lord of the blog

« BlogShares | Main | Germany today »

Thursday, October 14, 2004

Responses

Blogshares.
Wow! I’m worth £1.65! And cheap at the price I say. Thanks for the information on blogshares - you learn something new everyday.

Africa.
Dan, my point is that you dismiss Tony Blair’s Africa Commission as a farce and of no value. If that was true then African leaders would ignore it and they don’t. You also say we don’t do anything for Africa. Yet we are the biggest donor second to the US and we don’t tie our aid to British goods. The same applies to AIDS. There are so many examples of good links and although they don’t cancel out the problems or things we are getting wrong I do think that we have to balance the argument.

Fathers4justice.
I think Fathers4justice are not arguing their case well and I really do not believe that the type of stunts they use presents a good image of them. In times of heightened security climbing on Buckingham Palace is a bad idea and whether you agree or not it smacks of irresponsibility.

It is also not true that the issue is ignored. There has already been one report on it and others will be done.

I believe people on either side of this argument need to think hard about how we can best deal with family breakdown in situations where the adults can’t agree about the children.

There is a case for more effective mediation and there is a case for trying to find ways of preventing parents ignoring a Courts ruling. This is the point Richard refers to in his question to me. It is not an easy area of policy but simplistic abuse or creating security scares is not going to win the argument.

The vast majority of parents who separate come to an amicable agreement about children and do put the children’s needs first. The problem is a minority of parents who for good or bad reasons can’t manage this.

Actually, Clive, the EU is the largest donor to Africa. The UK's proposed bilateral development expenditure is targetted at £1 billion in 2005/06. The EU spent €2.37 billion on Africa (40 per cent of its total development aid) in 2002 and the amounts are escalating rapidly. So, the EU's trade and aid policies are crucial to African development, but are not being challenged by Blair's Commission. Like the US, it insists on tying aid to trade deals, and Blair is happy for this to continue.

The EU is guilty of strategic protectionism when it comes to trade with Africa, but continue to force African states to embrace free market, monetarism and restrictive fiscal policies - ie Thatcherism. The members of Blair's Commission for Africa also uphold these views, although they are deeply unpopular in Africa. The involvement of African civil society on the fringe of the Commission mirrors their experience in negotiating IMF Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs); they are given casual lip-service and a bit of back-patting.

It is a fact that Blair funds, controls and heads the Commission, which severely undermines its claim of neutrality. So will it come up with any new ideas? Will it deviate from the agenda advocated by the EU in its Economic Partnership Agreements and at the WTO? Given the fact that Blair has, in the past, only listened to those who tell him what he wants to hear, I very much doubt it.

This is not just my view, it is also the view of most African civil society and most Western INGOs. If you read African newspapers, you may get a better understanding of African opinion. If you want to know how Africa thinks it should be developed, I suggest you start reading them. It is more worthwhile than listening to the Norwich Union, which for some reason has a board member on the Commission.

I guess I will see you when you give a speech at the Indian High Commission next month, so I'll heckle you about this there!

Clive, thank you for writing about Sudan and Commission for Africa. We sure can be proud of a massive contribution of funding, direct aid, several emergency relief plane loads, logistical support and advice, thousands of man hours of teeth gritting diplomacy, hard work and effort given by so many including - among many other organisations, groups, charities, churches - 12 of the UK's largest aid agencies and their aid workers who've risked (and some lost) their lives to help the victims of Darfur. Plus Tony Blair's historic visit to Khartoum - the highest ranking Western leader to meet with Sudan's government in Khartoum, and the first visit by a British leader since Sudan's independence in 1956 - not to mention the UKs pledge of a further £100 million for next year if peace is agreed.

The last time I checked, the British were the second - after the US - largest cash donors for Darfur - but please don't quote me - I am not nit picking because the generosity of the British public and government has been huge, especially considering we are such a small island that can fit into the State of Texas.

Today, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) announced a donation of $57 million in humanitarian assistance for Darfur. Total U.S. assistance for the Darfur humanitarian crisis now stands at more than $302 million. The U.S. is the largest contributor to the U.N. World Food Program and to date has provided more than 186,000 metric tons of food aid for Darfur, valued at more than $170 million. For more information on USAID's ongoing efforts in Darfur. www.usaid.gov.

It would be interesting to note how much China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Algeria, Brazil and the Arab nations have contributed. And, considering China's huge oil interests in Sudan with operations so close to Darfur, it seems curious China is not the largest donor - it sits on the UN Security Council but, like others, are getting away with contributing so little, if anything. Also, India are doing great business signing deals with Sudan and laying oil pipelines. Wonder how much they have contributed to the humanitarian crisis in Darfur and what they - and all the other countries I've just mentioned - are doing to help the world's poorest nations. And what about Sudan itself? It is oil and mineral rich and has hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on weaponary and migs from Russia. How come it's a member of the UN and does not buy food for its own people?

The UN asked for $300 million to help Darfur but received around half. Some countries are pledging contributions but not paying: the UN - or someone - should name and shame them so pressure can be put on them by the public and media, including bloggers.

Today, to mark World Food Day October 16, the UN's World Food Program (WFP) - the world's largest humanitarian agency - tells the media that the plight of hundreds of millions of hungry people around the world has been overshadowed by the crisis in Darfur. In a news report, WFP Executive Director James Morris "emphasized his concern for the victims of Darfur, but he also stressed that for every hungry child who made world news headlines there were millions more who went unnoticed. He says: "...WFP is calling for a new focus on the "routine hungry", the people left without enough food, not because of natural disasters or conflict, but simply because they are too poor to provide for themselves and their families. These people -- who make up more than 90 percent of the world's hungry -- are hit even harder when high-profile emergencies take up the bulk of donor aid budgets. ..."

Also today, the World Health Organisation (WHO) warns that the mortality rate in Darfur will not fall (70,000 deaths reported so far - 10,000 dying each month) unless countries provide more money. “We are running on a threadbare, hand-to-mouth existence, and if the plight of these people in Darfur is as important to the international community as it seems to be then we would have expected more long-term support,” said Dr. David Nabarro, head of Who’s crisis operations.

Clive, the UK and US have made hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Darfur - not to mention contributions from many other countries. But the UN, WFP and WHO are saying people are dying from disease and starvation because of lack of funding. Last time I checked, WFP had 800 milllion USD in its coffers. What exactly is going on, does anybody know?

The UN comprises 191 member states. If members are not already doing so, they should pay a set sum each year to help those most in need around the world. A fixed percentage, according to means, for food and aid, ie the wealthiest pay most and the poorest pay zero.

Once again, thanks for everything. Look forward to reading the Commission for Africa report - seems it might be produced by February.

PS Here's another of my questions I've not yet found an answer to: at what point does a country lose its right to handle its own affairs and refuse help from the outside world?

'If that was true then African leaders would ignore it and they don’t.'

African leaders - at least those in East Africa, where I have some experience - make Al Capone seem like a choir boy. I can't believe that DFID, and Blair, don't realise this. They will back any initiative which increases the balances of their Swiss bank accounts. Blair's posturing on Africa, linked to DFID's 'budget support' policy (see http://www.dfid.gov.uk/aboutdfid/performance/) which essentially means handing over aid with absolutely no strings attached, whatever the DFID idealouges might argue, must seem like Christmas to them.

Jerry: It really depends on what conditions you should put on aid. Nepad commits African countries to genuine democratisation and good governance, in exchange for greater assistance from the G8. But the EU is more keen to tie aid to trade liberalisation, which will cause African economies to regress - with serious repercussions for political liberalisation.

Blair's Commission distracts from working towards the UN's 2015 Millennium Development Goals, which are Nepad's principal objectives. These include halving the number of people in absolute poverty, halving the number of people suffering from hunger, primary education for all children, eliminate the gender disparity in education, reduce infant mortality and maternal mortality by two-thirds and a halt in the spread of HIV/AIDS. If Blair had faith in Nepad as a partner in the achievement of the MDGs, he would not have needed to set up the Commission for Africa.

Someone working at DfID has told me that the British government has largely abandoned the MDGs and there appears to be an unspoken consensus among the three main parties that the goals are unachievable. Clive will deny this, but most politicians I have met recently will privately admit that the MDGs are being abandoned. The British are straying from the MDGs and bypassing Nepad. The Commission is clearly seeking to replace these with an EU free trade agenda that focusses solely on processes rather than outcomes.

Hi guys, sorry it's me here again to bug you about Darfur. Thanks for discussing the hugely important issue of aid. I've blogged about the Darfur crisis almost every day for the past six months now and the refugees' situation appears to be as dire as ever.

Back in April, the death toll in Darfur was reported as 10,000. Now it stands at 70,000 since March. 10,000 are now dying every month. 85% of those now in camps who are dying, are losing their lives because of food shortages and disease.

Today, the Scotsman's report on Sudan is headed "DARFUR FACING FOOD CRISIS ON A SCALE NEVER SEEN BEFORE"

If we, who have so much in the West, cannot help the people of Darfur who are being killed off by their own government, what possible help can other people in countries like Uganda, Congo etc., hope for? Surely by now, they must be losing all hope. I know I am.

The U.S. and U.K. have given hundreds of millions of dollars for Darfur. Other countries around the world have given generously. But it seems that the whole of one years contribution for Darfur so far, is the equivalent of what is being spent on Iraq every 1 - 2 days.

(1) Why is the UN not getting the money it is asking for to help Darfur?

Are the UN crying wolf and don't really need the money for Darfur? Are they and the aid agencies using ploys and hyping the crisis every two months to fundraise? Whenever news breaks through on how the situation in Darfur is worsening, it seems to coincide with fundraising initiatives by aid agencies from around the world - including the U.N.

(2) Why does the U.N. not name and shame the countries who have pledged but are not paying? Is the UK one of those countries?

(3) Why is the African Union saying the reason for not sending the 300 Rwandan troops into Darfur last weekend was due to lack of funding?

Maybe the reason for the delay in AU troops getting into Darfur is that nobody is providing back up to the African Union quickly enough. The only explanation I can think of is that countries are saying to the media they are doing this, that and the other, but in reality they are not paying their pledges on time. It is vital that the African Union do not fail. The African Union is a ray of hope for Africa. If it is seen to be failing, it will lose credibility. It must succeed in Sudan.

(4) Why is China that sits on the UN Security Council, with its huge oil interests in Sudan, getting away with not being a major donor? Can't the UK ask them to kindly pay for or send a whole load of food and aid - and trucks and helicopters to distribute the food - and 70,000 police to provide safe passage for the aid?

China has oil operations in the vicinity of Darfur and staff of 10,000 in Sudan. Can't China chivvy up the Asian countries to help? It would sure make them look good in the worlds eyes. China needs some good PR - especially when it comes to humanitarian issues.

And what about India, Pakistan, Brazil, Algeria ... and all those within the 191 member states under the UN umbrella.

(5) Why is the U.S. who makes a big deal about declaring genocide in Darfur, being so stingy (and slow) in only two military planes to transport the AU troops into Darfur? (note this was just announced a few days ago - after the AU troops were supposed to leave at the weekend - if they were set to leave, who was transporting them to Darfur? I thought Norway and Australia and Canada were going to help. Who is co-ordinating the Wests efforts with the AU? Sounds like a shambles.

The U.K. paid for the last batch of Nigerian troops to enter Sudan and funding their rations. You can fit the UK, size wise into the State of Texas.

(6) Why is Sudan still sitting on the UN panel for human rights while it allows its people to die of starvation and disease because it refuses outside help? And why is oil rich Sudan getting away with not paying to feed its own people?

The media are really doing a poor job of investigative journalism. And the politicians aren't telling the story as it really is. What are we the people - the citizens of the world - supposed to think, do and feel?

For all the press releases that are issued out of the U.N. and Washington, I really cannot understand the lack of hard news regarding the desperate shortage of food - and why 85% of those now in the camps who are dying, are losing their lives because of food shortages and disease.

Today, the Scotsman reports that Darfur is facing an "unprecedented food crisis" worse than the famines of recent decades, the Red Cross said yesterday.

I'm lost for words now when it comes to trying to understand why the refugees in the camps are dying unnecessarily, and what will become of them in the camps over the next year or two if they are not getting enough food now because of lack of funding.

Does anybody know what is really going on and what we can do to help? Communications technology is not really empowering us to get our voices heard, it's just forcing us into becoming helpless passive voyeurs. I feel sad. I have given my time, energy and money and contacted my MP. Bottom line is, nothing seems to have made any real difference. I am exhausted and disillusioned with the whole political and UN process - and lack of news and accountability. At least here at Clive's blog I feel there is somewhere to go and have a vent that at least has a good chance of being heard. Thanks.

Here is link to the Scotsman report:
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=121749200

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: