Charities in Africa

I firmly believe they should just get the **** out of there. I'm fed up of hearing about Ebola - it has always existed . now it's been latched onto by the western world as the next stepping stone to global altruism.
I have a bit of experience of Sierra Leone - most memorable was the aftermath - when the NGOs flooded in and the do-gooding wanna tick a box halfwits straight from media studies told us how bad we were. (whilst being escorted and guarded by us from their base at the airport)
Medicins sans frontiere are medical mercenaries. It's in their best interests for there to be a global crisis. Their solution is to send a fleet of 4x4s full of Facebook hungry post grads and document how bad a situation that has always existed actually is.

I know there are a few people on here who do this sort of work. I have also read comments from them that correllate with my opinions.

Is giving aid to Africa worth it in terms of results or is it just more of self aggrendising?
 

sirbhp

LE
Book Reviewer
In 1959 I recall we saved up 2/6 d to have a wee black baby in Africa baptised' that was pocket money down the drain'
 
Is giving aid to Africa worth it in terms of results or is it just more of self aggrendising?

What I'd like to know is, lets say specifically in terms of water aid/building wells (as an example)

1. Since the 1970's, what is the total amount of charitable (and non-charitable) aid given for the development of adequate water supplies to Africa (as a whole/and by Region). And not just from the UK, by country would be useful.
2. Where the **** it has all gone, whilst having almost zero effect. (watch the TV ads still going about little African child having to walk 20 miles there and back for a drink of water)

If you were to put a pin in a map, and draw a 20 mile radius around it, I suspect we'd only be talking about 500,000 wells or some such to cover the area sufficiently to solve the problem. Multiply that by the cost of a well, chuck in a bit for maintenance etc and I suspect we're talking about a fraction of the actual amount of money that's been donated to date.

Edit: Average cost of a well (including all costs) is approx. $10,000 (depending on who you ask). $1bn would get you 100,000 wells.

ONE charity alone has spent $1bn since 1970. That's 100,000 wells. That's roughly enough to supply 2.5 million people.

now, ignore the fact that governments, Blue Peter etc have all chipped in too, if we assumed 45 charities of various nationalities all did the same work, that's enough water to supply 1.25 billion people. Which is more than population of the whole of Africa. Including the Rich bits like S.Africa, Egypt et al.

Admittedly, these are very, very, extremely rough figures based on little research - but illustrative.

so, "Is giving aid to Africa worth it in terms of results" - I'd say no.
 
Well bae radars dont grow on trees
 
Population in Ethiopia prior to twatting band-aid prats was about 30+ million. Now more than 70 million and ... ergo more dying of starvation, disease etc., Pointless and expensive exercise that in reality added to the problems there. Multiply that across Africa............
 
Population in Ethiopia prior to twatting band-aid prats was about 30+ million. Now more than 70 million and ... ergo more dying of starvation, disease etc., Pointless and expensive exercise that in reality added to the problems there. Multiply that across Africa............
It made Bob geldoff feel good about himself. So money well spent
 
Well possibly if the west had not spent the last 200 odd years ******* africa about then letting the cia and kgb take over ******* with mercs and corporations bringing up behind.
Somalia prime example those chucklefucks arnt running an ammo factory in a mud hut are they? Might ask why the pirates got started somebody hovvered up all the fish and replaced them with toxic waste.
How many dicators got to swan around london and paris ffs we sold uncle bob hawks:mad:.

Complaining africas a corrupt shithole and ignoring half the nations were imposed by colonial rule that have tribes that hate each other sharing the same nation.. Rule of law democracy Etc self goverance is less than 70s year old with none of the history etc that the west have suprise suprise its not that brilliant.
Next your be complaining the aborigninal in australia are not doing to well being the survivours of a stone age culture who got genocided by technolgically advanced aliens.
 
Well possibly if the west had not spent the last 200 odd years ******* africa about then letting the cia and kgb take over ******* with mercs and corporations bringing up behind.
Somalia prime example those chucklefucks arnt running an ammo factory in a mud hut are they? Might ask why the pirates got started somebody hovvered up all the fish and replaced them with toxic waste.
How many dicators got to swan around london and paris ffs we sold uncle bob hawks:mad:.

Complaining africas a corrupt shithole and ignoring half the nations were imposed by colonial rule that have tribes that hate each other sharing the same nation.. Rule of law democracy Etc self goverance is less than 70s year old with none of the history etc that the west have suprise suprise its not that brilliant.
Next your be complaining the aborigninal in australia are not doing to well being the survivours of a stone age culture who got genocided by technolgically advanced aliens.

Ignoring the horrendous spelling, grammar, punctuation and common sense.

You have the beginnings of a point about Africa being used as a proxy arena. However, you miss the fact that Africans have always been a nation of tribes that hate and massacre each other. Look at Rwanda as a shining example, or the slave trade as another.

Corruption always has been a part of the African psychological make-up (see Baksheesh (sp) as an example).

Has the West abused Africa, sent in arms and generally used them to further their own ends? I guess I'd generally agree with you on that. But only in general terms, and only if you ignore the plethora of benefits the west brought with them.

However, Colonialism has been dead and buried for c50-100years depending on the nation your talking about (say Kenya, as an example).

At what point do they stop blaming the British and take responsibility for their own future? (and present). My guess is never - it's much easier to take the handouts at the top, blame the British for everything that's wrong for the middle-poor demographic and continue to buy armor plated mercs and private jets.

We continue to have a left-leaning bunch of idiots that want to apologise for things that happened centuries ago, that aren't necessarily our fault. Generally they have a lot of money and little common sense, so their only solution is to send billions of pounds of aid to the wrong people to salve their own consciences.
 
Colonisation just changed its spots the dickery continues now the chinese get to play.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14204115
The BAE radar scandal one of many

I wouldn't call it colonization, more along the lines of economic warfare. Chinese have wised up to the fact they can buy a monopoly on all the resources we're going to need for the next 100+ years.

The west is still arguing about tax avoidance and EU budgets.

Africans are killing each other with rocks and landmines.

Also, You're extremely naïve if you think that either BAE or UK companies are alone in offering bribes. EVERY single global business does it, its the norm rather than an exception. If you don't grease palms you don't get deals.

Edit: Although, im not saying it isn't wrong/illegal or immoral.
 
What I'd like to know is, lets say specifically in terms of water aid/building wells (as an example)

1. Since the 1970's, what is the total amount of charitable (and non-charitable) aid given for the development of adequate water supplies to Africa (as a whole/and by Region). And not just from the UK, by country would be useful.
2. Where the **** it has all gone, whilst having almost zero effect. (watch the TV ads still going about little African child having to walk 20 miles there and back for a drink of water)

If you were to put a pin in a map, and draw a 20 mile radius around it, I suspect we'd only be talking about 500,000 wells or some such to cover the area sufficiently to solve the problem. Multiply that by the cost of a well, chuck in a bit for maintenance etc and I suspect we're talking about a fraction of the actual amount of money that's been donated to date.

Edit: Average cost of a well (including all costs) is approx. $10,000 (depending on who you ask). $1bn would get you 100,000 wells.

ONE charity alone has spent $1bn since 1970. That's 100,000 wells. That's roughly enough to supply 2.5 million people.

now, ignore the fact that governments, Blue Peter etc have all chipped in too, if we assumed 45 charities of various nationalities all did the same work, that's enough water to supply 1.25 billion people. Which is more than population of the whole of Africa. Including the Rich bits like S.Africa, Egypt et al.

Admittedly, these are very, very, extremely rough figures based on little research - but illustrative.

so, "Is giving aid to Africa worth it in terms of results" - I'd say no.

The problem is
in 1980 we spent a £ to save baby Kunta Kinte, and we did but for either cultural or educational failings Africa either hasn't cottoned on to or doesn't care that the death rate is falling and so maintains a correspondingly high Birthrate.
This has resulted in a population explosion (Nigeria has doubled in about 20 years IIRC) in turn this forces people onto land that cant really sustain them. Consequently the land is failing reservoirs are emptying and so..

in 1990 we spent a £ to save baby Kunta Kinte Jnr
in 1992 we spent a 2£ to save Toddler Kunta Kinte Jnr and his baby sister
in 1996 we spent a 3£ to save Kunta Kinte Jnr and his siblings
in 2006 we spent a 8£ to save Kunta Kinte Jnr, his siblings ad Kunta Kinte jnr jnr.

We are now in apposition that we are throwing money at Africa but we all know that all we are doing is buying time until the place collapses in 1 huge famine. this is before tribal cultural and corruption issues are considered.

Western involvement is not helping, just prolonging the agony, unfortunately the only alternative is to stop all aid and let nature take its course and the population to stabilize. NOT SOMETHING I ADVOCATE
No Politician will ever do this if he wishes to be re-elected , and I for 1 acknowledge that whilst western aid is very much pissing in the wind there is no alternative.
All we can do is hope a solution is found before our capacity to help is exceeded by the demands of those requiring help.

Of course not giving aid money directly to any government in Africa would be a good idea since its claimed only about 1p in the £ gets past the Swiss bank account. The Rub is if you don't pay the Gov they wont let you help their people.
 
The problem is
in 1980 we spent a £ to save baby Kunta Kinte, and we did but for either cultural or educational failings Africa either hasn't cottoned on to or doesn't care that the death rate is falling and so maintains a correspondingly high Birthrate.
This has resulted in a population explosion (Nigeria has doubled in about 20 years IIRC) in turn this forces people onto land that cant really sustain them. Consequently the land is failing reservoirs are emptying and so..

in 1990 we spent a £ to save baby Kunta Kinte Jnr
in 1992 we spent a 2£ to save Toddler Kunta Kinte Jnr and his baby sister
in 1996 we spent a 3£ to save Kunta Kinte Jnr and his siblings
in 2006 we spent a 8£ to save Kunta Kinte Jnr, his siblings ad Kunta Kinte jnr jnr.

We are now in apposition that we are throwing money at Africa but we all know that all we are doing is buying time until the place collapses in 1 huge famine. this is before tribal cultural and corruption issues are considered.

Western involvement is not helping, just prolonging the agony, unfortunately the only alternative is to stop all aid and let nature take its course and the population to stabilize. NOT SOMETHING I ADVOCATE
No Politician will ever do this if he wishes to be re-elected , and I for 1 acknowledge that whilst western aid is very much pissing in the wind there is no alternative.
All we can do is hope a solution is found before our capacity to help is exceeded by the demands of those requiring help.

Of course not giving aid money directly to any government in Africa would be a good idea since its claimed only about 1p in the £ gets past the Swiss bank account. The Rub is if you don't pay the Gov they wont let you help their people.

Good point.

I guess I'm just old school in thinking that if something isn't sensible, then the sensible option is not to keep doing it.

As unpopular as it is, I would argue that we needed to stop all aid until we had a clear objective and a plan to achieve it.

I agree with all you've said, particularly like the points about politics and the exponential population growth.

One thing that does always appear to be missing in the debate, is the emphasis on African's helping themselves.
 

Tunnels

War Hero
Well possibly if the west had not spent the last 200 odd years ******* africa about then letting the cia and kgb take over ******* with mercs and corporations bringing up behind.
Somalia prime example those chucklefucks arnt running an ammo factory in a mud hut are they? Might ask why the pirates got started somebody hovvered up all the fish and replaced them with toxic waste.
How many dicators got to swan around london and paris ffs we sold uncle bob hawks:mad:.

Complaining africas a corrupt shithole and ignoring half the nations were imposed by colonial rule that have tribes that hate each other sharing the same nation.. Rule of law democracy Etc self goverance is less than 70s year old with none of the history etc that the west have suprise suprise its not that brilliant.
Next your be complaining the aborigninal in australia are not doing to well being the survivours of a stone age culture who got genocided by technolgically advanced aliens.

Most Colonies were utter paradise compared to what they became post "Independance":
Even the Belgian Congo was fairly pleasant (at the end) with universal healthcare, education, and with high hopes of using its massive hydro resources to become the foundry of the continent.

This isn't new: look at the descent of Haiti into barbarism after they murdered all the French.
 

Wordsmith

LE
Book Reviewer
2. Where the **** it has all gone, whilst having almost zero effect. (watch the TV ads still going about little African child having to walk 20 miles there and back for a drink of water).

Depends what they built. Sand Dams are actually a useful project - but they seem to be too low tech for many do-gooding organisations. No photo opportunities and press releases...

http://thewaterproject.org/sand-dams
A sand dam is a reinforced rubble cement wall built across a seasonal sandy river. They are a simple, low cost, low maintenance technology that retains rainwater and recharges groundwater. Sand dams are the most cost-effective method of water conservation in dryland environments.

The sand is washed down by the water and gradually builds up behind the dam. It then retains water in the dry season, giving an all year round supply of water. Which in turn improves agricultural practice. Build lots of low tech sand dams and you can make a difference.

Wordsmith
 
Well bae radars dont grow on trees
I believe that radar system went into the Kilimanjaro International Airport, long after which I landed there on a KLM flight which had to have manual flares (no idea what the proper designation for them) on each side of the runway to land, as the electricity was off again and the generators knacked. On another occasion a 747 tried to land in the car park under low cloud, scaring the shit out of me as I thought it would hit my Landrover; no electronics on the ground whatsoever.

In the same area, I used to see 'Projects' built by earnest Norwegians, Danes and Japanese, handed over/ opened/started up to great fanfares, with Government ministers and other people wearing ties hanging around grinning and shaking hands, only to watch on after they'd left as the copper cables, generators, wriggly tin, bricks and glass disappeared, and the 'Project's' leavings ground to a halt. Usually the project cash was for the capital build with little or nothing for operating and maintenance in the future, but it gave the Japs/Danes a warm feeling in their guts.

Don't give money; lend tax experts, business and entrepreneurial brains, and policing and governance instructors (not Blair).
 
Aids been badly handled either disappered or linked to arms sales etc.
The radar system was a military atc system not apprantly useful for civillian atc and tanzania disnt have an air force at the time for a £40 million contract £12 million was paid in bribes which I think was excessive for bribery I thought 10% was the going rate.
Decolonization was done in a rush apart from the congo where the new president looked like being competant so the cia and mi6 had him killed :.
Stopping african "statesmen" using European banks to hide ill goten gain would be more useful than more aid frittered away
 
Decolonization was done in a rush

It was, but that was frequently the choice of the states rather than the empire.
In the case of the british empire the plan was for the countries to slowly gain more autonomy and experience prior to full independence (20 - 30 yr time line I think) obviously some countries like India were just about there in 1945 and others were just embarking, the problem was no country was willing to wait and the Uk had no intention of fighting colonial wars (a la France). So it was quickly granted and arguably often with the wrong leader at the helm

** Malaya was fought to keep the communists out not to retain a colony, local support was ensured by spelling this out to the populace.
 
Due to air travel and globilisation etc what happens in africa doesnt stay there.
The us military get it sort out africa lots of problems go away dont and bad things will happen:(
 
Well bae radars dont grow on trees

These things don't either....

Inkwazi+XXX+high+res

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_transports_of_heads_of_state_and_government
Just look at the list of African dictators, sorry presidents, who have them.. FFS South Africa have several see here...
South Africa
The President of South Africa travels in a Boeing 737 (BBJ) operated by the South African Air Force's 21 Squadron, which is based at AFB Waterkloof near Pretoria; the executive capital, i.e. the seat of the executive branch of the South African government.
21 Squadron also operates a fleet of two Falcon 50 and a Falcon 900B Fleet, 550/1 Citation II, and a Global Express XRS is hired to escort the President on long flights as a back-up aircraft. The Falcon 900 is normally used by the Deputy President and high-ranking cabinet ministers.
 
Aids been badly handled either disappered or linked to arms sales etc.
The radar system was a military atc system not apprantly useful for civillian atc and tanzania disnt have an air force at the time for a £40 million contract £12 million was paid in bribes which I think was excessive for bribery I thought 10% was the going rate.
Decolonization was done in a rush apart from the congo where the new president looked like being competant so the cia and mi6 had him killed :.
Stopping african "statesmen" using European banks to hide ill goten gain would be more useful than more aid frittered away


My bold, some error there. I was in N. Rhodesia in the Colonial Police at the time and actually spent 18 months on the border of the Congo. Lumumba was the first President and wanted all Europeans out asap, he had the backing of all those do gooders who opposed colonialism, including the UN. The Belgians had to leave even though they knew as most British did that Africa was not ready for so called freedom.
One of his Provincial Governors disagreed with him, one Moise Tschombe of Katanga, who wanted Europeans to stay and train his Africans to run the country. I was in charge of his escort in NR when he was forced to leave by the UN forces. The UN went in to help Lumumba crush him, Lumumba however was captured & killed by allegedly Katangese troops, although it is believed that Mobutu, who went on to be President of the DRC, was in charge of them.. Lumumba was communist backed, it is no accident that the Soviets named a University after him.. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1995-11-05/news/1995309007_1_patrice-lumumba-dream-school-moscow
 

Latest Threads

Top