The New York Times - July 7, 2005
Nicholas Kristof, nicholas@nytimes.com.

But the fact is that Mr. Bush has done much more for Africa than Bill Clinton ever did, increasing the money actually spent for aid there by two-thirds so far, and setting in motion an eventual tripling of aid for Africa. Mr. Bush's crowning achievement was ending one war in Sudan, between north and south. And while he has done shamefully little to stop Sudan's other conflict û the genocide in Darfur û that's more than Mr. Clinton's response to genocide in Rwanda (which was to issue a magnificent apology afterward).

So as the G-8 summit meeting convenes this week, focusing on Africa, it's worth acknowledging that Mr. Bush, and conservatives generally, have in many ways been great for the developing world. At their best, they bring a healthy dose of hands-on practicality to their efforts.

The liberal approach to helping the poor is sometimes to sponsor a U.N. conference and give ringing speeches calling for more international assistance.

Liberals also often focus on changing laws, but in a poor country, the legal system is often irrelevant outside the capital. Sudan, for example, banned female genital mutilation in 1957; since then, the practice has expanded steadily. Sure, lobbying for better laws is important, but it's usually much more cost-effective to vaccinate children or educate girls. Nobody gets more bang for the buck than missionary schools and clinics, and Christian aid groups like World Vision and Samaritan's Purse save lives at bargain-basement prices.

Liberals may also put too much faith in aid itself. What Africa needs most desperately are things it can itself provide: good governance, a firmer neighborhood response to genocide in Sudan and a collective nudging of Robert Mugabe into retirement.

Plenty of studies have shown that aid usually doesn't help people in insecure, corrupt or poorly governed nations. It can even do harm by bidding up local exchange rates and harming local manufacturers.

All that said, in the right circumstances aid can be tremendously effective, especially in well-governed countries. And Mr. Bush's new push to help Africa is smartly designed, targeting problems like malaria and sex trafficking, where extra attention and resources will make a big difference.

Mr. Bush's signature foreign aid program, the Millennium Challenge Account, is off to an agonizingly slow start but is shrewdly focused on encouraging good governance and economic growth. The first grant went to Madagascar, a well-run country, to clarify property rights there.

The divide I portray between the left and right is, of course, a caricature. Some of the very best work to help the poor is done by liberal-leaning groups, like the Carter Center, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Doctors Without Borders. They all use their resources to make real changes on the ground.

And while Mr. Bush has done much more for Africa than most people realize, there's one huge exception. His decision to cut off funds for the U.N. Population Fund means that more African girls will die in childbirth. Even more tragic is the administration's blind hostility to condoms to fight AIDS û resulting in more dead Africans.

He has another blind spot as well: While he is right that aid is not a cure-all, sometimes he seems to use legitimate concerns about aid as an excuse for stinginess. Aid has shortcomings, but Mr. Bush himself has shown that it can be used to save lives by the millions.

050707
NYT050704