Hello - just to let you and your readers know I've posted my interview with Dambisa Moyo

http://dave-lucas.blogspot.com/2009/04/interview-dambisa-moyo.html

Comments on the feature post: Is Foreign Aid Helping or Hurting Africa?
By Manasi Sharma.

According to Martin Meredith, in his book “The State of Africa: A History of Fifty Years of Independence”, “on a list drawn up by the United Nations Development Programme,all twenty-five countries that rank lowest in terms of human development are African. Africa has also found itself on the losing side of globalization lacking both the skills and the infrastructure to attract the multinational corporations that drive it….The prospects of Africa escaping from precipitous decline, as Mbeki acknowledged, depend heavily on western assistance. The magnitude of the crisis is too great for African states to resolve by themselves. Most states are effectively bankrupt, weighed down by debt, barely able to raise sufficient funds on their own account to provide a minimum of public services. By the late 1990s more than half already relied on western aid to fund as much as 50 per cent of government budgets and 70 per cent of public investment”.

On the otherhand, according to Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, in his book “Neo-colonialism: The last Stage of Imperialism”, the result of neo-colonialism is that foreign capital is used for the exploitation rather than for the development of the less developed parts of the world. Investment under neo-colonialism increases rather than decreases the gap between the rich and poor countries of the world. The struggle against neo-colonialism is not aimed at excluding the capital of the developed world from operating in the less developed countries countries. It is aimed at preventing the financial power of the developed countries being used in such a way as to impoverish the less developed by investment in accordance with the national plan drawn up the receiver’s government with it interests in mind.Infact,neo-colonialism is the victim of its own contradictions. In order to make it attractive to those upon whom it is practiced it must be shown as capable of raising their living standards, but the economic object of neo-colonialism is to keep those standards depressed in the interest of the developed countries. It is only when this contradiction is understood that the failure of innumerable “foreign aid” programmes, many of them well intentioned can be explained…. “aid”, therefore to a neo-colonial state in Africa is merely a revolving credit paid by the neo-colonial master, passing through the neo-colonial state and returning to the neo-colonial master in the form of increased profits.Once,multilateral aid begins, the neo-colonial masters are faced by hostility of the vested interests in their own country. Their manufacturers naturally object to any attempts to raise the price of raw materials which they obtain from the neo-colonial territory, in question or to the establishment there of manufacturing industry which might compete directly or indirectly, with their own exports to their territory.

In a similar argument, according to A.M Babu, former Minister of Economic Affairs and Development Planning of Tanzania, “foreign investment does not only help to undermine our economies by extracting enormous profits, etc., but it does more serious damage to the economies by distorting them into lopsidedness and if the process is not arrested in time, the distortion could be permanent. As long as we continue, as we have done for centuries to produce for the so called “world market”….And, since this type of investment does not contribute much towards the development of material and technical base internally, our economies are rendered always responsive only to what the western world is prepared to buy and sell, and hardly responsive to our internal developmental needs. That is why, although most of our development plans make elaborate resource allocations for “rural projects” invariably most of these resources find their way back to the urban projects and consequently accentuate the urban/rural disparities,slums,unemployment,social maladjustment and finally, political instability are our most outstanding characteristics”.

In my opinion, the way forward for Africa in the area of “foreign aid”, is to conceptualize “aid” as a multidimensional process. It can be bilateral or multilateral in scope, and subregional, regional or interregional in character. It should be organized by and between Governments which can promote, for this purpose, the participation of public organizations and, within the framework of the policies laid down by Governments, that of private organizations and individuals. It may rely on innovative approaches, methods and techniques particularly adapted to local needs and at the same time, use existing modalities of technical co-operation to the extent that these are useful. While the main flows of technical co-operation visualized would be between two or more developing countries, the support of developed countries and of regional and interregional institutions may be necessary.

The question itself is paradoxical because aid means help, assistance etc. "Aid" and "hurting" make a very disturbing oxymoron. Coining such a phrase indicates a certain disatisfaction with current global trends. Most African countries had their independence from european colonial powers after 1960. The lithmus test to determin whether foreign direct investement and the so called foreign aid has worked is simply to look at the current state of most African economies, especially those south of the sahara. How is it possible that after so many years of "self-rule" if ever such a thing exists, with a yearly inflow of aid, the continent remains rife with war and poverty? In my opinion africa especially my country cameroon has been recieving foreign poison and not foreign aid from a greedy french neo-colonial master and other western powers, who are natural businessmen. The moral finger points at a greedy western capitalism, however europeans cannot be blamed for africa's foolishness, a businessman invests to make a profit not for charity. The idea of foreign aid to african countries is absolutely ridiculous, Africa is supposedly the richest continent in the world in terms of raw materials and natural resources, why on earth will we want or even need foreign aid. The answer is simple. We have been enslaved, humiliated, arbitrarily divided into artificial countries devoid of any (cultural and national identity) and forced to buy into the idea of market capitalism. The global economy is a competitive stage, Africa seems not to have understood the meaning of the phrase "competition for the limited resources of the world." So far Asian countries have understood what they stand against in the world, African countries on the other hand seem to be in a stage of lethargy waiting for God to wake them up. We can cry foul as much as we can noone will come to our rescue unless we take dramatic action ourselves, and change our mentalities, Africans have been taught to hate themselves and love everything that is foreign.

Nature has no pity for the weak only the strong survive. Men of this day and age do not yet recognise themselves as human beings or a human race, we are so caught up in racial and regional differences that it easy for a European or an American government to call people who migrate to their coutries, illegal or alien or "illegal alien" as if these poor souls are from another planet. These are the same countries we naive africans run to for aid and salvation. Is it any surprise that the aid given to African countries go back to the donor state in terms of securing cheap raw material, and paying massive interest on loans that have never been used for the development of the receiving country.

Wake up Africa!!