POLITICS: World 'can end African poverty'

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.




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]

While large governments may have exploited the African nations.. it is not the sole cause of the poverty.

Why doesen't Blair focus on ending poverty within in his borders? 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.

If they are going to redistribute wealth, they must fix there own poverty before moving on to Africa. Because all Africa is going to be is a wealth dumper, throwing money at the problem is not the solution.

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.



[edit on 7-10-2004 by RedOctober90]

Yes I agree REd,

Back in the 80's Iron Marge succeded in redistributing the wealth of middle england to the rich. Now Blair wants to send the little they have left over to Africa...

I hope the british population wises up to this little creep and his self serving ways...

Regards

The UN, US and UK has contributed untold billions in aid to the African continent over the years, just to be hoarded bythe militant governments that's in power there. The African population could be better off if they were to get rid of the governments that's already in place. I hate to say it, but there will be blood-shed. If the people there want to be free from poverty, it's possible.

Africa needs to change internally before it can start working on bringing itself out of poverty.There's a saying that goes like, "Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll eat forever," or something like that.

To end the poverty in Africa, along with the MILLIONS killed by the AIDS epidemic going on there, which would also have to be addressed, if not addressed firstly, will virtually cripple most of the worlds nations and their respective economies, IMHO.

In requiring help to make change, first, one must want the change, and secondly, one must help themselves....



seekerof

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.

So sad and I agree with RedOctober90 is a shame that country has being exploited by other countries, a nation that has Some of the largest, and richest, mineral deposits in the world, diamonds, gold and precious stones but their people are dying.

A country that has oil but still the people are dying of hunger and Aids and still depends of other countries for its survival.

I wonder who benefits from its resources? Its not his people, then who

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]

RedOctober90

Well, there are certain points that I agree with you on, the primary one being that our current system of "Social Security" is a dismal failure. I'm sure you've heard that if your monetary contributions to our current SS system were allowed to accumulate in a basic savings account at a very small rate of interest, you would be able to retire with a very substantial cash nest-egg. Not to mention the funds that would be there to loan to small businesses and individuals in the meantime.

And I believe that each individual should be able to receive affordable health care. I speak from experience when I say that if you do not have good health, you have nothing.

Nobody should go to bed hungry. We waste more food than is necessary to feed the entire population.

And finally, everybody should be able to afford housing. Nothing builds pride and dignity faster than owning your own home.

The problem is, none of these are achievable under any current economic or political system.

Why is it the world's problem? Why does the United States, Canada, Britian... all the "free and democratic" countries, feel as if they need to either (a) help the world, or (b) control the world and dictate those countries as to what they can and cannot do?

Someone mentioned it earlier... the US has given how many countries (not just African ones) billions of dollars, and for what? Has that money helped the people it was meant to help? Cannot the US use that money here? And the US has given how much food to African nations, only to see the same thing happen... the people don't receive the food! And yet there are people in the US struggling or starving. And again, how much medical supplies has the US handed out... when we have sick and dying children within our own homes?

I am not against Africa... or Mexico... or any European country the US has aided, but enough is enough. Hasn't Blair learned anything from what the US went through with African aid?

Truth be told, I feel this is a PR stunt. Think about it... with all the Presidential debates flying around, the whole WMD thing keeps popping up, and since Blair was involved with that, he now needs something to distance himself from Bush.

I know this is ATSNN, and I shouldn't be ranting, but come on! Stunt or not, TAKE CARE OF YOUR OWN FIRST!

I was going to say something, looks like after rereading I don't need to.
oops me............

[edit on 7-10-2004 by magical communications]

More money is spent on subsidising farming in the US and Europe than in aid to Africa. When African produce is sold on the open market it has to compete with the subsidised lower prices from US and Europe....hmmmmmmm.

Many countries in Africa can support their own population for food but instead are growing cash crops (coffee,tea chocolate etc) to pay off debts to the US and European banks hmmmmmm

The price paid to those African countries for their cash crops is dictated by commodities markets run by......oh let me thing the US. Europe hmmmmm.

And don't forget your history lessons. The economies of the west were built during the industrial revolution with the help of plundered resources of the current third world countries. The US doesn't get off lightly either look how its indigenous population was treated in order to "build" the country.

Originally posted by marg6043
I wonder who benefits from its resources? Its not his people, then who

See marshall plan.. it us rich whiteys who benefit.

On the other hand take Nigeria, with the oil production goin on there for the past decade or two its not hard to get your hands on some rough estimates on how much oilmoney had gone into the country. Now have a look at the people... somehow i think the concept of "trickledown" has eldued them. Really what happened to those BILLIONS?

Thanks Corinthas for bringing that point, oh, I am very well informed about the niger valley their military ruling the Chevron dealings and the poor victims, the people of the area, they don't get anything from having rich oil lands but death, hunger and famine.

While the Chevron is protected by the military rulers and had killed the men that protest for lack of jobs to feed their families, women have taken upon themselves to do the protesting, funny the rest of the world does not get the news, I found a site in which the women in one of their protest were shouting "it we die Chevron dies"

Now we had people talking about that US does not have to feed or take care of Africa but I suggest you do research and see who is taking the natural resources of that country and robbing that country dried sometime people like to post without knowing the facts.

jsobecky

Well once again you make some valid points. I believe that a total overhaul of the current US system, total reorganization of the system could provide universal healthcare for all. People would say foreign "illegals" would abuse the system.. well, we would indeed have no choice to provide better border security.. it is not totally in the nature of socialists to close borders but if we are to take care of our own.. we need to be able to pay for own.

Those who are already here are to be treated fairly, we need to put nationalism aside and think of each other as equal human beings.

It will be up to Mexico to restructure the system to provide for it's people, it amazes me how much commerce Mexico does with the world.. but you see all the profits end up in private pockets. The rich can indeed do away with a few bucks.

Much of what is produced in the USA is wasted... better organization of funds and goods would fix many of the problems we see.

Imagine, a country with much of it's poverty and hunger abolished.

Corporate ownership of government must end, it is the cause of the USA and it's destructive middle eastern policy. The common people must take control of the government and begin change.

Originally posted by Corinthas
On the other hand take Nigeria, with the oil production goin on there for the past decade or two its not hard to get your hands on some rough estimates on how much oilmoney had gone into the country.

Really what happened to those BILLIONS?

I know where some of it is - in an offshore bank, having been deposited there by a MR. FRANK MFOTO before he died in an automobile accident. I was contacted by a Nigerian lawyer via email and given the opportunity to share in the money; all I need to do is send them my personal financial information, including my Social Secrity number. I can't wait till the money arrives in my account - I've already picked out my new car and new digs! [/sarcasm]