My Beauty Best Teacher

Good evening.

This is a special night for me. Three years ago, in 2008, I accepted the nomination of my party to run for President of the United States. I promised you a President who is not isolated from the people, who feels your pain, and who shares your dreams and who draws his strength and his wisdom from you.

During the past 3 years I've spoken to you on many occasions about national concerns, the energy crisis, reorganizing the Government, our Nation's economy, and issues of war and especially peace.

Ten days ago I had planned to speak to you again about a very important subject -- hopechangetogetherness. For the uncountable time I would have lectured you on the urgency of the problem and laid out a series of legislative recommendations to the Congress. But as I was preparing to speak, I began to ask myself the same question that I now know has been troubling many of you. Why have we not been able to get together as a nation to resolve our serious energy problem?

It's clear that the true problems of our Nation are much deeper -- deeper than high gasoline prices, deeper than the madness of the NCAA tournament, deeper even than expected inflation or the continuing recession. And I realize more than ever that as President I need your help. So, I decided to reach out and listen to the voices of America.

I invited to Camp David people from almost every segment of our society, including labor union leaders, government union leaders, teachers, bureaucrats, university professors, donors to my campaign, Democrat Governors, the Mayor of Chicago, and foreign officials. It has been an extraordinary 10 days, and I want to share with you what I've heard.

These 10 days confirmed my belief in the decency and the strength and the wisdom of the American people, but it also bore out some of my longstanding concerns about our Nation's underlying problems.

I know, of course, being President, that government actions and legislation can be very important. That's why I've worked hard to pass legislation and conduct myself in a manner completely different from what I promised in my campaign -- and I have to admit, these have been met with little success. But after listening to the American people I have been reminded again that all the legislation in the world can't fix what's wrong with America. So, I want to speak to you first tonight about a subject even more serious than energy or inflation. I want to talk to you right now about a fundamental threat to American democracy.

The threat is nearly invisible in ordinary ways. It is a crisis of confidence. It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will. We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our Nation. The erosion of our confidence in the future is threatening to destroy the social and the political fabric of America.

America, you are what is wrong with America, and we need to change you to make you better.

The confidence that we have always had as a people is simply some romantic dream from a slavery past or was a proverb in a dusty book that we once read. The real confidence of America and the reason it was founded is to elect me so that I can progress our Nation. Confidence in the future has supported everything else -- public institutions, our own unions, and the very Government of the United States. Confidence has defined our course and has served as a link between generations. We've always believed in something called progress. We've always had a faith that the days of our children would be better than our own, in spite of the massive debt and underfunded institutions we are pushing to them.

This loss of confidence did not happen overnight. They've come upon us because of Republicans and the resulting years of shocks and tragedy.

Looking for a way out of this crisis, our people have turned to the Federal Government and found it isolated from the mainstream of our Nation's life. Washington, D.C., has become an island. The gap between our citizens and our Government has never been so wide. The people are looking for honest answers, not easy answers; clear leadership, not false claims and evasiveness and politics as usual.

What you see too often in Washington and elsewhere around the country is a system of government that seems incapable of action. You see a Congress twisted and pulled in every direction by hundreds of well financed and powerful special interests. You see every extreme position defended to the last vote, almost to the last breath by one unyielding group or another. You often see a balanced and a fair approach that demands sacrifice, a little sacrifice from everyone, abandoned like an orphan without support and without friends.

Often you see paralysis and stagnation and drift. You don't like, and neither do I. What can we do?

First of all, we must face the truth, and then we can change our course. We simply must have faith in each other, faith in the ability of Democrats to govern you, and faith in the future of this Nation. Restoring that faith and that confidence to America is now the most important task we face. It is a true challenge of this generation of Americans.

We know the strength of America. We will be strong. We can regain our unity. We can regain our confidence. We are the heirs of generations who forged a New Deal, a Fair Deal, a Square Deal, and who built a Great Society. Although my grandmother was a racist, my Muslim father from Kenya and my mother were strong, and believed that in me they had created someone who would carve out a new charter of peace for the world.

We ourselves and the same Americans just three years ago elected me, a man who represents hope and change We are the generation that dedicated our society to the pursuit of human rights and equality. And we are the generation that will win the kinetic military actions against non-state actors and we are the generation that will cool the globe and stop the rise of the oceans and in doing so build a new confidence in America.

We are a turning point in our history. There are two paths to choose. One is a path I've warned about tonight, the path that leads to fragmentation and self-interest, the path that Republicans want us to take. Down that road lies a mistaken idea of freedom, the right to grasp for ourselves some advantage over others, the right to keep and own private property, and the right to choose life. That path would be one of constant conflict between narrow interests ending in chaos and immobility. It is a certain route to failure.

All the traditions of our present, all the lessons of the failures of our heritage, all the promises of our future point to another path, the path of common purpose and the restoration of American values. That path leads to True Freedom for our Nation and ourselves. We can take the first steps down that path as we begin to solve our confidence problem.

I do not promise you that this struggle for freedom will be easy. I do not promise a quick way out of our Nation's problems, when the truth is that the only way out is an all-out effort. We know the Republicans, Tea Party activists, and conservatives will attempt to block us and prevent us from progressing as a society to True Freedom. What I do promise you is that I will lead our fight, and I will enforce fairness in our struggle, and I will ensure openness and togetherness and hope. And above all, I will vote present on this issue and be the one we were waiting for.

Little by little we can and we must rebuild our confidence. We can spend until we empty our treasuries, and we may summon all the wonders of science. But we can succeed only if we tap our greatest resources -- America's people, America's values, and America's confidence.

I have seen the strength of America in the inexhaustible resources of our people, which I will spend and then some. In the days to come, let us renew that strength in the struggle for a confident nation.

In closing, let me say this: I will do my best, and I will do it alone if need be. If you support me, then let your voice be heard- whenever you have a chance, say something good about me and my plan. With my help and for the sake of our Nation, it is time for us to join hands in America. Let us commit ourselves together to a rebirth of the American spirit, this one based on my vision of hope and change and togetherness and progress. Working together with this common faith we cannot fail. We are the ones we have been waiting for.

Thank you and good night.

UPDATE: This is a fake speech that I expect Obama to give soon. It is based on Jimmy Carter's "Malaise Speech" in 1979. What is surprising is how little I actually have changed from that speech- I'm honest, I only changed an occasional word or edited out an occasional section, and yet this speech sounds like something Obama would say. Does it sound like a speech Romney, or Palin, or Bush, or Reagan, or Lincoln, or Jefferson, or Washington would say? No, but it does sound like a speech for Obama, Carter, Hoover, or Buchanan. That says something.

In Reuters:

The Ethiopian government is using development aid to suppress political dissent by conditioning access to essential government programs on support for the ruling party says Human Rights Watch. Human Rights Watch urged foreign donors to ensure that their aid is used in an accountable and transparent manner and does not support political repression.The 105-page report, "Development without Freedom: How Aid Underwrites Repression in Ethiopia," documents the ways in which the Ethiopian government uses donor-supported resources and aid as a tool to consolidate the power of the ruling Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF)...[continue reading]

Helen Epstein writing in NYRB:

The Western Renaissance helped to democratize “the word” so that all of us could speak of our own individual struggles, and this added new meaning and urgency to the alleviation of the suffering of others. The problem with foreign aid in Ethiopia is that both the Ethiopian government and its donors see the people of this country not as individuals with distinct needs, talents, and rights but as an undifferentiated mass, to be mobilized, decentralized, vaccinated, given primary education and pit latrines, and freed from the legacy of feudalism, imperialism, and backwardness. It is this rigid focus on the “backward masses,” rather than the unique human person, that typically justifies appalling cruelty in the name of social progress.

More here

Liberals often talk about being anti-war, about promoting peace and love and togetherness, but when it comes down to it, liberals love war and conflict and get us into more than even neo-conservatives do. I know what you're thinking- "Iraq!" (if you are a liberal, you brain is probably shouting that word in some sort of knowledgeable self-righteousness, as if you know anything about anything). In reply I yell back- "Vietnam! WWII! WWI!" Oh, but that's old news, right- remember under Clinton, everyone just held hands and sang love songs? Oh yeah- Serbia, Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan- Clinton had us involved in more conflicts than even that 'war-monger' Bush did. So, when I read the following story about how liberals are no longer protesting wars now that Obama is in office, I was not surprised- the only reason (THE ONLY REASON) liberals were against the War in Iraq is because they play petty political games with America to increase their personal power.

The story appeared in The American Conservative (link to it here), and goes like this:

The antiwar rally at the University of Iowa was sparsely attended. The below 30 degree weather might have had something to do with it...The big truth is that the antiwar movement has largely collapsed in the face of Barack Obama’s victory: the massive antiwar marches that were a feature of the Bush years are a thing of the past. Those ostensibly antiwar organizations that did so much to agitate against the Iraq War have now fallen into line behind their commander in chief and are simply awaiting orders.

Take, for example, Moveon.org, the online activist group that ran antiwar ads during the election—but only against Republicans—in coalition with a group of labor unions and Americans Against Escalation in Iraq. These donors are no doubt wondering what Obama is doing escalating the war in Afghanistan and venturing into Pakistan.

As Greg Sargent noted over at WhoRunsGov.com, a Washington Post-sponsored site, “Don’t look now, but President Obama’s announcement today of an escalation in the American presence in Afghanistan is being met with mostly silence—and even some support—from the most influential liberal groups who opposed the Iraq War.”

In response to inquiries, Moveon.org refused to make any public statement about Obama’s rollout of the Af-Pak escalation, although someone described as “an official close to the group” is cited by WhoRunsGov as confirming that “MoveOn wouldn’t be saying anything in the near term.” A vague promise to poll their members was mentioned—“though it’s unclear when.” Don’t hold your breath.

The Center for American Progress, a liberal-Left think tank that sheltered many foreign-policy analysts who opposed the Iraq War and was beginning to develop a comprehensive critique of global interventionism, has recently issued a report on Afghanistan that includes a number of short-term, medium-term, and long-term (ten-year) goals, including among the latter: Assist in creating an Afghan state that is able to defend itself internally and externally, and that can provide for the basic needs of its own people. Prepare for the full military withdrawal from Afghanistan alongside continued diplomatic and economic measures to promote the sustainable security of Afghanistan.

Simply substitute Iraq for Afghanistan, and what we get is the war policy of the Bush era. That the center is run by John Podesta, who served as Obama’s transition chief, is perhaps explanation enough for the complete turnaround. One wonders, however, if the center’s more anti-interventionist scholars, such as Matthew Yglesias, whose popular blog has attracted a substantial audience, will be forced to toe the new line—or be forced out.

One also wonders when this administration will decide to let the American people in on the news that the Af-Pak war is slated to last at least a decade, if not more. During the campaign, and well before that, Joe Biden was self-righteously denouncing the Bush administration and its journalistic amen corner for not “leveling with the American people” and admitting the magnitude of our commitment in Iraq. Yet the administration of which he is now part is just as evasive on the question of an exit strategy and timeframe in Afghanistan and now Pakistan.

Biden’s counsel of restraint apparently lost out in the internal debate, and the Hillary-Gates escalators triumphed. It is inconceivable that the vice president would go public with his criticisms—he’s no Cheney. And opposition among the Democrats in Congress is low-key, minimal, and effectively marginalized.

A recent headline in The Hill tells the whole sad story: “Anti-war Democrats remain silent about Obama’s policies.”

President Obama is often compared to FDR or John F. Kennedy, but I agree with Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation, who worries that he’s more likely to turn out to be another Lyndon Baines Johnson—a president who triumphed against a perceived warmonger at the polls and embodied liberal hopes on the domestic scene but was then driven from office by a war-weary electorate and an insurgency within his own party. Add a rapidly expiring economy at home to an increasingly unpopular war—or series of wars—abroad, and you have a recipe for disaster: Obama’s Vietnam and the Democratic Party’s Waterloo.

The vulnerability inherent in external dependencies is highlighted once again.Linda Nordling writes at SciDev:

Foreign funding is important for African science. It pays for much of the best of it — for example, testing the PRO 2000 gel which recently gave hope to women wanting to protect themselves against HIV infection (see Microbicide hope at last, say researchers).It is also important in re-building universities and research communities on the continent — although the ensuing dependence on overseas donors remains controversial.
A decline in external funding would have seemed far-fetched a few years ago when donors were falling over one another to pledge support for African science. But with the global financial crisis, things are looking less rosy...[continue reading]

Some days I feel like I must not be normal, that my thinking doesn't quite fit, because I arrive at the opposite conclusions as other people. Today's post might be more accurately a rant.

I'm reading an article in the Detroit News about the auto bailout- about how General Motors and Chrysler asked the government for $21 billion more in taxpayer money to 'stave off bankruptcy', which raises the tab for the auto industry's rescue above $40 billion. As I am reading this article, there are a couple things that jump out to me. Take a look at this line from the article-

Yet since the government extended the first emergency loans in December, the already weak U.S. auto market has collapsed to its lowest level since the 1980s.

Here is how I am different- in my mind, I think that that the already weak market collapsed BECAUSE the government started bailing out everyone. The bailouts caused the public to panic, caused confidence in these products to decline, and damaged our economy, all of which further hurt the auto companies, and the solution is no more bailouts, no more government money. Or take a look at this line

Politicians have criticized Detroit's automakers for running sloppy businesses and producing gas-guzzlers that consumers don't want to buy, but the severity of this downturn is hobbling even the world's strongest automakers.

Toyota Motor Corp., Nissan Motor Co. and Daimler AG have all reported losses for the October-December quarter. "There has been an unprecedented decline in the automotive sector," since early December when Chrysler first requested $7 billion in loans, Chairman Robert Nardelli told reporters.

Follow me on this one- if it was just a Detroit or a domestic thing, it would only affect Detroit or domestic auto companies. But it isn't- it is a United States thing as all companies selling in the US are being hurt. Why? Especially troubling is the line 'unprecedented decline'- why is it unprecedented? Did something radical happen in the US lately? Yup- the government stepped in, raised environmental standards, raised CAFE requirements, radically changed the nature of the government in the economy, etc. The reason why the auto industry declined in the US was not 'greed,' or 'bad Ford executives,' but the United States federal government. Blame that institution- blame the Democratic Congress, the moderate Bush, and the radical Obama. They are to blame, not good Americans working hard in a free economy.

In other news, one day after Obama signed into the the Destroy America Act (see post below), an act that spends an unprecedented $787 billion, an act that likely wastes money like nothing else in the history of spending, our President announced that this act isn't enough, and that we need another bailout of $75 billion 'to tackle the foreclosure crisis'. This act is meant to bailout people speculated in the housing market bubble, leveraged those profits into investments and a nice lifestyle, and now have to pay the piper, and bribe banks to continue lending to risky individuals in an effort to put every person in the Soviet America into a square block house. One wonders how much of this money will flow into the pockets of politically connected Democratic donors.

This type of government spending, whereby inefficient and irresponsible individuals are propped up at the sacrifice and hard work of efficient and responsible individuals, leads no where. What it leads to is the bankrupting of America. If you want to see what these liberal policies create, look at Detroit- a liberal Democrat dream town, designed by liberal Democrats and controlled by them for years, and now the 2nd most desolate city in the country. Democrats want to turn America into that.

And what is Obama doing, other than throwing unheard of amounts of money at the problems of America? Is he in Washington, working on creating effective public policy? Is he using his Harvard trained mind to creatively solve the problems facing our nation? Nope- he is doing what he does best, and campaigning for office. This Presidency is going to be marked by ceremonies, palaces, dances, and a continual spin campaign of the likes that you have never seen (unless you lived under soviet or fascist leaders).

Yes, the President is making good on his promise to continually get in touch with the people of our nation- provided that they are donors and they only donate to Democrats. He continued his Presidential campaigning today in swing states like Virginia and Florida, meeting with rich donors and promising to give them more taxpayer money in the form of further bailouts. What a joke.

Lastly, just to prove that the joke is on all of us and not just Republicans, Obama also announced that in the name of peace and to bring our troops home from conflict and protect them from harm, he is increasing our presence in Afghanistan by 17,000. The article says that he is radically changing the course of our foreign affairs by surging troops to combat terrorists- something that apparently Bush never did? Really, this is how the media covers for this guy, who now is backstabbing his own peacenik supporters and proving that he is only after one thing and one thing only- more power for himself.

Michael Fairbanks co-founder of the Seven Fund writes:

Every nation needs money to upgrade and improve the lives of their citizens; and it is good when a rich nation helps a poor one after a devastating act of God, or to meet a basic human need. But, too often, when one nation aids another it is based on a massive infusion of financial capital in return for changing monetary, trade, investment, fiscal, sectoral, and wage policies. This is often the right advice, but there is a trade-off, too. The nation with all the money often assumes the decision rights; and the responsibility for a nation’s future must always reside with the citizens of that nation, not with foreign advisors, and certainly not with its creditors and donors.This sort of checkbook development confuses compassion and generosity with over-responsibility for fellow human beings. Explicitly or implicitly, the donor is telling them how to run their country, and in the process, without meaning to, can rob citizens of emerging nations of their most precious assets – dignity and self-reliance...[continue reading]-A Templeton Conversation

Philip Stevens writes in the Taipei Times

According to International Finance Corporation and World Bank figures, between a third and half of the US$16.7 billion spent on health in sub-Saharan Africa in 2005 was spent in the private sector, often by the poorest people who cannot get government services. This huge capacity is ignored by donors, who for ideological reasons prefer to work directly with governments.
Donors should be embracing this massive capacity, offering competitive contracts to deliver health services. Non-profit groups, government and, crucially, the private sector should all be competing to deliver a broad set of services, such as improving maternal health. This competitive stimulus would give a powerful incentive to improve standards...[continue reading]

Read parent paper titled Foreign Aid for Health - Moving beyond government (pdf)

Edward Miguel discusses Nation Building in his Boston Review article about Africa's Prospects:

It should not be surprising that it is taking a full generation or more for real nationhood to take root in these infant countries. Everything started from scratch after independence. Politicians had to figure out how to forge political compromises across class, regional, gender, linguistic, tribal, and religious lines. History and civics textbooks needed to be written. Citizens had to come up with their own national narratives and heroes. Creating new identities and institutions is not something that foreign colonizers, aid donors, or the IMF and World Bank are willing or able to do. That kind of transformation demands visionary leaders, who have too often been lacking in Africa, or have themselves been victims of political violence. Further complicating matters, leaders and citizens trying to assemble structures of civic life must contend with the immediate economic imperatives of boosting agricultural productivity, educating the workforce, and building a modern transportation infrastructure.

via 3 Quarks Daily
Photo Courtesy of Christopher Herwig/herwigphoto.com

Akin dissects what may become the benchmark in White Elephant projects - The Grand Inga Dam Project:

When I read of the instigation of the largest dam project in the world being planned for Africa in a hydro-electric configuration last week, I skipped the news as one of those grand schemes of delusion...I find it interesting that for a project that would affect so many African countries, as it also involves 7 African countries with the intention of distributing electricity from DR Congo to Egypt in the North, Nigeria in the West and South Africa down South is coordinated by the World Energy Council in London.
This represents the Genesis of why this project probably serves no particular purpose to Africans in general, it is a project that would cost $80 billion and a good deal of that would not go to Africans but we would be saddled with the debts...There is no people-driven element about this grand scheme, it is a résumé boosting project that would be completed by 2022 and would probably collapse in 3 years with the big names involved having moved on to another grand white elephant.

G. Pascal Zachary also states:

For the forseeable future, however, there are many more practical and beneficial African hydro schemes. Talk of Inga is irresponsible and should cease, pending some clear watershed in the Congo's own stability. The country is riven by civil wars, badly governed and fatally wounded by its own sprawling geography. Supporters of Inga should be forced to shelve any financing maneuverings until the Congo sorts out politically and socially. Today, the country is essentially a fiction, propped up by the armed forces of the United Nations and the money of foreign donors.

G. Pascal Zachary writes:

The emphasis on large dams reinforces centralized power and invites corruption, because large dams bring big money into the hands of a few government officials and technocrats. By contrast, small dams capable of generating up to 15 MW are relatively inexpensive and require the hands-on involvement of villages and communities, thus potentially serving as a tool for local empowerment. Perhaps because small dams spread political and economic power, rather than concentrate it, African governments and the foreign donors who fund so much of Africa's infrastructure have generally ignored them.

image courtesy of IEEE spectrum

Demba Moussa Dembele critiques Aid dependency, "...So aid is an instrument, not a gift. For many Western countries and institutions, it plays a key role in their overall strategy to maintain and even expand their influence in Africa...the money disbursed as aid goes mainly to foreign-controlled enterprises and aid flows are used to buy goods and services from donor countries...the cost of complying with conditions imposed by donors and lenders and subsidies on domestic produce by OECD countries – help explain, among other things, the worsening of the debt crisis, which in turn has meant greater dependency on foreign aid...much of the so-called aid given by Western countries and the loans made by multilateral institutions are not based on developing countries’ real needs, nor on any performance criteria, but primarily on the interests of ‘donors’. It’s time, now, to consider some possible alternatives..."

Mired in grinding poverty and social destitution, Africa cries for help. A cacophonous galaxy of rock stars, anti-poverty activists, and heads of state are calling on the G-8 countries to cancel Africa’s $350 billion crippling foreign debt and double aid to the continent. British Prime Minister Tony Blair will make aid to Africa the centerpiece in Britain's presidency of the G-8 meeting in Gleneagles, Scotland in July. Live 8 is planned for July 2. After meeting with President Bush on June 10, modalities are being worked out to cancel at least $34 billion in debt of 27 of the world’s poorest nations, mostly African. Will this African Marshall Aid Plan work?

Africa’s plight follows a ten-year attention deficit cycle. Every decade or so, mega-plans are drawn up and rock concerts held to whip up international rescue mission for Africa. Acrimonious wrangling over financing modalities ensues. Years slip by, then a decade later, another grand Africa initiative is unveiled. Back in 1985, there was Live Aid and a “Special Session on Africa” held by the United Nations to boost aid to Africa. Then in March 1996, the U.N. launched a $25 billion Special Initiative for Africa. In September 2005, the plight of Africa will again take center-stage at a U.N. conference with clockwork precision. Expect another major initiative for Africa in 2015.

Helping Africa of course is noble but has now become a theater of the absurd – the blind leading the clueless. A recent IMF study estimated that Africans in the diaspora remit $32 billion annually back to Africa, with the main destinations being Ghana, Nigeria, and Kenya. About $7 billion is sent to southern Africa (Ghana News Agency, Accra, May 31, 2005). The amount Africans abroad remit back exceeds the $25 billion Tony Blair seeks to raise.

Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo says corrupt African leaders have stolen at least $140 billion (£95 billion) from their people since independence. The World Bank estimates that 40 per cent of wealth created in Africa is invested outside the continent. Even the African Union, in a stunning report last August, claimed that Africa loses an estimated $148 billion annually to corruption – or 25 percent of the continent's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Rather than plug the huge hemorrhage, African leaders prefer to badger the West for more money. And the West, blinded by its own racial over-sensitivity and guilt over the iniquities of the slave trade and colonialism, obliges. This is the real tragedy of Africa.

Between 1960 and 1997, the West pumped more than $450 billion in foreign aid – the equivalent of four Marshall Aid Plans – into Africa with nothing to show for it. Contrary to popular misconception, foreign aid is not free but a soft loan. Outright debt relief and massive inflow of aid without any conditionalities, safeguards or monitoring mechanisms is absurd. It is akin to writing off the credit card debt of a drunken sailor and allowing him to keep the same credit cards. No African government has been called upon to give a full public accounting of who took what loan and for what purpose since many of Africa’s foreign loans taken in the past were misused and squandered. No government official has been held accountable; instead, irresponsible past borrowing behavior is being rewarded.

More distressing, much of the new aid money will flow directly into an African government budget – a huge black maze of vanishing tax receipts, extra-budgetary expenditure items, perks and off-budget “presidential privy accounts,” redolent with graft, patronage and waste. Over the past few decades, African budgets have careened out of control. State bureaucracies have swollen, packed with political supporters. Back in 1996, 20 percent of Ghana's public sector workforce was declared redundant by the Secretary of Finance and Guinea’s 50,000 civil servants were consuming 51 percent of the nation's wealth. In Kenya, civil service salaries take up half the budget; in Uganda, it is 40 percent. Zimbabwe has 54 ministers; Uganda with a population of 35 million has 70, while Ghana, with a population of 22 million, has 88 ministers and deputy ministers. With bloated bureaucracies, soaring expenditures and narrow tax bases, budget deficits have soared.

They are covered with World Bank loans and foreign aid (Ghana’s budget is 50 percent aid-financed and Uganda’s is 60 percent). If the aid is insufficient, the rest of the budget shortfall is financed by printing money. Even when is aid available for “budgetary support”, there is no guarantee that it will be used productively to generate a return to repay the soft loan. It could well be “consumed” when it pays for the salaries of civil servants. Writing off Uganda’s debt does not eliminate the aid dependency. In fact, when the World Bank canceled $650 million of Uganda’s debt in 1999, the first item President Yoweri Museveni purchased was a new presidential jet!


British Prime Minister thinks he can cajole or browbeat African leaders into curbing corruption and ensuring that resources released by debt relief are put to some good use – such as increased spending on education and health care. But the push for good governance and reform must come from within – from African civil society groups, organizations and the people. However, in country after country, chastened by diabolical restrictions, these groups have no freedom or political space to operate.

Carlos Cardoso, an investigative journalist, was murdered in November 2000 for uncovering a bank scandal in which about $14 million was looted from Mozambique's largest bank, BCM, on the eve of its privatization. The official in charge of banking supervision, Antonio Siba Siba, was also murdered while investigating the banking scandals. Such was also the fate of Norbert Zongo, a popular journalist in Burkina Faso, who was gunned down on Dec 13, 1998, while investigating official corruption. In September 2001, President Isaias Afwerki closed down all the independent media and arrested its staff, quashing calls for democratic reforms. In all, the government shut down eight private newspapers and arrested its journalists, picking them up in their newsrooms and homes and from the streets. They were held in a central jail until April, 2002, when they threatened to begin a hunger strike to protest their detention. They were then transferred to an undisclosed location.

In neighboring Ethiopia, President Meles Zenawi, a member of Tony Blair’s Africa Commission, just held fraudulent elections. Anticipating public outrage, he banned street demonstrations for one month and assumed full control of the country’s security forces. When the opposition rallied to protest the results dribbling in, the police opened fire, killing 26; opposition leaders have been placed under house arrest. Witness the election machinations in Egypt.

The paucity of good leadership has left a garish stain on the continent. Worse, the caliber of leadership has distressingly deteriorated over the decades to execrable depths. The likes of Charles Taylor of Liberia and Sani Abacha of Nigeria even make Mobutu Sese Seko of formerly Zaire look like a saint. In an unusual editorial, The Independent newspaper in Ghana wrote: "Most of the leaders in Africa are power-loving politicians, who in uniform or out of uniform, represent no good for the welfare of our people. These are harsh words to use on men and women who may mean well but lack the necessary vision and direction to uplift the status of their people (The Independent, Ghana, July 20, 2000; p.2).

The crisis in leadership remains a major obstacle to poverty reduction and has many manifestations. It is characterized, among others, by the following dispositions and failings: The "Big Man" syndrome, subordination of national interests to personal aggrandizement, super-inflated egos, misplaced priorities, poor judgment, reluctance to take responsibility for personal failures, and total lack of vision and understanding of even such basic and elementary concepts as "democracy," "fairness," "rule of law," "accountability," and "freedom" -- among other deficiencies. In some instances, the leadership is given to vituperative utterances, outright buffoonery, stubborn refusal to learn from past mistakes, and complete absence of cognitive pragmatism.

Believing that their countries belong to them and only them only, they cling to power at all costs. Their promises are worth less than Al Cappone’s. They stipulate constitutional term limits and then break them: Angola, Chad, Gabon, Guinea, and Uganda. African leaders themselves drew up a New Economic Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) in 2001, in which they inserted a Peer Review Mechanism (PRM), by which they were to evaluate the performance of fellow African leaders in terms of democratic governance. What happened? To be fair, they acted in reversing the “military coup” in Togo in February but went on vacation when elections were stolen in Zimbabwe and Togo.

Ask them to cut bloated state bureaucracies or government spending and they will set up a “Ministry of Less Government Spending.” Then there is the “Ministry of Good Governance” (Tanzania). They set up “Anti-Corruption Commissions” with no teeth and then sack the Commissioner if he gets too close to the fat cats (Kenya) or issue a Government White Paper to exonerate corrupt ministers (Ghana in 1996). To be sure, multi-party elections have been held in recent years in many African countries but the electoral process was so contumaciously manipulated to return incumbents to power. Four such “coconut elections” have so far been held this year: Zimbabwe, Togo, Congo (Brazzaville), and Ethiopia.

Ask them to place more reliance on the private sector and they will create a Ministry of Private Enterprise (Ghana). Ask them to privatize inefficient state-owned enterprises and they will sell them off at fire-sale prices to their cronies (Uganda). Or ask them to move a foot and they will demand foreign aid in order to do so. In 2003, some 30,000 ghost names were discovered on the payroll of the Ministry of Education, costing the government $1.2 million a month in salaries heisted by living workers. When Ghana demanded foreign aid to purge the payroll of these ghost names, Japan coughed up $5 million.

The reform process has stalled through vexatious chicanery, willful deception, and vaunted acrobatics. Only 16 out of the 54 African countries are democratic, fewer than 8 are “economic success stories,” only 8 have a free and independent media.

No amount of debt relief and increased aid will help Africa until Africa cleans up its own house. But the leadership is not interested in reform. Thus, without new leadership and genuine reform, debt relief and increased aid would compound Africa’s problems and more African countries will implode. The continent is stuck in a veritable conundrum. What can Western donors do?

Smart aid would do one of two things. One, bypass the vampire state and target the people, who produce Africa’s real wealth. An African economy consists of three sectors: the traditional, informal, and the modern sector. The people who produce Africa’s real wealth – cash crops, diamonds, gold and other minerals – live in the traditional and informal sectors. Meaningful development and poverty reduction cannot occur by ignoring these two sectors. But in the 1960s and 1970s, much Western development aid was channeled into the modern sector or the urban area, the abode of the parasitic elite minority. Industrialization was the rage and the two other sectors – especially agriculture – were neglected. Huge foreign loans were contracted to set up a dizzying array of state enterprises, which became towering edifices of gross inefficiency, waste and graft. Economic crises emerged in the 1980s and billions in foreign aid money were spent in an attempt to reform the dysfunctional modern sector. Between 1981 and 1994, for example, the World Bank spent more than $25 billion in Structural Adjustment loans to reform Africa’s dilapidated statist economic system. Only 6 out of the 29 “adjusting” African countries were adjudged to be “economic success stories” in 1994. Even then, the success list was phantasmagoric. Ghana, declared a “success story” in 1994, is now on HIPC life-support system.

At some point, even the most recklessly optimistic donor must come to terms with the law of diminishing returns: That pouring in more money to reform the modern sector is futile. Greater returns can be achieved elsewhere – by focusing on the traditional and informal sectors.

Second, smart aid would empower the African people (African civil society groups) to monitor how the aid money is being spent and to instigate reform from within. Empowerment requires arming the African people with information, the freedom and the institutional means to unchain themselves from the vicious grip of poverty and oppression.

Africa already has its own Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights (the 1981 Banjul Charter), which recognizes the right to liberty and to the security of his person (Article 6); to receive information, to express and disseminate his opinions (Article 9); to free association (Article 10); to assemble freely with others (Article 11); and to participate freely in the government of his country, either directly or through freely chosen representatives in accordance with the provisions of the law (Article 13). Though the Charter enjoins African states to recognize these rights, few do so. When President Thabo Mbeki called on June 3, President Bush should have handed him a signed copy of this Charter to be delivered to President Robert Mugabe of ‘Zimbabwe.

The institutional tools Africans need are an independent central bank (to assure monetary stability and stanch capital flight), an independent judiciary (for the rule of law), a free and independent media (to ensure free flow of information), an independent Electoral Commission, an efficient and professional civil service, and a neutral and professional armed and security forces.

Recent events in Ukraine (November), Ghana (December), Zimbabwe (March), Lebanon (April), and Togo (April) unerringly underscore the critical importance of these institutions. Without them, President Bush’s plan to spread democracy may stall. Democracies are not built in a vacuum but in a “political space” in which the people can air their opinion, petition their government without being fired on by security forces and can choose who should rule them in elections that are rigged by electoral commissions packed with government goons.

On May 13, thousands of Egyptian judges, frustrated by government control over the judiciary, agitated for full independence from the executive in their oversight of the electoral process. “The institutions are presenting Mr. Mubarak with an unexpected challenge from within, one that will be difficult to dismiss. The fact is, major changes in this country are going to come out of those institutions, not from the streets," said Abdel Monem Said, director of the Ahram Center for Strategic Studies in Cairo.

In the past 24 years, Egypt has received more than $55 billion in U.S. aid in direct government-to-government transfers. Smart aid would assist civil society in instigating institutional reform. Since this approach carries some risks, the same objective can be achieved by funneling aid through diaspora Africans and their organizations, as was the case with Soviet dissidents during the Cold War.

Africa’s long term growth prospects do not lie in rock concerts and increased dependency on Western aid but on the ability of the African people or civil society groups to instigate reform from within. Assistance to such groups – both at home and abroad – constitutes much smarter aid to Africa than all the LIVE AID concerts Bob Geldof can organize.
______________

The writer, a native of Ghana, is a Distinguished Economist at American University and President of the Free Africa Foundation. His new book is Africa Unchained (Palgrave/MacMillan). This article is culled from his May 10 testimony before the Standing Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate of Canada.