The brouhaha over the Bono article

I'll stand up and shout when I think people are dead wrong or heading in a dangerous direction, but I'm generally the girl who sits back, listens and when she speaks tries to do so with conviction but hopes she won't rock the boat too much.  The flurry of blog posts, digg, newsvine and reddit comments, del.cio.us bookmarks, and personal emails (both laudatory and critical) since the article on aid/Bono/TED was (finally) published a few days ago has taken me by complete surprise. 

I am really glad that so many people are debating these issues.  And if I've been able to spark interest and get people talking about TED, aid, entrepreneurship, and the media's portrayal of Africa in a meaningful way, even if it meant being uncharacteristically polemic, then I am happy for it.

But a few clarifications:

1) Yes I've been to Africa and no I don't think all African children carry AK-47s - A few lazy readers have suggested I go to Africa and see for myself  how wrong I am to take a few exceptional examples of African dysfunction to generalize for the entire continent. 

Putting aside the fact that I had to be in Africa in order to have attended a conference in Arusha, I've been to seven African countries and in none of them have I seen an AK-47-toting child, people dying of famine or war, or any of the other completely ludicrous stereotypes that form the opening paragraph of the article.

I'm actually in Kigali right now, typing this on a patio at 3am trying not to get eaten by mosquitoes. 

2) No, I'm not a tool of the establishment - My opinions are based on the best information I have at the moment and are constantly evolving and will always be independent of any one political agenda or else I will stop writing.

I'm not sure how how I'd define myself, politically.  I guess I'll leave that to you since it's not a subject that particularly interests me.  I haven't set foot in the United States in one year and I am trying my best to dispense with all of those labels--neoliberal, conservative, left-wing, libertarian, socialist, whatever--because they are pretty much meaningless when describing situations outside America's borders and are best left behind.

When I published my first article in the American on Chinese investment in Africa, I was a bit uncomfortable writing for a magazine sponsored by a think tank, particularly one whose political affiliations were a little, um, right-wing.  But the folks at the American have never once altered my content or asked me to adopt a particular ideological stance.  I don't agree with everything they publish, but so much of their content is important and thought-provoking and therefore worthwhile, whether or not I always agree.  It's a shame that many are quick to embrace or reject an idea because of the package it comes in. 

That I can publish articles I believe in at the American, even though I was the girl who doused herself and her friends in red paint to protest the Iraq war, even though I campaigned for Janet Reno, even though I support universal healthcare, at least for children and mothers, and will probably end up voting for whichever presidential candidate who is not Republican (although at this point my mind is still open) is, I think, quite beautiful.  To be honest, I didn't think about it all that much this time around.  I've been away from the US for so long that I forgot what it is to live in a society intent on being politically bipolar.  I suppose it does make the world easier to understand.

3)  The views presented in the article represent the views of some Africans and many who attended TED, but certainly not all - Many of TED's most controversial and entertaining moments were made by  people like Andrew Mwenda and James Shikwati who used their 18 minutes talks to tear Aid a new one.   Bono's dirge and observations on the regalness of Africans were similarly priceless.  Hence the loving attention I paid to them.

But to be clear, the vast majority of TED attendees were not there to directly participate in an "aid v. trade" debate.  They were there to showcase their art, their scientific discoveries, their entrepreneurial success stories.  Indirectly, I believe the message was the same: Africans can and will be the agents of their own futures.  This is at least what I gleaned by demonstration.

Other attendees, most notably those in the health profession, on the front lines saving lives, affirmed the importance of aid.  Ngozi Iweala gave a moving personal story and a stirring speech about why the problem and the solution are not as easy as investment v. aid.  That Africa needs both.

But my goal was not to write a faithful reportage, but an opinion piece.  And in my opinion, aid is harmful to Africa and so is the way the media portrays it.  I think the two are intimately connected.  Maybe "smart aid" can be the third way but it sounds to me like another slogan on a button, impossible to achieve unless we scrap just about everything about the way we (non-Africans) think about Africa and unless they (Africans) start telling us, showing us how we should think about them. 

4) My gripe is not with Bono, it's with the media and the development industry - I don't blame Bono for Africa's problems, as some have suggested.  That would be ludicrous.  I do have a strong distaste for what he represents: Africa as the pursuit of the American glamorous.  It's probably not Bono's fault that he's the one we choose to be Africa's ambassador (or Oprah, or Angelina, or George).  Where are the equally earnest and attention-grabbing Africans who can stand up and be spokespersons for Africa?  Why is it that there's not a single movie to portray Africa as it actually looks, smells, breathes,feels, lives to make it in the American box office?  Why is it that all over the planet I can find media depictions of MY culture, that I can listen to radio announcers with British and American accents explain the world to me no matter where I am, but that I am hard-pressed to find anything equivalent about Africa by Africans IN Africa, let along anywhere around the world?  (There are some TEDsters hard at work trying to change this.  More on that later.)

The article may have focused heavily on one side of the issue, even though it did at points strive for balance.  But that's what opinion articles do.  And I feel so strongly that the giant fat cow that is the development industry needs to die that I'm willing to err on the polemic side for the purpose of getting people talking about this.   That doesn't mean we should completely eliminate all aid, but we need to use it sparingly and strategically (and not to fund government budgets in my opinion); we need to distinguish between relief and development; we need to use aid to create sustainable solutions; we need to listen, listen, listen to what Africans from all walks of life are saying before we even think of trying to help.  Bono's comportment on stage, for all his good intentions, suggested loudly he has not done nearly enough listening. 

Most of all, we need to invest in Africa.  After TED, nearly every white person I have met in East Africa has been a backpacker, an aid worker, or a volunteer.  Every black one from the street hawker to the CEO has been a businessman or the employee of one.  Something strange about that picture?

Comments

[Jacob]

Ms. Brea,

I ran across your article browsing the American website--I've been a fan of the magazine ever since it was the American Enterprise--and I have to say I thought it was excellent.

Although I think Easterly goes a little too far in his critique of foreign aid, he appropriately rocks the boat. Unfortunately, the problem with one high paid American economist critiquing the theories of another is that it lacks the authenticity of a more "embedded" voice. I thought your article brought those qualities of authenticity and personalism to the debate.

I assume that much of the "brouhaha" over the Bono article is the result of pre-existing political beliefs (and a healthy dose of self-rationalization). I appreciate the fact that you have taken an issue-based, as opposed to party-based, stance in your article.

That having been said, I was intrigued with lines such as, "...Americans are pestering their leaders to Save Darfur–an unlikely prospect absent full-scale military intervention." Between support for military intervention (I assume that you do believe stopping genocide is a worthy cause) and skepticism of international organizations you are 2/3rds of the way to being of the neoconservative persuasion--support for domestic free markets being the other leg of the triumvirate.

On another note, I am interested in your take on Wolfowitz's governance of the World Bank. Your previous posts seem to be limited to his remarks on Chinese involvement. From what I understand he shared much of your concern with the way international aid is currently being dispensed. He also focused on governance as an undergirding issue--what's your take on that?

Good luck on future publishings!

Jacob

[Jennifer Brea]

Hi Jacob. Thanks for your comments and your political diagnosis :-)

Just one clarification: I do NOT support armed intervention in Sudan. I did NOT support "regime change" in Iraq.

I have to run but I will respond to your Wolfowitz question as soon as I get a chance.

[Laura]

Jennifer,

I found your article to be thought-provoking, but I wish you'd said something in it about Ngozi Iweala's speech. From what I've seen, the best so-called aid projects in Africa are those that are conceived and run by locals, that get access to donor financing to get started, and that work hard to find a way to be self-sustaining (financially and otherwise). That's why many microcredit ngo's work so well, and why the expat-run, two-year sanitation/sensitisation/water/literacy/whatever projects almost always fall apart after the aid worker leaves.

It's easy to say that "aid is bad for Africa," but it's much harder to say that someone shouldn't help a mother to get her children vaccinated, or that former child soldiers don't need help reintegrating into society. Cutting Africans off from aid "for their own good" could have effects that are just as bad or worse than the current humanitarian assistance circus.

The reality is complex. The reality is that people need both immediate assistance and jobs. The reality is that here in Congo, just a few hours from Kigali, we really do see people dying of famine and war, children carrying AK-47's, untreated HIV/AIDS victims, and all of the other "completely ludicrous stereotypes" that unfortunately make up the bulk of news about Africa in the west. It's easy to say that we shouldn't fund government budgets with aid dollars; it's much harder to deal with the reality of a health system that, without donor financing, isn't regulated by anyone and loses all its doctors because no one can pay their salaries.

And the reality is that foreign investment is a tricky thing. There are lots of Americans and others investing in Africa right now, but you have to look at specific sectors, especially to oil and minerals. Here in Congo, there's growing resentment of the Chinese investment presence because they tend not to hire locals. Whether foreign investment actually benefits locals in the form of jobs and an actual change in standard-of-living is the real question. Otherwise, almost any educated African will tell you that they've already seen this and aren't terribly interested in another round of economic colonialism.

As for "the equally earnest and attention-grabbing Africans who can stand up and be spokespersons for Africa," Moanmar Qadaffi has been trying to fill that role for years.

[Keith_Indy]

I think the point is, we could flood Africa with aid, and it wont be better off in a few years. Yes, we should be feeding the hungry, but we should also be helping them feed themselves. Only doing the first has lead to long-term dependence on aid. And efforts to promote only relief aid aren't necessarily the best thing long term. The complexity of the situation demands a more thoughtful response then having a concert and sending millions to current aid organizations.

We need to get beyond only caring about the immediate needs, and start looking at long term, sustainable solutions. I think that is why there is a lot of vocal frustration with Bono. And face it, by 'attacking' him, people are more likely to read about the issue.

I learned of James Shikwati and his views, from a little blurb on Pajamas Media, about his Spiegel interview. Headline: "For God's Sake, Please Stop the Aid!" That got my attention and started me thinking about the issue.

One aid organization that I've been supporting for a couple of years has been Riders for Health. They seem to have a good program, provide locals with the means for providing rural health care, and let them take care of themselves. http://www.riders.org/en/html/home.php

Thought your opinion piece was well done. Forwarded it to Thomas Barnett, who's already blogged a bit about it. http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2007/07/what_africa_needs_and_wants.html As have I. http://asecondhandconjecture.com/?p=1233

You might also be interested in checking out this blog. http://enterpriseresilienceblog.typepad.com/ He often has posts about economics in developing countries.

[Eric Rohrs]

Hi Jennifer,

I wanted to commend you on the excellent article, and your blog which I've only now just discovered!

I did so through a favorable reference to your article on Thomas P.M. Barnett's website.

Your many postings on China's growing role in Africa dovetails nicely with his theory that, in the future, the U.S. will be strategic allies with China in investing in Africa -- NOT competitors.

I know your views and Dr. Barnett's differ in many important respects, including the advisability of regime change in Iraq, but I wanted to know what you thought of that particular prediction of budding alliance in Africa between China and the U.S.?

Thanks so much,

Eric

[Jennifer Brea]

Hi Laura. I agree with what you say and I think we are both right. This is why writing op-eds, even though they do get people talking, can be so maddening. I prefer blogging, which is a dialogue rather than a one-off pronouncement.

The reality is much more nuanced and complex than I portrayed it in my article, but when the world is so skewed in one direction, sometimes you need to abandon nuance. My article is never going to stop the media's fixation with suffering and African dysfunction, nor will it make a dent in all that money pouring into Africa but heading to the wrong places. But what it might do is get people to stop and think or perhaps to consider investing in Africa where they did not before. At least that's the hope.

But let's have a more nuanced conversation. I never expected the article to be so widely blogged and it's been interesting, as a fairly new writer, to see the responses. If I had it to do over again, there would definitely be some points I would have made more clear. One is my definition of aid and where/when it is harmful.

My concerns are really with aid to governments and the expat-run NGOs you describe. Organizations with indigenous sources of legitimacy that are funded locally, or at least in part, whether via donations or through some kind of sustainable, income-generating activity are what we should be encouraging. These kinds of organizations can be hard to come by. In many countries, they are crowded out by the former kind of aid (and then we wonder why civil society in Africa is so weak).

My critique is really of an approach, an approach supported by the media's victimization of Africans. The fact is the obsession with African tragedy, the representation of Africa to the outside world by white saviors, the rattling of the proverbial begging bowl, pull in billions of dollars in aid monies, both public and private, but act as repellants to investment. The problem then is not so much that HIV/AIDS, child soldiers, and a host of other tragedies get so much attention--these images do, as you point out, reflect the reality in parts of Africa--it's that they are the ONLY stories that get attention. And while the majority of Africans do live in poverty, the majority of Africans are not HIV-postive, the majority of Africans are not child soldiers, the majority of Africans are not living in conflict zones. The majority of Africa is not Congo.

Within every society there are people who are dedicated, motivated, privileged, educated and who are fighting to create a different future. There are leaders. If we told those stories sometimes, championed the successes, had Africans gracing the business pages, we'd still be able to convince people to turn their attention to the crises that need it, but we'd also be educating them that there are opportunities to invest or start a business or go on vacation or do any of those things people do in places that aren't Africa. We've got to fight against the idea of African exceptionalism. Africa will only develop through investment and education, just like anywhere else.

Then there is the problem of governance. Talking about investment is meaningless unless government functions to a minimum standard. I'm sure you've heard many times the argument that aid, whether handed to governments or distributed by charities/NGOs, removes many of the incentives governments in other parts of the world have to be accountable to their own people. This is going to sound incredibly callous and I am not entirely comfortable with the thought, although I do believe it. But what if by financing the healthcare system of a government of a basketcase country saves thousands of lives, but artifically helps to prolong that government's existence and another generation is lost? Would it have been worth sacrificing those lives?

I firmly believe that we have a responsibility to Africa that is first and foremost one of do no harm; second, stop subsidizing our farmers and throwing up barriers to trade because these countries are too politically weak to demand more a more equitable trading relationship; third, invest; fourth, move out of the way.

But that it is not really our responsibility to make Africa a better place. That is up to them, and sometimes by helping we prevent Africans from taking the steps that they and they alone need to take to build stronger systems, better societies. For more on that, see: http://jenbrea.typepad.com/africabeat/2007/07/france-world-fo.html

And as far as Chinese investment goes, I've heard the same thing as you had and so again, it serves to be specific. Many investments by Chinese enterprises (or small traders) are, as far as I can tell, not leading to new jobs for Africans. But investment in infrastructure is creating benefits that accrue to everyone in the form of reduced transportation costs. There are also murmurs of strategic investments that will benefit Africans, as in Rwanda, for example. But I need to do more investigation. More on that later.

My enthusiasm for China is in many ways a repetition of the enthusiasm I've heard from many Africans. But it depends on who you talk to. In some places, Africans, especially traders, are hurting from the competition.

[Esuga Abaya]

Hi,

I don't know if this is important but I feel compelled to state that I hardly ever respond to articles. I was sent yours as a link in an enewsletter I receive. I think I feel it is important to repsond to your article because 1.) You represent a different age group in international journalism 2.) You seem to have a wide audience. Anyway...some thoughts.

First, why did you start your article with the same description of Africa that you later criticize the international (Western) media for using?

Second, even the most brilliant entrepeneurs can do nothing with a crumbling infrastructure, a dying workforce, government apathy, and no rule of law.

Third, you are right...ultimately, only Africa can save itself, but not without help.

Fourth, you are right...investment over aid.

Fifth, there are more than five nations in sub-Saharan Africa with "active conflict" if you broaden your definition of active conflict so it includes any conflict that inhibits progress. I, for example, am from Nigeria. Many in Southern Nigeria would certainly categorize what they are experiencing as "active conflict".

Sixth, stopping aid altogether is probably not what you are suggesting, but even to pull back a little bit could be devastating when one considers that the majority of foreign aid to Africa is humanitarian aid (medical, emergency food, disaster, refugee etc.) not development aid.

Seventh, you mentioned China's success in lifting millions out of poverty through economic growth. I think the analogy is incompatible. China has historically been far ahead of Africa in terms of stable government, infrastructure, education, and health care.

Finally, you neglected (but remedied above) the topic of corruption and good governance as an inhibitor to progress. This is perhaps the biggest of Africa's many rivers to cross. Until we Africans can put aside our corruption, selfishness, partiality, and apathy we will continue to suffer. And without Africa's history of despotic and brutal regimes we would probably be the richest place on earth. Even after colonialism. It is important to remember that no other place in the world has been so abused and raped of its human and natural resources by foreigner and its own people. That is why we need rock stars and celebrities to speak for us. Our best voices are repressed or engaged in their own self-aggrandizement. Ultimately, you are correct...aid is not a feasible strategy for a functioning, sustainable society. Aid itelf, however, is not the problem. Like most things, it is not the object itself that has value, but the manner in which the object is used.

[Esuga Abaya]

P.S. I forgot...great pics.

[g. kofi annan]

Hi Jennifer,
I'm a bit late, but I just want to chime in on your writing such a good article. I'm glad the debate can continue outside the African blogosphere.

[cc]

The rise of business-friendly development charities

Written by Alex Singleton
Friday, 06 July 2007

Traditionally the non-governmental organisation (NGO) sector has had a reputation for being hostile to business. Their policy units hired graduates who had been active campaigners in their student unions, wearing coats stuffed with Noam Chomsky books and copies of The New Internationalist. But as the business sector continues to lift millions of people out of poverty in Asia, people increasingly see anti-business NGOs as ideologically-outdated, rather than part of the solution to poverty.

We still have too many NGOs who are blinded to the way enterprise can have a huge effect in poverty alleviation. For example, War on Want and the World Development Movement persistently attack private sector investment and expertise being used to help increase access to water and its quality. ActionAid attacks the idea of developing country governments receiving technical assistance from the private sector, despite the clear evidence that such assistance is one of the best ways of improving the institutions and the regulatory environment in developing countries.



Fortunately, there is a new breed of NGO that recognises the importance of business in the development process. One such organisation that we have praised, both in print and several times on television, is Technoserve. I was delighted to see in its latest email bulletin the following:

A Financial Times special report rates TechnoServe as one of the world’s top non-governmental organizations (NGOs), placing it fourth on a list ranked on the basis of business partnerships. The list is the centerpiece of a special report on corporate citizenship and philanthropy, published today, intended to help companies identify potential partners for socially-minded corporate projects.



TechnoServe’s rank was based on company surveys that rated partners on accountability, adaptability, communication and execution. The data was collected by Dalberg Global Development Advisers. The ranking reflects TechnoServe’s ability to leverage partnerships and its own proven, market-based methodologies to fight poverty in the developing world.

Well done. And I’m finding that the Technoserve approach is being noticed in Westminster and Brussels alike. David Cameron used a speech to criticise Christian Aid for promoting anti-business sentiment. His right-hand-man Steve Hilton co-authored the book Good Business. The book is a favourite at GI HQ and explains:

how globalisation makes the poor richer; why corporations are good for human rights; how brands can work for social change... Set against an outline of current thinking on Corporate Social Responsibility, the authors demonstrate through real and aspirational examples why campaigners for social justice and environmental protection should see business as their ally, not their enemy.

It’s spot on - and is essential reading for everyone in the NGO sector.