Published on July 12, 2005 By O G San In International
"Is increasing aid the solution to poverty in Africa" asks this week's online poll in the New Statesman (a sort of Islington chatter sheet). The result: 93%no, 7% yes; suprised me, given that NS readers tend to be of the hand-wringing "oh, isn't it terrible?" tendency. But what struck me more was the paucity of options on offer, with "yes" and "no" being the only alternatives. This is "opinion" polling of the crudest kind. My prefered answer: "I don't know" was not available, as if somehow it wasn't a legitimate response.

When confronted by one of the most pressing issues of our time, it is not OK for NS readers, so motivated, so well-informed, to say that they aren't sure. However I genuinely can't answer this question with conviction. I can see how an increase in aid to Africa would help the desperately poor of the continent, this is only common sense. But I can also appreciate how more aid may mean more cash for Mugabe and his ilk.

So there are arguments on each side, but usually I detest this kind of humming and hawing. I don't like the "well on the one hand this, but on the other hand that" line of "argument". I believe in taking a position and sticking to it. But this is just my problem, I can't take a position on aid to Africa for the very simple reason that I'm ignorant. In spite of the best efforts of two ageing Irish musicians, I remain uninformed about trade, aid, debt forgiveness et al.

I am not proud of this ignorance (one should never be proud of ignorance), but neither am I ashamed of it. Africa is quite simply not my thing, in comparison to the Balkans or Palestine, parts of the world about which I know a fair amount. I refuse to apologise for this, for all that Africa is the topic du jour. Indeed, I suspect that many of those who aren't shy to offer an opinion about Africa know even less about it than me.

To take such a deliberately non-commital line, is it seems to me against the very ethos of blogging. The whole point of "this thing of ours" is that one must always have an opinion, no matter how half-baked or ill-informed. There are many Joeusers who offer strongly-held views on topics about which they clearly know very little.

For instance, some bloggers of a conservative bent are determined to take a right-wing line on every issue, regardless of their level of knowledge about each topic. So, while they may be experts on the US budget, they may know little or nothing about internatioanl relations. Over the years, some of those who have "engaged" with me about Israel have done so with a deep emotional commitment to the Jewish state but with very little knowledge of that state's history.

I am not saying that you should not offer an opinion unless it is a well-informed one. I don't believe that, in a discussion about Northern Ireland for example, I should be defered to simply because I was born there. But what I am saying is that, when operating outside of your field of expertise, you should offer opinions with more restraint and concentrate more on learning than on teaching.

Of course, that's just my opinion, what do I know?

Comments
on Jul 12, 2005
I think helping Western Africa control its malaria problem would be better than all the aid in the world. How do we do this? Well, it's gonna take the US and the rest of the West re-thinking DDT. DDT doesn't seem to be nearly as nasty as Greenpeace would like us to think it is, but it's wonderfully lethal to mosquitos. It isn't a 100 percent cure, but it would save a lot of lives and get people back to work.

Cheers.

(ps >> here's my shameless self-promotion, an article I wrote on the subject of DDT Link )