Bush was pulled kicking and screaming into Blair's plan to provide debt relief for Africa. But as others have pointed out, the $40 billion package amounts to about $1.5 billion less a year in money these countries will pay. That, of course, is a pittance. Blair's goal is $50 billion more a year in aid PLUS serious free trade reform (remember when Republicans liked free trade?) that will allows African farmers to compete on the world market by lowering the trade barriers the US and other countries have in place.
The LA Times makes this very point in its lead editorial.
U.S. foreign aid in general has been pathetically small for decades. When Bush took office, it amounted to just a tenth of a percent of national income. So when Bush touts his record — a tripling of aid to Africa, a $15-billion commitment to fight HIV/AIDS, etc. — it has to be put in perspective: It's better than nothing, but it's still kind of measly....At best, we've taken a tentative first step in putting Africa on its own two feet, but Bush will be throwing that money in a hole if he doesn't take advantage of this opportunityThink of Africa as a critically ill patient. If you want to cure them, you need to insert a feeding tube, defeat the disease and then focus on rehab. All we've done so far is insert the feeding tube. And that isn't enough.
Nobody is calling for a blank check. The Bush administration and others are rightly trying to tie aid to economic reform and good governance, but some of the unmet needs in sub-Saharan Africa — vaccines, mosquito nets, schoolhouses — are so basic that they transcend politics. It also doesn't help these nations that the U.S. and other rich countries don't engage in fair trade for farm goods, and the G-8 needs to recommit itself to ending those subsidies that victimize the developing world.
