Bush, a Friend of Africa

[Michelle]

Editorial from NYT. Since Kristof usually is blasting Bush, I was surprised to see this assessment.

M

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/opinion/05kristof.html?th&emc=th

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 5, 2005

Bush, a Friend of Africa

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Those who care about Africa tend to think that the appropriate attitude toward President Bush is a medley of fury and contempt.

But the fact is that Mr. Bush has done much more for Africa than Bill Clinton ever did, increasing the money actually spent for aid there by two-thirds so far, and setting in motion an eventual tripling of aid for Africa. Mr. Bush's crowning achievement was ending one war in Sudan, between north and south. And while Mr. Bush has done shamefully little to stop Sudan's other conflict - the genocide in Darfur - that's more than Mr. Clinton's response to genocide in Rwanda (which was to issue a magnificent apology afterward).

So as the G-8 summit meeting convenes this week, focusing on Africa, it's worth acknowledging that Mr. Bush, and conservatives generally, have in many ways been great for the developing world. At their best, they bring a healthy dose of hands-on practicality to their efforts.

The liberal approach to helping the poor is sometimes to sponsor a U.N. conference and give ringing speeches calling for changed laws and more international assistance.

In contrast, a standard conservative approach is to sponsor a missionary hospital or school. One magnificent example is the Addis Ababa Fistula Hospital, where missionary doctors repair obstetric injuries that have left Ethiopian women incontinent.

Liberals also often focus on changing laws, but in a poor country, the legal system is often irrelevant outside the capital. Sudan, for example, banned female genital mutilation back in 1957; since then, the practice has expanded steadily. Sure, lobbying for better laws is important, but it's usually much more cost-effective to vaccinate children or educate girls. Nobody gets more bang for the buck than missionary schools and clinics, and Christian aid groups like World Vision and Samaritan's Purse save lives at bargain-basement prices.

Liberals may also put too much faith in aid itself. What Africa needs most desperately are things it can itself provide: good governance, a firmer neighborhood response to genocide in Sudan, and a collective nudging of Robert Mugabe into retirement.

Plenty of studies have shown that aid usually doesn't help people in insecure, corrupt or poorly governed nations. Indeed, aid can even do harm, by bidding up local exchange rates and hurting local manufacturers.

All that said, in the right circumstances aid can be tremendously effective, especially in well-governed countries - Mozambique is an excellent example. And Mr. Bush's new push to help Africa is smartly designed, targeting problems like malaria and sex trafficking, where extra attention and resources will make a big difference on the ground.

Mr. Bush's signature foreign aid program, the Millennium Challenge Account, is off to an agonizingly slow start, but is shrewdly focused on encouraging good governance and economic growth. The first grant went to Madagascar, a well-run country, to clarify property rights there. This isn't sexy, but nothing would help the poor in Africa more than giving them clear title to their land so they could secure loans and start businesses.

The divide I portray between the left and right is, of course, a caricature. Some of the very best work to help the poor is done by liberal-leaning groups, like the Carter Center, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and Doctors Without Borders. They all use their resources to make real changes on the ground.

And while Mr. Bush has done much more for Africa than most people realize, there's one huge exception, because anything with a whiff of sex in it makes some conservatives go nuts. Mr. Bush's decision to cut off funds for the U.N. Population Fund means that more African girls will die in childbirth. Even more tragic is the administration's blind hostility to condoms to fight AIDS - resulting in more dead Africans.

Mr. Bush has another blind spot as well: while he is right that aid is not a cure-all, sometimes he seems to use legitimate concerns about aid as an excuse for stinginess. Aid has shortcomings, but Mr. Bush himself has shown that it can be used effectively to save lives by the millions.

Yet Mr. Bush is resisting the G-8's calls for further help for Africa; he thinks the sums are better spent on cutting the taxes of the richest people on earth than on saving the lives of the poorest. Come on, Republicans! You need to persuade Mr. Bush to be more generous this week, because his present refusal to help isn't conservative, but just plain selfish.

E-mail: []nicholas@nytimes.com[/]

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Back to Top

[Jeannieb43]

With all due respect, Michelle, some here in the U.S. feel Bush is spending our tax money too freely already.

We can't be the economic saviour of the entire world.

He's gotten us into the worst economic deficit in history.

[Michelle]

Changing what I posted earlier. . . .

Jeannie--I understand your point. Do you think the US has any obligations to anyone else in the world? I know many people say, "The US should not be the world's policeman/bank/etc," but does saying that disoblige us from doing anything? Should we say that and then withdraw ourselves from international relations? Should we only engage in relations with our friendly allies? If we were not in a questionable war, would the spending be as high as it is? Is it better to spend on ourselves alone?

If we were talking, my tone of voice would be questioning, not sarcastic--so hard to get the tone correct in type!

(in the nature of full disclosure--I am not a US tax-payer, as I have not been employed for 6 years; my DH was a tax-payer until a year ago, at which time we moved to HK; I am thankful to be an American; the Canadian government double taxes citizens, so our neighbors, the ADRA China director and family, have to pay HK AND Canada taxes--OUCH!)

M

[Dr. Shane]

I know many conservative Republicans that believe Bush is spending too much of the nation's tax dollars on charity. However many liberal Democrats complain he isn't spending enough and compare the % of our GDP given to the % of the GDP of many European nations.

The way I see it, Bush has a lot of moderate tendancies. He upsets his conservative base and the liberal Democrats.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Do you think the US has any obligations to anyone else in the world? I know many people say, "The US should not be the world's policeman/bank/etc," but does saying that disoblige us from doing anything? Should we say that and then withdraw ourselves from international relations? Should we only engage in relations with our friendly allies? If we were not in a questionable war, would the spending be as high as it is? Is it better to spend on ourselves alone?

---

Lots of questions and I don't know if I can address them all the first time...

I agree that the US should not be the world's policeman, but there are policys that can create independance without being a policeman. Was listen to last night to NPR on the way home, and they described how ONE african nation was basically treated poorly by the world, and how during the cold war, the US policy of spying on the USSR helped to fund various anti-Soviet nations. And while the greed of those in power of the african nations fueled by the trade of war supplys for soviet information did not help the people of africa, there are nations that are attempting to create democracy in thier own ways. Thru the determination of creating business, those nations can achieve a vary large degree of self determination and can direct thier countries toward peace, with themsleves and thier neighbors. And the US can foster that self determination....

[Bravus]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2005/07/06/africa/index.html

[bevin]

Goal: For most people to have enough food, water, shelter, and security to enjoy life.

Requirements: Clean water. Steady and adequate food supply. A shelter. Police/troops that identify with and protect the populace. Similarly leaders that do the same. An economy that produces and distributes the needed goods.

How did Western Civilization get these things? By a fortuitous combination of invention, revolt, and disease. Before the great plagues there were too many people and too few goods. After the plagues the working class suddenly became valuable and there was enough land etc. to go around. Inventions were necessary basically because there wasn't enough slavery. More recently by entering into a social contract whereby we agree as a society to take care of un-related elderly - now adults can afford to have only a very few children, take good care of them, and they will still be taken care of in their old age.

How to get these things for Africa?

Stop propping up all the areas that DON'T work. Providing food in times of famine, "protection" from tribal wars, medicines to the already badly ill.

Instead start building well-protected enclaves of reasonable standards of living, and then grow them to cover the continent. Meanwhile many will die.

The current Western "strategy" for Africa actually simply causes even more deaths, by keeping pumping just enough aid in and spreading it thin enough to create an even larger pool of suffering.

Education, infrastructure, and self-sustaining societies is what we should be investing in - not famine victims.

But it takes a really heartless SOB like me to be prepared to admit it.

/Bevin

[Bravus]

I think you're right in general outline, bevin, but I also don't thikn that, if the West is unselfish enough, it has to be a case of either-or and the rather savage social Darwinism you describe. Surely it's possible to build the enclaves of functioning society while also providing some aid and support to the basket cases until the enclaves spread to encompass them? If the problem is that the aid is spread too thin, spread it a little thicker...