sebastian wahlhuette/aurora/solent · sebastian wahlhuette/aurora/solent t he farmers in mubende,...

1
29.11.15 / 7 Just hanging out reading the paper ... more than 160ft above the ground. This is the Highline Meeting Monte Piana, an annual festival for extreme sports enthusiasts in which people can clamber along a 685ft long rope stretched over ravines in the Dolomite mountains of northeastern Italy — and then get comfortable in a brightly coloured hammock to read, have a chat, take a nap or even play guitar. PICTURE OF THE WEEK SEBASTIAN WAHLHUETTE/AURORA/SOLENT T he farmers in Mubende, Uganda, never saw it coming. On the morning of Sunday, February 28, 2010, soldiers arrived while they were in church. Hearing gun- shots, they rushed to their houses, which were already in flames. While some soldiers kept the farmers at gunpoint to stop them trying to save their homes, others poured petrol over the recent grain harvest in the barns and burnt that as well. One eight-year-old child was trapped and died. The dairy cows were dispatched with a burst of machinegun fire. Then the soldiers marched more than 20,000 farmers away at gunpoint. Never come back, they were told; the land is no longer yours. The farmers, many of whose homesteads had been in their families for generations, were unhappy to learn that a British company was taking their land. It was going to grow forests and then sell the timber. The farmers were even more distressed to learn that the World Bank had financed and promoted the project. The farmers might have hoped that publicity would help them. And indeed a year later Oxfam published a report on what had happened. The New York Times ran a story on the report on September 21, 2011. The next day the World Bank promised an investigation. But as we approach the event’s sixth anniversary the World Bank has never had to answer publicly for its role. The rights violated here include property rights, freedom to choose your own economic activi- ties and constitutional rights that guarantee your human rights against government abuses. Those of us who believe econo- mists should openly consider moral values such as human rights have no claim to self-righteous- ness — many of us came embar- rassingly late to such an argument anyway — and we respect those of the opposite view. The important thing is just that a serious debate should happen — on both sides. Economists do also debate a scientific hypothesis about rights, that economic and political rights also constitute the best system for ending poverty. Here’s roughly how the theory goes: with prop- erty rights, farmers choose for themselves what is the best use of their land. They know their own circumstances better than outside experts, and they have the incen- tive to use the land in a way that is best for them and their customers. With political rights we can hold our governments accountable, to respect and protect our economic rights, and to meet any of our needs that can be addressed only by public services, such as health services or supplies of clean water. The neglect of poor people’s rights in foreign aid and develop- ment has deep historical roots. The Mubende story has elements that go far back into the history of Africa. The western powers justify their support of oppressive rulers such as Uganda’s by support of humanitarian objectives such as relief from hunger and disease. This is ironic, because if the theory sketched above is correct, dicta- tors that deny individuals freedom are not part of the solution; they are the cause of the poverty in the first place. There was a similar story back in the days when the western colo- nial powers were themselves the oppressive rulers, often governing through African intermediaries. They justified the continuation of colonial rule because of its ability to provide technical solutions to hunger and disease and asked humanitarians to ignore the polit- ical issues such as colonialism versus self-determination. In 1938 a report by Lord Hailey on British colonial rule in Africa already had the same technical answers that we have today on malaria, mal- nutrition and clean water. Hailey justified colonial rule as necessary to these technocratic solutions, in which the British Empire would join the “movement for the betterment of the back- ward peoples of the world”. He made the argument that poor people did not care about their political rights: “Political liberties are meaningless unless they can be built upon a better foundation of social and economic progress.” When British humanitarians asked, “What should we do to end poverty?”, Hailey wanted them to focus on answers such as vitamin A capsules for malnutrition and boreholes for clean water. He wanted them to embrace the tech- nocratic illusion that humanita- rians could ignore political issues such as colonialism. He did not want them to ask whether coloni- alism might be perpetuating pov- erty, not solving it. A better answer to “What should we do to end poverty?” might have been “We should end our own colonialism”. If we are going to criticise rights violations today, let’s not neglect to criticise our own governments. Let’s ex- amine even ourselves as develop- ment workers and experts and philanthropists as voices in the global debate on autocracy versus freedom. Bill Gates praised the Ethiopian government in 2013 for setting “clear goals, choosing an ap- proach, measuring results and then using those measurements to continually refine our approach”. Gates said that this “helps us to deliver tools and services to every- body who will benefit”. His foundation has spent more than $265m (£175m) on health and development in Ethiopia over the past decade. He said that he “had a great working relationship” with the late Ethiopian autocrat Meles Zenawi, whose policies “made real progress in helping the people of Ethiopia”. Gates is very much em- bracing the technocratic illusion; he seems unaware of the argument that dictators do not cause pro- gress; they cause poverty. Similarly, celebrities who advocate development usually call for more technical solutions and seldom highlight violations of lib- erty for the poor by the West or by local governments. Expert plans accomplish little; advocacy for freedom can accom- plish much more. Martin Luther King said, “I have a dream”. He did not say, “I have a plan”. The good news is that freedom is advancing in Africa despite western support for oppressors. The desire for freedom around the world is so strong as to make progress despite the technocratic illusion of western poverty experts that makes them blind to freedom for the world’s poor. In 1988 there were only two African countries classified as politically free by the advocacy organisation Freedom House. In 2012 there were 11. Freedom House divides the rest between “partly free” and, for the most ruthless dictatorships, “not free”. In 1988 there were 31 “not free”; in 2012 the number had reduced to 18. In Africa increased economic freedom has allowed strong eco- nomic growth since the mid- 1990s. One positive sign is a private sector explosion of mobile phones — Africa now has more than twice as many subscribers as America. Let me go back to that unavoid- able question “What should we do to end poverty?”. If you really insist on an answer to what “we” should do, I will give you a con- structive answer: we should dis- miss the technocratic illusion, and openly join the battle of values on the side of freedom against dictatorships. This includes convincing voters in Britain and America not to tol- erate violations of the freedom of the world’s poor by our own for- eign policy, by our own military, by our own immigration policies and by our own aid agencies. Freedom is winning, but the battle is far from over. We must convince many more that all people everywhere — women and men, black and white, rich and poor — deserve to be free at last. The author is a professor of economics at New York University. This article is based on his Hayek Memorial Lecture, to be delivered at the Institute of Economic Affairs on Wednesday Celebrities such as Angelina Jolie, who try to help developing countries, would do well to highlight states that violate the liberty of their people The West’s aid illusion is betraying the world’s poor As UK foreign aid increases to £16bn, William Easterly argues that promoting freedom is a surer way to end poverty than providing vitamins and clean water JASON TANNER Poet’s corner This darksome burn, horseback brown, His rollrock highroad roaring down, In coop and in comb the fleece of his foam Flutes and low to the lake falls home. A windpuff-bonnet of fawn-froth Turns and twindles over the broth Of a pool so pitchblack, fell-frowning, It rounds and rounds despair to drowning. Degged with dew, dappled with dew Are the groins of the braes that the brook treads through, Wiry heathpacks, flitches of fern, And the beadbonny ash that sits over the burn. What would the world be, once bereft Of wet and of wildness? Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet; Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet. A Highland stream passes over a waterfall into a lake. The end is a plea to preserve such a wilderness. Hopkins uses Scottish dialect (“degged” is sprinkled; “braes” a steep bank) and coins his own words. “Coop” is an enclosed hollow, “comb” a wave crest, “twindles” twists and dwin- dles, “groins” curves, “heathpacks” clumps of heather, “flitches” usually the side of an animal, but here flicks, and “beadbonny” beautifully beaded. “Bonnet” is a sail as well as a hat. This contorted, obscure language makes the poem a challenge, but it is also where its compelling power lies. [email protected] David Mills Inversnaid by Gerard Manley Hopkins (1844-89) QUOTES OF THE WEEK I bet you didn’t think things would get worse The former Labour leader Ed Miliband delivers an unhelpful verdict on his successor Please, can parents realise that children don’t rule the world Let’s ban youngsters from cafes and restaurants, says the broadcaster Janet Street-Porter If you don’t show your underwear, you’re just not cool The designer Tommy Hilfiger (who has a range of undies) urges men to flaunt their boxers Any imbecile who has learnt to type thinks he can write Computers seem to be destroying literacy, complains the author Raymond Briggs

Upload: others

Post on 22-Mar-2020

5 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: SEBASTIAN WAHLHUETTE/AURORA/SOLENT · SEBASTIAN WAHLHUETTE/AURORA/SOLENT T he farmers in Mubende, Uganda, never saw it coming. On the morning of Sunday, February 28, 2010, soldiers

29 . 1 1 . 15 / 7

Just hanging out reading the paper ... more than 160ft above the ground. This is the Highline Meeting Monte Piana, an annual festival for extreme sports enthusiasts in which people can clamber along a685ft long rope stretched over ravines in the Dolomite mountains of northeastern Italy — and then get comfortable in a brightly coloured hammock to read, have a chat, take a nap or even play guitar.PICTURE OF THE WEEK

SEBASTIAN WAHLHUETTE/AURORA/SOLENT

The farmers in Mubende,Uganda, never saw it coming. Onthe morning of Sunday, February28, 2010, soldiers arrived whiletheywereinchurch.Hearinggun-shots, theyrushed to theirhouses,whichwere already in flames.While some soldiers kept the

farmers at gunpoint to stop themtrying to save their homes, otherspouredpetrolovertherecentgrainharvest inthebarnsandburntthatas well. One eight-year-old childwas trapped and died. The dairycowsweredispatchedwithaburstof machinegun fire.Then the soldiers marched

morethan20,000farmersawayatgunpoint. Never come back, theywere told; the land is no longeryours. The farmers, many ofwhose homesteads had been intheir families for generations,were unhappy to learn that aBritish company was taking theirland. It was going to grow forestsand then sell the timber.The farmers were even more

distressed to learn that the WorldBank had financed and promotedthe project. The farmers mighthave hoped that publicity wouldhelp them.And indeedayear laterOxfampublisheda report onwhathad happened. The New YorkTimes ran a story on the report onSeptember 21, 2011. The next daythe World Bank promised aninvestigation. But as we approachthe event’s sixth anniversary theWorld Bank has never had toanswer publicly for its role.The rights violatedhere include

property rights, freedom tochooseyourowneconomicactivi-ties and constitutional rights thatguarantee your human rightsagainst government abuses.Those of uswho believe econo-

mists should openly considermoralvalues suchashumanrights

have no claim to self-righteous-ness — many of us came embar-rassingly late to such an argumentanyway—andwe respect those ofthe opposite view. The importantthing is just that a serious debateshould happen— on both sides.Economists do also debate a

scientific hypothesis about rights,that economic and political rightsalso constitute the best system forending poverty. Here’s roughlyhow the theory goes: with prop-erty rights, farmers choose forthemselves what is the best use oftheir land. They know their owncircumstances better than outsideexperts, and they have the incen-tive to use the land in away that isbest for themandtheircustomers.Withpoliticalrightswecanhold

our governments accountable, torespect and protect our economicrights, and to meet any of ourneeds that can be addressed onlyby public services, such as healthservicesorsuppliesofcleanwater.The neglect of poor people’s

rights in foreign aid and develop-menthasdeephistoricalroots.The

Mubende story has elements thatgo far back into the history ofAfrica.The western powers justify

their support of oppressive rulerssuch as Uganda’s by support ofhumanitarian objectives such asrelief from hunger and disease.This is ironic,because if thetheorysketched above is correct, dicta-tors thatdeny individuals freedomare not part of the solution; theyare the cause of the poverty in thefirst place.There was a similar story back

inthedayswhenthewesterncolo-nial powers were themselves theoppressive rulers, often governingthrough African intermediaries.They justified the continuation ofcolonial rule because of its abilityto provide technical solutions tohunger and disease and askedhumanitarians to ignore thepolit-ical issues such as colonialismversusself-determination.In1938a report by Lord Hailey on Britishcolonial rule in Africa already hadthe same technical answers thatwe have today on malaria, mal-nutrition and cleanwater.Hailey justified colonial rule as

necessary to these technocraticsolutions, in which the BritishEmpirewouldjointhe“movementfor the betterment of the back-ward peoples of the world”. Hemade the argument that poorpeople did not care about theirpolitical rights: “Political libertiesaremeaninglessunlesstheycanbebuilt upon a better foundation ofsocial and economic progress.”

When British humanitariansasked, “What shouldwedo to endpoverty?”,Haileywanted themtofocus on answers such as vitaminA capsules for malnutrition andboreholes for clean water. Hewantedthemtoembracethetech-nocratic illusion that humanita-rians could ignore political issuessuch as colonialism. He did notwant themtoaskwhether coloni-alismmight be perpetuating pov-erty, not solving it.A better answer to “What

should we do to end poverty?”might have been “We should endour own colonialism”. If we aregoing to criticise rights violationstoday, let’s not neglect to criticiseour own governments. Let’s ex-amine even ourselves as develop-ment workers and experts andphilanthropists as voices in theglobal debate on autocracy versusfreedom.Bill Gates praised the Ethiopian

government in 2013 for setting“clear goals, choosing an ap-proach, measuring results andthenusing thosemeasurements tocontinually refine our approach”.Gates said that this “helps us todelivertoolsandservicestoevery-bodywhowill benefit”.His foundation has spent more

than$265m(£175m)onhealthanddevelopment in Ethiopia over thepastdecade.Hesaid thathe“hadagreat working relationship” withthe late Ethiopian autocrat MelesZenawi,whosepolicies“maderealprogress in helping the people ofEthiopia”.Gates isverymuchem-

bracing the technocratic illusion;heseemsunawareoftheargumentthat dictators do not cause pro-gress; they cause poverty.Similarly, celebrities who

advocatedevelopmentusually callfor more technical solutions andseldomhighlight violations of lib-erty for the poor by theWest or bylocal governments.Expert plans accomplish little;

advocacy for freedomcanaccom-plish much more. Martin LutherKingsaid,“Ihaveadream”.Hedidnot say, “I have a plan”. The goodnews is that freedom is advancingin Africa despite western supportfor oppressors. The desire forfreedom around the world is sostrong as tomakeprogress despitethe technocratic illusion ofwestern poverty experts thatmakes them blind to freedom fortheworld’s poor.In 1988 there were only two

African countries classified aspolitically free by the advocacyorganisation Freedom House. In2012therewere11.FreedomHousedivides the rest between “partlyfree” and, for the most ruthlessdictatorships, “not free”. In 1988there were 31 “not free”; in 2012the number had reduced to 18.In Africa increased economic

freedom has allowed strong eco-nomic growth since the mid-1990s.Onepositivesignisaprivatesector explosion ofmobile phones—Africanowhasmore than twiceasmany subscribers as America.Letmegoback to thatunavoid-

able question “What should wedo to end poverty?”. If you reallyinsist on an answer to what “we”should do, I will give you a con-structive answer: we should dis-miss the technocratic illusion, andopenly join the battle of valueson the side of freedom againstdictatorships.This includes convincingvoters

in Britain and America not to tol-erate violations of the freedom ofthe world’s poor by our own for-eign policy, by our own military,by our own immigration policiesand by our own aid agencies.Freedom is winning, but the

battle is far from over. We mustconvince many more that allpeople everywhere—women andmen, black and white, rich andpoor— deserve to be free at last.

The author is a professor ofeconomics at NewYork University.This article is based on his HayekMemorial Lecture, to be delivered

at the Institute of Economic AffairsonWednesday

Celebritiessuch as

AngelinaJolie, who try

to helpdevelopingcountries,

would do wellto highlightstates thatviolate theliberty of

their people

The West’s aid illusion isbetraying the world’s poor

As UK foreign aid increases to £16bn,William Easterly argues that promotingfreedom is a surer way to end poverty

than providing vitamins and cleanwater

JASON TANNER

Poet’s corner

This darksome burn, horseback brown,His rollrock highroad roaring down,In coop and in comb the fleece of his foamFlutes and low to the lake falls home.

Awindpuff-bonnet of fawn-frothTurns and twindles over the brothOf a pool so pitchblack, fell-frowning,It rounds and rounds despair to drowning.

Deggedwith dew, dappledwith dewAre the groins of the braes that the brook treads through,Wiry heathpacks, flitches of fern,And the beadbonny ash that sits over the burn.

What would theworld be, once bereftOf wet and of wildness? Let them be left,O let them be left, wildness andwet;Long live theweeds and thewilderness yet.

A Highland stream passes over a waterfall into a lake. Theend is a plea to preserve such a wilderness. Hopkins usesScottish dialect (“degged” is sprinkled; “braes” a steepbank) and coins his own words. “Coop” is an enclosedhollow, “comb” awave crest, “twindles” twists and dwin-dles, “groins” curves, “heathpacks” clumps of heather,“flitches” usually the side of an animal, but here flicks, and“beadbonny” beautifully beaded. “Bonnet” is a sail as wellas a hat. This contorted, obscure languagemakes the poema challenge, but it is also where its compelling power [email protected] DavidMills

Inversnaid by Gerard ManleyHopkins (1844-89)

QUOTES OF THEWEEK

I bet you didn’t think thingswould get worse

The former Labour leader EdMiliband deliversan unhelpful verdict on his successor

Please, can parents realise thatchildren don’t rule the worldLet’s ban youngsters from cafes and restaurants,

says the broadcaster Janet Street-Porter

If you don’t show yourunderwear, you’re just not coolThe designer TommyHilfiger (who has a range of undies)

urges men to flaunt their boxers

Any imbecile who has learntto type thinks he can write

Computers seem to be destroying literacy,complains the author Raymond Briggs