Charity organizations and rock musicians exert more active pressure on the leaders of developed countries and require of them to take measures to solve the problems of Africa as they think that this solution lies in doubling of humanitarian aid. One of the supporters of this approach is Max Lawson, the advisor of Oxfam, a British charity organization.
The first people affected if the aid supply to Africa is cut will be millions of military conflicts and natural disasters victims that rely only on emergency financing.
These are people who lost everything and who have to overcome sufferings that are difficult to imagine.
In Sudan, for example, 2 million people left their houses in Darfur and are trying to survive in one of the most oppressive and inhospitable places on the planet.
The aid they receive – water, medicine, tents, food – is given by the governments of Western countries, United Nations and non-governmental organizations, such as Oxfam.
This aid allows them to survive and preserve their human dignity.
This is a survival system; everybody knows what happens when such a system is stopped.
But short-term emergency aid – though it is most often mentioned on TV screens – is not all.
Long-term assistance to the development of Africa is much less evident, but it necessitates a much greater part of expenses the world spends on aid. And the western governments allocate considerable sums on it, too.
Such assistance can play an invaluable role in the support of poor countries who are trying to overcome poverty.
Today, the aid given by rich countries to Africa amounts to about 23 bln. dollars a year. It can hardly be called a large sum if we compare it with billions spent on war in Iraq.
Now the aid should be doubled; it is only in this way that Africa can fight poverty. Its debts should be written off, and the rules of international trade should be made fair.
Only then Africa will have a chance.
Only then the huge human and natural potential of Africa will show itself in its entire splendor.
