WANT TO HELP ME? DON'T HELP ME!
Like Bob Geldof, Bono, Madonna, Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, that British guy Gwyneth Paltrow is married to and just about every other wealthy liberal in the world, the Episcopal Church thinks that the way to help Africa is to send it a whole lot of money:
“We believe the time is now to stand together as communities of faith, and people of conscience, and embrace our poorest sisters and brothers in the global community,” reads a portion of the petition published on the internet. The petition states further that its principles apply “both [to] those living in well-run economies and those not so fortunate.”
Episcopalians for Global Reconciliation is the umbrella network for bishops, clergy and laity who have mobilized to obtain commitments from all church institutions to dedicate 0.7% of their budget toward a global economic plan to end poverty known as Millennium Development Goals (MDG). The fraction of 1 percent is used as a benchmark, because economists theorize that if 0.7 percent of the developed nations’ annual wealth was dedicated to eradicating global poverty it would be possible to realize the MDGs.
In January 2003, a core group of bishops and presenters from the 2001 meeting re-convened in Cambridge, Mass., with a multi-generational group of like-minded clergy and lay leaders to live into their mutual commitment to “waging global reconciliation,” according to a historical account published on the organization’s website.
This gathering acknowledged that over the past century, the Episcopal Church has had a leading role in the social gospel movement in the United States and beyond, mobilizing in support of civil rights and raising issues of nuclear arms, human rights, and debt relief. The Episcopal Church has worked on a global scale and generated a sense of connectedness and shared purpose with its Anglican and other faith partners in pursuit of justice and peace.
The German publication Der Spiegel asked Kenyan economist James Shikwati about this idea. BIG mistake, that one, as Shikwati demonstrates that Western aid hasn't aided much of anyone.
SPIEGEL: Mr. Shikwati, the G8 summit at Gleneagles is about to beef up the development aid for Africa...
Shikwati: ... for God’s sake, please just stop.
Stop? For God's sake? Talk about schadenfreude; the reporter's squirming desperation during this interview must have been positively delightful to watch. He kept hanging breaking ball after breaking ball and Shikwati kept jacking them into the outfield seats. Enjoy the rest of it:
SPIEGEL: Stop? The industrialized nations of the West want to eliminate hunger and poverty.
Shikwati: Such intentions have been damaging our continent for the past 40 years. If the industrial nations really want to help the Africans, they should finally terminate this awful aid. The countries that have collected the most development aid are also the ones that are in the worst shape. Despite the billions that have poured in to Africa, the continent remains poor.
SPIEGEL: Do you have an explanation for this paradox?
Shikwati: Huge bureaucracies are financed (with the aid money), corruption and complacency are promoted, Africans are taught to be beggars and not to be independent. In addition, development aid weakens the local markets everywhere and dampens the spirit of entrepreneurship that we so desperately need. As absurd as it may sound: Development aid is one of the reasons for Africa’s problems. If the West were to cancel these payments, normal Africans wouldn’t even notice. Only the functionaries would be hard hit. Which is why they maintain that the world would stop turning without this development aid.
SPIEGEL: Even in a country like Kenya, people are starving to death each year. Someone has got to help them.
Shikwati: But it has to be the Kenyans themselves who help these people. When there’s a drought in a region of Kenya, our corrupt politicians reflexively cry out for more help. This call then reaches the United Nations World Food Program -- which is a massive agency of apparatchiks who are in the absurd situation of, on the one hand, being dedicated to the fight against hunger while, on the other hand, being faced with unemployment were hunger actually eliminated. It’s only natural that they willingly accept the plea for more help. And it’s not uncommon that they demand a little more money than the respective African government originally requested. They then forward that request to their headquarters, and before long, several thousands tons of corn are shipped to Africa ...
SPIEGEL: ... corn that predominantly comes from highly-subsidized European and American farmers ...
Shikwati: ... and at some point, this corn ends up in the harbor of Mombasa. A portion of the corn often goes directly into the hands of unsrupulous politicians who then pass it on to their own tribe to boost their next election campaign. Another portion of the shipment ends up on the black market where the corn is dumped at extremely low prices. Local farmers may as well put down their hoes right away; no one can compete with the UN’s World Food Program. And because the farmers go under in the face of this pressure, Kenya would have no reserves to draw on if there actually were a famine next year. It’s a simple but fatal cycle.
SPIEGEL: If the World Food Program didn’t do anything, the people would starve.
Shikwati: I don’t think so. In such a case, the Kenyans, for a change, would be forced to initiate trade relations with Uganda or Tanzania, and buy their food there. This type of trade is vital for Africa. It would force us to improve our own infrastructure, while making national borders -- drawn by the Europeans by the way -- more permeable. It would also force us to establish laws favoring market economy.
SPIEGEL: Would Africa actually be able to solve these problems on its own?
Shikwati: Of course. Hunger should not be a problem in most of the countries south of the Sahara. In addition, there are vast natural resources: oil, gold, diamonds. Africa is always only portrayed as a continent of suffering, but most figures are vastly exaggerated. In the industrial nations, there’s a sense that Africa would go under without development aid. But believe me, Africa existed before you Europeans came along. And we didn’t do all that poorly either.
SPIEGEL: But AIDS didn’t exist at that time.
Shikwati: If one were to believe all the horrorifying reports, then all Kenyans should actually be dead by now. But now, tests are being carried out everywhere, and it turns out that the figures were vastly exaggerated. It’s not three million Kenyans that are infected. All of the sudden, it’s only about one million. Malaria is just as much of a problem, but people rarely talk about that.
SPIEGEL: And why’s that?
Shikwati: AIDS is big business, maybe Africa’s biggest business. There’s nothing else that can generate as much aid money as shocking figures on AIDS. AIDS is a political disease here, and we should be very skeptical.
SPIEGEL: The Americans and Europeans have frozen funds previously pledged to Kenya. The country is too corrupt, they say.
Shikwati: I am afraid, though, that the money will still be transfered before long. After all, it has to go somewhere. Unfortunately, the Europeans’ devastating urge to do good can no longer be countered with reason. It makes no sense whatsoever that directly after the new Kenyan government was elected -- a leadership change that ended the dictatorship of Daniel arap Mois -- the faucets were suddenly opened and streams of money poured into the country.
SPIEGEL: Such aid is usually earmarked for a specific objective, though.
Shikwati: That doesn’t change anything. Millions of dollars earmarked for the fight against AIDS are still stashed away in Kenyan bank accounts and have not been spent. Our politicians were overwhelmed with money, and they try to siphon off as much as possible. The late tyrant of the Central African Republic, Jean Bedel Bokassa, cynically summed it up by saying: "The French government pays for everything in our country. We ask the French for money. We get it, and then we waste it."
SPIEGEL: In the West, there are many compassionate citizens wanting to help Africa. Each year, they donate money and pack their old clothes into collection bags ...
Shikwati: ... and they flood our markets with that stuff. We can buy these donated clothes cheaply at our so-called Mitumba markets. There are Germans who spend a few dollars to get used Bayern Munich or Werder Bremen jerseys, in other words, clothes that that some German kids sent to Africa for a good cause. After buying these jerseys, they auction them off at Ebay and send them back to Germany -- for three times the price. That’s insanity ...
SPIEGEL: ... and hopefully an exception.
Shikwati: Why do we get these mountains of clothes? No one is freezing here. Instead, our tailors lose their livlihoods. They’re in the same position as our farmers. No one in the low-wage world of Africa can be cost-efficient enough to keep pace with donated products. In 1997, 137,000 workers were employed in Nigeria’s textile industry. By 2003, the figure had dropped to 57,000. The results are the same in all other areas where overwhelming helpfulness and fragile African markets collide.
SPIEGEL: Following World War II, Germany only managed to get back on its feet because the Americans poured money into the country through the Marshall Plan. Wouldn’t that qualify as successful development aid?
Shikwati: In Germany’s case, only the destroyed infrastructure had to be repaired. Despite the economic crisis of the Weimar Republic, Germany was a highly- industrialized country before the war. The damages created by the tsunami in Thailand can also be fixed with a little money and some reconstruction aid. Africa, however, must take the first steps into modernity on its own. There must be a change in mentality. We have to stop perceiving ourselves as beggars. These days, Africans only perceive themselves as victims. On the other hand, no one can really picture an African as a businessman. In order to change the current situation, it would be helpful if the aid organizations were to pull out.
SPIEGEL: If they did that, many jobs would be immediately lost ...
Shikwati: ... jobs that were created artificially in the first place and that distort reality. Jobs with foreign aid organizations are, of course, quite popular, and they can be very selective in choosing the best people. When an aid organization needs a driver, dozens apply for the job. And because it’s unacceptable that the aid worker’s chauffeur only speaks his own tribal language, an applicant is needed who also speaks English fluently -- and, ideally, one who is also well mannered. So you end up with some African biochemist driving an aid worker around, distributing European food, and forcing local farmers out of their jobs. That’s just crazy!
SPIEGEL: The German government takes pride in precisely monitoring the recipients of its funds.
Shikwati: And what’s the result? A disaster. The German government threw money right at Rwanda’s president Paul Kagame. This is a man who has the deaths of a million people on his conscience -- people that his army killed in the neighboring country of Congo.
SPIEGEL: What are the Germans supposed to do?
Shikwati: If they really want to fight poverty, they should completely halt development aid and give Africa the opportunity to ensure its own survival. Currently, Africa is like a child that immediately cries for its babysitter when something goes wrong. Africa should stand on its own two feet.
That, as they say, is going to leave a mark.

Submitted by David Fischler
at 7/7/2005 8:38:02 PM| I'd like to be in the room when Shikwati was let loose on the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches. The fireworks resulting from so many heads exploding at once would make a great Independence Day display--African independence, that is. |

Submitted by British Citizen
at 7/8/2005 6:43:17 AM| Should Jesus Christ have fed the five thousand, or should he have let them forage? |

Submitted by ern
at 7/8/2005 7:57:19 AM| I think we ought to learn from this. Liberals in the West want to DO something about poverty. Well, that's fine. But often that "doing" is more about feeling good about themselves than actually solving the problem. There is a lot we can do about Africa, but most of it is about teaching them how to govern, how to set up a market economy, how to set up a fair justice system, how to hold elections. Aid can be a good thing, but the GDP of Africa has been dropping for thirty years despite our huge amounts of aid. What we are doing is not working. We need to focus on the political reform, and the rest will sort itself out. I don't agree with everything here - Africa cannot feed itself yet, and we can offer help. But our help is often counterproductive. Jesus fed the five thousand one day. He didn't do it every day. |

Submitted by David+
at 7/8/2005 7:59:01 AM| British Citizen: Jesus was the host of a one time meal event, not making people dependent upon His good will. We need to be more thoughtful about the results of the aid we give. As the saying goes, "Give a man a fish and he will be hungry again. Teach the man to fish and he will be able to feed himself for life." |

Submitted by Christopher Johnson
at 7/8/2005 8:49:39 AM| Would Jesus have considered it an act of "love" to continually treat perfectly capable adults like young children? |

Submitted by Terry
at 7/8/2005 11:03:43 AM| "We need to be more thoughtful about the results of the aid we give." That and the rest of ern's comment jibes well with everything Make Poverty History has been saying for months; anyone who thinks they're for random money-dumping and encourgaging dependency hasn't even read their mini-pamphlet, much less their real arguments. But it's much easier to critique a movement when you get to make up what you think its message would be. Incidentally, the last time I checked, Pat Robertson and Rick Warren weren't liberals. |

Submitted by Alexander Scott
at 7/8/2005 12:41:13 PM| Free money seems to be bad all around. I seem to recall something similar happening to Spain's economy during colonial days - The government ships in enormous amounts of gold and silver from mexico and Peru; nturally, prices skyrocket since so much money is being thrown around, ruining the average Joe. Likewise, lottery winners don't seem to fare so well (or is that an urban myth)? Perhaps if progressives are determined to unload all that scratch, it would be better used to purchase African products or invest as stockholders in private infrastructure, although this has drawbacks and maybe market distortions as well. Corporate charity seems to me to be ineffective in comparison to individual charity. |

Submitted by Karl
at 7/8/2005 1:21:06 PM| British Citizen: Isn't it interesting that you cast "us" as Jesus, and the Africans as the 5000?? Remember, Jesus did not feed them out of his riches, but by a miraculous act. Perhaps we in the global north are being called to be fed by Africa. If we were to end our agricultural subsidies, we might well find African Agricultural products on our shelves. |

Submitted by Karl
at 7/8/2005 1:23:17 PM| I mean African agricultural products besides the cheap coffee, banannas, and hashish to which we have become so accustomed. |

Submitted by David Fischler
at 7/8/2005 1:23:19 PM| Terry: Took a look at Make Poverty History on the subject of aid. Their goals (having aid go to health care, education, etc.) are fine. On delivery systems, however, they are a lot fuzzier. Here's the crucial item:
"However, without far-reaching changes in how aid is delivered, it won't achieve maximum benefits. Aid needs to focus better on poor people's needs. This means more aid being spent on areas such as basic health care and education. It should no longer be conditional on recipients promising economic change like privatising or deregulating their services, cutting health and education spending, or opening up their markets. Aid should support poor countries' and communities' own plans and paths out of poverty." They're against the IMF-World Bank model of aid. Fine. So what to replace it with? Rich countries should "support poor countries' and communities' own plans and paths out of poverty," because those have worked so well in the past. A couple of examples: when Julius Nyrere got done with Tanzania, he had turned it into one of the world's poorest countries by following his own plans. Robert Mugabe is in the process of turning one of Africa's most prosperous nations into one of its poorest without any help at all from Western liberalizers. At no point on their Web site (please correct me if I've missed anything) do they suggest that major structural changes are necessary in the political and economic cultures of the poorest nations in order for them to have a shot at prosperity. Without those changes, all the good will--which the MPH folks have in abundance, I'm sure--increased aid, alterations in trade policy, and debt relief won't make any long lasting difference |

Submitted by anglicanxn
at 7/8/2005 3:30:16 PM| Five Talents is an Episcopal aid agency that works on building up small businesses -- tailors, brickmakers, shopkeepers, and so on. It also trains people in how to plan, how to use money thoughtfully, the importance of giving and of being a part of the community, and spiritual disciplines such as Bible study and prayer. Five Talents uses a system of small loans, that must be paid off -- and then the money that is repaid is available to new entrepreneurs. A little goes a long way. Many small businesses can make a big difference. And this kind of development is a "ground up" way of growing. It is self-sustaining over the long haul. The government may be the only ones who can build roads, bridges, and power plants, but without an energetic small-scale economy, a large-scale economy has no base of support. I have been to Uganda and to Costa Rica -- only a few weeks each, but I saw lots of people with energy and imagination. |










