[SimpleLife]

Nobody wants to give money to a country that is corrupt, where leaders take money and put it in their pocket
George W Bush

Interesting enough, others do not seem to mind:

Many African despots have echoed Omar Bongo Ondimba, president of Gabon and a long-time friend of China, and praised the spirit of “mutual respect” and the “concern for diversity” that characterise Chinese trade and cooperation (6). But this safari to Africa has alarmed the multinationals that have traditionally exploited the continent’s resources (7). And the US, officially committed to fostering good governance, is beginning to lose patience with Chinese economic policy. According to Gal Luft, a specialist in energy security and executive director of a neo-conservative thinktank the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security: “The Chinese are much more prone to do business in a way that today Europeans and Americans do not accept - paying bribes and bonuses under the table. I think that it will be much easier for [some African] countries to work with Chinese companies, rather than American and European companies, which are becoming more and more restricted by the publish what you pay initiative and others calling for better transparency” (8).

Rwanda’s minister of finance and economic planning, Donald Kaberuka, says: “It’s a different way of doing business” - an alarming prospect for NGOs already fighting cynical western practices in Africa. In the past international organisations such as the World Bank have been criticised for making loans to countries in need conditional upon non-negotiable demands. Now the situation is reversed, with China granting unconditional, instant credits that encourage white elephant projects, without concern for financial transparency.

And:

South Africa’s trade deficit with China has risen from $24m in 1992 to more than $400m. In September 2004 a member organisation of the powerful Congress of South African Trade Unions threatened to boycott anyone selling Chinese products, which it blamed for rising unemployment. The problem can be seen in the market stalls of the Senegalese capital Dakar, where cheap Chinese imports, from shoes to medicines, elbow rival products aside, while the textile workshops of Lesotho are threatened by the expiry of the multifibres agreement last January (14).

China has responded with promises, handouts, allusions to the spirit of Bandung (see Bandung’s lost illusions, page 14) and symbolic gestures: since 2000 it has cancelled $10bn in bilateral debt.

Bold emphasis is mine

[Troll]

Simple Life, I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that because China gives money to African countries, they can't be corrupt or are you saying that the increasing trade deficits show that corrupt African countries are taking payouts?

I think it's completely normal that South Africa's trade deficit with China has increased since 1992. The same has happened for the EU 25 and the USA.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Troll

Simple Life, I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that because China gives money to African countries, they can't be corrupt or are you saying that the increasing trade deficits show that corrupt African countries are taking payouts?

Not at all. I apologize for not being clear. Also, economics is really not my domain, so I know I am venturing on a very slippery ground here.

It just happens that this article I quote came to my attention this morning.

See, on one side, you have Bush and Blair saying they will cut down on Africa's debt, but at a price (the one of alleged control of corruption). On the other hand, China is the new giant involved with Africa, and Africa's economic growth seems more and more tied with the partnership with China, for ill or good.

On one side, a debt is on its way to eradication (with the Western World) conditional to a specific ethic, while China does not appear to bother with ethics, as per the author of the article, since it appears to be using the mecanisms of corruption already in place (apparently from the previous benefactors?)

China also let go a 10 Billions $ in bilateral debt with South Africa...

It is just curious to me that the plans of some (Bush & Blair) are actually facilitating the development of others (China and to a lesser measure, Africa).

China is turning into quite a business partner and Africa is the new playground. Is China going to be the real savior of Africa? After so many years of "support" towards Africa by the West, is it possible that China will actually be the real factor of improvement for Africa in general?

I think it's completely normal that South Africa's trade deficit with China has increased since 1992. The same has happened for the EU 25 and the USA.

That was not my point but I agree with you.

[SimpleLife]

Some of you may find this interesting:

US strategy in Africa has two main axes. The first is unlimited access to the key markets, energy and other strategic resources, and the second the military securing of communication channels, particularly to allow the transport of raw materials to the US. According to a former secretary of state for energy, James Schlesinger, at the 15th World Energy Council in September 1992, what the American people learned from the Gulf war was that it was far easier to kick people in the Middle East into line than to make sacrifices to limit US dependence on oil imports.

Clearly African oil interests the US (10). On 5 September 2002 Colin Powell travelled from Johannesburg, where he had been at the Earth Summit, to Luanda (Angola) and Libreville (Gabon), both oil-producing countries. Experts agree that over the next 10 years Africa will become the US’s second-most important supplier of oil, and possibly natural gas, after the Middle East. At least until things calm down.

And

In Africa the US is trying to establish partnerships with all countries, using a range of pretexts. The US claims, for example, that the South African army would be incapable of conducting a large-scale operation because a large proportion of South African soldiers are infected with HIV, and further claims that Pretoria would need massive support from Washington to reinforce those unreliable elements. As a result, South Africa is preparing to rejoin the Acota programme. (Although not all South African soldiers can be afflicted since thousands of them are employed by private companies in Iraq as civilian back-up.)

In reality, it is South Africa’s strategic position that is of interest to the US. During the cold war, Pretoria opened its bases to US armed forces, enabling Washington to control the Indian Ocean between Africa and the Diego Garcia naval base. It was also a vital element in the battle against African liberation movements that were suspected of attachment to Moscow. In 2001 US Ambassador Cameron Hume claimed that South African and the US shared a similar attachment to democracy, market economy and the search for a better future for all (11).

US military interventionism in Africa is encroaching on traditional zones of influence of the former colonial powers, including France. That competition is evident in Djibouti, one of the poorest countries in the world, a desert without resources, a country of no apparent interest were it not for its strategic position. It juts out into a maritime zone through which a quarter of world oil production passes (the Sudanese pipeline is nearby), and is also on the strategic strip between the Sahel and the Horn of Africa that Washington is trying to secure. Although France retains its main foreign military base, Camp Lemonier, in Djibouti, it has now become a permanent US base (12).

Things change and remain the same...

[vmarks]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/comme...0815-7925r.htm

Why has aid performed so poorly and why should we not expect better results in the future? By the 1990s, a long-delayed consensus emerged among development experts that putting aid into poor policy environments does not work. Overall, there is no correlation between aid and growth, but in Africa aid has harmed development by supporting governments whose policies have actually impoverished people.

Even when aid is supposed to promote policy change, it fails. Countries promise reform, receive donor largess, then introduce half-hearted reforms or fail to do so altogether. A recent World Bank study looked at the record of aid from 1980 to 2000 and found "aid on balance significantly retards rather than encourages market-oriented policy reform." That finding is consistent with a previous Bank study that "reform is more likely to be preceded by a decline in aid than an increase in aid."

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by vmarks

http://www.washingtontimes.com/comme...0815-7925r.htm

Why has aid performed so poorly and why should we not expect better results in the future? By the 1990s, a long-delayed consensus emerged among development experts that putting aid into poor policy environments does not work. Overall, there is no correlation between aid and growth, but in Africa aid has harmed development by supporting governments whose policies have actually impoverished people.

Even when aid is supposed to promote policy change, it fails. Countries promise reform, receive donor largess, then introduce half-hearted reforms or fail to do so altogether. A recent World Bank study looked at the record of aid from 1980 to 2000 and found "aid on balance significantly retards rather than encourages market-oriented policy reform." That finding is consistent with a previous Bank study that "reform is more likely to be preceded by a decline in aid than an increase in aid."

Yes, that's true to a certain extent, giving aid-money to corrupt governments and dictatorships seldomly helps, sometimes even makes the situation worse. I think it's better to let NGO's to distribute aid where it's really needed and to invest that money in projects that will enable african people to help themselves, fpr example in agriculture-projects, in education-programms, in clean water-facilities...

Another important part of the "aid" should be to stop the hypocrisis and open the western markets for african products, abolishing european tariffs and subventions...

Taliesin

[eklipse]

Originally Posted by vmarks

http://www.washingtontimes.com/comme...0815-7925r.htm

Why has aid performed so poorly and why should we not expect better results in the future? By the 1990s, a long-delayed consensus emerged among development experts that putting aid into poor policy environments does not work.

....

Even when aid is supposed to promote policy change, it fails. Countries promise reform, receive donor largess, then introduce half-hearted reforms or fail to do so altogether. A recent World Bank study looked at the record of aid from 1980 to 2000 and found "aid on balance significantly retards rather than encourages market-oriented policy reform." That finding is consistent with a previous Bank study that "reform is more likely to be preceded by a decline in aid than an increase in aid."

Amen

I'm all for stopping the pumping of aid into 'poor policy environments'.

[Sherwin]

Originally Posted by vmarks

"reform is more likely to be preceded by a decline in aid than an increase in aid."

Obvious really. The fastest way to bring about political change is to have a million starving people knocking on the leaders' doors. See France, couple of hundred years ago.

Drop the debt (wipe the slate clean), then drop the aid payments - permanently. Easy as that.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by eklipse

Amen

I'm all for stopping the pumping of aid into 'poor policy environments'.

As long as you don't mind ending aid to Egypt, cutting the Palestinians off - after all, you're consistent, aren't you?


You may not remember, but when Netanyahu was PM, he went and spoke before the US Congress with a plan to reduce US aid to Israel and then end such aid. He wasn't re-elected, and so as finance minister, he has to work within the framework of the Sharon government.

Use the search function: I've written about the ethical flaws in government provided foreign aid in these forums.

[Planet_EN]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Oh, geez. I'm sure more people would read that if the author utilized a feature known as paragraphs.

ditto