Oolongs, soochongs and pekoes

I say!

An 'A' list blogger from Île Plate, New Caledonia, Rob by name, and Rob by nature, has been having problems with his addiction to tea. Possibly because he's been watching too many Ruttles DVDs - I don't really know. Another blogger, this time a 'D' list name of Hotboy, manages to go for three days each week without a cuppa. Then he's back on it again for the following four days.

What a coincidence, therefore, that the following book just arrived at Box 270 - "For all the tea in China: Espionage, empire and the secret formula for the world's favourite drink"

I say - it looks very interesting and I am looking forwards to reading it. It tells the tale of a Scotsman, Robert Fortune, who set out to capture the secret of tea from the Chinese. Why didn't he just look up Wikipedia, I hear you ask - well, he lived in the middle of the 19th century, before they had the Internet. Some, but not all, of the readers of this blog can remember those pre-Internet times. In this espionage, he was engaged by the Eat India Company, by the way.

Well, I say, along time ago I was fortunate enough to be tutored by Dr. J.N.M. Maclean of Glensanda, the author of another book about the East India Company, so this is another reason I'm looking forwards to reading the work.

A book I've just completed, during a break from the cricket, is "Dead Aid: Why aid is not working and how there is another way for Africa" by Dambisa Moyo (a Zambian). A particularly interesting read, this one. Over one trillion dollars has been poured into Africa in the recent past. Where has it all gone, and why has this aid not effected a turnaround in the fortunes of this wonderful continent?

Moyo looks at various reasons - but comes to the conclusion that it is precisely because of this aid that Africa has not developed more than it has.

Foreign aid has been given in order, in turn, to leverage support for the West and the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War, in an attempt to foster democracy, and in order to help the poor. It hasn't worked. Instead, aid has resulted in corruption, African countries falling into debt and having to pay interest, and much more besides. Moyo writes "Aid has been, and continues to be, an unmitigated political, economic, and humanitarian disaster for most parts of the developing world".

It is no surprise that one success story - Botswana - has received very little aid. The Batswana have simply got on with things themselves, and have done super work.

Aid has often prevented the growth of democracy. Why? Because even elected governments don't need to worry too much about their local electorate if most of their income comes in the form of aid rather than taxation. Aid has also had the effect of sapping the development of local industry.

Aid, in the form of the Marshall Plan, was successful in post-war Europe, because there was already there the basis of an infrastructure. The same has not been the case in Africa.

Aid has had a dreadful effect on many countries over the years. For all the billions - yes billions - poured into Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of teh Congo), and also despite the incredible mineral wealth of that part of the world, that country has seen its economy destroyed.

I disagree with some of Moyo's proposed solutions, however. Cut aid, by all means, except in certain very well-managed circumstances. But the real difference would be made, as I have said in this blog in the past, if countries outside Africa, and especially the USA, withdrew their subsidies for agricultural and other products. These subsidies make it not a level playing field when it comes to sales of goods, and we all know what happens when there isn't a level playing field - the ball can go down legside.

MM III