http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/dead-aid-by-dambisa-moyo-1519875.html

The argument that aid subsidizing governments takes away their initiative is too simplistic and doesn’t reflect the reality of the health crisis of AIDS. Before PEPFAR, governments couldn’t treat AIDS patients because the cost for medications for each person was in the thousands of dollars, and they just couldn’t afford it. The governments in some cases were doing all they could, and they had a practical reason for not creating their own treatment program. PEPFAR was able to work with pharmaceutical companies to drastically lower costs of ARVs, making treatment affordable on a large scale. In addition, PEPFAR works with local agencies, based on their own programs that they designed. And, as in one example, in South Africa, with the work of PEPFAR and others in bringing education and hope for surviving AIDS, the government itself has stepped up and began addressing AIDS in a much more productive way. PEPFAR is not supposed to last indefinately, it is trying to boost local capacities so that countries will be able to take over the treatment programs themselves in the future. It demands that the programs it funds show results. It is more of a partnership with, not a substitute for, national governments.

In some cases, governments lack expertise or facilities, but not the will, in addressing health crises, and with a little outside help they can then work on those issues.

There are multiple reasons for government inaction. Ethnic loyalties and clashes also play a role in lack of services, as does poor governance and lack of technical skill, which is not caused by aid itself.

I don’t think that ONE is attacking Moyo personally, just objecting very strongly to her positions. Maybe giving a grade of “F” is harsh, I would give her some props for being critical of a system that doesn’t always work as intended, but ONE is not going over the line in other criticisms. I don’t think it is fair to dismiss ONE’s reservations by saying ONE leaders are on some kind of slander campaign, that is just not true. They are simply offering a strong refutation, which should be expected. I think that ONE has done the best job trying to point out fallacies, where Moyo has gotten very little pushback from anyone else.

http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2009/04/dead_aid_book_review.html

Regarding the article Ridiyen posted, I do not think that ONE is necessarily on the opposite side arguing FOR government to government aid. The past history of failure of this type is evident, ONE is advocating for new methods where aid will go where it is needed, the humanitarian type that Moyo says she is not including. But Moyo doesn’t make it clear that she really thinks such aid is ok, in the interview I watched on C-SPAN Q & A, her answer to the PEPFAR facts was that African governments should be providing that aid, not outsiders. PEPFAR is government to NGOs, not government to government. The ultimate aim of PEPFAR is that the government will, sooner rather than late, take ownership, what is calls becoming “sustainable.”

Also, the article incorrectly sites ONE’s donors, there is no vast legion of ONE donors, it’s members are all grassroots advocates and do not give aid money of any kind. we want to make sure as much as Moyo does that the solutions we are suggesting to our politicians are effective, and not a corrupting influence that does more harm than good.

It is a shame that ONE is being portrayed as anathema to Moyo’s arguments, because ONE is only trying to point out that some of her facts are faulty, and so her conclusions may not be so cut and dry. I think we agree with her that trade and business investment is a better way to go than perpetual handouts from foreigners. We just disagree on what is preventing the trade and investment. Jeffrey Sachs will tell you it is systemic and requires holistic interventions to get African nations out of the “poverty trap.” We can find common ground, I believe, and ultimately do what’s best for Africa. If Moyo could convince ONE of her facts and cause/affects, ONE could even possibly change it’s tact, and advocate for different solutions.

(Personally, I think that she is simply expressing the conservative right ideology that entitlements are the cause of ruin.)

Children should not be dying of diarrhea or a mosquito bite, that is the bottom line.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjljYTdmOTM0ZjY1Y2Q2MWMzOWZlNDY4MTIwOTc2YTg=

Dead Aid: “… in 2005, the United States pledged US$15 billion over five years to fight AIDS (mainly through the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) launched in January 2003). But this had strings attached. Two thirds of the money had to go to pro-abstinence programmes, and would not be available to any organizations with clinics that offered abortion services or even counselling.” (p. 7)

The facts: Moyo is wrong when she writes that two-thirds of PEPFAR’s funding must go to pro-abstinence programs.

In fact, about 1/13 – or about 7% -of all PEPFAR funding for focus countries in 2008 was earmarked for abstinence and be faithful programs. PEPFAR funding is broken into three buckets: treatment, care and prevention. The reauthorization of PEPFAR in July of 2008 eliminated the hard earmark that a third of the prevention bucket (again, only about 7% of the overall budget for focus countries) had to go to abstinence/be faithful programs.[16]

Many in the AIDS community, including ONE, disagree with even that small ear-mark, but it was necessary to get the legislation through a bipartisan political process.

Overall, PEPFAR has been an enormous success, helping to put over 2 million Africans on aids drugs and supporting prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission during nearly 16 million pregnancies.[17] Moyo had this information before her book was published, but chose to ignore it.

You are free to persist in your viewpoint about PEPFAR but your viewpoints (or Ms. Moyo’s) aren’t substantiated by the facts.

If you have facts to substantiate this viewpoint of yours, please provide it here in the ONE Blog so that we can all see it and discuss it. Simply stating something is a fact without providing substantiation for it does not help your point of view.

Your comment:

“About PEPFAR, without giving you the easy arguments about the ridiculous “abstinence programs” and no “needle exchange” policies they require, the money from PEPFAR comes from the US Govt, and then is distributed to 4 universities in the US who the distribute to US run organizations in Africa. That’s how the program works, check your facts.”

Secondly, I am amazed that I could agree with you that I also want to see strong and independent African governments who can provide for their own people’s needs – and then you once again turn my agreement with you into a NEGATIVE thing!!

Just amazing….and a bit baffling.

Here is another of your comments:

” We have voted people in to make a difference and they continue to sit on their laurels. Dr. Moyo’s book is also targeted partly, if not more, at African governments so they can find a better way for their citizens.”

I do not think anyone at this website would disagree with your desire to see more accountable governments in Africa, so I do not understand all your anger in your comments.

Please, Mr. Kibaya – it’s a Holy Weekend for millions of people around the world this weekend and I can only ask you to be at peace and find some good in our discussion.

I think that is best for all of us.

GOD BLESS AFRICA, debbie

About PEPFAR, without giving you the easy arguments about the ridiculous “abstinence programs” and no “needle exchange” policies they require, the money from PEPFAR comes from the US Govt, and then is distributed to 4 universities in the US who the distribute to US run organizations in Africa. That’s how the program works, check your facts.

And if Dr. Moyo’s ideas are so irresponsible, what exactly do YOU propose to get Africa out of the doldrums?

ONE does NOT run AIDS programs in Africa –

the money through PEPFAR (which comes from the U.S. government & not from ONE)

which African nations receive are distributed to indigenous ngo’s in these countries which run many of the prevention programs & orphan care programs that exist in these countries while a lot of the ARV distribution programs in African nations come through African government programs (from what I know).

Everybody that I know – and everything that I have read here at this website – wants to see African governments strong & independent. NO ONE HERE WANTS AFRICA TO BE DEPENDENT ON OUTSIDERS.

But it is a matter of what is the quickest & most sensible way to get to a strong & independent Africa -

and the course that Dambisa Moyo advocates to get there is dangerous because her ideas would put at risk MILLIONS of fellow Africans’ lives who currently are benefitting & thriving due to targeted, effective aid programs that save poor peoples’ lives in Africa & are NOT propping up dictatorial regimes.

It is these peoples’ lives that I am very concerned about and I think that it is IRRESPONSIBLE of Moyo to advocate ideas that could send millions of her fellow Africans to their deaths – just to prove her point!

I do not have any more time to debate this issue but hopefully this exchange of ideas have at least laid out clearly our different points of view – which hopefully is the beginning of rational discussion.

GOD BLESS AFRICA, debbie

So please, get off that train of thought.

If you would like to talk about policy – then let’s talk about policy:

Do you know where Ms. Moyo stands of the above question of PEPFAR?

That is a question worthy of discussion in this forum. I hope that you will keep your comments to the discussion of issues and not of personalities.

GOD BLESS AFRICA – debbie