1.6.05

O regresso do "Santo"

The “story” put forward by the pro aid movement is simple and appealing. Differences in income per capita in the world are extreme; globalization is increasing income inequality; the poor are becoming poorer and poorer and they starve to pay their debt. So they need more aid and more debt forgiveness, since the rich of the world get rich at the expenses of the poor. Aid and debt forgiveness will lift the poor countries out of poverty.

This story is almost completely wrong. The only part that is true is that differences in per capita income are extreme. All the rest is false. Globalization is not responsible for the poverty of the third world. Corrupt and inefficient governments of developing countries are.

...

There is no evidence that increasing foreign aid to government of developing countries improves their economic performance and lifts them out of poverty permanently. In fact, more aid is likely to increase corruption, because it augments the amount of resources over which elites fight over. The same goes for debt forgiveness: its only effect is to encourage countries to borrow more and more, often for the benefits of local elites.

...

Those who really care about reducing poverty should be much more willing to put the blame in the right place: the government and the bureaucracy of many developing countries, especially in Africa and Latin America. Traditionally, instead, foreign aid has paid no attention to the virtues of the receiving countries and has not discriminated in favor of the “good governments”.

...

Before giving more aid ort debt forgiveness two conditions need to be met. One is an “institutional conditionality.” Only governments that show some serious progress in reducing inefficiency, robbery of public property and corruption, should receive any aid.

...

Finally, other polices of rich countries may be much more beneficial than aid. The main one is to stop protecting the agriculture of the rich. In fact the worst enemies of the poor countries of the world are the farmers of the rich countries. Defeating the lobby of the French farmers should be the top priority of the pro poor coalition of Europe.

O “Santo” regressa agora, vinte anos depois, com o Live 8. As diferenças são, se possível, para pior. Há vinte anos, o Live Aid conseguiu reunir 150 milhões de dólares, que, de uma forma ou de outra, terão sido enviados para África como “ajuda humanitária”. A remake de 2005 não tem como objectivo angariar receitas —pretende apenas “chamar a atenção” para o “problema” e para a “responsabilidade” do G8. É a “cultura do espectador” no seu apogeu. Com a inteligência que sempre exibiu e a capacidade para reduzir problemas complexos à sua expressão mais simples (ou simplória), Geldof limitou-se a afirmar que "the G8 leaders have it within their power to alter history".

Poucas iniciativas se poderão gabar de uma tão grande mistura de oportunismo, ignorância, hipocrisia —o ex-ministro da cultura francês, Jack Lang, “aderiu” de imediato à iniciativa, afirmando a "intolerabilidade do sofrimento dos pobres”— e branqueamento da gigantesca e criminosa corrupção de muitos dos governos africanos. Podia dar dúzias de referências a quem desejar começar a perceber um pouco das verdadeiras causas da miséria africana. Porque o caso do Zimbabwe é dos mais elucidativos, sugiro que comece por esta recensão, ou por qualquer um dos livros nela mencionados.

Quanto a Geldof, esperar que vinte anos fossse tempo suficiente para que tivesse aprendido (pelo menos) uns rudimentos de economia seria talvez demasiado. Já só lhe peço que esteja calado.