OT - Props to Bush on Africa

[NoMyths]

Interesting column by Kristof, giving the President praise for some of his efforts towards Africa. While he also points out significant areas for improvement, it's nice to see that the President has focused worthwhile attention on the continent. A balanced column, pointing out both the good and the bad, should hopefully help us find some middle ground in this area of foreign affairs. And while rare, it gives me the chance to applaud some of what's being done right by the administration.

Link: NYT: Bush, a Friend of Africa

Full Text:
NYT: Bush, a Friend of Africa
By Nicholas D. Kristof

Those who care about Africa tend to think that the appropriate attitude toward President Bush is a medley of fury and contempt.

But the fact is that Mr. Bush has done much more for Africa than Bill Clinton ever did, increasing the money actually spent for aid there by two-thirds so far, and setting in motion an eventual tripling of aid for Africa. Mr. Bush's crowning achievement was ending one war in Sudan, between north and south. And while Mr. Bush has done shamefully little to stop Sudan's other conflict - the genocide in Darfur - that's more than Mr. Clinton's response to genocide in Rwanda (which was to issue a magnificent apology afterward).

So as the G-8 summit meeting convenes this week, focusing on Africa, it's worth acknowledging that Mr. Bush, and conservatives generally, have in many ways been great for the developing world. At their best, they bring a healthy dose of hands-on practicality to their efforts.

The liberal approach to helping the poor is sometimes to sponsor a U.N. conference and give ringing speeches calling for changed laws and more international assistance.

In contrast, a standard conservative approach is to sponsor a missionary hospital or school. One magnificent example is the Addis Ababa Fistula Hospital, where missionary doctors repair obstetric injuries that have left Ethiopian women incontinent.

Liberals also often focus on changing laws, but in a poor country, the legal system is often irrelevant outside the capital. Sudan, for example, banned female genital mutilation back in 1957; since then, the practice has expanded steadily. Sure, lobbying for better laws is important, but it's usually much more cost-effective to vaccinate children or educate girls. Nobody gets more bang for the buck than missionary schools and clinics, and Christian aid groups like World Vision and Samaritan's Purse save lives at bargain-basement prices.

Liberals may also put too much faith in aid itself. What Africa needs most desperately are things it can itself provide: good governance, a firmer neighborhood response to genocide in Sudan, and a collective nudging of Robert Mugabe into retirement.

Plenty of studies have shown that aid usually doesn't help people in insecure, corrupt or poorly governed nations. Indeed, aid can even do harm, by bidding up local exchange rates and hurting local manufacturers.

All that said, in the right circumstances aid can be tremendously effective, especially in well-governed countries - Mozambique is an excellent example. And Mr. Bush's new push to help Africa is smartly designed, targeting problems like malaria and sex trafficking, where extra attention and resources will make a big difference on the ground.

Mr. Bush's signature foreign aid program, the Millennium Challenge Account, is off to an agonizingly slow start, but is shrewdly focused on encouraging good governance and economic growth. The first grant went to Madagascar, a well-run country, to clarify property rights there. This isn't sexy, but nothing would help the poor in Africa more than giving them clear title to their land so they could secure loans and start businesses.

The divide I portray between the left and right is, of course, a caricature. Some of the very best work to help the poor is done by liberal-leaning groups, like the Carter Center, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and Doctors Without Borders. They all use their resources to make real changes on the ground.

And while Mr. Bush has done much more for Africa than most people realize, there's one huge exception, because anything with a whiff of sex in it makes some conservatives go nuts. Mr. Bush's decision to cut off funds for the U.N. Population Fund means that more African girls will die in childbirth. Even more tragic is the administration's blind hostility to condoms to fight AIDS - resulting in more dead Africans.

Mr. Bush has another blind spot as well: while he is right that aid is not a cure-all, sometimes he seems to use legitimate concerns about aid as an excuse for stinginess. Aid has shortcomings, but Mr. Bush himself has shown that it can be used effectively to save lives by the millions.

Yet Mr. Bush is resisting the G-8's calls for further help for Africa; he thinks the sums are better spent on cutting the taxes of the richest people on earth than on saving the lives of the poorest. Come on, Republicans! You need to persuade Mr. Bush to be more generous this week, because his present refusal to help isn't conservative, but just plain selfish.

[gstelmack]

Nice to see. That's my biggest gripe with the media right now: all the focus is on the negative, with very little noted about the positives. Nice to see an article about Bush that shows both sides of the coin. Now if we could just get something like that on Iraq...

[PilotMan]

Even more tragic is the administration's blind hostility to condoms to fight AIDS - resulting in more dead Africans.

All that is well and great but the fact that this remains, is ignorance and an arrogant attitude to what the can be a real help against a wave of pestilence.

[Desnudo]

Just like the liberal media to put good news in small font.

[sterlingice]

Gotta echo the comments of NoMyths. Frankly, this is something I never had Bush pegged for helping and it's not something that will get a lot of publicity, but some real good is done. Job well done by the President.

SI

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

Just like the liberal media to put good news in small font.

Though I know it's a joke, I should probably point out that I do that with every medium/large sized article I post here, in order to help those of us who don't want to scroll down fifty pages of text. One can always copy and paste the text to Wordpad if they'd like it larger.

[Glengoyne]

Hey something we can all agree upon...even the short sightedness regarding condoms.

[weinstein7]

Just remember this the next time you want to refer to the Times' Op-Ed page as "liberal propoganda" or some such.

(not directed at NoMyths or anyone else in particular)

[Buccaneer]

Not all aid has to wait for government or UN sponsorship. You can directly affect the lives of a child, family or community in Africa today.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by weinstein7

Just remember this the next time you want to refer to the Times' Op-Ed page as "liberal propoganda" or some such.

(not directed at NoMyths or anyone else in particular)

Reminds me of a recent San Francisco Chronicle op-ed where it beat the drum for uncompromising eradication of terrorism and those that commit terrorist acts. This was in the context of the "gulag" quip where questions should be asked but taking a hardline stance on terrorism.

Sorry to threadjack (twice?).

[ISiddiqui]

Man, Bush sure has spent more than any 'liberal', hasn't he?

[Dutch]

Let me be man enough to admit when I saw that article I immediately thought of my friends at FOFC and thought, "This will be ignored."

I was wrong. Nice job, NM.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by weinstein7

Just remember this the next time you want to refer to the Times' Op-Ed page as "liberal propoganda" or some such.

(not directed at NoMyths or anyone else in particular)

It's not 100%, obviously this shouldn't be ignored, especially after the AP sent something through the wire.

Maybe it's down to 95% Liberal slant.

[CraigSca]

I know this is off topic - but what exactly is a "prop"? What word or words did it derive from?

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Let me be man enough to admit when I saw that article I immediately thought of my friends at FOFC and thought, "This will be ignored."

I was wrong. Nice job, NM.

[NoMyths]

dola...

Originally Posted by CraigSca

I know this is off topic - but what exactly is a "prop"? What word or words did it derive from?

From "propers"; slang term for respect given when one does something worthy of such. Early 90's slang.

Funnily enough, same question was asked on GSN's rerun of a Super-Millionaire episode last week.

[JPhillips]

If he's given the opportunity I really have high hopes for Wolfowitz and the IMF in Africa as well. While I think he was grossly incompetent in the planning for Iraq, Wolfowitz is a sort of neo-liberal when it comes to nation building.

If only Bush and company could shelve the ridiculous sex hangups that fuck up our AIDS policy.

[Riggins44]

There's nothing charitable about giving away other people's money.
If the American people want to "help" the African countries, they can make a check out to some organization on their own or send a box of zippers.

Not constitutional and makes no sense.

[Ragone]

Just because you give someone a condom.. doesn't mean they are going to use it

[MrBigglesworth]

Sorry to spoil the 'Let's all come together and praise Bush' party, but, in typical fashion, the 'new' Africa funding is mostly B.S.:

Last Thursday, Bush announced his administration would double its spending on African relief. ActionAid International USA has determined that $4.1 billion of the $4.5 billion increase, in actuality, heralds from existing commitments that have already been announced earlier and approved.
...
While Bush cited that the US has already tripled its aid to the continent’s poorest regions, a recent analysis by the Brookings Institution on actual U.S. appropriations from FY2000 to FY2004 paints a different picture. Brookings finds that from FY 2000 to FY 2005 (estimated), U.S. aid to Africa will have increased by 78% in real dollar terms- not quite a doubling, much less a "tripling" of aid. Of this increase, 50% has been earmarked for emergency food aid, rather than towards development programs that make a lasting impact towards poverty relief.

Patrick Watt, policy analyst at ActionAid in the UK, added, “it should be noted that 70% of this increase is tied to the purchase of US goods and services. Such aid can actually be detrimental towards the sustainable development of an impoverished nation, as it discourages the growth of local businesses and commerce.”

“Additionally,” stated Rowden, “President Bush is proposing a $50 million dollar increase in the baseline funding level for education in Africa over the next four years. Yet, in the last four years, Congress has increased that by $339 million. Therefore, the President’s new initiative to increase education funding represents less than a quarter of what Congress has already done on the issue.”

On Bush’s proposal to increase spending within Africa by $1.2 billion until 2008 to help fight malaria, Rowden notes, “much of this aid is not new, but rather previously-pledged money repackaged with a new look. For example, according to the Global AIDS Alliance, Bush’s most recent budget actually cuts next year’s funding for infectious diseases by $45 million. In his June 30th speech, Bush announced he will spend $30 million in 2006 to launch a ‘new’ initiative, which is simply a new face on the same old line-item.”

Said Atila Roque, Executive Director of ActionAid International USA, “what Bush proposes to give to relieve human suffering in Africa over the next five years is equivalent to only about a month of what we’re currently spending on the military occupation of Iraq. This is tragically inadequate when you consider the extent of human suffering across the continent. It’s time our nation act appropriately.”

hxxp://www.alertnet.org/thenews/fromthefield/actaidusa/112059178765.htm

So most of the increases are old money and the increases are tied to purchasing American goods instead of developing infrastructure. Remember Bush's 2003 SOTU speech, where he garnered high praise for promising $15 billion to Africa to fight AIDS? Read here to see how that is going. I mean c'mon, use common sense. Bush is cutting Medicaid and food stamps in our own country, why would he care a lick about the poor in Africa?

My favorite part of the above article was this:

For example, according to the Global AIDS Alliance, Bush’s most recent budget actually cuts next year’s funding for infectious diseases by $45 million. In his June 30th speech, Bush announced he will spend $30 million in 2006 to launch a ‘new’ initiative, which is simply a new face on the same old line-item.”

Reminds me of a book I read:

For the moment he had shut his ears to the remoter noises and was listening to the stuff that streamed out of the telescreen. It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grammes a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grammes a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it. The fabulous statistics continued to pour out of the telescreen.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Ragone

Just because you give someone a condom.. doesn't mean they are going to use it

But that's not what a comprehensive AIDS education is all about--in addition to passing out condoms you have to have to aggressively promote its use as well as frank discussion about pathways to transmission of HIV. Uganda's aggressive condom promotion program worked very well to cut down rates of new HIV infections. Unfortunately, the Ugandans are bowing to pressure from the Bush administration to promote abstinence-only plans now--consequently, HIV rates are probably going to go back up...

[Dutch]

Sorry to spoil the 'Let's all come together and praise Bush' party, but, in typical fashion, the 'new' Africa funding is mostly B.S.:

So we should take the money back? What the fuck kind of liberal are you, exactly?

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Unfortunately, the Ugandans are bowing to pressure from the Bush administration to promote abstinence-only plans now--consequently, HIV rates are probably going to go back up...

I don't think that there is any evidence, anywhere, that says that abstinence only plans lead to a rise in HIV rates.

I still agree with your point that attacking HIV in Africa needs to be a multi-pronged approach.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I don't think that there is any evidence, anywhere, that says that abstinence only plans lead to a rise in HIV rates.

hxxp://hrw.org/reports/2005/uganda0305/8.htm#_Toc98378386
hxxp://hrw.org/reports/2002/usa0902/

It is unrefuted in the scientific literature that abstinence only education increases the rate of unprotected sex. Unprotected sex leads to more HIV.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I don't think that there is any evidence, anywhere, that says that abstinence only plans lead to a rise in HIV rates.

I still agree with your point that attacking HIV in Africa needs to be a multi-pronged approach.

The prediction that HIV rates will rise in Uganda is my own.

I am basing that prediction on the effectiveness of "abstinence-only" programs here in the US. As Mr. Bigglesworth alludes to, the rates of STD infection for teens in American abstinence programs is pretty high, since they are much less likely to use condoms when they do have sex (presumably because they were not taught about condom use)...

[Buccaneer]

Sounds like this person won't stop his hyperbolic shrills until all of the G8 nations are as poor as some of the African nations:

Peter Hardstaff, head of policy for the World Development Movement, described the summit's final declarations as "a disaster for the world's poor."

"The agreements on trade, debt, aid and climate change are nowhere near sufficient to tackle the global poverty and environmental crisis we face," he said. "We are furious, but not surprised."

[Flasch186]

I also will say that like the interstate abortion bill I too think that the right (Pres.) is speaking in the right terms. Kudos.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

hxxp://hrw.org/reports/2005/uganda0305/8.htm#_Toc98378386
hxxp://hrw.org/reports/2002/usa0902/

It is unrefuted in the scientific literature that abstinence only education increases the rate of unprotected sex. Unprotected sex leads to more HIV.

I am going to split hairs with you on this one. Both of those articles were reviews of policy and used information to discredit and lead to speculation that abstinence only programs are not sufficient for AIDS reduction. While I agree with this point, you did not discredit my original statement.

There is no evidence that suggests that an abstinence only program leads to an increase in the incidence of AIDS.

While there have been studies to suggest that those programs lead to an increase in the rates of unprotected sex, and that may put an individual at greater risk for being exposed to the HIV virus, it in no way implies that there is a direct correlation between abstinence only education programs and a direct increase in the number of AIDS cases. That was the point that I was making.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I am going to split hairs with you on this one. Both of those articles were reviews of policy and used information to discredit and lead to speculation that abstinence only programs are not sufficient for AIDS reduction. While I agree with this point, you did not discredit my original statement.

There is no evidence that suggests that an abstinence only program leads to an increase in the incidence of AIDS.

While there have been studies to suggest that those programs lead to an increase in the rates of unprotected sex, and that may put an individual at greater risk for being exposed to the HIV virus, it in no way implies that there is a direct correlation between abstinence only education programs and a direct increase in the number of AIDS cases. That was the point that I was making.

If there is a positive correlation between abstinence only education and unprotected sex AND a positive correlation between unprotected sex and AIDS, then there is a positive correlation between abstinence only education and AIDS, unless there are some confounding variables (such as abstinence only peopel being less likely to have sex with someone with AIDS for some reason), and nobody has theorized any of those to my knowledge. It doesn't prove it, but there definitely is evidence.