"For God's Sake, Please Stop the Aid!"

The Kenyan economics expert James Shikwati, 35, says that aid to Africa does more harm than good. The avid proponent of globalization spoke with SPIEGEL about the disastrous effects of Western development policy in Africa, corrupt rulers, and the tendency to overstate the AIDS problem.

Http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html

Let's be clear here, what Shikwait should really be saying is not "Stop the aid." but "Start doing smarter things with it. Stop sending us worthless or harmful aid." The idea of simply packing up and abandoning Africa is ridiculous. Changing the form and function of world-aid is not.

Africa is being flooded with surplus grain from around the world; this aid is then touted as "What we are doing for Africa." The solution? Cut the farm subsidies in mid-west America and Europe, lower the tariffs on imported produce, and allow the important of grains and other produce from Africa. In other words, give them a market to sell to!

The "Overstated AIDS problem": In all honesty, I cannot understand -how- you can overstate the spread of AIDS in Africa. You can, as recent studies have shown, mismeasure the spread of the disease, or place its epicenter in the wrong place; However, you cannot overstate the spread of a disease that takes the lives of millions.

The numbers of Africans being treated for AIDS by world-aid-organization is in the tens or hundreds of thousands, the number of Africans infected with the disease is in the millions. Once again, Shikwait's grandstanding misleads his audience. African NEEDS this aid to fight AIDS, however, it does not need it in the form of uncontrolled, untracked, and unlimited amounts of money. It would be better to ship stocks of anti-retrovirals and *gasp* condoms, along with providing education programs to Africans.

Stop sending aid? What a silly notion. How about simply thinking about how we spend it first?


read more digg story

Fighting with your hands tied, AIDS in Africa

Recently, the G8 summit was urged by pope Benedict XVI to follow through with its promises to fund and support the fight against the spread of AIDS in Africa. I applaud the generosity of the United States in responding to the threat of AIDS. Thus far it has donated over $1.9 billion dollars to the cause. President Bush also stepped up to the task recently, when he asked congress to extend his emergency relief fund for another five years -a large source of funding for the fight against HIV/AIDS) meaning that they will contribute another $30 million during that period of time.

Yet both the Pope and Bush have allowed doctrine and personal beliefs to greatly hinder the fight against AIDS. Their inability to react fluidly to a changing world, and their bull-headed refusal to back down or compromise threatens the lives of millions.

The Presidential relief fund stipulates that 7% of the money contributed to Africa (about one third of the total that is tagged for AIDS/HIV prevention) MUST be spent on abstinence-before-marriage programs.

Pope Benedict, in 2005 also stuck to his dogma refuting the arguments of his fellow clergymen that the use of condoms would be the lesser of two evils, stating that, "It is of great concern that the fabric of African life, its very source of hope and stability, is threatened by divorce, abortion, prostitution, human trafficking and a contraception mentality."

The overall message from Bush and The Vatican is clear. Neither are interested in compromising -even the slightest bit- their personal values to save the lives of millions.

While personal values are fine, neither The Vatican, nor Bush, are able to take into account the myriad of different influences that affect the citizens of Africa. Abstinence before marriage would certainly slow the spread of AIDS, if all AIDS sufferers were unmarried that is. The fact is, that this is not the case. Furthermore, giving birth -along with the breast feeding of young- also spreads the disease. Lets not cover our eyes because of the dirty words; married couples have sex. They do so because they enjoy it, and both sexes have the urge. Pro-creation is a result of sex, not the end goal every time we go at it. Without the use of contraception, many married couples will not only infect each other, but will also likely pass the virus on to any children that they have.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following portion of text was taken from an editorial that appeared appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer on Tuesday, June 5. The full version can be accessed at the following link:

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/editorial/17330758.htm

A recent report by the Institute of Medicine gave the emergency program strong reviews. But an obstacle blocks the president's emergency program from being even more effective: About 7 percent of the money - one-third of what's earmarked for HIV/AIDS prevention - must be spent on "abstinence-until-marriage" programs.
That's a fine ideal to preach, but it is wrong to impose such an ideological agenda.
Groups might choose to make abstinence education part of their mission, but local health professionals should be the ones to decide the best way to save lives locally with those funds.
Congress should renew the president's emergency program and drop that requirement.
There are countless more AIDS victims like Sichinga's brother, all with families that grieve their loss. The battle against AIDS is fought for them all. It is right that the G8 nations help lead the fight.