I have recently finished reading a book by Paul Theroux,Dark Star safari.It came out in 2003 and charts the travel writers attempts to journey from Cairo to Cape Town.
One of the themes that the author returns to on numerous occasions is the damage being done to Africa by overseas aid agencies.His reasoning is that over time agencies build up an over reliance by the population on the basic needs(food,water and medical treatment)
A controversial point of view,in some respects.
I was therefor interested to read an article over at Time.com which backs up the theories.They report from Ethiopia,one of the countries that Theroux visited on his travels where
Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) treated 11,800 Ethiopian children for severe acute malnutrition. At a tented hospital in the town of Kuyera, 50 out of 1,000 died, double the rate MSF expects for a full-fledged famine. "
However the author Alex Perry writes
Over time, sustained food aid creates dependence on handouts and shifts focus away from improving agricultural practices to increase local food supplies. Ethiopia exemplifies the consequences of giving a starving man a fish instead of teaching him to catch his own. This year the U.S. will give more than $800 million to Ethiopia: $460 million for food, $350 million for HIV/AIDS treatment — and just $7 million for agricultural development. Western governments are loath to halt programs that create a market for their farm surpluses, but for countries receiving their charity, long-term food aid can become addictive. Why bother with development when shortfalls are met by aid? Ethiopian farmers can't compete with free food, so they stop trying
It is a difficult argument to make.How can the West stand by and watch people starve?
a starving man needs to be saved first, before he can be taught to fish — or farm. But as the world rallies again to Ethiopia's aid, donors face a dilemma
A dilemma that in the medium term needs to be addressed
No comments:
Post a Comment