Bush, a Friend of Africa

Left wing Nicholas Kristof editorialized in NYT Those who care about Africa tend to think that the appropriate attitude toward President Bush is a medley of fury and contempt. But the fact is that Mr. Bush has done much more for Africa than Bill Clinton ever did, increasing the money actually spent for aid there by two-thirds so far, and setting in motion an eventual tripling of aid for Africa. Mr. Bush's crowning achievement was ending one war in Sudan, between north and south. And while Mr. Bush has done shamefully little to stop Sudan's other conflict - the genocide in Darfur - that's more than Mr. Clinton's response to genocide in Rwanda (which was to issue a magnificent apology afterward). So as the G-8 summit meeting convenes this week, focusing on Africa, it's worth acknowledging that Mr. Bush, and conservatives generally, have in many ways been great for the developing world. At their best, they bring a healthy dose of hands-on practicality to their efforts. The liberal approach to helping the poor is sometimes to sponsor a U.N. conference and give ringing speeches calling for changed laws and more international assistance. In contrast, a standard conservative approach is to sponsor a missionary hospital or school.

I.E. the Liberals want to talk about it, the conservatives want to do something to help.

One magnificent example is the Addis Ababa Fistula Hospital, where missionary doctors repair obstetric injuries that have left Ethiopian women incontinent. Liberals also often focus on changing laws, but in a poor country, the legal system is often irrelevant outside the capital. Sudan, for example, banned female genital mutilation back in 1957; since then, the practice has expanded steadily. Sure, lobbying for better laws is important, but it's usually much more cost-effective to vaccinate children or educate girls.

Again, liberals talk, conservatives do.

Nobody gets more bang for the buck than missionary schools and clinics, and Christian aid groups like World Vision and Samaritan's Purse save lives at bargain-basement prices. Liberals may also put too much faith in aid itself. What Africa needs most desperately are things it can itself provide: good governance,

Such as GWB's desire to spread democracy

a firmer neighborhood response to genocide in Sudan, and a collective nudging of Robert Mugabe into retirement. Plenty of studies have shown that aid usually doesn't help people in insecure, corrupt or poorly governed nations.

But the liberals ignore those studies

Indeed, aid can even do harm, by bidding up local exchange rates and hurting local manufacturers. All that said, in the right circumstances aid can be tremendously effective, especially in well-governed countries - Mozambique is an excellent example. And Mr. Bush's new push to help Africa is smartly designed, targeting problems like malaria and sex trafficking, where extra attention and resources will make a big difference on the ground. Mr. Bush's signature foreign aid program, the Millennium Challenge Account, is off to an agonizingly slow start, but is shrewdly focused on encouraging good governance and economic growth. The first grant went to Madagascar, a well-run country, to clarify property rights there. This isn't sexy, but nothing would help the poor in Africa more than giving them clear title to their land so they could secure loans and start businesses.

Lorie Byrd blogged Nicholas Kristof’s latest column devolves into a plea for Republicans to call for President Bush to stop being “selfish” and stingy. He also includes claims that more African girls will die because of President Bush’s policies on family planning and that more Africans will die of AIDS because of Bush’s policies on condoms. Before that part of the column, though, Kristof gives Bush credit for doing more than Clinton did for Africa and makes some excellent points about the differences between liberal and conservative approaches to humanitarian aid.