rascott.com  "news, views, travel and an occasional blog"

 

 

Africa

Feedback:by email   

Home
Up

 

Click for Dubai, UAE Forecast

Other Useful links

World Time Clock Exchange Rates Nationsonline.org
Amnesty International
Reporters w/o borders
Sister Joan - Bangkok

BKK Magazine

The opinions expressed on these pages are entirely personal unless they are credited; you may not agree with all, or anything, that I write. So please use the feedback page to respond, comment or berate me.

 

 

 

 

Ethiopia: More aid, more hunger still

 
  By Michael Buerk
BBC correspondent, This World
Twenty years ago the BBC's reports on Ethiopia's "biblical" famine sparked an unprecedented international aid effort, so why are more Ethiopians facing starvation now than in 1984?

 

It is nearly 20 years now since I flew north from Addis Ababa, with the legendary cameraman, Mohamed Amin, into the greatest natural disaster of the twentieth century.

It was compounded by man, of course.

The Marxist military regime of Colonel Haile-Mariam Mengistu and the infamous Derg, was cruel even by African standards.

The wars they were fighting with the rebel movements of the north turned the highlands into battlegrounds and cut the starving off from the outside world.

The outside world did not care very much. The West was not keen to help a soviet-backed tyranny during one of the last spasms of the Cold War.

The result was a crisis that tipped into catastrophe.

Scattered bodies

When the autumn rains failed, the highlanders left their homes in millions and trekked away to look for help. We found their bodies scattered over the mountainsides.

 

  It was something unimaginable that we had allowed to happen, doing nothing would mean you were complicit in murder
Bob Geldof
 

Those that survived the journey, made it to places like Korem and Mekele on the great spinal road north where help might have been, if help had come.

But it hadn't, and tens of thousands of them died there instead.

Korem is still just a couple of rows of mostly single storey mud and stick buildings with corrugated iron roofs.

In 1984 we arrived there at night and got up before dawn to find 40,000 starving people out in the open.

Save the Children had set up a small supplementary feeding centre for babies, but it was completely overwhelmed.

There was a French doctor from Medecins Sans Frontières, bewildered and crying.

"I know nothing of politics", she told me, "I am just a witness of Korem and thousands, millions of these people are going to die."

They were already dying all around her; the keening and wailing cut right to your heart.

'Murder'

Two decades later, Bob Geldof is still emotional about what he saw that night in his home in Chelsea. "It was something unimaginable that we had allowed to happen. Doing nothing would mean you were complicit in murder".

It was not just Geldof, by the end of that week the whole country seemed to be mobilising.

We tracked down the little girl in Liverpool who saw her mum crying in front of the TV and went out on the streets with her brother, dressed as a guy, for five days running and collected £87, more money than she had ever seen before.

 

We found the Cambridgeshire farmer who could not stand the contrast with the grain mountains he was helping to build up. He set up a charity that raised £2m and sent 12,000 tons of food to the Horn of Africa.

As Geldof says, there was "never a civic movement in history that was so rapidly assembled, so focused and determined, so attuned to the objective".

For once, everybody thought they could do something; that they could make a difference. Was it something about them? The visible scale of their suffering, the helplessness of their mass victimhood?

Or was it something about us? Did it catch us at a moment in the middle of the Thatcher and Reagan years when our prosperity seemed suddenly selfish and uncaring?

It was Geldof who articulated the anger and harnessed the sympathy. Do they know it's Christmas?, the song he scribbled in the back of a taxi and persuaded the country's biggest stars to sing, sold 50 million copies.

Live Aid, the following summer, was not just the greatest concert ever held; it was the biggest shared event in human history. Sport Aid, a year later was the world's biggest-ever sporting occasion; 20 million people ran for Africa and raised $100 million.

What good did it all do? If nothing else, it saved between a million and two million lives, but we did not solve Ethiopia's problems.

Population explosion

The population in the highlands has exploded. It is heading for double the size it was in 1984.

The ever-rising numbers are putting more pressure on the land, pushing people further up the mountains to the margins of fertility.

 

 
Ethiopia: Now and then
Average income in 1984: $190
Average income today: $108
Six million Ethiopians are fed by international aid each year
Annual population rise: 2.7%
Annual topsoil loss: 2.7%
The thin soil is exhausted; the trees that bound it to the hillsides have long since been chopped down for firewood. When it is dry it blows away as dust and on satellite pictures you can sometimes see a red cloud heading out over the Indian Ocean.

When it rains, the topsoil is swilled away by the rivers. All Ethiopia's rivers run dark brown.

There's a chilling symmetry in the statistics; the percentage rise in population is exactly the same as the percentage loss of topsoil; both 2.7% a year.

Some things have improved. The great civil wars ended in the early 90s, the Derg fell and Mengistu fled, to be sheltered in Zimbabwe by his fellow tyrant, Mugabe.

The rebels were Marxists, too, but the then new Prime Minister, Meles Zenawi, and his senior colleagues all enrolled for an Open University MBA course.

They did not abandon their political roots altogether, but modified their policies or at least their image, to fit a world where capitalism was triumphant.

They have been in power for more than 10 years now and have been accused of human rights abuses, of vote-rigging, systematic oppression and wasting up to $2m a day on a pointless war with Eritrea.

Peasants 'kept poor'

Even though a lot of this may be true, they are saints compared with the Derg. The big indictment against them is that the poor are getting poorer.

 

  The worst thing is to starve, the next worst thing is to beg
Ethiopian PM Meles Zenawi
Ethiopia's Government is ideologically, even romantically, focused on the peasants amongst whom they lived during the long years of war. They genuinely want them to have a better life but, crucially, they insist that they stay peasants.

Meles Zenawi says the alternative would be disastrous. "Allowing peasants to sell their land in conditions of recurring drought would mean they would sell under duress and descend on the towns in their millions."

The government's critics say it's all about power. It is easier to control people stuck on their land, whose livelihood can be taken away from them by the stroke of a party worker's pen, than a rootless and disgruntled city population.

The government's stated strategy is "agriculture-led development". The idea is to make the peasants more prosperous so an indigenous industry grows up naturally, financed by the new spending power of the rural population.

So far it has been a failure.

The peasants are a great deal poorer than they were in 1984. They lost everything then and most have not been able to replace the possessions, tools and animals that went in the famine.

Average annual income then was $190; now it is $108. Food production per head is estimated to have fallen from 450 kgs in 1984/5 to 140 kgs in 2002/3.

Even in an average year six million Ethiopians now have to be fed by the outside world.

Ethiopia has received more relief aid in the past 20 years than any other country on earth. But it has had less development aid than any other needy nation.

Prime Minister Zenawi finds it humiliating. "The worst thing is to starve", he told me. "The next worst thing is to beg".

Ethiopia: A Journey with Michael Buerk was broadcast in the UK on BBC Two on Sunday, 11 January, 2004 at 2100 GMT.

 

 

 
Africa calling

Leader
Friday February 27, 2004
The Guardian


Africa remains a stain on the conscience of the world's wealthy nations. While they have enjoyed 20 years of growth and prosperity, Africa has gone backwards. Many parts of the continent remain desperately poor and - thanks to the deadly ravages of HIV/Aids and poverty - have seen the life expectancy of their citizens shrink. In Botswana and Swaziland, for example, the average lifespan has fallen by 20 years since the 1970s. Half of all Africans still live in absolute poverty. For all the good intentions of governments in Europe, Asia and America, things continue to get worse.

In this context, the pessimistic view is that Tony Blair's new commission for Africa is likely to achieve little, other than provide another catalogue of failures. There is certainly no lack of analysis of Africa's problems: yesterday the UN announced that 6.5 million people in southern Africa were at risk of starvation and that it had raised just half of the $640m required for relief. Meanwhile, the UN's trade and development agency said African countries relying on sales of commodities such as coffee were in a "poverty trap", unable to earn enough from exports to finance growth. At this rate, the millennium development goals agreed in 2000 remain far off.

There is a slim chance that Mr Blair's commission can surprise the pessimists. The fact that Mr Blair himself is to chair the commission gives it weight - although the lack of similar backing from Germany, the US or Japan will weaken its impact. What the commission will need to do is give the Group of Eight leading economies clear, authoritative guidance - so that political pressure can be applied to those G8 members that are currently dragging their heels.

Africa's problems are manifold, yet there are solutions that must be attempted. What Africa's poorest nations need first is a complete cancellation of debt, combined with substantial increases in aid to battle poverty, disease, and a crippling lack of infrastructure. Second, Europe and the US must remove their tariff barriers on commodities, or compensate the farmers of Africa for the absurd situation that has seen the doubling of subsidies to American cotton farmers in the last decade. Third, the donor-recipient relationship must be improved to give simple, predictable levels of assistance, avoiding the situation where some African countries have more than 50 separate donors, each with their own set of conditions. Finally, the G8 nations must examine their own record, and address why their aid commitments have fallen so short in the past.

 

Brand new aid

If the new Commission for Africa turns out to be another anodyne and meaningless gesture, I'm out of there. And I will weep

Bob Geldof
Friday February 27, 2004
The Guardian


Africa, that sublime continent a bare eight miles from Europe's southernmost shores, is so utterly mired in such totality of decay that only a fundamental rethink of all that has gone wrong while trying to put things right will suffice.

I'm not sure Tony Blair's new Commission for Africa, which he announced yesterday, will be able to do that, but it should, and it is what I, as one of the commissioners, am interested in achieving.

The prime minister accepts the logic of "Why the successes, and why the failures?". Africa's problems can't only be the result of corruption, debt, Aids and conflict. We have such problems in spades - it's just that we're rich enough to surf them. Down there they die.

Next year presents an incredible opportunity for action: the prime minister of the world's fourth largest economy as chair of the G8, and Britain as president of the EU. For most of that year, Blair will be one of the most influential politicians on the planet - if not the most. How should Britain mark this unique moment?

In the past two years, we have, for good or ill, flexed our financial and military muscle. How wonderful now to stretch our minds. Let London be the intellectual capital of the world for a few months. This cannot just be about economics. This must be about the cultural, philosophical and psychological framework that has defined our relationship with Africa.

Gather the thinkers and writers, the development geeks and economy wonks, the culture gurus and activist freaks. Let's consider anew our relationship with the powerless, mute and denied.

Imagine it is 1904, and we Edwardians have decided to convene a commission to discuss the 20th century. Could we have anticipated the world of 1950? It would have been impossible. We would not have invited Mr Freud, and we certainly wouldn't have taken into consideration the works of Mr Darwin, or that awful Mr Marx. We would have been operating under the political exigencies of the post-Waterloo world, not the unfelt philosophies of our actual moment.

Since the end of the cold war everything has changed; 9/11 was not the moment, 9/11 was the consequence.

In the late 1970s, a commission chaired by Willy Brandt was asked by the World Bank to look into the relationship between the north and the south. It produced a brilliant report that became the benchmark for development up to the demise of the cold war. But neither Brandt nor his fellow commissioners, including Ted Heath, were in power at the time, so no one of political consequence paid much heed.

Africa has inherited its poverty and conflicts in a long, baleful chain of history. But its agony has been compounded by the chill winds of the globalised world, which has effectively excluded it further. Globalisation in principle should help the poor. The reality, taking place in an "unethical vacuum", as a new UN report has it, has proved the opposite.

Debt, trade, tariffs, subsidies and Aids (the first globalised disease) have devastated the continent.

The Commission for Africa, a body independent of government, must aggregate all current and forward thinking, all extant and as yet unpublished reports, into its framework; it must take the many tributaries of ideas and allow them to flow into the more powerful flood of the commission. It must avoid the deadening jargon and acronyms behind which we hide the reality of failure. People must want to read its report, understand it and debate its findings in order to demand that when it is delivered to the top table at our G8, its findings be acted upon. That is the one, key difference from all other reports. The commission has real political power. This is a generational opportunity.

Politicians roll their eyes at my highfalutin bollocks, but I will fight all year that it should be as I have written and as I have described it to the prime minister and the chancellor. And I am asking for your help in a constant demand for a fundamental and radical rethink of our deadly tango with Africa. If this turns out to be another anodyne and meaningless developmental tract, I'm out of there. And I will weep.

This is an amazing and powerful thing for Britain to do. I like Brown and Blair as men. Whatever you read about the cynicism and spin behind this commission, it's simply not true. In many private conversations over many years, both these men have been ferociously impassioned on this issue. It was stupid for a Tory shadow minister to sneer that "Blair thinks he can save Africa". He knows he can't; but like most of us, if he could, he would. Blair wants to help. This should not be about party politics. This is something we don't have to argue about.

The prime minister knows how ultimately limited the response of any one nation can be. This will not distract from the domestic agenda or Iraq. It is preposterous to suggest so. Nor will the problem be solved simply by money (though that'll go a long way). Something more fundamental needs to be addressed.

This is a brave, fantastic use of power, and it will be a report card back to the generation that, through a rock concert, found an issue nowhere on the global political agenda and forced it to the very top, where it has remained for 20 years.

No sneering, please. Let's go for it. Give us a hand. Britain should, in an unambiguously clear, good way, be proud of itself.

· Bob Geldof is a musician who has worked on African issues for 20 years

www.data.org

Africa's seemingly endless famine.

The current famine in Africa will claim millions of lives. Foreign aid will help; but that provides only temporary respite. It is the developed world itself that perpetuates these famines; they are as much the result of human action (or inaction) as they are the weather.

Yes, dictatorship and war can starve a nation or a continent. The starving millions in Zimbabwe are testament to that dictator's use of hunger as a political weapon.

But the West must be aware of its responsibility; and much of that comes down to so called free trade. The evidence is compelling: to prosper Africa has to sell its produce. But George Bush pledged a further US$ 180 million to support US farmers over the next decade. The European Union spends over one half of its budget (some gbp 70 billion) on agricultural subsidies. For the Western consumer this means higher prices and higher taxes. For the Africans, it means hunger and death.

Another contribution to food aid helps of course; but admitting Africa into the global economy will help far more.