Africa Isn't Poor Because of Corruption-A Fisking

Whenever I can't get the creative juices flowing, I just read the Guardian and something always catches my eye as "fiskable". Today is no exception. Let's begin, shall we?

In the month leading up to the G8, Nigeria revealed that its leaders had stolen $390bn (£222bn) over the last 40 years. It was a shocking admission and provided fuel for those critics who say the African problem is irredeemable largely due to corruption.

On the eve of the G8, President Bush declared there would be no more aid for corrupt regimes but the G8 did commit to increasing aid to $50bn. However, only $20bn of this is new money.

Only $20bn is new money, huh? Okay then, I feel immensely better. Listen you begging fool, everyone with any sense of class knows that beggars can't be choosers and other catchy sayings like "don't look a gift horse in the mouth". That $20 billion you are talking about is money that was earned by hard working people who were forced to give up a percentage of their pay so that money grubbing, uncouth a-holes like you can whine that it isn't enough.

The issue hung heavily over the summit but it is too simplistic to argue Africa is poor because of corruption or that all aid efforts are doomed because of it. The economist Jeffrey Sachs, an adviser to the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, discards the conclusion. The poor are poor, he says, because failing infrastructure, poor energy sources, geographic isolation, disease and natural disasters inevitably conspire to foil progress.

Just a small bit of advice for you, Rudo. Don't use the UN to back up any argument and definitely don't use an economist who is an advisor to Kofi Annan as proof when you're talking about money supposedly destined for the down and out.

As for failing infrastructure, poor energy sources and disease and natural disasters, I say this:
Why do have a failing infrastructure? Weren't previous funds sent to Africa supposed to be used for things such as infrastructure? As for poor energy sources, it appears that there is some oil in Africa. The western nations will not aid you in extracting it because of the rampant corruption throughout the continent.

Disease is one point that sets me off. The most devastating disease on the continent is HIV/AIDS, a 100% preventable disease that can be controlled by a few million condoms. I would be more than willing to send a case of condoms to Africa every few months, as long as I don't have to send anymore money. Lastly, the entire world deals with natural disasters, they do happen and the world would be more than happy to assist the nations who need it. look at the tsunami disaster and the world's response.

Transparency International ranks Mali fairly high in terms of honesty, yet it is still dirt poor, plagued by flash flooding, earthquakes and an ever-expanding desert. Perversely, there are some countries which have achieved economic growth while still having high levels of corruption. China only ranks slightly better than Mali for corruption and the burgeoning Indian economy ranks well below.

Aside from the natural disaster portion, which I covered previously, the "ever-expanding desert" argument just doesn't fly. The Israeli's turned sand into agriculture with alot of hard work and determination. Farmers in the Imperial Valley in California grow numerous crops in the middle of a rocky, hot desert.

As for poor Mali, I'm happy that at least one nation on the continent ranks well, but perhaps China and India are not the best examples.

Tony Blair's Commission for Africa report challenges industrialised countries to take responsibility for their role in promoting corruption, such as giving bribes or ignoring corrupt deals. Industrialised countries must work to repatriate money and state assets stolen from the people of Africa by corrupt leaders.

I get it. It's the fault of the west that Africa has corrupt leaders. Give me a friggin' break. Industrialized nations mustn't do anything. Africa must police its own leaders.

...But African nations must be more accountable for the aid they receive. One significant development has been the progress of the Africa Union in implementing a "peer review" process where countries subject themselves to external audit under the auspices of other African leaders. In Nigeria, the disclosure about corruption only came to the surface because of the government's determination to tackle the issue.

Ghana was among the first to subject itself to this process. Others are set to follow. While the process is voluntary it is the first African initiative of its kind - in the past most such audits have been imposed.

I suggest that Robert Mugabe be the "peer review" leader for Libya. Old Bob can visit Moammar and hang out with his daughter. Then he can get down to the serious business of auditing Libya's books. It should work out just fine. Perhaps Mugabe can assist Mali and other African nations with the agriculture problems they've had.

Countries that have tackled corruption should be rewarded but even in less favourable environments aid and debt cancellation initiatives can still be effective. Such resources should in part be channelled into building the very institutions to combat corruption. James Wolfensohn, the former president of the World Bank, recognised this and strengthening institutions and pursuing good governance now accounts for 20% of the bank's lending.

What the hell would be the barometer?

As for the myriad other issues that are leading Africa into the abyss, the whole of Africa must stand up and say no to genocide in countries such as Rwanda and the Sudan. Until that day, whatever money that is slated for Africa will only go down the hole of corruption.