# ••• Make Poverty History! ••• (Was Martin pledges $100-million for HIV)



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Article from the Globe & Mail. 

"Bono, the lead singer for Irish rock band U2 who founded the group DATA -- which stands for Debt, AIDS, Trade, Africa -- to combat AIDS and promote development in Africa, issued a statement giving glowing kudos to Mr. Martin. The rock star had spoken at last November's Liberal leadership convention, where Mr. Martin took over the governing party.

"Wow. A politician who doesn't break his promises. This is real leadership," Bono said in the statement. "I hope Canadians will know what this means in the rest of the world." "

MONTREAL -- Canada will pony up one-third of the cost of an international program to treat three million people in developing countries for AIDS/HIV by next year, breaking a funding logjam with a $100-million contribution.

The injection of money, which will push forward a World Health Organization program that had been unable to scratch together funding, was quickly hailed by AIDS activists as a key step -- and garnered Prime Minister Paul Martin new praise from Irish rock-star-turned-AIDS-activist Bono.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

No doubt there will be the usual cacophony of claims of electioneering, timing, what about Canadians, blah, blah. Except this took a long time to put together and will make a real difference to AIDS sufferers in developing countries. If only the G8 spent 5% on real aid of what it wastes on weapons, the world might be a significantly more stable and pleasant place for all.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Since you can't cure aids, just stall it, exactly what is this $100 Million funding doing? What do they do when they run out of funds? Aren't you just treating the symptoms and not the cause of the problem (people having unprotected sex, or bad blood transfusions)? Ie. This doesn't prevent more people in Africa from contracting the disease.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

True, the cocktail therapies only maintain low levels of virus, allowing the T helper cells to recover but there is always a problem with latent, small reservoirs of virus which will recur if the therapy is stopped. However, turning from an acute to a chronic problem is a huge step given that otherwise we are kissing godbye to over 100 million infected people. AIDS in Africa is not just about "unprotected sex" or tainted transfusions. It is endemic. In Africa, the use of condoms is seen as something you'd only ever use with a prostitute and their use in marriages is rare (even when the hubbie has been infected by casual sex and is showing symptoms, such is the weakness of female rights).

The sub-Saharan continent is a disaster area. They need anti-viral therapies to begin to stabilize the problem. If viral loads are minimized, the infected person can conduct a relatively normal life, supporting his/her family and they are far less likely to pass on the virus. Access to anti-virals also means that potentially newly infected people can be treated rapidly so that long term infection doesn't occur (something we've done in North America for a decade).

$100 million won't solve anything, except provide hope to people who currently have no hope. Perhaps others will contribute and the tragedy will turn around? Preaching celebacy is one approach but its barely scratching the surface due to social issues that we have little comprehension of.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Kosh, 

Read more about AIDS in Africa and how money will be spent for AVR's: 

*The AIDS Crisis*

Africa has been hit harder by the HIV/AIDS virus than any other region of the world. More than 17 million Africans have died from AIDS and another 30 million are infected with the HIV virus, approximately 1.5 million of whom are children.


Every day in Africa:

HIV/AIDS kills 6,500 people


9,500 people are infected with the HIV virus


1,400 newborn babies are infected during childbirth or by their mothers' milk.


People with AIDS don't suffer alone—the disease attacks their families and communities as well. 11 million African children have already lost one or both parents to AIDS, and unless we take serious action now, there will be more than 20 million AIDS orphans by the end of the decade. That is a whole generation of Africans growing up without parental love and guidance, without culture and family traditions, often without going to school or even learning the skills to farm or make a living.


AIDS has stripped out an entire generation of parents, farmers, doctors, leaders. Imagine going to a village and finding only children and grandparents left alive — that is already happening in countries like Malawi. Millions of children will have lost not only their parents, but their teachers, nurses and friends too. Businesses are losing their workers, governments are losing their civil servants, families are losing their breadwinners. As a result, entire communities are devastated and economies that are already crippled by poverty, debts and unfair trade policies are further compromised.

While the moral case stands alone as a reason to act, richer countries also have economic and security reasons to fight this emergency. As we've seen in the case of Afghanistan, devastated, unstable states can become breeding grounds for terrorists. Seeing Africa as our neighbor, and acting now to stop the spread of AIDS, is not just the moral thing to do — it's the practical thing.

The good news is that we know what works. Successes in a handful of countries such as Uganda and Senegal have shown that HIV rates can be brought down through effective AIDS prevention campaigns. Education, media campaigns, and community work with the must vulnerable can stop people from getting the HIV virus in the first place.

AIDS drugs also have the potential to make a huge difference to the impact of the pandemic. In the past year, people living with AIDS in Africa have dared to hope that they might get access to anti-retroviral drugs (ARVs) that will keep them alive to work and care for their families. These drugs work so well that they produce a 'Larazus' effect — patients at death's door can be back at work within 2 months of starting treatment. Evidence shows that Africans taking the life-saving anti-retroviral drugs (ARVs) adhere to their regimens much better than Americans or Europeans -- the success rate is about 80 per cent.

However, only 50,000 of the 4.1 million Africans in immediate need of ARVs have access to them. This is partly because of the price — the cheapest drugs are a dollar a day, but most Africans cannot afford this. It is also because of availability — in some places, only more expensive drugs are available, plus in many communities, there is not infrastructure or trained health care workers to monitor and administer the treatment. The scarcity of treatment results in doctors and families having to make the hardest choice of all — in the community, in the family, who will live and who will die.


WHAT MUST HAPPEN


Raise the Resources: We need to ensure that Africa has the resources it needs to fight AIDS. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has estimated that more than $10 billion per year is needed to fight AIDS around the world. Over the next few years, as the epidemic spreads further, that price tag will go up to more than $15 billion per year. Wealthy countries currently contribute less than $4 billion to global AIDS. All countries must move toward meeting their share of the immediate $10 billion target, and increase funding for AIDS prevention, education and treatment, as well as health care infrastructure, in countries across Africa.

The newly-established Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria was established in 2001 to mobilize a new large-scale international response to AIDS. So far, $4.7 billion has been pledged to the Fund over 8 years. So far it has awarded a total of $2.1 billion over two years to 121 countries. However, in order to continue funding the proposals coming in from governments and non-governmental organizations in poor AIDS-stricken countries, donors need to pledge much more.

Provide the Treatment: Studies show that treatment programs can succeed even in very poor settings. The World Health Organisation has committed to getting 3 million people on ARVs by 2005 (an increase from only 300,000 in the developing world today). In order to reach this goal, pharmaceutical companies and governments must do more to reduce the price of AIDS drugs; drug prices have dropped from $10,000 to $300 per year in the last 2 years and can fall further. African governments must work with donors and the private sector to get these drugs to the individuals who need them.

Fight the Stigma: After two decades, HIV still has a stigma attached which deters people from getting tested, which is one of the key ways to get the epidemic under control. Determined African leadership can make a big difference by being open about the extent of AIDS and implementing education programs and health care reforms necessary to make sure people get tested and have access to care and support if they test positive. With the right commitment and the right resources, stigma will become less of an issue. Available treatment has a critical part to play in removing stigma, as it means AIDS no longer has to be seen as death sentence: In Uganda, public education and prevention campaigns that were supported by the President cut infection rates from 14% of adults in the early 90's to 5% in 2001.

AIDS has been with us for 20 years. It is not going to go away on its own. The longer we go without sufficiently investing in stopping the global epidemic, the further it will spread worldwide and the more expensive the global bottom line will be in the end.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

ehMax, I have no problem donating, $100 million to fight aids. What I have a problem with is throwing money at the symptoms instead of the cause of the problem, which doesn't solve the problem and just requires more money to be spent. IE. You're keeping the current infected people alive, not curing the HIV, and not preventing them from spreading it,and not preventing more cases. It's like at work in our computer systems, when we fix the data that's being corrupted, but don't fix the problem program that's corrupting the data. You're not really fixing anything, new data is still be corrupted. Now, I don't know everything about Aids/HIV, and the people on this board who apparently do, are saying that injecting these people with the HIV cocktails available will help stop the spread and infection of new people. If that's true, that's good.


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

> Now, I don't know everything about Aids/HIV, and the people on this board who apparently do, are saying that injecting these people with the HIV cocktails available will help stop the spread and infection of new people. If that's true, that's good.


It sounds like, and I do mean this with respect, that you actually know very little about HIV/AIDS. The $100M for Africa isn't about finding a cure...the research doesn't take place there. It's about education. It's about trying to stop the spread of the disease. It's about trying to improve the quality of life for those infected with HIV/AIDS. It's about doing something that should have been done decades ago. 

HIV/AIDS education in the developed world has been on-going for almost two decades. In Africa, many people still believe that the virus can transmitted through casual contact, or that it can be cured by raping young virgin girls. Infected people who reveal their HIV positive status are often ostracized by their friends and family...many more are killed. 

HIV/AIDS is pandemic in Africa. The $100M announced by Ottawa today will go a long way to help those who are suffering...through education programs, obtaining desperately needed medications, by providing hope. It's also just a drop in the bucket when one thinks about what is really needed in Africa. 

It's going to take a strong international commitment...and an extreme cultural shift by African nations' leaders...before even a dent will be made in Africa's AIDS pandemic.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

It's a positive step, and more than welcome. Although the amount is, for Canada, significant, in the grand scheme of things it isn't really enough; it hopefully will bring others into the fold.

$100 million pledged by 30 million Canadians would be Billions if the same per capita amount was pledged by the other G7 nations.

There is a great deal of misconception about AIDS, and unfortunately some of that comes from agencies who mean to end or contain the disease. Personally I'm offended when a health group feels it must lie to get action; for example, AIDS stats routinely include the dead, whom are long beyond infectious. Whatever.

It's as if a million victims wasn't enough; does it make a real difference if you can claim 30 million instead? 60 million? It shouldn't. One is enough.

I don't mean to suggest there are only a million victims, only that there are more than enough, the exact numbers are not particularly important when it's obvious that something must be done now, and we should be on it by now.

Having said that, it's a step in the right direction.

The post about turning the fatal into the chronic is well taken; essentially that's the story of modern medicine. This "cure" talk is mostly trolling for research dollars; the reality is we live a natural life with pain rather than what was once fatal and final. I wouldn't go back though.

AIDS is, in fact pretty difficult to get. Education is the key. For example, in Africa for many years the re-use of syringes in health clinics caused widespread infection (too expensive to throw away; instead they were re-used).

In the Americas Blood Plasma donors (including all prisoners in the state of Arkansas, as well as many communities in Central & Southern America) spread infection to the general public and each other (plasma donation involves mixing all plasma from all donors, and often involves exposing the donor to the pooled plasma). The plasma was used all over North America in hospitals for a decade, long after whole blood was screened for HIV.

Since syringes are nearly impossible to get in the US (a prescription is required to possess them, let alone buy them), drug users shared needles to an extent not known in virtually any other nation, where syringes are available from any pharmacy.

Heterosexual women are very vulnerable to AIDS infection; once the virus is amongst the general population it's nearly impossible to prevent female infection.

HIV-positive Mothers can prevent transference (a slight majority of infants are born without infection) to their children if they avoid breast feeding, but in poor countries that simply is not an option, and breast feeding is a near perfect means of infection.

Aside from being exposed to semen via unprotected anal or vaginal sex with an infected partner(1), the health system (or lack of health information) and inadvertent consequences of drug laws were the means of infection of the mainstream population. Education can prevent most, if not all, further infections.

(1) Although there is a theoretical risk of infection from such things as cuts, and there have been lawsuits won based on that risk (in a lawsuit, theoretical risk can be enough to win; you don't have to prove it actually happened that way), the Centre For Disease Control has no confirmed cases of infection via contact with blood or saliva alone, or are there any proven cases of HIV-positive females infecting males in hetrosexual sex.

[ May 13, 2004, 03:05 AM: Message edited by: gordguide ]


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I've recently read that here in Canada it costs more than a million dollars for an infected individual to live what cannot be called a natural life. Only something like it.

A rather shorter version of what would have naturally been your given years as well, by most accounts.

I'm not sure how this translates into the African economic realities. I am quite sure that you will not change strong cultural pressures in that region with 100 BILLION dollars, either...let alone a hundred million Canadian. Which is only about 70 million in real money anyway.

But it IS a good gesture.

While I cheer the thought and the promise made by Mr. Martin, and applaud the help it may bring to an area that truly needs it...I can only be a bit cynical about the timing.

I should also note that he has been doling out expensive promises for a few months now. They seemed to have started in the wake of the massive theft allegations against his Liberal Party, and they haven't ended yet. Probably won't until the election is called.

I wonder where the money will come from?


Hmmm...a hundred million dollars. Now where have I heard that figure before? It was quite recent, as I recall. Something we were ALL talking about a month or so back...

Wait! I've got it!

Perhaps the Federal Liberals have temporarily stopped stealing tax dollars and decided to divert what they would have swiped during this period into electioneering instead. Using their ill gotten gains for good, instead of evil.

For a while.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... I've recently read that here in Canada it costs more than a million dollars for an infected individual to live what cannot be called a natural life. Only something like it. ..."

Not to discount your stats, G, but that sounds like a figure projected over a lifetime with the theoretical maximum care and longevity. Most people will earn an easy 1~2 million dollars in their lifetime (1); we could just as easily say every Canadian is a millionaire. Not exactly a lie, but certainly not the whole truth either.

I have an acquaintance who has been HIV-positive for 16 years and he claims his annual drug bill is around $10K, most of which he pays himself. He still works and who knows how long he'll live; he doesn't look sick to me.

He claims he was infected in Columbia and knowing a little about his drug habits, I don't doubt it. I do know he's spent a lot of time in Mexico, Central & Southern America and Thailand.

But I'm sure his monthly or whatever doctor visits add up to something in the long run, but it wouldn't be worse than anyone else with a chronic disease.

From what I've heard, being an immune disease, you can be fine right up until the time you get sick; then it's just a matter of time. But, considering I found out he was infected in the late 80's when everyone, including him, figured he was a goner, he's done pretty well.

(1) 20K a year from 16 to 65 is $980,000.00

[ May 13, 2004, 03:32 AM: Message edited by: gordguide ]


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

I see U2's Bono was in town yesterday to congratulate Mr. Martin and acknowledge that this is all election campaign promises.


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

> While I cheer the thought and the promise made by Mr. Martin, and applaud the help it may bring to an area that truly needs it...I can only be a bit cynical about the timing.


For once, I agree with MacNutt. The timing is a little too convenient, given that the election call will come next weekend. 

However, $100M is $100M and it is needed just the same. Although Paul Martin should hardly try to take the credit for this, as it was Jean Chretien who spearheaded the African assistance initiative for many years before leaving office.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Of course it's political. EVERYTHING a politician does is politically motivated. Who cares, its the end result that's important. 

That's one thing I'll give HUGE credit to Bono for. He knows he has to play politics to get things done. All he cares about is the end result and he'll show up and kiss Paul Martin's ass if that's what it takes to get more help for these people.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Be as cynical as you like but that's politics. Martin announced that there would be a plan for African AIDS victims at the party convention in November. I'm not sure when would be "good timing" for delivery. Yesterday for the victims.

I for one am cynical of anyone who launches into the thievery of the Liberals no matter what the topic.

(from my Mum's eMac in the UK....there's a Green Party advert on the TV







)


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

Of course the timing is suspect: that's politics. But it's an uncharacteristically* good move for this government. One that will help save millions of lives on this planet and help put a dent in this terrible disease. If anything, I'll bet it was Bono who showed up just to make extra sure that the PM didn't try to weasel out and call an election before the bill could make it through Parliament! 

{*sidenote: I say that this is uncharacteristically good because it's such an noticeable break from the slew of bad decisions this government has made in the run-up to the election call: re-opening East coast fisheries where stocks are teetering on extinction; extending EI benefits in certain regions such that they've become a disfigured form of social welfare rather than an insurance benefit; closing down the Public Accounts Committee hearings without really getting any closer to the money trail; etc, etc...}


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I agree with all of you. Big bucks for AIDS assistance in Africa is a GOOD thing...it's active and real help for a group of human beings who really NEED a hand up from the rest of the humans on this planet right now. No question about it at all.

It's got MY vote!

But I suspect that THIS particular announcement is more than a little bit motivated by "political expediency". 

And, it's also motivated by the burning desire of the Federal Liberals to get re-elected. This is from a Canadian Political Party that is scared as hell of being turfed out because of the massive corruption scandals that have dogged them over the past few years, BTW. 









Paul Martin has made a huge amount of VERY expensive political promises in the runup to this particuar election (upwards of FIVE BILLION, so far). 

If he was a card-carrying member of a political party that actually KEPT their election promises, then I would be rather alarmed at all of this.

Because there's NO WAY that they can actually PAY for all of it! Especially since they are using OUR money to do it!!

But, being as how he is a Federal Liberal who is desperate to be legitimised by a popular vote for his currently unelected leadership role....

Then I wouldn't bet ten cents on ANY of his election promises.   

For ANYTHING!!

Just look at the Federal Liberals' record of keeping their major election promises during the past decade, if you don't happen to agree with me. (it's NOT a pretty picture)

THEN we'll debate!

(I can't wait! Bring it ON!!)
















[ May 15, 2004, 03:51 AM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Bring the election on. That's the only debate that matters (and I'd note that if the Tories are elected they'll spend OUR money too - it's not as if any government ever has any other option).


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

No question about it, Jim. The new Tories will spend some of our money. It's a given.

But, at the very LEAST, they are NOT established criminals who are well known for diverting huge amounts of our tax dollars into their own pockets.

The Federal Liberals under Chretien/Martin ARE, according to no less than Sheila Fraser...our own Auditor General. Without a shadow of a doubt. This is a well documented fact   

Vote for whomever you think will give you the best representation in Parliament. By all means.

But don't be terribly surprised if the Martin Liberals violate every single solemn election promise that they've made, within a short period after they retain absolute power. This is their standard operating principle, after all. They have done just exactly this, every SINGLE time they have been re-elected with a majority.

Check the public record. It's all there, if you care to look.

Turning Canada into a true democracy, maintaining our health care system as it currently stands, building up our military to the point where it can be used as an effective defence/peacekeeping force, fixing the terribly flawed gun registry to make it truly effective instead of totally useless and hideously expensive, repairing our crumbling infrastructure in the major cities, altering our confiscatory tax regime to reflect the current realities and to prevent our best and brightest from fleeing this land, fixing the terrible situation that our native people find themselves in, lowering our gas taxes and the availability of petroleum to reflect the fact that Canada has more than enough cheap oil and natural gas for our own population for many decades to come.....among just a FEW things...

These have all been promised by a VERY desperate Paul Martin. A man who wants the total power of the Canadian Prime Minister's Office...but who can see it slipping away from him on a daily basis, these days. ( He will say or do anything that it takes to retain this absolute power and legitimise his currently unelected status. Watch and see)

A man who is a Quebec multi millionaire who uses every concieveable tax dodge in the massive Canadian shipping empire he inherited from his daddy. A man who registers his ships in Liberia and Panama to avoid Canadian taxes and safety regulations. A man who stashes his megabucks in carribbean tax havens to avoid paying Canadian taxes on his profits.

A man who did all of this WHILE he was the Finance Minster and Deputy Prime Minister of Canada. And a man who was in charge of the very Ministry where hundreds of millions of tax dollars dissappeared into Liberal pockets during the past decade. And the man who says he doesn't know a thing about it!  









What a joke.

Vote for HIM and HIS Party in the next Federal Election, if you care to.

The rest of us will be looking elsewhere for good leadership, thank you very much.









You know the old saying, don't you? It goes like this:

F*ck me once....shame on YOU! F*ck me twice....shame on ME!

Truer words were never spoken.

[ May 17, 2004, 05:02 AM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Do the Liberals a favour and run for the Tories Macnutt. Stephen certainly needs someone with a tad of charisma and emotion. His unveiling of the Conservative symbol on the engine of his campaign jet (where the other politicos were unveiling their motor coaches....) almost equalled the faux pas of Stockwell on his jet-ski. The guy has all the panache and subtlety of a used car dealer.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

And what the Federal Liberals really need is a leader who isn't a retirement age multi-millionaire who is currently under investigation because his giant Canadian shipping company registers it's ships in places like Liberia in order to dodge Canadian safety regulations and who DOES'NT stash his huge bucks in Caribbean tax havens in order to dodge Canadian taxes.

And who DIDN'T preside over the biggest theft of Canadian tax dollars in the history of the country. While he was Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, no less! (honest..he didn't know ANYTHING about it at all!)

These are just a few of the nasty realities that he will have to deal with during this next election.































On the other hand...the best thing Stephen Harper has going for him is that he is NOT a Federal Liberal.

Canadian voters are FAR more well known for voting Governments OUT than for voting new ones IN.

Guess who's on the very top of the "vote out" list, this time around?


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

*Since you can't cure aids, just stall it, exactly what is this $100 Million funding doing? What do they do when they run out of funds? Aren't you just treating the symptoms and not the cause of the problem (people having unprotected sex, or bad blood transfusions)? Ie. This doesn't prevent more people in Africa from contracting the disease.* 

Just saw this report tonight on CTV and it reminded me of this thread and that I was going to reply to this comment: Drug cost key to fight against AIDS in Africa. 

"The Canadian point man on AIDS for the United Nations Secretary General says he believes anti-retro-viral drugs can rescue Africa's families, as well as its nations' economies.


Stephen Lewis has seen Africa ravaged by AIDS. He says that the only future the people infected with the disease have is dependent on life-prolonging anti-retro-viral medications, or ARVs.


[b/"They bring people back from the brink of death," he told CTV News. "They bring people who are desperately sick back into productivity, into activity. They call it, 'the Lazarus Effect'."[/b]


"The ARVs have made me feel so much better," Caroline Namusoke told CTV News. *"Without them I'd be dead by now, for sure."*


*Six months ago, Namusoke was near death from AIDS. Today, she's back cooking and caring for her family.*


The cost of treating such a large population of those who have contracted the virus is overwhelming.


*"The issue with these drugs, it's the dollars," Lewis said. "It's crazy that we are letting people die, but they don't have to."*


At one clinic in Kampala, Uganda, ARV drugs are given away absolutely free to more than 1,000 local AIDS patients. The money for the clinic comes from U.S. President George Bush's $15 billion emergency plan for AIDS relief, known as PEPFAR.


But U.S. funding can only be used to buy expensive brand-name U.S. drugs, costing about $700 a year, at a cost double or triple to cheap, generic drugs not permitted under PEPFAR conditions.


To save more lives, the UN must keep going cap in hand to squeeze governments for funds. The UN has been trying to raise the funds to have three million people on ARVs by 2005.


*Without increased funding to meet the UN's goals, more will die.* But even if the UN can provide three million people access to Anti-retro-viral treatment, 22 million other Africans infected with HIV and AIDS must face the disease alone."

---

More about the AIDS epedemic in Africa on the DATA site (Debt, Aid, Trade for Africa)


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Africa is an interesting case.

SubSaharan Africa is one of the richest regions on the face of the earth. It has an abundance of rare minerals, gold, diamonds, and vast oil wealth. It has a population that is greater than all of Europe. Bigger than all of North America and Mexico, combined.

It also has a vast diversity of plants and animals that is second to NONE on the face of this planet, a growing season that can produce two or three big crops per year. Of pretty much ANYTHING that they choose to grow each season.

The countries of the region have been self-governed for more than two generations...and have been recieving massive monetary help from outside for more than thirty years now.

But the whole area is still a total basket case.

It SHOULD Be a powerhouse. A world leader in so very many ways. Or at least in a few ways.

Instead...we are all asked to ship massive amounts of free drugs into the area, in the same way that we have been shipping food and money into the area for the past few decades, in order to save them from yet another looming social crisis.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with helping out our fellow human beings in time of need. I am all for massive shipments of curative materials to ANY group of fellow humans who desperately need this help.

But.....

I just gotta stop and think of how often this particular region has seemed to be desperately in need of some sort of help from the outside. Pretty much ALL of my half century lifetime, when I stop to think about it.

Why is this?

Why...with all of the vast riches on that segment of the earth, are they always in such deep trouble? Why does it never seem to get any better in sub-Saharan Africa? No matter what anyone does?

And why do we never see the same sort of pleas from Japan?

The Japanese live on a few barren islands in the Pacific Ocean and have almost NO natural resources. They cannot even grow enough food to supply their own population. Never could, as a matter of fact.

And they were almost bombed out of existence as a society about a half century back. They are the only country on earth that has experienced a direct hostile nuclear attack in the history of the planet. (two massive nuclear attacks, actually. Plus a massive amount of airborne firebombing that leveled most of the buildings in their major cities and killed off hundreds of thousands of citizens)

And yet...strangely enough...the Japanese are now the second most powerful economy on the planet earth.

They are a modern society that, in some ways, could put our own Canadian society to shame (they have vastly less crime than we do, for one thing).

They lead us in technology, and no one on earth thinks that they are now "disadvantaged" in any way shape or form.

And...if they ever have some sort of terrible disease like HIV/AIDS descend upon them in a huge way...then they will attack it in their own way. And PAY for all of the necessary drugs themselves.

They WON'T be asking for handouts from the rest of the world, I'll bet.

Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with helping out any disadvantaged group of fellow humans. For any reason.

I'm just questioning why this particular region of sub-Saharan Africa (with almost half a billion people living in it) is STILL "disadvantaged" after more than forty years (or more) of self rule and while having so very many natural advantages at their very fingertips.

It seems to me that they should be quite able to run their own show by now. And be able to deal with their own problems. With minimal outside interference.

Anyone care to comment on this?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

More macnutt hyperbole and rhetoric. You have to look at each country in turn not lump them all together.


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

Start by comparing countries to countries, not countries to continents (or subcontinents).


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Short replies. Small thoughts. Narrow thinking.

Anyone care to step out of the lineup of drones who are the long-entrenched slaves to old ideals (and a totally discredited ideology) and explain to ALL of us why a vastly rich continent with massive amounts of natural resources, and a population that outnumbers all of Europe or all of North America, (including Mexico) is still...after forty years of self-rule...STILL mired in social disasters and begging for help from smaller groups of countries well outside it's own continetal borders.

Unable to feed itself...unable to maintain any sort of social order? Plauged by repeated mass-migrations because of repeated instances of "ethnic cleansing'?

Week after week? Month after month? Year after year?

Do we see any sort of mass genocide in Europe during a similar period? In Japan? In any part of rapidly-developing Asia?

Are we seeing any sort of similar massive movements of ethnic groups in North America? In order to avoid any sort of horrible "ethnic-cleansing" events?

No?

Then why does it seem to be the norm, in sub-saharan Africa?

Why is it ALWAYS death and destruction and disease in that particular region of the world. Seemingly without any end?

When they would seem to have EVERY Sort of physical advantage over every OTHER continent? In every way that is measureable? 

ALL of this is just par for the course...it would seem, They seem to have a rapidly crumbling infrastructure across the whole region and less food production that there was two decades ago...despite a rapidly increasing population.

Gold, diamonds and abundant oil reserves. Chromium and titanium and all sorts of rare minerals in vast abundance. The ability to grow almost ANY crop, two or three times per year. Incredible (and largelky unrealised) potential for large-scale tourism from the wealthier countries. 

Massive wealth. By any and all forms of measurement.

But the whole region...pretty much EVERY country in sub-saharan Africa...is a regular beneficiary of Foriegn Aid to the tune of several billions of dollars per year.

And they are screaming for even MORE, in the face of this latest challenge of AIDS.

It never seems to get any better in this particular region. Only WORSE. Every single year!

How can we help to turn this insurmountable situation around?? Make it better. Make it RIGHT?

Anyone care to share their thoughts on this?

Anyone care to speculate on how this horrid situation could be turned around? In order to improve the lot of the people in this region? Once and for all?

Instead of just sending them relief, or free drugs to battle the latest sickness they have been afflicted with, or sending troops in to stop the latest mass-slaughter...

How can WE...as the so-called "modern world"...help the people of sub-saharan Africa to stand up on their own feet, and take their rightful place on the world stage? Make their own way? Solve their own problems, and begin to move into the twenty-first century? Like the rest of us.

Band-aids are only a short-term fix. We need to look at how we can help to turn this whole nasty mess into a vibrant and dynamic region with REAL hope for the future.

Simply handing out more cash or some free drugs to help a tiny part of the ongoing problems in the area just won't cut it. We need to take a look at the Big Picture.

And try to do our best to help them from THAT perspective. To positively change things in that region...once and for all.

Any thoughts on this?

[ August 06, 2004, 04:49 AM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

I take the view that short replies are like sharp needles to fat balloons of hot gas.  

The problem is that you CANNOT generalize! There are always exceptions.

A. Population size? You say that the population is bigger than North American or Europe? So what? How is it that the small population of a resource-poor island nation became the economic bogeyman of the late 1980s? Think about it.

B. Unable to feed itself? Are you talking about the whole subcontinent? Then, you don't know squat.

C. Mass genocide? Holy crow! Asking that question just makes me shake my head at your ignorance. Let's go down the list of mass killings shall we?

Cambodia-Khmer Rouge
Burma-Karen people
Indonesia-East Timor
India/Pakistan-10 million killed during partition
Balkan wars
Turkey-Kurds

Human rights abuses or possible persecution of ethnic and racial groups:

Japan-Ainu
China-Tibet and Muslim minorities
Sri Lanka
Rumania-Gypsies

List goes on and on...get the point?

D. Every sort of physical advantage? LOL! You're talking about a continent with vast deserts, vast jungles, river systems that boggle the mind. It's one thing to have natural resources it's another thing to be able to physically extract and transport it all to market.

The way I read it, the picture you're painting leads me to suspect that you're leading up to a plan based on "white man's burden". Any else suspect that we have a Rhodes here?


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Well, for starters... being that America and other countries took about 15 Million Africans as slaves and raped their country for their silver and gold, I'd say the world does owe them one. 









The reasons for Africa's problems are due to their HUGE debt and unfair trade practises. I've outlined this several times and references the DATA (Debt, Aid, Trade for Africa) several times for which I'm sure you haven't read. 

For the URL clicking challenged:

*THE DEBT CRISIS*

Every year Sub-Saharan Africa, the poorest region of the world, spends $14.5 billion dollars repaying debts to the world’s rich countries and international institutions such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Many countries in Africa spend more each year on debt than on health care or education. Why? Decades worth of loans have been given without much thought to how countries could pay them back. Some of the loans went to prop up bad governments or military regimes that are now long gone. Some of the loans were wasted by the governments that received them. Some were given by rich countries in ways that served their own self-interest.


Whatever the reason, today the poorest countries are saddled with debts they have to pay back at the expense of their own people. Many democratically elected governments are stuck with the debts racked up by the dictators that ruled before them. Skyrocketing interest rates and bad economic policies have multiplied these old debts over and over again. Nigeria, for example, originally borrowed $5 billion worth of debt from foreign governments and institutions; it has already paid back $16 billion and still owes $32 billion.


Over the past few years, thanks to the efforts of those who contributed to the international Jubilee 2000 movement for debt relief, politicians have begun to respond to the debt crisis. In 1999, the richest countries promised to make sure that $100 billion of poor countries debt would be written off through the World Bank and International Monetary Fund’s Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) program. So far, 23 African countries have qualified for some relief and have received approximately $25 billion in long term debt relief. As a result, these countries paid almost $1 billion less on debt in 2002 than they did in 1998.

The money is being put to good use. For example, Uganda — the first country to benefit from debt relief — used money freed up by debt cancellation to double primary school enrollment and invest in their national HIV/AIDS plan which has contributed to Uganda’s successful reversal of HIV infection rates. Mozambique’s debt relief has enabled the government to immunize a half million children. Tanzania eliminated fees for grade school, and Benin eliminated school fees in rural areas, allowing thousands of children to attend classes for the first time.

Nevertheless, huge debts remain and Africa still owes rich countries almost $300 billion. Debt relief so far has resulted in the amounts African countries pay on their debt each year being cut on average by just one third. This is partly because some countries, including the US, UK, France and Germany, are canceling all the debt owed by these countries, but other nations and creditors like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund are not.

*WHAT MUST HAPPEN*

Africa’s poorest nations need much deeper debt cancellation, starting with those which have already pledged to use the money to fight poverty. Canceling all their debts would cost each citizen of the richest countries approximately $1.70 per person per year.

We need to ensure that no impoverished African country is spending more on old debts to the richest nations than on the health, education and welfare of its people.

-----

*Make Trade Fair*

*As important as development assistance and debt relief are, no African person or government wants to rely on foreign aid for the provision of basic needs.* Africans want a fairer system which lets them trade with the rich nations and earn more money, so they can grow their economies and pay for their own education and healthcare. But instead of earning more money to invest in improving the lives of their people, Africa has been earning less and less. In 1948, Africa (excluding South Africa) had a 5.3% share of world trade. In 2002 this had dropped to 1.7% despite the fact that Africa has 12 % of the world’s population. If Africa could regain just an additional 1% share of global trade, it would earn $70 billion more in exports each year – nearly six times what the region currently receives in foreign aid.


Rich countries are very interested in talking about the importance of trade as the primary motor of economic growth in developing countries, yet there’s been no real action because these rich countries heavily protect their own markets against exports from the poorest countries through import duties and quotas. Furthermore rich countries continue to subsidize their own agricultural sectors to the tune of a billion dollars a day, making it impossible for African farmers to compete internationally. What rich countries fail to realize is that fairer trade is not just an opportunity for Africa but for the all countries—even them.


Africans in turn know they need to diversify their exports from unprofitable basic crops such as coffee and cocoa and into products which earn more money such as clothes, textiles and manufactured goods. But Africans could also earn more from basic crops if they were allowed to process these for export. For example Ghana can export raw cocoa duty free to Europe, but a 25% tariff is imposed if they process that cocoa before exporting it to Europe. It is this processing (tinning, roasting, labeling) which helps a country earn more money and develop its manufacturing base – and which allows its economy to grow. While fair trade could be Africa’s ticket out of the vicious cycles of poverty, unfair trade rules like these trap Africa at the gates.


These double standards have to end. It is important to have rules – but not ones only written by the rich. The World Trade Organization (WTO) is the place where these rules are written. But of the 38 African nations which are members of the WTO, 15 nations have no representative at all at the headquarters in Geneva, and 4 nations have an office of only one person. Most rich nations have dozens of staff to protect their trading interests.

*WHAT MUST HAPPEN*

The richest nations must open their markets quota and duty free to African exports and remove agricultural subsidies which hurt African farmers.

African countries must be allowed to harness the power of trade in their own way to maximize poverty alleviation and economic growth – there is no “cookie-cutter” trade policy to force on poor countries.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I'll just pick this one out for classic MacNutt being just plain wrong

"_They cannot even grow enough food to supply their own population. *Never could, as a matter of fact.*_

Japan was not even open to trade from the outside until 1859 when Perry stuck a gun in their face.

They fed themselves then -



> *Japan closed the country during the Edo period. No import means that Japan was a self-sufficient society.
> The principle crop, rice, had produced constantly approximately for 300 years.* The rest of the ears of a rice plant were used to make straw sandals, baskets, straw rain-capes, woven hat, and roof of houses.
> When these products became old, they went back to dust. Therefore, while everything was cycling in the society, the economy had never expanded.


Neither is Britain self sufficient in food despite more arable land.

Japan is a very rigid and racist society that works because it has a shared set of values. Low crime is a product of those historical values.

SubSaharan Africa had empires when Europeans were cave dwellers.

Genocide was the method by which the US consolidated it's holdings over Mexico and the native Americans.

Britain did to the Irish.
The French did it to the Heugonots.
The list goes on.

You are skidding very close to a racist view. The same questions were applied to Irish and Chinese in North America. They measured their heads to explain it.

The Mongols erased entire cultures and reduced China's population by 30% - some cities of 1 million plus were wiped out - every single person. This when the world population was still counted in millions.

The US de-colonized 200+ years ago and had a bloody first century with a massive civil war.

Africa has been emerging out from under colonization since what - 50 years......and still the meddling goes on.

Africa was a central battle zone in the cold war.

Here's a good overview



> Or we could reject this passive, airy-fairy conceptualisation of how Africa 'became' like it is...we could stop pretending various African countries have simply experienced so much 'misfortune' because of things intrinsic to Africa or because they 'just aren't as developed as the richer world'. Yes, tyrannical rulers have been very much a part of 'post-colonial' African history, ruining the lives of their subjects through their repression and violence. *We could accept, however, that historically the west's also played a large active part in creating Africa's misery. And present-day western governments perpetuate this misery. Just a suggestion.*
> 
> Africa has been plundered for centuries by European powers: for many westerners today this is a simple truth. First there was the slave trade and more recently non-white Africans have suffered under repressive white racist rulers (apartheid), bloodthirsty European tyrants (for example Benito Mussolini's pilots machine-gunning Abyssinian civilians from the air) and profiteering based on expropriation of local populations' natural resources: the Italian plutocrats who claimed Libya's oil supplies for themselves last century, for example. Many people accept this as the modern history of Africa and there's growing sentiment out there that Africa doesn't owe anyone, it is owed.
> 
> ...


http://www.greenevents.fsnet.co.uk /features/art070.html

The Yanks tossed out Britain over unfair trade practices - the Tea party.

_ *African producers are forced to play 'free market' hardball with producers from wealthier countries, which are subsidised on an enormous scale.*_

First world has and does exploit the third world - mono culture agriculture devastating to the subsistence farmer and totally unfair agriculture subsidies that even Canadian farmers are having trouble coping with.

Your attitude sickens me MacNutt. ....and I suspect I'm not the only one to feel that way.    

AIDs is a WORLD problem and just one of the Four Horsemen that may appear if the infestations of humans doesn't get its act together.

There are no easy answers, insinuations of the most odious kind as you've made simply fracture the world further  

[ August 07, 2004, 02:36 AM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Further information on why it's much better to prevent fires rather than trying to put them out:

*Extremists use funds to recruit Muslim Africans*
CTV.ca News Staff

If you mention Islamic extremism, thoughts often turn to the Middle East or Asia. But in the last couple of weeks, officials in Pakistan have arrested a number of suspected al Qaeda militants from Africa.

Many Africans are turning toward the teachings of Islam these days. Fully one third of the world's Muslims now live in Africa -- that's between 300 and 400 million people.

Most of the Muslims on the continent express themselves peacefully. But some of the faith's followers have turned into extremists.

Now, evidence suggests that Africa could become a staging ground for future attacks on the West. *That's because some Africans, including Christians, are disillusioned by what seems like indifference to the poverty and wars in Africa. *

"If an American dies, it's an issue. The whole world. But if I myself, a Ugandan, die, it is not an issue," said Sheikh Amir Kakeeto at a mosque in Kampala.

[snip]

*The unfortunate part of the equation is that terrorist groups like al Qaeda are using economic desperation to manipulate Muslim believers into risking their own lives by taking part in terrorism. *

Rest of article.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

*One of the most beautiful days of my life...*

*G8 Ministers back Africa debt deal *



> LONDON, England -- *Finance ministers from the world's wealthiest nations have agreed to a historic accord to cancel up to $55 billion worth of debt owed by the world's poorest nations.*
> 
> The Group of Eight (G8) ministers -- meeting for a second day Saturday in London -- backed a deal that calls for an immediate scrapping of 100 percent of the debt owed by 18 countries.
> 
> ...


------

REACTION FROM BONO, U2 LEAD SINGER AND CO-FOUNDER OF *DATA*, A FOUNDING MEMBER OF *ONE:*

The journey of equality took another step today, and broke free millions of people in some of the poorest countries from the bondage of immoral and unjust debts. The leadership of the jubilee campaigners is bearing fruit once more, we really owe those people, from church basements to national treasuries who have worked so long and so hard for this day.
There's long nights ahead of us all to build up the speed and accelerating for a comprehensive debt-aid-trade deal for the poorest people in the poorest countries at the G8 Gleneagles.

REACTION FROM SETH AMGOTT, SPOKESPERSON FOR DATA:

Americans asked for leadership in canceling the poorest countries' debts, and we got it from the Bush Administration: this agreement cancels the debts of 18 countries today and up to 38 countries in short order, and it frees up more than $1 billion in the first year and rising -- for more schools, health clinics and farm-to-market roads. 
This agreement is a down payment on the historic breakthrough the ONE campaign seeks at the G8 in Gleneagles: more and better development assistance, 100% debt cancellation and trade justice. ONE, with the help of the *Live 8*, will keep turning up the volume.

================

This is just friggin amazing. This could be a historic change in the world. Action does help. Please, help turn up the heat by visiting the Canadian branch, *Make Poverty History *. Or give *Mr. Paul Martin a call directly * at *613 992-4211* .

*http://www.makepovertyhistory.ca/ 

http://one.org/ 

http://www.live8live.com/ 

http://www.data.org/ *


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

This is a great day. Now some of the most deeply indebted African nations can begin to make a turnaround and start to work their way back up the ladder of prosperity.

Maybe.

But I suspect that, in order to actually DO this they will also have to come up with some brand new leaders. Ones who don't funnel all the available cash that their countries resources can produce (and all the money that is loaned to them by the west) into Swiss bank accounts. And who live in unspeakable luxury while their citizens starve to death and live in fetid squalor.

I think that writing off the loans is a good idea. And we will, no doubt, make new loans for many more billions more to these very needy counties in the very near future.

A condition of these new loans should be that they be spent on the people of the regions. The most needy and poverty stricken people. NOT to buy fancy new private jets/limos/mansions for whatever kleptocrat might be currently in charge of the place.

Otherwise the cycle will simply continue itself. And things will never get any better in most of sub-saharan Africa.

Just my two cents worth.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

"The G8 ministers also said 20 other countries could be eligible for debt relief *if they meet targets for good governance and tackling corruption."*

The corruption argument is very, very real, but for too long its been a convenient excuse for inaction. 

All the initiatives that have been taking place to get us to this historic decision today, have been predicated on governments tackling corruption and there being good governance and clear and transparent process in place. 

Corruption always seems to be brought up first thing by the neo-cons. Here's an interview Bono had with Bill O'Reilly:



> O'REILLY: I've been to Africa as you. I'm not as widely traveled as you, but it is a corrupt continent, it's a continent in chaos. We can't deliver a lot of the systems that we send there. Money is stolen.
> 
> Now, when you have a situation like that, where governments don't really perform consistently, where there's just corruption everywhere, how can you cut through that?
> 
> ...


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> This is a great day. Now some of the most deeply indebted African nations can begin to make a turnaround and start to work their way back up the ladder of prosperity.
> 
> Maybe.
> 
> ...


Couldn't have said it better myself, Macnutt!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ehMax said:


> Here's an interview Bono had with Bill O'Reilly:


Ah yes, O'Reilly, king of sleaze news.

He has about as much credibility as Bono.

Sorry, but an Irish rocker combined with a Fox news guy deserve each other. What we as Canadians deserve is for both of them to take a hike.

Not a popular opinion with some, but the feelings of many to be sure.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sinc, I strongly agree with your comments about Bill O'Reilly, but disagree with your comments about Bono.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

SINC said:


> [snip]
> 
> He has about as much credibility as Bono.
> 
> ...


Millions of beautiful humans in the great continent of Africa could care less about what you think about Bono's credibility.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Agreed. Now...if they could just get themselves some decent leaders, then perhaps they might just have a chance.

If not, then it's gonna be the same old, same old. 

Trust me on this.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I was chatting with three grad students yesterday, all from different African countries, and each has basically said that until their countries break away from the "colonial mentality" and rid themselves of the "clan and tribal way of thinking", and actually have a military that is controlled by a "socially democratic and elected leader", then Africa will remain a "problem for the world".

Please note, that the various quotes were from the three grad students. They were very articulate and truly friendly and open to discuss the situation in their three countries.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Dr.G. said:


> Sinc, I strongly agree with your comments about Bill O'Reilly, but disagree with your comments about Bono.


'Tis the way of the world Dr. G. We all have opinions and we are free to express them.

I compare it to the Irish Prime Minister having Celine Dion in his face about Irish matters. 

Like Bono, she should be told to stay out of foreign politics and stick to entertaining those who appreciate her or him.

Just because they are a celebrities, doesn't give them the right to criticize Canada or its government. I for one have no interest in what they think.

As for Africa, most of the money sent there winds up in the wrong hands. This is a problem that should fall to the UN and the need is for education to prevent the spread of the disease. Just don't be telling us we are not doing enough, or we are doing it wrong, in Bono's opinion.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

MacNutt said:


> Agreed. Now...if they could just get themselves some decent leaders, then perhaps they might just have a chance.
> 
> If not, then it's gonna be the same old, same old.
> 
> Trust me on this.


This is one time I totally agree with you on this Macnutt.  This isn't the time for bleeding hearts or lofty ideas. 

Corrupt leaders and despots in African countries must not get AID. This is key. 

The issue is very, very real but at the same time, can't be the cause for inaction. Other issues need to be addressed as well, namely trade.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sinc, I still feel that Bono gives a voice for the voiceless. Just my opinion. We are still brothers, and brothers are free to agree or disagree with each other, but still remain family. Paix, mon frere.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Corrupt leaders and despots in African countries must not get AID. This is key


It's not quite so straight forward as that as you are punishing the citizenry for the actions of the leaders. AID tied to reform and AID that does not enrich despots.........but AID nonetheless.

The Economist had an excellent article on just this subject with regard to the World Bank in it getting smarter about it support.

Here's the relevant part of a longer article. ( I'll email anyone that wants the whole thing )



> Some think that, if it were to confine itself to the well-governed parts of the globe, the World Bank would scarcely warrant its title. But the Bank is learning that every unfit government is unfit in its own way. In some countries, citizens cannot hold policymakers to account (China); in others, policymakers cannot bend the bureaucracy to their will (Armenia). In some cases, the state is captured by venal interests—either wealth captures power (Russia under Yeltsin), or power captures wealth (Russia under Putin). In others, the state is so weak there is nothing worth capturing.
> 
> The Bank must pitch itself accordingly. If the state is honest, but weak, the Bank can try to train judges and equip civil servants. But there is no point investing in the machinery of a captured state. A project to strengthen the fiscal apparatus of Mobutu Sese Seko, the kleptocratic former ruler of Zaire, counts as the most misguided Bank project ever, in the opinion of Susan Rose-Ackerman, a corruption expert at Yale University.
> 
> ...


http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4032601

In my mind, even more so than the World Bank, AID organizations must not abandon those under despots - Doctors without Borders is a case in point.

As the World Bank has had to learn to do AID organizations have to find methods of delivering services to those most in need without enriching corrupt regimes. No easy task but essential in my mind - the spotlight must stay ON those regimes and there must be support for the populace who eventually will engender a change.

As for Bono - he has used his popularity also as a spotlight to draw attention to what he feels needs changing. He has every right to do so. Whether his message is relevant or can be realized is up to each one to decide.

One woman in Canada engendered a world wide Land Mines accord by getting focused attention.

Bono due to his celebrity can do even more and for me the fact that he gets X-Gens and younger people engaged is even more important.

and focusing on Africa has led to this......



> G8 finance ministers agree on debt relief
> Saturday, June 11, 2005 Updated at 9:18 PM EDT
> Associated Press
> 
> London — The world's richest countries agreed Saturday on a historic deal to write off more than $40-billion (U.S.) of debt owed by the poorest nations.


 :clap:

It's about time......

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050611.wdebtrelief11/BNStory/International/


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Bottom line here?

We NEED to help Africa. It's IMPERATIVE that we do ALL we can do, to help. This is a given.

BUT!!!...we also need to make sure that all of our hard earned tax money isn't going to further enrichen the already obscenely wealthy African despots.

While the average citizens in those countries continue to starve and subsist in complete squalor. 

There are about two dozen African "leaders" who are also well known for their wild spending habits. They live in fantastic palaces. And they ride around in expensive limos. They regularly treat their many mistresses (and sometimes even their wives) to ridulculously expensive shopping trips to Europe (most often France). 

When in Europe, they spend tens of thousands of dollars per day on expensive trinkets. (Often buying BACK the finished versions of the very diamonds that they have sold in rough form! For a HUGE markup!!)

They and their entourages drink the very finest champagne. They dine at the very BEST restaurants (to the tune of thousands). They have expensive tailor made suits custom crafted for them and for all of their best buddies. They take in the sights and pleasures of the very rich in modern Europe...(makes a nice break from the squalor of their own lands)

In short...they live even better than the fabled kings of old.

Meanwhile...their "subjects" (the citizens of their respective countries) are scrabbling to find enough food to make it through each day. These very same African citizens struggle to fend off the frightening realities of life in sub-saharan Africa. For every SINGLE day of their shockingly short lives. 

Question here:

Should we simply pour more money into a well documented sinkhole that will further enrich the already obscenely wealthy few who currently run most of these countries?

Or...do we call a stop to all of this?

And make any new massive contributions from the west contingent on reliable and totally uncorruptable reports that this new money is _ACTUALLY BEING SPENT ON THE PEOPLE??!!??[/

And NOT the despots?

Your choice._


----------

