Africa? Screw it, says Irish journo

Driving home tonight, I heard on the radio that China and Russia vetoed UN measures to punish Zimbabwe's brutish government. I thought ill of China and Russia, and thought ill too of South Africa, and all the other African nations, which aren't lifting a finger to challenge that sociopath Robert Mugabe.

Let's be honest: does anybody really think Africa is ever going to get better? Honestly? I don't. I think it will be nothing but misery, from here till eternity. I hope I'm wrong, and I don't believe that relieves we who have the resources from doing what we can to help the suffering there. But I don't think it's going to matter much in the grand scheme of things, because I see no evidence that the people of Africa have the wherewithal to govern themselves effectively. I think my great-grandchildren's great grandchildren will be faced with an Africa no different from what we have today, and they'll still be hearing 19th-century colonialism being blamed for the catastrophe.

Like I said, I don't think we in the West have the moral right to wash our hands of the ongoing catastrophe that is Africa. As a Christian, I can't go there. But that's not the same as thinking that our efforts are going to amount to much. I can see where the Irish journalist who wrote this shocking piece saying Africa's a lost cause comes from. Excerpt:

No. It will not do. Even as we see African states refusing to take action to restore something resembling civilisation in Zimbabwe, the begging bowl for Ethiopia is being passed around to us, yet again. It is nearly 25 years since Ethiopia's (and Bob Geldof's) famous Feed The World campaign, and in that time Ethiopia's population has grown from 33.5 million to 78 million today.

So why on earth should I do anything to encourage further catastrophic demographic growth in that country? Where is the logic? There is none. To be sure, there are two things saying that logic doesn't count.

One is my conscience, and the other is the picture, yet again, of another wide-eyed child, yet again, gazing, yet again, at the camera, which yet again, captures the tragedy of . . .

Sorry. My conscience has toured this territory on foot and financially. Unlike most of you, I have been to Ethiopia; like most of you, I have stumped up the loot to charities to stop starvation there. The wide-eyed boy-child we saved, 20 years or so ago, is now a priapic, Kalashnikov-bearing hearty, siring children whenever the whim takes him.

There is, no doubt a good argument why we should prolong this predatory and dysfunctional economic, social and sexual system; but I do not know what it is. There is, on the other hand, every reason not to write a column like this.

More:

But, please, please, you self-righteously wrathful, spare me mention of our own Famine, with this or that lazy analogy. There is no comparison. Within 20 years of the Famine, the Irish population was down by 30pc. Over the equivalent period, thanks to western food, the Mercedes 10-wheel truck and the Lockheed Hercules, Ethiopia's has more than doubled.

Alas, that wretched country is not alone in its madness. Somewhere, over the rainbow, lies Somalia, another fine land of violent, Kalashnikov-toting, khat-chewing, girl-circumcising, permanently tumescent layabouts.

Indeed, we now have almost an entire continent of sexually

hyperactive indigents, with tens of millions of people who only survive because of help from the outside world.

This dependency has not stimulated political prudence or commonsense. Indeed, voodoo idiocy seems to be in the ascendant, with the next president of South Africa being a firm believer in the efficacy of a little tap water on the post-coital penis as a sure preventative against infection. Needless to say, poverty, hunger and societal meltdown have not prevented idiotic wars involving Tigre, Uganda, Congo, Sudan, Somalia, Eritrea etcetera.

Broad brush-strokes, to be sure. But broad brush-strokes are often the way that history paints its gaudier, if more decisive, chapters. Japan, China, Russia, Korea, Poland, Germany, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in the 20th century have endured worse broad brush-strokes than almost any part of Africa.

They are now -- one way or another -- virtually all giving aid to or investing in Africa, whereas Africa, with its vast savannahs and its lush pastures, is giving almost nothing to anyone, apart from AIDS.

Harsh. But there's ugly truth here. What does one do with it? This guy would just as soon let nature take its course, no matter who dies. Like I said, I can't go there. But what does that mean, in the end? That we work to save who can be saved, in the face of the tragic truth that ultimately, helping Africa is like Sisyphus pushing the rock up the mountain?

Or is the pessimism, not to say cynicism, about Africa unwarranted? If it is, why? What evidence do you have for real hope in broad progress in Africa? I'm not asking rhetorically. I'm looking for a solid reason, or reasons, to refute this Irish journalist's stance.

Thoughts?