Is Charity Helping or Hurting Africa?

I recently finished the book Dead Aid by Dambisa Moyo, which confronts head on one of "the greatest myths of our time: that billions of dollars in aid sent from wealthy countries to developing African nations has helped to reduce poverty and increase growth." She claims that aid has done much more harm that good and at this point is even the cause of poverty. (I wrote a little review here.)

While I don't completely agree with Moyo and think her views are a little extreme, it does have me thinking. What is aid and why is it so ineffective? What makes development sustainable? Why do Westerners feel as if Africa needs 'saving'?

While in Uganda I saw firsthand how ineffective aid can be. One of the big issues there, like much of sub-Saharan Africa, is access to clean water. Millions are dying simply because they don't have access to a clean water source. One day I learned that an NGO went into this little village I was visiting and put in a water well. Great. Everyone was rejoicing and so excited to have clean water, now they wouldn't have to worry about getting sick.

Pretty soon the NGO left and life was back to normal. Not long after this the water well broke. No one in the village knew how to fix it, no one had the money to repair it, and so it just sat there-useless. The people in the village were now back to drinking contaminated water.

I'm always reminded of this story when I think of aid. While I admire the NGO for their desire to help the people in that village, we must all start to rethink this whole idea of 'helping'. I think it is so important for Westerners to stop thinking we have all the answers and listen first.

I think it would be great to see a revolution in aid that starts first with respect. When we start seeing each other as equals, and realize we can actually learn a lot from one another, we can then build on a relationship. Those villagers in Uganda were some of the brightest and most resilient people I've ever met in my life. They deserve to have a voice.

I guess I've been a tad bit annoyed lately with charity. I'm really tired of seeing the posters with pictures of babies with swollen bellies and flies in their eyes. There has to be a better way. Now don't get me wrong here. I'm not against charity, I'm actually a huge advocate for it, and I believe if one person's life was changed forever it is all worth it. BUT I also think we have to approach it differently if we hope to see any sustainable progress.

So what do you think?

Female Genital Cutting: The Debate Rages On

Female genital cutting is an issue that doesn't get the attention it deserves.

The World Health Organization estimates that 100-140 million women around the world have been subject to genital cutting. It's still prevalent in 28 countries, most of which are in Africa, where these practices are carried out in a barbaric, and often deadly manner with the use of razor blades and broken pieces of glass.

It's done for a variety of reasons--some are hygienic, while others use it to ward of sexuality, some see it as a rite of passage into womanhood.

The newest debate around this issue concerns the involvement of doctors and medical staff. More and more families are now asking doctors to carry out the cut, in the hope that this will make it safer. Research shows the use of sterile equipment and antibiotics cut the risk of immediate complications by 70%, so it would make sense that families, who intend only to cut--not kill--their daughters, would ask a doctor to carry out the task.

So that is where the debate lies. If families start seeking professional medical attention in order to cut their daughters, does that make it acceptable? Should doctors even consider doing such a thing?

When I read this article I was immediately reminded of the stories I heard about female cutting while in Uganda. Stories of women holding down screaming girls as young as three and basically mutilating them with a razor blade, with no pain medication at all. Some bled to death, while others got off with a bad infection. It's unimaginable. I can't even comprehend what this would be like. I think it is a brutal practice, regardless of doctor involvement.

My first thought is no, doctors should not be involved at all, because by doing so they are supporting this horrible practice.

But that can't be the answer.

IF doctors refuse to be involved that only means these women will carry their daughters back into those old traditions, with nothing but a rusty razor blade.

The lesser of the two evils is getting the doctors involved. And in a lot of ways it can be seen as a step in the right direction: IF they HAVE to be cut, then they should be doing it in the safest environment possible. As much as I'd like to see this stop completely TODAY, the reality is that this tradition is deep in tribal and spiritual roots and there is much work to be done if we hope to see an end to this brutal practice.