Stop Trying To 'Save' Africa

[ElPunto]

Stop Trying To 'Save' Africa

 

By Uzodinma Iweala

Sunday, July 15, 2007; Page B07

Washingon Post

 

Last fall, shortly after I returned from Nigeria, I was accosted by a perky blond college student whose blue eyes seemed to match the "African" beads around her wrists.

 

"Save Darfur!" she shouted from behind a table covered with pamphlets urging students to TAKE ACTION NOW! STOP GENOCIDE IN DARFUR!

 

My aversion to college kids jumping onto fashionable social causes nearly caused me to walk on, but her next shout stopped me.

 

"Don't you want to help us save Africa?" she yelled.

 

It seems that these days, wracked by guilt at the humanitarian crisis it has created in the Middle East, the West has turned to Africa for redemption. Idealistic college students, celebrities such as Bob Geldof and politicians such as Tony Blair have all made bringing light to the dark continent their mission. They fly in for internships and fact-finding missions or to pick out children to adopt in much the same way my friends and I in New York take the subway to the pound to adopt stray dogs.

 

This is the West's new image of itself: a sexy, politically active generation whose preferred means of spreading the word are magazine spreads with celebrities pictured in the foreground, forlorn Africans in the back. Never mind that the stars sent to bring succor to the natives often are, willingly, as emaciated as those they want to help.

 

Perhaps most interesting is the language used to describe the Africa being saved. For example, the Keep a Child Alive/" I am African" ad campaign features portraits of primarily white, Western celebrities with painted "tribal markings" on their faces above "I AM AFRICAN" in bold letters. Below, smaller print says, "help us stop the dying."

 

Such campaigns, however well intentioned, promote the stereotype of Africa as a black hole of disease and death. News reports constantly focus on the continent's corrupt leaders, warlords, "tribal" conflicts, child laborers, and women disfigured by abuse and genital mutilation. These descriptions run under headlines like "Can Bono Save Africa?" or "Will Brangelina Save Africa?" The relationship between the West and Africa is no longer based on openly racist beliefs, but such articles are reminiscent of reports from the heyday of European colonialism, when missionaries were sent to Africa to introduce us to education, Jesus Christ and "civilization."

 

There is no African, myself included, who does not appreciate the help of the wider world, but we do question whether aid is genuine or given in the spirit of affirming one's cultural superiority. My mood is dampened every time I attend a benefit whose host runs through a litany of African disasters before presenting a (usually) wealthy, white person, who often proceeds to list the things he or she has done for the poor, starving Africans. Every time a well-meaning college student speaks of villagers dancing because they were so grateful for her help, I cringe. Every time a Hollywood director shoots a film about Africa that features a Western protagonist, I shake my head -- because Africans, real people though we may be, are used as props in the West's fantasy of itself. And not only do such depictions tend to ignore the West's prominent role in creating many of the unfortunate situations on the continent, they also ignore the incredible work Africans have done and continue to do to fix those problems.

 

Why do the media frequently refer to African countries as having been "granted independence from their colonial masters," as opposed to having fought and shed blood for their freedom? Why do Angelina Jolie and Bono receive overwhelming attention for their work in Africa while Nwankwo Kanu or Dikembe Mutombo, Africans both, are hardly ever mentioned? How is it that a former mid-level U.S. diplomat receives more attention for his cowboy antics in Sudan than do the numerous African Union countries that have sent food and troops and spent countless hours trying to negotiate a settlement among all parties in that crisis?

 

Two years ago I worked in a camp for internally displaced people in Nigeria, survivors of an uprising that killed about 1,000 people and displaced 200,000. True to form, the Western media reported on the violence but not on the humanitarian work the state and local governments -- without much international help -- did for the survivors. Social workers spent their time and in many cases their own salaries to care for their compatriots. These are the people saving Africa, and others like them across the continent get no credit for their work.

 

Last month the Group of Eight industrialized nations and a host of celebrities met in Germany to discuss, among other things, how to save Africa. Before the next such summit, I hope people will realize Africa doesn't want to be saved. Africa wants the world to acknowledge that through fair partnerships with other members of the global community, we ourselves are capable of unprecedented growth.

 

Uzodinma Iweala is the author of "Beasts of No Nation," a novel about child soldiers.

[ElPunto]

^I think he is mostly right but I found 2 quotes rather ridiculous:

 

There is no African, myself included, who does not appreciate the help of the wider world, but we do question whether aid is genuine or given in the spirit of affirming one's cultural superiority.

Please! Those in need of help don't give a damn at the motives - just that they are getting help. Such esoterics are frequently the domain of the black elites rather than the ordinary folks.

 

Africa wants the world to acknowledge that through fair partnerships with other members of the global community, we ourselves are capable of unprecedented growth.

'Fair'?? As in special concessions which then perpetuate what he lambasted as an effort to 'save' Africa. No - his prescription is faulty. Africa needs good and decent leaders who have the well being of their societies at heart.

[Naden]

^ How did 'fair' become 'special concessions'? Fair trade agreements as opposed to the protectionist policies in place now for the Western farmer.

[ElPunto]

^It is a concession ultimately. The ability to produce one's own food is seen as a vital national interest by all countries hence the subsidies and protections for farmers. And any country that deems a certain aspect of its internal economic activity restricted is well within its rights. The point here is that this is yet another example of Africans saying you(the West) must do x, y and z for us to succeed. And what does this engender in the West but the fallacy that they are able to save Africa(said fallacy the author is vehemently against yet perpetuates unknowingly). Any prescription for Africa should be the other way around - ie Africa must do x, y and z and maybe the West could help out a little.

 

If one examines the half century since African independance - and then looks at rapidly developing areas such as Southeast Asia and Latin America - one quickly sees that fair trade is hardly the driving point of the progess in those areas. It started with decent administration followed by incentives for investors which spurred export oriented growth and so on. Where were the cries then for fair trade?

 

Don't get me wrong. Personally I'm in favour of less protection for western farmers but I can understand the reluctance to do so given the special nature of agriculture. But still casting the blame for ones own lack of development on the non-action of others strikes me as foolish overall.

[Naden]

ThePoint,

The point here is that this is yet another example of Africans saying you(the West) must do x, y and z for us to succeed.

You're the only one saying that here. Fairer trade agreements and less tariffs are necessary for non-Western farmers to sell their produce. The Western world uses force to pry open markets while blocking fair trade. They are interested in raw materials, governments that amass weapons, and a populace that uses their products. This is not to say that corruption is not killing Africa or that better models of economic growth have been successful in other 3rd world countries. However, there are complex issues that plague many African countries including the IMF and the World Bank's involvement.

Personally I'm in favour of less protection for western farmers but I can understand the reluctance to do so given the special nature of agriculture.

You understanding it doesn't make it fair. I agree with you and the author that these crocodile tears and the entire aid industry should be scrapped. Even so, Western farmers have an unfair advantage, protection at the barrel of overt and mercenary guns.

Any prescription for Africa should be the other way around - ie Africa must do x, y and z and maybe the West could help out a little.

The West has an expressed interest in the demise of Africa. They are directly and indirectly benefiting from the thousand civil wars and the gutting of natural resources. Any more help to Africa would surely sink it.

[ElPunto]

Originally posted by Naden:

You're the only one saying that here. Fairer trade agreements and less tariffs are necessary for non-Western farmers to sell their produce. The Western world uses force to pry open markets while blocking fair trade. They are interested in raw materials, governments that amass weapons, and a populace that uses their products. This is not to say that corruption is not killing Africa or that better models of economic growth have been successful in other 3rd world countries. However, there are complex issues that plague many African countries including the IMF and the World Bank's involvement.

Far from it. The author's prescription for Africa's ills is 'fair trade' read as - the West has to do x. When you mention solely that or put a primary emphasis on it - you are saying that others' actions determine your prosperity not your own. Which is nonsense.

 

What is necessary for African farmers in terms of selling their produce is hardly the concern of Western governments. Their concerns are their own. And everyone is buying raw meterials not just the West. And those who have foresight realize that you build an economy through manufacturing and industry not simply extraction.

 

You understanding it doesn't make it fair. I agree with you and the author that these crocodile tears and the entire aid industry should be scrapped. Even so, Western farmers have an unfair advantage, protection at the barrel of overt and mercenary guns.

I don't believe it's unfair to Africans. That is rather a tenous claim. If western consumers(through their representatives) decide that they would rather pay higher food costs so that a small proportion of the populace(farmers) can benefit - it's certainly their prerogative. It's only unfair to those who didn't make that choice.

 

I'm not sure where the references to power politics keep coming from. Certainly that has been the behaviour of the West in the past - but such behaviour is limited at present. At any rate - Africans hardly have the hard currency to buy much of what is offered to them by the West and this is where they go hat-in-hand to the IMF and co but that's another story.

 

 

The West has an expressed interest in the demise of Africa. They are directly and indirectly benefiting from the thousand civil wars and the gutting of natural resources. Any more help to Africa would surely sink it.

This part is neither here or there. Another's ill wishes matter much less than your own good wishes followed up by action. And whether you buy the weapons or offer your resources - it's ultimately your choice - you can say no at the end.

 

I really think it's best here to observe the example of southeast Asian countries and try to understand the way forward is less about fair trade than other matters.

[Centurion]

Interesting article, although it matters not whether Africans cringe at being treated as endangered pets. I'm afraid Africans can look forward to many more decades of young westerners determined to save Africa in their gap year.

 

Since their independence, most African nations haven't exactely dazzled the world with their economic and social progress, indeed many nations seem to have made none at all.

Of course there are many reasons, some shared and some individual, which have contributed to their current predicaments, but the bottom line is that since their independance their futures have been in their hands.

 

The West feels guilty for Colonialism, manipulating African regimes during the Cold War to their political advantage( then providing them with the arms to slaughter their populace), and of course their wealth. Their aid should not be shunned, but neither should it be mindlessly lapped up - for not all help is beneficial in the long term, and may serve to prevent the country from developing required infrastructure, and make it reliant upon others for key resources.

Other than being more selective with the aid they receive, they can take advantage of their vast mineral resources, invest into the huge tourism industry, and tap into numerous niche markets.

 

Of course none of this is possible without even the semblance of a mediocre government. Africans need to better govern themselves before anything else, they need to settle their social problems first.

 

On Fair trade, Western nations subsidising their agricultural sector does has a significant effect on Africa, perhaps even devastating some part, but it doesnt condemn them to being helpless, a proper government can take proper action to diminish the effects (and the causes) of unfair trade, but a corrupt, resented and [inevitably] ineffectual government can do nothing, but ask for alms, and it will be even longer before they wean themselves from international aid.

 

Furthermore, Latin America, the Indian subcontinent and South East Asia are much more agriculturally driven than Africa, but they cope because their governments have structured their economy appropriately, Africa shouldnt use Fair trade (or rather the lack of) as an excuse.

[ElPunto]

Since their independence, most African nations haven't exactely dazzled the world with their economic and social progress

Understatement of the century. I'd settle for one of not dying of famine in an agriculturally rich a continent as Africa or not butchering millions for a passing political power.

 

Scipio Africanus eh? - more like Romanus

[Centurion]

Understatement of the century.

Obviously you didn't fully pick up the heavily sarcastic undertone.

[ElPunto]

^No I did - I didn't think you were sarcastic enough - juice it up 3 fold or so and it will come closer

[Ariadne]

"In the 1960s, when most African countries gained their independence, they had higher average incomes and better public services than most Asian countries. Kenyans lived better than Malaysians; people in the Ivory Coast were richer than South Koreans; Zimbabweans were healthier, longer-lived and better-educated than the Chinese. And there were more and worse wars in Asia than in Africa."

 

This a a qoute from Now magazine about the questions in creating an African Union ( that is similiar to the European Union)

 

here's the link: http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2007-07-12/news_story5.php

[ElPunto]

^Yes - you help illustrate my point precisely. I would argue the most significant factor in this differential is leadership and administration. Once you're fortunate enough to have that going for you you're able to do a lot with a very little.

 

Edit - creating an African Union - what a joke. They are barely able to have functioning governments and societies yet somehow they think they are able to take on the much greater undertaking of a union. :eek: