POLITICS: World 'can end African poverty', page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
Topic started on 7-10-2004 @ 06:10 AM by Corinthas
Blair has declared the world can end African poverty. He has revealed this at a conference in Ethiopia. This commission was set up in May to link African nations with their counterparts in the west to look at issues such as development aid, fair trade and debt relief. This meeting is the group's first in Africa, after its gathering in London. This time the 17 commissioners will hear directly from civil society organizations.





news.bbc.co.uk
Blair says his commission will make real progress
The means to lift Africa out of poverty are within the world's grasp, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has said.
Mr Blair was opening a meeting in Ethiopia of the British-sponsored Commission for Africa.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


It seems the reason for this sudden claim is this according to Blair: "We have made it clear that Africa should be the dominant theme - along with the issue of climate change - at our G8 presidency next year."
This commission, incidentally, comes exactly 20 years after the Ethiopian famine that started the Bob Geldof Band Aid relief effort.

Is Blair playing his "i really care" card? The western word created the 3rd world while making the new-world so no real prizes for declaring the west can also end it.
If we stopped ripping resources out of Africa (the marshal plan after WW2 clearly states that Europe is to use Africa to rebuild) and let the people there exploit it for their own benefit we could have put an end to the third world before it started. But where's the profit in that?
Then you read about persons like Mark Thatcher messing about with African nations (remember the coup plot a month ago?) to benefit European business?
Come on the elite in the west couldn't give two shakes of a monkeys tail what happens to the people of Africa so why pretend?


[edit on 7-10-2004 by Banshee]


reply posted on 7-10-2004 @ 01:18 PM by jsobecky
Originally posted by RedOctober90
While large governments may have exploited the African nations.. it is not the sole cause of the poverty.

This is true, and points to human nature. How is it that an enormous continent with so much potential stays stuck in the past? Why do the people live in squalor and constant famine sittiing on top of some of the richest topsoil on earth, while other nations managae to survive, and even prosper, with so fewer natural resources and in harsher climates?

How does one plan to end poverty in the African nations where more than half the population is starving, while you can't even figure out how to end poverty within your own borders.

I submit that poverty can never be totally eliminated, because of human nature. The only thing that will be achieved is an artificial standard of living that follows an arbitrary definition. And this of course, will have to be achieved by extorting the fruits of the society's achievers. This will then tend to slowly smother incentive (why work hard if the government will provide for me, cradle to grave?) until the inevitable end is reached - poverty for all. But it will be called a "great victory" by the ruling class.

If they are going to redistribute wealth, they must fix there own poverty before moving on to Africa.

If they are going to redistribute wealth, they must resign themselve to failure, because it cannot work. It is against nature to expect the lion to share his kill with the weasel.

What has made the idea of wealth redistribution often disliked by
Capitalists.. is that the people who run it are too incompetent/disorganized to make it work correctly.

What makes wealth redistribution often disliked is the fact that you want to be the one to choose how to redistribute my wealth.

Wealth redistribution automatically creates a two-class society. Those who create the wealth and those who want to take it away from them and give it to non-achievers. Their motives are known only to themselves, but the "redistributors" are often compensating for some inadequacy in themselves.

Other than that, Africa has far too many problems for us to think that we can eliminate poverty in one decade, or even two. Things like the AIDS pandemic, unsolvable because men refuse to wear condoms. Things like genocide by madmen. And on and on.




reply posted on 7-10-2004 @ 03:43 PM by RedOctober90
jsobecky while you make valid points, I disagree with you in one matter. You seem to take the word I used "wealth redistribution" and automatically point at communism.

I do not refer to communism when I talk about wealth redistribution. Though under communism, you had 100% redistribution of wealth but the ruling class decided who it went too and also took some of it for themselves.

I promote socialism which works in many European countries. Especially the countries in the "norse" areas. You there tend to see a more educated and healthier public. Socialism is a mix of capitalism and socialist principles. Under hard capitalism, basic biological needs are put up as price tag and if you lack a certain amount of wealth your basic human needs are denyed.

Under my plan, the system provides those with only the basic necessities.. it does not provide people with free cars, computers, and other goods not necessary for survival.

People who lack an understanding of socialism believe that as soon as one institutes a system like this.... people are going to quickly quit there jobs and live off the state. This simply would not happen because most people would not be satisifyed with the fact that the system only provides basic needs. They obvisouly will work to buy all the additional goods they desire.

And no, a more socialist system would not drain the wealthy of all the wealth they earned. It simply taxes a portion of the wealth which is then put into the public trust. After all. the rich have always exploited the lower classes, I believe they should be expected to help instead of exploit. The rich can do without a few bucks when they already have billions more for themselves to spend as they see fit.

The problem with such a system is that government is to incomptent/disorganized to properly organize taxed wealth and properly distribute it where necessary.

I am a believer that if the Federal Government properly managed it's money we could be providing Social Security for a much lesser cost than what it is today.

Such a system is better run at the community level, because then the local governments would only need to manage people in the local area.

I agree with this statement made by the socialist party as follows:

"Under capitalist and "Communist" states, people have little control over fundamental areas of their lives. The capitalist system forces workers to sell their abilities and skills to the few who own the workplaces, profit from these workers' labor, and use the government to maintain their privileged position."- SPUSA"


Back with the Africa story, I believe it is human nature of people in Africa to be the way they are. I do not think that even if we threw all the wealth in the world at Africa.. that those countries would reach "1st world" status.

The first thing which would be necessary is for military operations to clear out all the warlords, but imagine how many people would end up dying and how much money would be thrown away. The money is better off helping people within instead of giving it to Africa.

If you can't fix your own problems, don't expect to be able to fix everyone elses.


[edit on 7-10-2004 by RedOctober90]

Pages:     ^^TOP^^



Russian scientists reach buried Antarctic Lake Vostok
  Posted 6 days ago with 83 member flags
Monsanto quits as GM results announced (EUROPE)
  Posted 7 days ago with 72 member flags
Renowned Geophysicist Says Strange Sky Sounds Are Real
  Posted 1 days ago with 68 member flags
Strange noises reported around North Battleford
  Posted 19 days ago with 67 member flags
Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel
  Posted 7 days ago with 49 member flags