In the name of Aid (Addendum)

When I wrote my last blog entitled “In the Name of Aid” I thought I had sufficiently covered that topic and that a revisit of that topic would not be necessary for some time to come. How wrong I was. It turns out, there is another interesting dimension to the Aid saga.
According to a new report by Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) - a prominent Think Tank that monitors international arms transfers- 90% of Air Cargo Companies with links to arms trafficking have also been used by the UN, Western Countries and International Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) to transport humanitarian aid.

The report singles out the Sudan as the worst case where many of the air cargo companies are owned by the country’s political and military class who are profiting from both the war and the humanitarian efforts. In Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, humanitarian agencies regularly use air cargo companies owned by Warlords involved in mining activities.
In Somalia, Dyncorp – an American private security company – which is contracted by the US government has used an air cargo company accused of transporting arms to Al-Shabab, an extremist militia with alleged ties to Al-Qaeda.

The question which, as far as I know, the report did not ask is “where do these arms come from?”

In the Name of Aid

No continent is, perhaps, as closely associated with the term – Aid, as Africa is. I am even convinced that the ‘A’ in ‘AID’ stands for Africa (Smile). From Live Aid to Band Aid to USA for Africa to Bi-lateral to Multi-lateral Aid, Africa has received it all. In fact, an entire industry of Non-Profit Organizations, is sustained and a source of employment for millions of people worldwide, on the basis of African Aid. By some estimates, since the 1970s close to $1 Trillion has been transferred to Africa in the form of Aid. The proponents of Aid argue that Aid helps alleviate poverty, supplements national budgets, and even facilitates economic growth and development.
Certainly, Aid has provided Africa with short term benefits and many of the Aid workers and agencies operate from genuine motivations and concerns.

However, after decades of Aid, the proportion of Africans living in squalor and abject poverty is too great to let the issue of Aid pass by without a thorough scrutiny of its effectiveness and moral foundations.
The concept of Aid is advanced by resorting to arguments of morality and when that is insufficient it is clothed in questionable theories of development economics.
In terms of its moral basis, the question that needs to be asked is what should a moral compass place greater value on – a just or moral motivation or a just or moral end result? More importantly, what about having good or moral motivations behind an act when available evidence suggests that the act may even contribute to an evil condition?

One need only look at the quality of governance in Africa to understand how Aid undermines its own intentions. Large percentages of African national budgets are funded by Aid. For instance, many national healthcare budgets are less than 50% funded through internal resources the rest comes from international funding like aid. Other budgets like education and social services have similar funding ratios. This situation transfers government accountability from the electorate to donors.
In addition, aid effectively serves as a form of subsidy of government incompetence.
The need for competence is greatly reduced since the lack of results and the inability to provide minimal levels of basic services is concealed. African governments and Non-Profit agencies are so used to Aid that they claim it with a defiant sense of entitlement. When Pres. Obama recently made public his $63 Billion Global Health budget, health activists groups expressed their disappointment with the amount.

Nonkosi Kumalo of the Treatment Action campaign said:

"The broken promises and skewed priorities of governments and
donors have reduced the right to health and access to treatment to
unattainable rhetoric. In the last few months, we have seen
trillions of dollars spent on financial 'bailouts' to stimulate
economic recovery…a tiny portion of this sum could have bought quality,
sustainable healthcare for millions of people."

Said Paula Akugizibwe of the AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern
Africa (ARASA):

"We need to ensure that African lives do not become
a silent casualty of the global financial downturn. Our lives are
not cheap or expendable. We expect health to be prioritised over
weapons, sports and lavish politics."

The above sentiments, in my view, are quite representative of the sense of entitlement that aid recepients and activists harbor. African leaders, not Western leaders, should be held responsible for the deplorable conditions under which Africans live. These leaders have direct responsibility to improve living standards, provide basic amenities and ensure security, afterall, these are the very things they swore they would deliver during their electoral campaigns. Is it not to provide these very things, that taxes are insituted? More importantly, is it not to provide these very things that aid has been given for decades and still these amenities are in short supply if present at all?

The country now called Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly known as Zaire), in 1982 had accumulated a foreign debt of $5 Billion, whilst the then President Mobutu Seseko had a personal fortune of about $4 Billion. Where do you think Zaire’s Aid went?

All of these evil conditions all come about in the name of Aid.

Will Obama "Change" Africa Policy too?

President Obama campaigned and probably won the election on the basis of his promise and vision of change. He eloquently painted a picture of what ‘Change’ looked like and Americans fell in love with that mental picture. Within his first 100 days, Pres. Obama has taken America’s domestic and foreign policies in directions that do contrast with the administration of Pres. George Bush. However, one area of his foreign policies that post 100 days still, in substance, resemble the policies of his predecessor, is his Africa Policy.
Granted, his nominee for Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Mr Johnnie Carson was only officially sworn in two days ago on Wednesday the 6th of May. Thus, one could argue that an assessment of his Africa policy should now commence.
However, I do think that certain events, within these first 100 days, have permitted us to catch a glimpse of what Obama policy toward Africa, might look like, and it doesn’t not materially differ from that of Pres. Bush, in my opinion.

The Somali “Piracy” issue is a case in point. Certainly, armed robbery in high seas of US vessels is an act against US interests. But the story is much bigger than that, although mainstream media has not made sufficient ‘noise’ about the untold other side of the story.
I find it hard to believe that Pres. Obama, being one with a probing mind and a careful examiner of all facts available, would be unaware that since the early 90s reports of toxic dumping and illegal fishing have been taking place off the coast of Somalia by Western and Asian nations. These nefarious and clandestine acts, have for nearly 20 years, threatened Somali fishermen’s ’ source of livelihood and caused diseases.

Understandably, timing is of great importance and when an American Captain is being held hostage with guns pointed to his head, that is not the time for a history lesson of geo-political events. But, the American Captain is now freed, and the issue of “Piracy” is being talked about by all the media pundits. Now, is the time for the untold story to be injected into the public debate as an issue that needs to be addressed as part of the solution.

There is also no sign that the AFRICOM idea has been scrapped. I intend to write about what specific changes I would like to see the Obama administration effect, in my subsequent postings.

What Obama’s policy toward Africa will look like is not clear. At this point, we can only make inferences, and the conclusion they lead me to is not change but continuity. But the jury is still out on this one.

World Conference Against Racism & Obama

The Durban Review Conference, which was held in Geneva, Switzerland generated a lot of buzz globally. This conference is of course, not a stranger to controversy. The first conference, which was called World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and related Intolerance, was held in Durban, South Africa in 2001, and it too was mired in controversy.
At the center of the debate was language included in the document that singled out Israel and which resulted in Israel and the US to leave the conference. But that was then, under Pres. Bush.
Now, the US, under Pres. Obam,a, together with other Western Nations boycotted this year’s conference. This position by the Obama administration, of course, infuriated many, especially Blacks in America.

I have to admit, the irony in this matter, led me to initial disappointment as well. I am still disappointed but not for the reasons that others are.

However, after a more thorough scrutiny of the issues, especially the unspoken ones, my disappointment has waned.

Many in the African-American community, especially activists and grassroots organizations, were disappointed in Obama because they felt that the participation of the US, under an African-American President, should have been a given. They also felt disappointed because they perceived the decision to boycott the conference to be a result of the Obama administration succumbing to the objections of certain interest groups. I think both of these reasons form valid basis for disappointment.
However, one of the major reasons why my disappointment has waned is the gross exaggeration of the relevance and effectiveness of this conference to resolve the grievances of those who are still disappointed.

A major handicap of the strategies and methodologies employed by these many grassroots and activist groups is that they are stuck in the realm of symbolism. These groups seem to relish events where histrionics is not a means to a meaningful objective but an end in itself. The more virulent the rhetoric, the more ‘for the people’ one is perceived to be.
Never mind that a check list of concrete achievements for these ‘for the people’ individuals very rarely has any checks on it.
This brings me to the Review Conference against Racism. As much as the goals of the conference are noble and certainly relevant, its ability to move countries to enact domestic policies and affect social attitudes to eliminate or significantly reduce these ills is very close to if not completely zero. So, why so much fanfare about a conference with a lot of bark but no teeth?

Furthermore, Pres. Obama touched on a highly important but ignored truth, which I have personally found troubling about this conference. Pres. Obama noted that the conference, in part, was being conducted in a “hypocritical” manner. Like I stated, some of the grievances have merit and calls for more critical assessment of policies advanced by the US and Israel are appropriate. But, I cannot help but acknowledge the hypocrisy by some of the most vociferous leaders who sling the most accusations but preside over countries with some of the worst human, race, gender rights in modern times.

Yes, the US has a legacy of slavery and discrimination, the effects of which are evident even today. But even so, Blacks in America enjoy more rights, privileges, and societal inclusion than Blacks in Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Brazil or even Cuba! Blacks in America form only 12% of the population but now one of us has been elected President of the country. Blacks in America feature prominently in US society albeit with a heavy concentration in sports and entertainment. Compare this to Brazil, a country of 160 million people and has the largest Black population of any country outside of Africa. 50% of Brazil’s population is Black, yet blacks are almost totally absent from positions of power - from all levels of government, from congress, senate, the judiciary, the higher ranks of the civil service and the armed forces.

In Cuba, where by conservative estimates, 30% of the population is Black, they to experience discrimination and societal exclusion. The most lucrative sector in Cuba, the Tourism sector, is virtually the exclusive preserve of White Cubans. Black Cubans experience racial profiling, and a higher incarceration rate .
In the Middle East, Blacks and Women are treated as second class citizens, without a channel to transmit grievances. In Iran and Iraq, Blacks, referred to as Zanj (from which the Island Zanzibar derives its name) live in poverty, discrimination and segregation.

I could go on and list countries that are leading the charges against some countries at the conference but who themselves have worst records when it comes to dealing with and eliminating institutional racism, sexism and xenophobia.
As African-Americans, we need to stop giving passes and making excuses for leaders and countries who treat their Black, Female and minority populations with the same disdain that we encountered and fought against, just because that leader makes strong rhetorical attacks on the governent of America. The philosophy of “My enemy’s enemy is my friend” is a fallacious philosophy and even a hypocritical one if your enemy’s enemy is practicing the same type of discrimination you are rebelling against.

Ultimately, the conference has no real power, and in the end racism cannot be eliminated through a conference. Racism may always exist but the ability of racism to limit and confine the object of racism is only possible when that object is an economic underdog. Thus, our ‘escape’ from the restrictive effects of racism lie in our ability to create a parallel examples of healthy and functioning communities. This entails adopting the discipline required to obtain advanced education, start and expand businesses, set up indigenous pools of capital etc. All these conferences, where we gather to engage in verbal dramatics is nothing but Def Jam Revolution on HBO.

Obama vs Chavez: Sign of Change?

Obama’s “ Change “ slogan may be more far reaching than the campaign had foreseen. It will probably not be limited to a change in policies advanced by the Bush administration. There are a lot of things that will “change” because of Obama’s assumption of the US Presidency. A recent development on the international political scene will probably expose another resultant change in the making. A few days ago, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, in a reaction to Obama alluding to his alleged support of the Columbian FARC rebel group, likened Obama’s ‘odour’ to that of President Bush. In 2006, President Chavez spoke at the UN’s General Assembly after Bush addressed the body and, alluding to Bush being the devil, claimed that he could smell the odour of sulfur that Bush had left at the podium.
President Chavez, and other so-called leftist leaders such as Fidel Castro of Cuba and Lula Da Silva of Brazil, have long enjoyed the support of the global Black community in particular and liberals in general. So his comments about President Bush were amusing and probably garnered him more support among a section of the Black and Liberal communities.

This support grows out of their polemic rhetoric which is directed towards governments and individuals who, coincidentally, are also perceived by a large section of the Black community to have acted, on many occasions, against its group interests. Thus, these leaders and the Black and liberal communities have been in a marriage of convenience, brought together by little more than a perceived common ‘enemy’. Their respective conditions reinforced the relevance of the other.
The shallow nature of this relationship is evidenced by the fact that the section of the Black community that supports these leaders, know relatively little about them beyond their so-called revolutionary rhetoric. Their Black supporters have employed a single criterion by which these leaders have been assessed, namely, their ability to verbally confront the governments and individuals who are perceived to be maintaining the status quo that these Blacks and Liberals reject as undesirable. But although this ‘marriage’, at first glance, may seem strong and healthy it is in reality pretty precarious because it is based on perception and not necessarily reality. The relationship is fuelled and kept intact by the perception that both parties face a common enemy. But what happens when one side no longer shares in that perception?
To bring the point closer home, what happens to the ‘marriage’ when the face of Bush is replaced with the face of Obama?
Will these leaders continue to enjoy the more or less automatic and largely uncritical support of the Black community?
It was amusing and perhaps even felt a little empowering when President Chavez called President Bush the devil but now that he virtually called President Obama the same, I don’t think the Black community is laughing. Obama promised “Change” and change is sweeping through even this relationship. To be fair, Chavez, in his characteristically fitful manner, a few days after his negative remarks about Obama, did a 180 degree turn around and called Obama “a man with good intentions”

Clashes between Obama’s administration and leaders such as Chavez will more likely than not lead to a greater degree of scrutiny of Pres. Chavez’s rhetoric and broaden the criteria by which such leaders are assessed. Perhaps then, their leadership will not only be adjudged by how boldly they stand up against undesirable world leaders and governments within the international arena but also by the domestic conditions under which their respective peoples live. For in truth, the fundamental desire of any electorate or people is not to have a leader whose main pre-occupation is verbally tearing other leaders down rather than enacting policies that raise the peoples quality of life. Once the Black community begins to exercise greater scrutiny of these leaders, some stark realities will be exposed. For one thing, they will realize that in many of the countries which these leaders preside over, race relations are such that Blacks experience similar levels of marginalization and discrimination as their counterparts in America.
Take Cuba as an example. Although Fidel Castro has enacted several policies aimed at eliminating racism and the inequalities it produces, significant discrimination still endures even from the government. Castro's own Communist Party and government fall short on the race front. Only four recognizably black faces sit on the party's 21- member Political Bureau, and only two sit on the government's top body, the 39- member Council of Ministers. And yet, black faces populate Cuba's political prisons. Racial discrimination is also a significant reality in Venezuela and Brazil.

Obama’s win, I hope, will introduce a change in the way these leaders are viewed and assessed by the Black community.

The Value of Pres. Obama

The Nation and indeed the world at large is dancing to the sweet music of a new and powerful reality – a Black man is President elect of the United States of America. Many view this development as a sign of underlying changes in race perceptions and relations that have been largely embraced by a post civil rights generation of America. There is no denying that the issue of race, although being a factor in the election, is no longer the huge barrier it was in times past in America. The neutralizing force was the youth vote.

According to some estimations, 24 million people between the ages of 18-29 voted in this election. 66% of people in this age range voted for Barack Obama in contrast to 32% for McCain. In North Carolina, Obama won the youth vote by nearly 50 points, with 73 points over John McCain’s 27. He lost every other age group in that state. So, certainly White America views Obama differently and a lot of the media coverage highlights this point. But more important to me, is the change in perceptions that Obama can potentially inspire within the Black community on so many levels.

Here is an individual, a Father, Husband, former community activist, Harvard educated, lawyer, Senator, intellectual, cool and soon to be President – and he is a Black man. In the person of Obama, Black youth are presented with a compelling alternative to the played out, narrow, traditional picture of a successful Black person as an entertainer or sports figure. To be sure, Black men and women of Barack and Michelle Obama’s caliber do exist in the Black community. They are lawyers, Doctors, Police and Firemen, Accountants, Business owners, entrepreneurs, Educators and Social Workers but they do not get captured by the lenses of the media nor get the chance to sit on Oprah’s couch to become “food for thought” in the minds of Black youth. So, limited types of images are fed to Black kids, mainly confined to the entertainment and sports industry in some way or fashion. No wonder it seems 8 out of 10 Black youth want to be a rapper, label owner, R&B singer, or Basketball player.

For these kids, I believe that the life of Obama and the successes achieved in that life will be a more powerful influence on the minds of Black youth than hundreds of speeches by Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, Rev. Sharpton or any State of the Black Union conferences. These men (and women too) all spoke and speak from a position of marginalization, a position of an “outsider” painting a picture of a society where we become “insiders”.
These men and women were and are great individuals and all of us enjoy the benefits of their labor. But, when they appear, their presence automatically and necessarily produce in us a mental disposition of rejection, of being less than, of being in a constant struggle with discrimination and as unintentional as it may be that too can be damaging to the minds of our young ones and limit their ability to dream and achieve. That is why Obama, in a sense, is more valuable. However, contrary to the popular current mantra that Obama’s win “ means any Black child can become President too”, Obama’s win doesn’t mean that anymore than a White President means any White kid can become President as well.

Obama’s value, is that his winning the Presidency is not a denial of the existence of discrimination, but evidence that in spite of that, we each exercise a greater degree of control in deciding the direction of and achievements in our lives, than we think. This is a realization that many Black professionals have come to long ago. But, Obama, unlike them, will be on TV almost on a daily basis and Black youth will turn on the TV and see a Black man making decisions, giving instructions, taking questions and looking professional.

It is my hope and belief, that gradually our kids will replace images of cristal drinking Black entertainers with images of educated, professional Black individuals.

New Free Trade Area in Africa

There is some potential good news coming out of Africa, although, as usual it isn’t being publicized by the world’s mainstream media. Recently, 3 trading blocs in Africa, namely, the East Africa Community (EAC), The Southern African Development Community (SADC), and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA). This passed Wednesday (Oct 22 2008), these 3 trading blocs agreed to form a Free Trade Area (FTA) of 26 countries with a combined estimated Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of $624bn.
I approach this new development with caution and that is why I used the word “potential”. This FTA, which stretches from South Africa to Egypt, is an economic arrangement which Africa needs and, in my view, is a necessary step toward the realization of continental African economic unity. The FTA will allow goods and services to flow between member countries with little or no tariffs, quotas and preferences. However, the potential benefits of the FTA, which is a macro level arrangement, will not be realized if it is based on desultory micro-level economic policies.
By micro level, I am referring to the most basic building block of any economy, namely, the individual and in this particular case, the individual’s ability to set up, operate and expand a business. A complete rehabilitation at the domestic level is needed to create a conducive business environment that will produce jobs and growth simultaneously. The list of things in need of rehabilitation is long but I will focus on 3 items.

First is the issue of Taxation. Many African governments still follow the false notion that raising tax rates translates to increasing tax revenues. This is a wrong policy, especially in Africa. Tax rates in many African countries prevent new companies from emerging and entering the formal sector and cause existing companies to exit the formal sector or to fold up altogether. A study of the Laffer Curve would be advisable. Governments need to understand that businesses in Africa are not only taxed in terms of money but also every time the power goes off, when water doesn’t flow, when it takes days to deal with government agencies over business matters, when phone lines aren’t dependable etc. All these scenarios, which occur frequently, represent a tax on business.

Second is the rule of law. No vibrant economy can exist without a timely, transparent, accountable and effective judicial system. Basic human rights, civil and criminal law must be known by citizens and observed by authorities. Limits to the powers of the police force must be set and violators swiftly punished. Citizens should not have to spend days and bribes to fight a minor traffic violation. The right of the civilian should be paramount and the police and military shouldn’t have the ability to infringe on it with impunity.

Third, get government out of the business of being a business and into infrastructure and institutional development. This would involve many things, including land administration reforms. The process of land acquisition must be streamlined, title and land ownership well documented and accessible to the public, establish regional bodies comprised of traditional rulers, local authorities and general citizens to administer the sale of local lands with generated proceeds allocated based on a predetermined formula.

If these and other micro level improvements were instituted then the FTA would stand on a sound economic foundation and the realization of its potential would be far more certain. Thus, the FTA is a step in the right direction, we, however, have to make sure our shoe laces are well tied.