they have nothing to offer us in terms of resources, and because they are a nation made up of Blacks.
No I cannot tell you how much would eliminate poverty, disease, or any other malidity that you discuss, which, you seem to know. The point being made is whether the amount offerred by the U.S. is enough money, or if some how, we are continuing to turn our heads on Africa because they have nothing to offer us in terms of resources, and because they are a nation made up of Blacks.
No I cannot tell you how much would eliminate poverty, disease, or any other malidity that you discuss, which, you seem to know. The point being made is whether the amount offerred by the U.S. is enough money, or if some how, we are continuing to turn our heads on Africa because they have nothing to offer us in terms of resources, and because they are a nation made up of Blacks
I have to agree with Scott here on the race issue. That does seem to have come from out in left field somewhere.
Wow...What happened to that comment...It is appearing in multiples.
In any event, my comments, and this post, are not meant to pit Bush against Clinton, or the U.S. against other countries. The racist connotations that some have discovered, are not meant to be racist in the least. Those who know me or my posts will certainly attest to my fairness about this issue.
My comments are meant to show that a problem exists and that there is a huge disparity between what we give in aid to Africa and what we spend our money on both here and for other countries. Moreover, there is a disparity between what England promisses to Africa, by way of aid, and what our government has given.
Scott,
"Bush, however, announced that the United States will provide $674 million in additional resources "to respond to humanitarian emergencies in Africa," specifically the famine in Ethiopia and Eritrea."
Isn't it PRESIDENT Bush?
One thing I've noticed here is that we keep refering to "Africa" as if it is one nation. It's a continent so how can we compare aid sent to Japan and aid sent to Africa.
Is there any other continent that we send money to?
They were talking about aid sent FROM Japan to Africa, not aid sent to Japan.
scott,
why is the issue of private giving so important in your opinion? Does it, to some extent, take the shift off the responsibility of our nation to respond to these issues as well? To me, private funding is in a class all by itself, which does not underestimate nor downplay it, but it just seems to have little relevance to the question asked about this administration.
I vote we become isolationist again. Not a popular idea in an era where most of us have been trained by our educational establishments to believe that we are to be world citizens.
Regarding evangelicals and "gay cancer" -- I can only point to two specific projects I am personally working with: Rick Warren's PEACE plan in which he is working directly with Paul Kagame, President of Rwanda, to start putting in place procedures for education and to treat those affected and infected by AIDS. Pastor Warren is also locking hands with Pastor Herb Lusk in Philadelphia, whose organization includes Stand for Africa -- and he has met with Condoleeza Rice, Bono and several other high-profiled individuals to discuss how the Philadelphia Christian community can come together to address the AIDS crisis. I realize those are only two evangelical leaders, but they are bringing hundreds of others on board to take aid and money and resources into those villages. It is estimated that in 2010, there will be more than 45 million AIDS orphans -- that is a number greater than African Americans in the US today. A population that size who has grown up without any supervision or education or structure is a national security risk for that entire region. Again, I can only speak for the couple of programs I have been personally involved in, but please don't make BROAD sweeping statements that THE evangelical community is not putting any effort toward this -- it couldn't be further from the truth.
Craig
As the Nike commercial says, "Just do it."
Seriously, it would be difficult only because we have allowed ourselves to be possessed by other nations. But, it certainly would be easily accomplished in stages.
First, you withdraw the troops.
Second, you secure the borders and deport illegal aliens.
Third, you use trade tariffs to make American made products more desirable to purchase within the USA.
Etc., etc., etc.
Whit, I find the term 'gay cancer' to be deliberately offensive, and misleading. Although there is no doubt that many gay people have it (and I don't deny that it is due to their lifestyle choice), there are those who have contracted it innocently (i.e. through the blood supply) or through heterosexual intercourse.
snicksnack -- I find it equally offensive, and I realize that I didn't reference it appropriately -- it was in response to "lazy iguana" mention of the phrase and characterion of the evangelical mindset to look at AIDS with that lens on. I in no way think of it as a "gay cancer" and in my haste to post, I got sloppy.
Thank you for pointing out my error in not referencing it properly. It is indeed a misnomer and is a terrible, hurtful phrase.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home