Legacy of colonialism requires legacy of mentorship
Ever since the long process of de-colonization in Africa, French foreign policy on that continent has been something of a puzzle.
As previously noted to be the case for Britain, too forceful activity on the part of the French in Africa will bring charges of colonialism. But to decline to engage with their former colonies will allow the political environment in Africa to continue festering.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy has moved away from the spectre of colonialism by decommissioning two of Frence's five military bases on the continent. But given the political environment in Africa, the answer cannot be less French presence. It in fact needs to be more.
In July Sarkozy will host a summit between France and its former African colonies. The summit will likely help France find the answer of what the ideal level of engagement with its former colonies should be. The question that lingers is whether or not France is prepared to make the necessary commitment required.
Sarkozy seems to place at least some of the blame for Africa's plight on African leadership.
"The tragedy of Africa is that the African has not fully entered into history," Sarkozy recently announced.
But France needs to provide desperately-needed mentorship to the leaders of its former African colonies -- in places like The Congo, Chad, and the Central African Republic.
That was once the way of France's African policies -- French West Africans were regarded as fully French, and were often offered educational opportunities at that level. Often the bulk of governmental responsibilities were assigned to African leaders, who worked directly under French higher authorities.
The haste of de-colonization allowed cronyism and virulent forms of nationalism-tattooed-upon-tribalism to set in in many of these former French colonies, destroying what progress the French model of colonialism -- one comparatively benevolent in some respects -- had wrought.
The new model of French mentorship with its former colonies clearly cannot simply be an updated version of the old model. La Francophonie could prove to be valuable tool of multi-national mentorship to these colonies. Unfortunately, some of the more developed members of La Francophonie have little to offer in this regard.
Belgium, for example, was known for the brutal oppression of its colonies in Africa. Greece has few positive examples to offer to France's former colonies, judging from the status of its finances.
That would leave the burden of leadership in La Francophonie to France, Canada, and Switzerland. Nor could these three countries direct all of their attentions to Africa. Haiti is indesperate need of this manner of help.
France's hard road in Africa is one that it doesn't have to travel alone. Hopefully, the results of Nicolas Sarkozy's Africa summit will help him realize that.
Showing posts with label Africa. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Africa. Show all posts
Monday, May 31, 2010
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
There Are Some Problems Profit-Driven Aid Won't Solve
Free condoms in Africa key to halting the spread of HIV
Though the George W Bush administration of the United States offered remarkably few accomplishments that the global conservative movement can be legitimately proud of, one of the successes Bush can very much boast about is his administration's success in fighting HIV/AIDs in Africa.
Bush's Afrian HIV/AIDs initiative offered free medical treatment and HIV medications to HIV sufferers. His program gave hope to HIV patients and to their children.
However valuable Bush's initiative was, it did suffer from notable weakness: it cut funding to condom-distribution programs.
Cameron's government has produced as its first foreign aid initiative a plan to spend nearly three million Pounds Sterling to distribute condoms in Uganda.
Writing in the Daily Telegraph, however, Alex Singleton casts his barbs at the HIV/AIDs initiative being prepared by British Prime Minister David Cameron's government. His criticism casts it as a hippie-esque solution to a looming epidemic, and suggests that the distribution of 45 million condoms in Uganada should instead be be profit-driven.
Singleton writes:
There's a good reason for this: Condoms are nothing at all like Coca-Cola. Nor are they like mosquito nets. In White Man's Burden, Easterly remarks on the failure of programs to deliver free pesticide-treated mosquito nets to Africans at risk of contracting malaria from nocturnal mosquito bites.
Easterly documented cases of many of these nets simply being wasted -- in some cases being used as veils at the marriages of young African women. Easterly's argument was that programs to deliver these nets were ill-conceived, and resulted in many areas being over-supplied with mosquito nets.
In come cases, they would up in the hands of corrupt local officials who instead merely hoarded them, despite having no means to ever use them on their own.
Provided that the Tory condom plan is better designed than the mosquito net programs, one would expect that these condoms would actually reach their destination. Considering that Uganda's population is more than 31.5 million people, 45 million condoms is unlikely to over-supply Ugandan demand.
It's more likely to under supply it.
Singleton astoundingly suggests that the success many roadside vendors have had selling Coca-Cola products demonstrates that for-profit distribution of condoms will better ensure their distribution.
Simply put, if there were profit in selling condoms in Africa, Sheik or Trojan would have set up shop there a long time ago. There would be no need to even consider a state-funded condom initiative in Uganda.
Singleton could certainly argue that the state could subsidize the for-profit distribution of condoms in Africa -- an option that the Conservatives may well want to explore before forging ahead with their current plan.
Moreover, as oral contraceptives do nothing to protect against the spread of HIV, a profit-driven distribution method may be more appropriate for those.
But this doesn't seem to be Singleton's option of favour. Rather, what he recommends is almost guaranteed to fail:
People won't abstain from sex just because you tell them to. That holds no less in Africa than it does anywhere else in the world.
Former US President George W Bush laid the groundwork for significant success fighting HIV in Africa. Now, David Cameron's coalition government is prepared to fill in the missing link -- Alex Singleton's objections be damned.
Though the George W Bush administration of the United States offered remarkably few accomplishments that the global conservative movement can be legitimately proud of, one of the successes Bush can very much boast about is his administration's success in fighting HIV/AIDs in Africa.
Bush's Afrian HIV/AIDs initiative offered free medical treatment and HIV medications to HIV sufferers. His program gave hope to HIV patients and to their children.
However valuable Bush's initiative was, it did suffer from notable weakness: it cut funding to condom-distribution programs.
Cameron's government has produced as its first foreign aid initiative a plan to spend nearly three million Pounds Sterling to distribute condoms in Uganda.
Writing in the Daily Telegraph, however, Alex Singleton casts his barbs at the HIV/AIDs initiative being prepared by British Prime Minister David Cameron's government. His criticism casts it as a hippie-esque solution to a looming epidemic, and suggests that the distribution of 45 million condoms in Uganada should instead be be profit-driven.
Singleton writes:
"No one wants HIV/AIDS to spread, but free distribution will never work. As Professor William Easterly, the eminent development economist, has argued, there’s no shortage of Coca-Cola in Africa, and condoms should be treated in the same, for-profit way."William Easterly has been on the right track about a great many things in Africa. But on the topic of condoms, he is very clearly wrong.
There's a good reason for this: Condoms are nothing at all like Coca-Cola. Nor are they like mosquito nets. In White Man's Burden, Easterly remarks on the failure of programs to deliver free pesticide-treated mosquito nets to Africans at risk of contracting malaria from nocturnal mosquito bites.
Easterly documented cases of many of these nets simply being wasted -- in some cases being used as veils at the marriages of young African women. Easterly's argument was that programs to deliver these nets were ill-conceived, and resulted in many areas being over-supplied with mosquito nets.
In come cases, they would up in the hands of corrupt local officials who instead merely hoarded them, despite having no means to ever use them on their own.
Provided that the Tory condom plan is better designed than the mosquito net programs, one would expect that these condoms would actually reach their destination. Considering that Uganda's population is more than 31.5 million people, 45 million condoms is unlikely to over-supply Ugandan demand.
It's more likely to under supply it.
Singleton astoundingly suggests that the success many roadside vendors have had selling Coca-Cola products demonstrates that for-profit distribution of condoms will better ensure their distribution.
"Coke and other soft drinks are vital way of getting something drinkable in rural africa, and tens of thousands of entrepreneurial Africans sell them out of wooden shacks and by the side of roads. The drinks are affordable, but by charging, Africans are able to make a living distributing them."The dubious merits of substituting Coca-Cola for fresh drinking water aside, Singleton has seemingly forgotten one of the cardinal rules of market economics: profit-seeking capital will go where there is profit to be earned.
Simply put, if there were profit in selling condoms in Africa, Sheik or Trojan would have set up shop there a long time ago. There would be no need to even consider a state-funded condom initiative in Uganda.
Singleton could certainly argue that the state could subsidize the for-profit distribution of condoms in Africa -- an option that the Conservatives may well want to explore before forging ahead with their current plan.
Moreover, as oral contraceptives do nothing to protect against the spread of HIV, a profit-driven distribution method may be more appropriate for those.
But this doesn't seem to be Singleton's option of favour. Rather, what he recommends is almost guaranteed to fail:
"The Department For International Development opposes abstinence-only AIDS-awareness programmes. Instead, it is supposed to support the ABC technique of preventing HIV – abstinence, be faithful, use a condom. But, in practice, DFID-funded projects are surprisingly quiet on the A and the B – staffed, as they are, by politically correct workers who think telling poor people to stop having sex with prostitutes and other peoples’ wives is racist."While Singleton insists there is evidence that the acceptance of birth control by African women leads to domestic abuse (he doesn't actually site any), he conveniently ignores all the evidence that abstinence-only programs simply do not work.
People won't abstain from sex just because you tell them to. That holds no less in Africa than it does anywhere else in the world.
Former US President George W Bush laid the groundwork for significant success fighting HIV in Africa. Now, David Cameron's coalition government is prepared to fill in the missing link -- Alex Singleton's objections be damned.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
The Interventionalism of Convenience?
Responsibility to Protect, Will to Intervene based on luxury of power
Dr Mutuma Ruteere has a bone to pick with Paul Collier.
Collier, a professor of economics and Director of the Centre for the Study of African Economies at Oxford University, has recently written a book entitled Wars, Guns & Votes: Democracy in Dangerous Places.
In the book, Collier argues that the "bottom billion" of the world -- Sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Asia -- are structurally insecure and unaccountable (no surprise to those who have paid attention to the sad state of that portion of the world). Collier argues that these countries are too large and diverse to be nation states and too small to provide security.
Collier continues by insisting that democracy has failed in the world's "bottom billion", and that the international responsibility must intervene in these countries and provide security in place of those governments. In extreme cases, Collier even argues that coup d'etats should be engineered against undemocratic governments.
Collier's ideas represent the ideas contained in the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine -- a UN foreign policy doctrine developed under the leadership of Lloyd Axworthy and Romeo Dallaire.
The Responsibility to Protect doctrine assigns the responsibility to each of the world's states to protect their citizens from natural and human disasters. This responsibility encompasses the aftermath of natural disasters, as well as (even particularly) attacks on the citizenry of that state, be that by the forces of a foreign state, militant forces wtihin the state, or even the state itself.
According to the doctrine, the international community is responsible for preventing that protection in cases where states fail or refuse to provide it.
The relationship between R2P and Collier's ideas are evident.
The goal of R2P was to put a stop to crimes against humanity that are already in progress. Collier's ideas entail acting preemptively in order to supplant the institutional instabilities that eventually lead to these crimes.
No less a conservative magnate of conservative economic and foreign policy than William Easterly has denounced Collier's ideas as sheer colonialism -- and he may well be right.
The problem is that Collier's brand of colonialism may not be necessary.
Dr Ruteere notes that African states have often proven more willing to risk their own troops intervening in African matters than the developed world has. He notes that Nigeria intervened in Sierra Leone and Liberia, South Africa intervened in Lethoso, Tanzania intervened against Idi Amin in Uganda, and Dallaire's admission that Ghanaians and Tunisians were among his best and most reliable troops in Rwanda.
By contrast, Ruteere notes that the United States used its own institutional means to settle its last serious political conflict -- the turmoil surrounding George W Bush's reelection.
If the United States had proven unwilling to settle the matter without political violence -- institutionalized or otherwise -- it seems entirely fair to wonder if the international community would intervene.
It would seem entirely fair, but it really isn't. The developed world has a woeful record intervening against developed countries. During the 1930s Nazi Germany was allowed to overrun half of Europe before Britain, France, the United States and the ANZAC (Australia, New Zealand and Canada) states saw fit to stand up. The other great butcher of the developed world, Joseph Stalin, was actually an ally during the war. Earlier in the 1930s, Stalin's Soviet Union engineered a genocide via famine in the Ukraine.
The Responsibility to Protect clearly plays to privileges of power the developed world enjoys over the developed world. But even amidst the privilege of this power, many African countries -- who can't boast the sheere brute force of the military of nearly any NATO country, for example -- have demonstrated that they possess something that the developed world has proven that it all too often does not possess:
The Will to Intervene, even against neighbour states that are comparable to them in terms of military and economic power.
A foreign policy doctrine by this very name has recently been proposed in Canada -- once again with Romeo Dallaire at the lead. At the very core of this proposed doctrine are truths that forward-thinking African countries have seemingly understood for quite a while: that the disasters that unfold in African countries will eventually impact them, just as the developers of the W2I doctrine have recognized that they will eventually impact Canada.
If political collapse followed by civil war were to break out in a country like the United States, it's evident that the effects of that conflict, and of any crimes against humanity being perpetrated there under such conditions, would impact the developed world much more quickly than such a conflict in Africa.
Dr Mutuma Reveere seems to imply a very important question for the citizens of the developed world: can we find the will to intervene against our powerful neighbours if ever the need should arise.
The need has arisen before, and the will has proven lacking. If the need arises again, we cannot afford to have the wrong answer to such a question.
Dr Mutuma Ruteere has a bone to pick with Paul Collier.
Collier, a professor of economics and Director of the Centre for the Study of African Economies at Oxford University, has recently written a book entitled Wars, Guns & Votes: Democracy in Dangerous Places.
In the book, Collier argues that the "bottom billion" of the world -- Sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Asia -- are structurally insecure and unaccountable (no surprise to those who have paid attention to the sad state of that portion of the world). Collier argues that these countries are too large and diverse to be nation states and too small to provide security.
Collier continues by insisting that democracy has failed in the world's "bottom billion", and that the international responsibility must intervene in these countries and provide security in place of those governments. In extreme cases, Collier even argues that coup d'etats should be engineered against undemocratic governments.
Collier's ideas represent the ideas contained in the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine -- a UN foreign policy doctrine developed under the leadership of Lloyd Axworthy and Romeo Dallaire.
The Responsibility to Protect doctrine assigns the responsibility to each of the world's states to protect their citizens from natural and human disasters. This responsibility encompasses the aftermath of natural disasters, as well as (even particularly) attacks on the citizenry of that state, be that by the forces of a foreign state, militant forces wtihin the state, or even the state itself.
According to the doctrine, the international community is responsible for preventing that protection in cases where states fail or refuse to provide it.
The relationship between R2P and Collier's ideas are evident.
The goal of R2P was to put a stop to crimes against humanity that are already in progress. Collier's ideas entail acting preemptively in order to supplant the institutional instabilities that eventually lead to these crimes.
No less a conservative magnate of conservative economic and foreign policy than William Easterly has denounced Collier's ideas as sheer colonialism -- and he may well be right.
The problem is that Collier's brand of colonialism may not be necessary.
Dr Ruteere notes that African states have often proven more willing to risk their own troops intervening in African matters than the developed world has. He notes that Nigeria intervened in Sierra Leone and Liberia, South Africa intervened in Lethoso, Tanzania intervened against Idi Amin in Uganda, and Dallaire's admission that Ghanaians and Tunisians were among his best and most reliable troops in Rwanda.
By contrast, Ruteere notes that the United States used its own institutional means to settle its last serious political conflict -- the turmoil surrounding George W Bush's reelection.
If the United States had proven unwilling to settle the matter without political violence -- institutionalized or otherwise -- it seems entirely fair to wonder if the international community would intervene.
It would seem entirely fair, but it really isn't. The developed world has a woeful record intervening against developed countries. During the 1930s Nazi Germany was allowed to overrun half of Europe before Britain, France, the United States and the ANZAC (Australia, New Zealand and Canada) states saw fit to stand up. The other great butcher of the developed world, Joseph Stalin, was actually an ally during the war. Earlier in the 1930s, Stalin's Soviet Union engineered a genocide via famine in the Ukraine.
The Responsibility to Protect clearly plays to privileges of power the developed world enjoys over the developed world. But even amidst the privilege of this power, many African countries -- who can't boast the sheere brute force of the military of nearly any NATO country, for example -- have demonstrated that they possess something that the developed world has proven that it all too often does not possess:
The Will to Intervene, even against neighbour states that are comparable to them in terms of military and economic power.
A foreign policy doctrine by this very name has recently been proposed in Canada -- once again with Romeo Dallaire at the lead. At the very core of this proposed doctrine are truths that forward-thinking African countries have seemingly understood for quite a while: that the disasters that unfold in African countries will eventually impact them, just as the developers of the W2I doctrine have recognized that they will eventually impact Canada.
If political collapse followed by civil war were to break out in a country like the United States, it's evident that the effects of that conflict, and of any crimes against humanity being perpetrated there under such conditions, would impact the developed world much more quickly than such a conflict in Africa.
Dr Mutuma Reveere seems to imply a very important question for the citizens of the developed world: can we find the will to intervene against our powerful neighbours if ever the need should arise.
The need has arisen before, and the will has proven lacking. If the need arises again, we cannot afford to have the wrong answer to such a question.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Is Foreign Aid Undermining African Democracy?
Coming via ForaTV, Dambisa Moyo presents an intriguing critique of current foreign aid programs.
According to Moyo, successes enjoyed under programs such as the AIDs program -- in which AIDs drugs are provided to HIV sufferers -- lead Africans to doubt their elected leaders, as they watch foreign organizations provide services their governments should be responsible for.
Paradoxically, aid programs that seek to by-pass Africa's entrenched system of government kelptocrats may be stifling the single best antidote to this kleptocracy: a strong, vibrant democracy in which oversight is ultimately wielded by a citizenry that has confidence in their system.
According to Economist William Easterly, the most effective aid programs are those that will democratize the process of prioritizing the areas by focusing on allowing the citizens of impoverished countries to build their own economies from the ground up by utilizing the principles micro-economics.
Aid planners, still under the thrall of Jeffrey Sachs and his mostly-failed policies, continue to favour the principles of macro-economics and a top-down method of building national economies.
But as Easterly has often pointed out, this risks the creation of aid programs that are dangerously out-of-touch with the needs of locals.
An interesting case in point is a $15 billion agricultural aid program being pushed by Barack Obama. Investing in things such as seed, fertilizer, produce storage and research, the plan seems to be aimed at jump-starting a new green revolution in Africa.
While this satisfies an obvious need that impoverished countries have, locals may prefer to continue utilizing traditional agricultural methods as opposed to high-tech agricultural methods that will remain expensive -- likely prohibitively expensive -- long after aid dollars run out.
Easterly points out that, mixed in with successes, similar plans have been tried unsuccessfully before.
“The curse of aid is that they never learn from history,” Easterly said. “They need to go back and realize a lot of things promised today have been promised before.”
But even when the things that are promised are delivered, as Moyo points out, foreign aid is actually posing unforeseen problems for African democracies, as it undermines elected leaders who lack the resources to deliver on their own responsibilities.
If the western world truly expects democracy to flourish in Africa, it may be for the best to start to design foreign aid programs that allow it to function properly.
Sunday, January 04, 2009
Michael Ignatieff and China's New Colonialism
China becoming a global leader in African exploitation
With Michael Ignatieff set to lead the Liberal party into the new year, it's safe to say that foreign policy will find itself firmly entrenched in the Liberal party`s agenda.
Of particular interest should be Ignatieff`s stance on China. In 2006, Ignatieff criticized Stephen Harper for the Prime Minister`s criticism of China.
Among other things, Ignatieff hailed reductions in Chinese poverty as an erstwhile human rights triumph.
"You have to give them credit for a fact not enough Canadians, I think, recognize which is over the last 10 years, the most important human-rights advance in the world has been the hundreds of millions of Chinese lifted out of absolute poverty," he mused.
Yet one can`t help but wonder how Ignatieff might have reacted to some of China's activities abroad, particularly in Africa:
It seems China is turning back the clock on colonialism. The country that was once the most sought-after Colony among all European countries is all grown up, and ready to do some exploiting of its own.
Among raw materials, China is also pursuing African oil. The Beijing government is pursuing oil through a collection of exploration and development deals, and reciprocal trade deals coupled with foreign aid packages.
China`s efforts in Africa has them active in countries like Equitorial Guinea, Gabon, Angola, the Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
In the latter two cases -- one of which, Sudan, is currently the subject of considerable human rights-related outcry -- the Chinese are involved in countries with ongoing civil conflicts.
Inevitably, China's activities in the DRC will favour the Congolese government over the rebel National Congress for the Defense of the People. As in the Sudan, the Chinese are taking sides in a civil conflict.
If anything, China's activities in Africa -- energy-related and otherwise -- demonstrate that communism is all but officially dead in China. Now, it has learned to exploit the developing world just as stringently as western states and multinational corporations have.
The mess -- both in terms of environmental devestation and human suffering -- being left in China's wake poses a definite question mark on Ignatieff's insistence that reduction in Chinese poverty is a human rights triumph.
Especially when one considers the cost.
With Michael Ignatieff set to lead the Liberal party into the new year, it's safe to say that foreign policy will find itself firmly entrenched in the Liberal party`s agenda.
Of particular interest should be Ignatieff`s stance on China. In 2006, Ignatieff criticized Stephen Harper for the Prime Minister`s criticism of China.
Among other things, Ignatieff hailed reductions in Chinese poverty as an erstwhile human rights triumph.
"You have to give them credit for a fact not enough Canadians, I think, recognize which is over the last 10 years, the most important human-rights advance in the world has been the hundreds of millions of Chinese lifted out of absolute poverty," he mused.
Yet one can`t help but wonder how Ignatieff might have reacted to some of China's activities abroad, particularly in Africa:
It seems China is turning back the clock on colonialism. The country that was once the most sought-after Colony among all European countries is all grown up, and ready to do some exploiting of its own.
Among raw materials, China is also pursuing African oil. The Beijing government is pursuing oil through a collection of exploration and development deals, and reciprocal trade deals coupled with foreign aid packages.
China`s efforts in Africa has them active in countries like Equitorial Guinea, Gabon, Angola, the Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
In the latter two cases -- one of which, Sudan, is currently the subject of considerable human rights-related outcry -- the Chinese are involved in countries with ongoing civil conflicts.
Inevitably, China's activities in the DRC will favour the Congolese government over the rebel National Congress for the Defense of the People. As in the Sudan, the Chinese are taking sides in a civil conflict.
If anything, China's activities in Africa -- energy-related and otherwise -- demonstrate that communism is all but officially dead in China. Now, it has learned to exploit the developing world just as stringently as western states and multinational corporations have.
The mess -- both in terms of environmental devestation and human suffering -- being left in China's wake poses a definite question mark on Ignatieff's insistence that reduction in Chinese poverty is a human rights triumph.
Especially when one considers the cost.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)