The world is getting better, not worse

That's the conclusion of billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates. In his annual Gates Foundation letter he explains (and justifies) why three myths about world poverty are untrue - and why they block progress for the poor:

1. POOR COUNTRIES ARE DOOMED TO STAY POOR
2. FOREIGN AID IS A BIG WASTE
3. SAVING LIVES LEADS TO OVERPOPULATION

Now I consider Windows Vista a crime against humanity, but can't fault Mr. and Mrs. Gates for their commitment to making the world a better place with their own money. Bear in mind that Bill Gates doesn't seem to have any vested interest in these matters - he's richer than Croesus, he doesn't seem to care about political power, he doesn't have people to pay off; if he makes these claims, it's most likely to be because he believes them. And he's not dumb or politically naive by any stretch of the imagination. Bill Gates - and it pains me to say this after trying to use Word 6.0 - has more authority in this area than pretty much any government, business or NGO.

Just to give an example of his claims:

Income per person has in fact risen in sub-Saharan Africa over that time, and quite a bit in a few countries. After plummeting during the debt crisis of the 1980s, it has climbed by two thirds since 1998, to nearly $2,200 from just over $1,300. Today, more and more countries are turning toward strong sustained development, and more will follow. Seven of the 10 fastest-growing economies of the past half-decade are in Africa.
Africa has also made big strides in health and education. Since 1960, the life span for women in sub-Saharan Africa has gone up from 41 to 57 years, despite the HIV epidemic. Without HIV it would be 61 years. The percentage of children in school has gone from the low 40s to over 75 percent since 1970. Fewer people are hungry, and more people have good nutrition. If getting enough to eat, going to school, and living longer are measures of a good life, then life is definitely getting better there.

Sure, capitalism has its faults. But the implications of these figures are pretty hard to dispute. You can claim that if we had centrally-planned ethical socialism in the Western world, life in Africa would be better, but given the above data the onus is on you to show that your claims are true. Life in Africa is getting much better; if you're going to change the world, how will you prove that your changes won't reverse this progress?

A lesson in political evolution from South Africa

Archbishop Desmond Tutu has penned a very thoughtful, balanced and personally honest article arguing that South African politics has a number of very real problems:

The ANC was very good at leading us in the struggle to be free from oppression. They were a good freedom-fighting unit. But it doesn't seem to me now that a freedom-fighting unit can ­easily make the transition to becoming a political party.
And, unfortunately, we do have a weakness in our Constitution. It was important for our transition that we had proportional representation, so people were voting not for a particular candidate but for a party. We still have that system. The party that wins decides who will be its representatives, so everybody wants to get on to the party list.
You do not want to jeopardise your chances by being what you ought to be as a Member of Parliament – someone who ensures that the executive is accountable to the legislature.

Note, Lib Dems, that he's rejecting PR in favour of something more like a first-past-the-post system. Definitely go read the whole thing. I have a lot of time for Desmond Tutu, and am encouraged that he's pushing South Africans to consider fixing some of the problems their society has.

I also find it interesting that he addresses directly the Chinese influence in Africa:

China has brought a lot of benefits to Africa, with the investments it has made and the building of infrastructure, but it has come at a cost. In South Africa, a lot of people in the textile industry have been thrown out of work because the country has been flooded with cheap Chinese goods. But what has been even more distressing for me is how our country has seemed to kowtow to Beijing.
A glaring example is what they did with the Dalai Lama, when the South African government dilly-dallied with his visa so that he couldn't come to my birthday.

I remember that occasion - Tutu and the Dalai Lama ended up on a video conference because the Chinese government pressured the South African government not to grant the Dalai Lama a visa. It was amusing to see how terrified the Chinese government must be of the Dalai Lama, and doubly so because a meeting of limited news interest became a major news event. Talk about an own goal...

I have been wondering just what effects the widespread Chinese economic and political investments in Africa are intended to bring. Access to mineral resources is obvious, but they seem to be taking an unhealthy interest in ensuring African governments bend to their whims. It seems unhealthy.

Post-crisis in Algeria?

The bloody siege at Amenas in Algeria is over, and five alleged kidnappers have been taken alive. I believe that the Algerian authorities have a "robust" approach to prisoner rights, and right now the kidnappers are likely wishing they'd been shot instead. Anyway, the dust is settling on the action with 23+ hostages and around 30 kidnappers dead. What was this all about, and what does it forecast of future terrorist activity in the Maghreb?

The siege was clearly targeted at Western governments; reports seem consistent that the kidnappers left the Algerian staff more or less alone and concentrated on the Western staff as hostages. What gives a little more colour to that view, though, comes from blogger Wretchard writing about Filipino engineer and hostage Ruben Andrada:

With detcord wrapped around his neck and caught in the gunbattle between the Masked Brigade and Algerian forces, he regarded his chances of survival as doubtful. Andrada retreated into that classic Filipino attitude: "bahala na". He thought 'leave it to God' as bullets kicked up the ground around him.

It's odd that a Filipino would be regarded as Western - except, of course, it's not the "country of nationality" that the hostage takers care about. Filipinos are predominantly Christian - 90% of the population, and most of those are Catholic. The kidnappers weren't targeting "Westerners", they were targeting "non-Muslims".

The assault itself was the classic Russian model - go in, slaughter the bad guys, try not to kill hostages if you can help it, but never mind if some of them get hit. Taking prisoners is strictly optional, which is why I was surprised that five kidnappers appear to have survived - I wonder if this group was based away from the gas plant as a support/escape element and was detected and ambushed by the Algerian forces suddenly enough that fighting wasn't really an option. There will be any amount of explicit and implicit blame placed on the Algerian forces in the next few weeks, but really they did exactly as they were supposed to. Algeria doesn't want attacks like this to happen, especially not around its revenue-producing gas plants. It wants to make plain to any attackers that no deals are made, that Algeria won't hesitate to go in shooting, and that holding hostages won't really slow down any attack. From now on, any Western kidnapping in Algeria will likely be by really badly-informed small-scale terrorist / criminal groups (and therefore relatively easy to manage). Jihadi attacks will be aiming to shoot-and-scoot or suicide-bomb, not hold hostages and hang around. Both of these situations are much easier to manage than a hostage siege, and generally less expensive in destruction to industrial facilities.

It will be interesting to see where the next hostage-taking occurs. I'm assuming Mali is now quite a hard target as Westerners are alerted to danger. I wonder if Morocco and Tunisia will be the next target, or perhaps further afield in Nigeria if Boko Haram can be persuaded to up their current game of blowing up churches, providing logistical support for better-trained and more determined jihadi from the Maghreb.

Mali and Algeria - a new elephant trap?

With the bloody mess at the Algerian Amenas gas facility and the French intervention in Mali in the news, I thought I'd have a look see what was actually going on since I now despair of getting meaningful data from the news. In particular, why are the French so concerned that they're taking unilateral military action?

The prior history of Al Qaeda in the Maghreb and Ansar Dine bears reading. The Maghreb is north-west Africa, more or less, but Mali is the base for AQIM. Mali itself is south-west of Algeria - and yes, I had no idea until I consulted a map. Ansar Dine and AQIM initially helped the Tuareg MNLA in northern Mali ("Azawad") in their fight against the government, but have now turned on the MNLA and pushed them out of the cities they'd taken together in northern Mali. Ansar Dine appears to be primarily Muslim Tuareg in composition. The Mali kind-of-government (post-coup) asked for French help as it had no real ability to fight a conflict like this for Azawad, even though MNLA have now aligned themselves with the Mali government against Ansar Dine/AQIM.

AQIM seems to have ambitions beyond merely extending its territory. Bungled 2009 experiments in using bubonic plague imply that it's looking at Western population centres as a target for their brand of jihad.

Clearly there is widespread concern about AQIM establishing a base across more than 50% of Mali. 700,000+ square km of desert territory is a lot of space to hide - more than the total area of Afghanistan, to give you some comparison. Nigeria and Chad have pledged substantial forces to oppose the rebellion, giving you some idea about how worried they are about the problem - operating a significant military force overseas on an open-ended commitment is an expensive proposition.

The Amenas hostage-taking is significant as it is claimed to be a protest against French involvement in Mali and Algerian complicity in the military operations. Note that it's in eastern Algeria, well away from Mali but close to Libya, implying that AQIM have substantial mobile military forces in western Libya. The attackers can't have expected to walk away from the situation; this was almost certainly sold as a suicide mission. The Algerian government said early on that it would not negotiate, which presumably was the expected reaction. So why conduct the operation? I can only imagine that the intent was to discredit the Algerian government in the eyes of European citizens following a bloody rescue operation; blame most of the deaths on Algeria, reduce Western military support for the government, and take (say) southern Algeria at their leisure.

Mitt Romney failed pretty completely against Obama, but to his credit he raised the issue of Mali back in October, way before anyone in the media was noticing:

Romney used Mali as an illustration of the rise of Al Qaeda, trying to make the point that the world has gotten less safe during the administration of President Obama because terrorist groups have been allowed to flourish in places like Mali. Obama countered that Al Qaeda has been decimated during his administration.

Oops! Clearly not decimated in the Maghreb, quite the contrary.

Still, I'd be fascinated to learn what French intelligence has been telling Hollande that has made him take the political risk of intervening in Mali. If he's that concerned, perhaps we should all be.