People say that money is not everything. People belittle money in their idioms and yet every single deed of theirs shows you what they crave for: one more dollar all the time. Africa is no exemption. African governments are always pleading for one additional dollar, always looking for some opportunity to amplify tax on the voter. After cautiously drafting a budget, it is presented before the donor. He then devotedly offers funds to assist with the projects and plans. To further affirm his assistance, he throws in expatriates and supervisors to make certain that the African government directs the money to the precise projects. So, the infrastructure is made first-class, the industries are operating, the market is booming, the economy is flourishing and the citizen’s life is pleasurable! Hypothetically, this process is supposed to yank the least developed motherland out of impoverishment. The big question is: why is Africa still poor after aid? Why is the transportation sector shoddier? Why is the education division still putrid? Why is the economy frustratingly subsidiary? Why is the typical African troubled about tomorrow? Well, I have a pretty short reply. The funds the donors give are not sufficient! Simply not enough. Of course you’ll ask. How much is enough money? Subsequent to World War II , America was left almost without a scratch due to its belated interference in the war. Nevertheless, much of Europe was left utterly devastated. Millions of people had been killed, great cities such as London had been severely damaged and the economic structure had badly collapsed. To add salt to the wound, a famine hit Europe in 1944 bringing about cases of starvation as the ones you see or hear of in Africa . There seemed no way back to the famous days that Europe had experienced. Fortunately for Europe, George Marshall, the US Secretary of State then came up with a plan called the European Recovery Plan. This was later dubbed the Marshall Plan. This plan was enacted by the US in 1947 as a way to help rebuild the obviously wrecked European countries. Enormous aid was given to German, England and the rest to ensure a quick boost and sharp process of development. To cut the long story short, within a gap of just three years from 1948-1952, the US government had splashed 13 billion dollars on Europe . It is on this ground that Europe is now a heavenly continent. In other words, 13 billion dollars was just enough for them. When Robert Zoellick the former US Deputy Secretary of State visited Rwanda, he told a business gathering that the US development aid to Sub-Saharan Africa had risen four times since 2000 to about five million in the past two years. Now, when you compare the 13 billion dollars that Europe received from America inside three years with the 5 billion that Sub-Saharan Africa received in two years, you can’t help but reflect on how much Africa truly requires to escape its third world syndrome. Five billion US dollars can never develop Africa ! The best it can do is to sustain and prolong its deprived situation years after years with no momentous growth or expansion to any sector. So I ask; why doesn’t America have a matching compassion for Sub- Sahara Africa like it had for Europe ? Why isn’t there a “Marshall Plan” for this obviously devastated region? Is it because it’s of no strategic importance? Routine after routine has proved that fickle aid is not what Sub-Sahara Africa requires to break out of poverty. Israel alone receives over 1.5 billion US dollars annually as aid from the United States . Why isn’t There a single state in Africa receiving that much? It shouldn’t come as a surprise then that Israel is more developed than any African state. In Sub-Saharan, good words are said at donor meetings, money is given for the projects, champagne is popped at cocktails and salaries are paid. Offices are refurbished and each employee attempts to report to work early. The next month, the routine is loyally carried on but the problems stay put. Then Africa is drawn to believe that these associates have an excellent motive in view of the fact that they give free money. On the other hand, if you are to observe the spiral effect of fickle aid, you’d realize how it’s one of the chief explanations that maintain Africa ’s underdevelopment because of clauses and attached strings. I won’t rebuff the fact that Africa has comparatively superior problems than just money. Matters of corruption, civil wars, despotism and others are badly eating up Africa . In my analysis however, it all goes down to funds still. Civil servants are never paid on time, so they misappropriate every dollar that comes their way; people are hostile towards their governments, people are diseased and starving. This is very familiar to the situation that Europe was in after World War II. Enough money did the magic for Europe in just three years. So why is it that when it comes to Africa, Europe and America give so sparingly? If only America thought of Africa genuinely the way they want Africa to assume they do, they should care for calamity Africa like they treated Europe in it’s time of catastrophe. George Marshall is long gone but he saved Europe . Maybe a Clinton Plan may change Africa even for years after she is gone. mugishaivan@yahoo.com
