I am clearly stupid and naive as I do not understand why people are dying of starvation in 2011.

[TheOriginalFAB]

Seeing a 7 month old baby on the news who weighs less than an average new born really shocked me.

And wot CinnabarRed said.

yeah, it's not just corrupt African government officials though, it's the people in the West too. Governments and big business in developed nations who do very nicely thank you out of corruption, while blaming the Africans.

Whilst we are busy interfering in Afghanistan and Libya, civil war rages in Sudan. Many many people have shouted about the goings on in that part of the world for years - including Hollywood celebs bless them, but no-one in government gives a shit because Sudan carries no importance to them.

We could actually send the UN in and deploy peace-keeping troops to help aid get through, but the government would rather just throw money at the country and not ask questions about where it is going, so long as it looks as though it's doing something. But money is not enough, someone needs to take the whole corrupt country to court, but no-one will.

It seems insensitive and thoughtless to have pleas for money showing dying children just before Sainsburys and Thomas Cook adverts.

We have so much in this country and yet we clamour for more. There's no easy answer here, just lots of corruption and greed.

God, fake naivete, is there anything more annoying?

Do you think your refusal to understand makes you more caring than those who do bother to make the effort?

If you are then so am I. It's awful that this still happens in the 21st century.
I can't bear to watch the news at the moment, it's very distressing.

"We could actually send the UN in and deploy peace-keeping troops to help aid get through, "

Er, please don't. Dont want my DS sent to war with a 3rd muslim country. We tend to lose.

Lol at the thought of the UK telling off other countries for being so corrupt

Compared to many other countries the UK is a bastion of fair play and transparency. I'm actually proud of our anti-corruption, anti-money laundering and anti-bribery record.

Edam, agree that it's not just corrupt officials in local jurisdictions. But I do reserve the worst of my ire for them because IMO they do the most actual harm to the local economy and hence the local people.

I care very much if a dictator decides that he needs a state of the art weopons system instead of better healthcare - because he's going to go ahead and get it by hook or by crook, and the fact that one Westerm engineering company offers him a bung to get the contract ahead of another Western engineering company isn't the biggest issue problem.

I care even more if a local business registrar demands a bung before he'll register a new business, because it means that local people can't start their own (legal) micro-businesses and so either no economic activity takes place or it all happens on the black market.

I care a little bit if a Western company bungs a corrupt local official to get permission to build a factory or dig a mine. The reason being that (i) the involvement of the Western company brings jobs and hence wages to the local economy that wouldn't otherwise exist; and (ii) contrary to common-sense, with the notable exception of oil, all the evidence suggests that Western companies build more environmentally sound infrastructure in the developing world than in the developed world. The reason is that the most polluting factories tend to be the most high-tech ones, and those are generally situated in the West due to greater stability and a highly educated workforce. Business accepts the "downside" of greater regulation in return for the above advantages.

I also reserve 100% of the blame to secrecy jurisdictions that allow corrupt governments to set up bank accounts offshore and salt off personal fortunes. It has to be said that the Channel Islands and Switzerland now have regimes in place that prevent this from happening - and Switzerland in particular has done a sterling job at freezing assets from overthrown dictators from the "Arab Spring". The real problems are in the Far East and the West Indes.

I don't think it is that unreasonable to expect a country that is given millions of pounds a year in aid by British taxpayers to use British companies and buy British goods. Why shouldn't there be a quid pro quo? I do object when it is to buy arms and luxury yatchs, but that is essentially the fault of whichever dictator, not necessarily the company that supplies it. And if Western companies set up in Africa they will employ Africans. When the Chinese come to town they bring all of their own workers and don't really add anything to the local economy.

"I don't think it is that unreasonable to expect a country that is given millions of pounds a year in aid by British taxpayers to use British companies and buy British goods. "

Not sure it's always as easy as that Callisto. Couple of practical difficulties.

1. The country may get aid from more than one Western nation. What if there are two companies, one from the US and one from Britain, and both governments have given aid? The US aid is likely to be bigger than the British aid, purely because the US is a bigger economy. Does that mean that the US company should always get the contract?

1. It's rare in a tender situation for two bids to be exactly identical. I have some moral queasiness with an aid recipient being obliged to accept proposals from corporates in certain countries just because they've provided aid - the contract should go to the best bidder.

IMO, aid should be like a gift - without strings.

1. There may be an industry in the country (or a neighbouring one) which could produce the product or service. Buying local gives double bang for your buck (help the aid recipients, help the local industry).

Buying from overseas can actually destroy the local industry. Second-hand clothing dumping by US "charities" is notorious for this and has seriously undermined local textile and garment industries. Iiuc it can happen with food aid too, if you're not v careful.

"I care very much if a dictator decides that he needs a state of the art weopons system instead of better healthcare"

But there's also a problem when a dictator or corrupt democracy didn't particularly want something - like that air traffic control system. But the official in charge of signing off was offered a bung to buy one.

Similar with digging a mine. The foreign company offers an individual or political party a bung to be given a favourable extraction rights contract. The country misses out on huge revenue opportunities because the rights could have gone to a higher bidder.

Cinnabar - yes I was being very simplistic. I guess what I was getting at was more a trade agreement rather than a purely 'Buy my products and you will get aid' scenario. I do struggle with your concept of no strings aid, because I feel that it is a bottomless pit and the aid given does not ultimately do any good at all. It is such a complicated situation though, almost impossible to improve without taking away the autonomy of the African nations that are most in need.

The book '23 things you should know about capitalism' has a chapter on this. IRC, some of the aid from western countries has imf-style restrictions on which demand free trade, ie forcing african countries to trade primary goods (food crops) ruinously cheaply, and diverting resources away from developing their own industry, as well as interfering with their capacity to grow and use their own food crops. Protectionist markets would help in this regards, but the terms of the aid won't allow it. (can't remember full details, have lent book, but this the gist. read it. Great book)

It's also very good on 'microloans', often championed as the ultimate amswer, until you consider that it works well only for the first few people who take it up. The market is very quickly saturated with whatever these entrepreneurs are able to produce (all similar products, because thats what resources are available), and the latecomers are saddled with loans they cannot then repay.

What I don't understand is if you can barley feed yourself, have no were to live why are they having more children knowing they have no food and cannot produce milk because they are too week.

I watched one thing the other day and the man was like yes this clinc for pregnant women and I just thought sorry I don't want to offend any one but sex would be the last thing on my mind

If had 7 or 8 days walking ahead of me, no food or home why why why

Why would it be any more surprising in the 21st century than in the 20th or any other century? There have always been people starving in the world and there always will be.

Africa has the same or more resources than Europe (Europe is mined out). It has lower wages, people are more motivated. It has more land per head.

North American has the same resources and weather as the South, yet Peru and Columbia are poverty stricken.

There are no fundamental differences between rich and poor countries, but somehow rich and poor are wildly different. Partly it's a poverty trap - poor countries are so busy being poor they never get off the ground. Then there's corruption. Abstracting wealth outside the country instead of recycling it. Low levels of infrastructure spending mean a small public sector instead of halfway decent wages and employment standards for a large chunk of the population. Money gets wasted on big vanity projects instead of basics.

And that's all before money spent on arms, debt repayments and big project funding being spent on foreign experts.

Imaging a poor country. Take away the people. Now imagine the UK, the USA or someone similar declared it was part of their territory. Now imagine what it would be like in just 10 years. Another poverty striken country or a properous zone? Somehow poverty feeds poverty and wealth feeds wealth.

It's set to get worse too.

ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=56153

Nigeria, Africa's most populous country at 158 million, is expected to grow to 730 million by century's end, making it larger than Europe's projected population of 675 million.