I’ve been thinking about Africa

A lot of people are these days, it’s all over the news – this famine, that genocide. It’s gotten so it’s hard to keep track. It’s just always there, in the background, the white noise that’s unpleasant, but you live with it.

Tony Blair is in Washington today to try to convince George Bush to give more money to Africa. Bush won’t do this, because he and his ideological ilk believe that handouts, whether to countries or individuals, are inherently evil, and only create dependency. In the case of Africa in particular, they believe that the donations are eaten up by corruption, and do nothing to help those really in need.

That’s true, of course – to an extent. We all know that aid doesn’t necessarily have to go to governments, that there are plenty of successful extra-governmental programs, independent aid groups and the like. Heck, we could even use our own people – increase investment in the Peace Corps., for starters.

Conservatives also argue that the US gives more money in aid to Africa than any other country on the planet - US aid to Africa has tripled since Bush has been in office. Liberals argue that the US gives just 0.025% of its GDP in aid to Africa – one of the lowest rates in the world. I would wager that which measurement you favor could predict who you voted for last November.

So, let’s agree. Corrupt governments in Africa fritter away aid dollars – making direct aid to many of the governments in the region useless.

But can we also agree that Africa is in a deep, deep mess?

OK, great, I think most of you are still with me. Now, here’s where I get controversial:

Helping Africa is not only morally good, but also in our interest.

I was just watching a review of a recently released (or soon to be released) documentary film which tells the story of Lt. Gen. Roméo A. Dallaire, the general who commanded the UN “peacekeeping” force sent to Rwanda to stop the genocide there. In his own words the general said he had “failed” in his mission, and that he had “tried his best” gave him no consolation. He puts the blame squarely on an ineffectual UN.

Just as conservatives say: the UN has lost its relevancy. It’s powerless. Except that his argument was that the national interests of member countries (he uses the plural, and doesn’t mention the US explicitly) got in the way of more UN action.

Conservatives say that the US shouldn’t send soldiers to this region of Africa or the other because “that’s the UN’s job”, and then turn around and tell you that the US shouldn’t donate more troops to the UN because they wouldn’t be under the command of US generals. They know that the UN would be handicapped without US troops, and I think they realize this. Which is why they throw up their hands and say, “Aw heck, they’d go on killin’ each other anyway. They’re just crazy. Let them go on killin’ each other.”

This of course is not true, and in no way solves the problem.

But really, in 1994, while the Rwandan genocide was happening, we all were resigned to that attitude to one degree or another. Hand-wringing doesn’t count as fighting for a cause. At the time I hardly knew it was going on.

That is my fault. I should have done more. I couldn’t have written a letter?

Dear Bill,

Send more troops to Rwanda!

Yours,
Gustav

Truth is, most of us weren’t in the mood after what had recently happened in Somalia. But 800,000 people were slaughtered because of it. We could have stopped it, and because we didn’t we all bear responsibility.

[Bush and Blair are now on television, giving their statements. Blair makes his argument convincingly, and I hope that his clout with the American people can help him convince a few folks. Bush, taking a question about why the US doesn’t double its aid to Africa, blathers on about those countries trading fairly and opening their markets when he knows full well that the US doesn’t trade fairly with those countries either.]

The deep, deep shit that Africa is in doesn’t bode well for the continent, but it endangers the rest of the world too. In conditions of dire poverty, little education, and military chaos, religious extremism prospers. There are well over 600 million people in Africa. That makes for a lot of future terrorists. Do our grandchildren deserve to pay with their lives for our inaction?

Of course, if you’re looking for a positive incentive, look at it as 600 million potential trading partners we could gain.

It seems to me then, that even conservatives should agree that Africa needs both military aid – to halt current conflicts and prevent future ones – and financial aid – to alleviate hunger, fight disease, raise education standards and build infrastructure.

The question is: How do we do it?

I’m not picky. I understand that conservatives are wary of trusting an organization not fully under US control – and nobody wants to entrench our boys in some gigantic African quagmire. So how do we get the troops there?

I also don’t care how the financial aid gets to the people, so long as it translates into tangible improvements in life. Whether it’s through responsible governments or compassionate aid organizations doesn’t matter, but it’s got to begin making a much larger impact. Africa will need some 60 billion dollars in aid by 2015. How do we pay for it?

Under what conditions would you support increasing aid significantly more than what the US is now giving?

Under what conditions would you support sending a significant contingent of US troops to halt a conflict in Africa?

How do we make sure that Africa doesn’t become one giant boiling cauldron of terrorism? And how do we improve life there?