Tag Archives: United States

Is There Really a Link Between Small Arms and Poverty/Political Instability

Posted on by
Reply

Small Arms Survey released its 2003 report in July finding, among other things, that there are far fewer small arms circulating in Africa than previously thought.

Previous estimates of the number of small arms — weapons that can be carried by one person — put the total as high as 100 million. According to Small Arms Survey, however, there are only about 30 million small arms in Africa — about 1 gun for every 20 people.

Small Arms Survey blames the proliferation of small arms for causing instability in Africa and other developing regions. In a press release announcing the report, Small Arms Survey quotes United Nations Development Program administrator Mark Malloch Brown as saying,

[Small arms] have an insidious effect on development: by undermining the safety and security of communities, threatening livelihoods, and destroying social networks, they at best hold back and at worst contribute to the reversal of hard-won development gains. This edition of the Small Arms Survey makes an invaluable contribution to global efforts to develop and implement effective projects to limit the use and spread of small arms. It provides an important global point of reference for UND and other international agencies seeking to confront this critical challenge to human society.

Given the alleged inherent destabilizing nature of small arms, then, one would reasonably expect that the country with the highest level of small arms ownership would also be one of the most backward, underdeveloped spots on the planet. But, of course, the country with the highest penetration of small arms is the wealthiest country on the face of the planet — the United States of America.

While Africa has a measly 1 gun for every 20 people, the United States has an astounding 4 guns for every 5 people. Africa’s gun ownership rate, in fact, is just slightly above that of Europe, and Europe is hardly a hotbed of poverty and political instability either.

Sources:

One gun for every 20 Africans. The BBC, September 24, 2003.

Global Arms Survey Finds U.S. Most-Armed Nation. Edith Lederer, Associated Press, July 9, 2003.

Small Arms Survey 2003: Development Denied. Press Release, Small Arms Survey, July 8, 2003.

Do Africans Follow Anti-HIV Drug Regimen Better Than Americans?

Posted on by
5

One of the long-standing arguments against the use of anti-retrovirals to treat the AIDS crisis in Africa goes like this: African countries like the health infrastructure to ensure that patients will consistently take anti-HIV drugs (which, of course, have a number of side effects). This will create a situation, the theory goes, where few patients take the full set of drugs and likely give rise to more virulent, drug-resistant forms of HIV.

But a survey of African patients in Botswana, Senegal, South Africa and Uganda found that, in fact, HIV patients in those countries were more likely to stick to their regimen of AIDS drugs than were Americans.

On average, the survey reported that AIDS patients in those four countries take about 90 percent of the prescribed drugs. That ranks favorably with American AIDS patients who, in similar surveys, reported taking about 70 percent of their anti-HIV drugs.

Interestingly, there is also evidence that African patients are more truthful in reporting their compliance with the anti-HIV regimen than American patients. According to the New York Times’ report of the survey results,

Moreover, doctors say, most African patients are zealous about their regimens. They are also more truthful when estimating their adherence, said Dr. David Bangsberg, a professor of medicine at the University of California in San Francisco who has studied compliance patterns here and abroad.

On average, he said, American patients tell their doctors that they are doing 20 percentage points better than they really are — that is, a patient who says he takes 90 percent of his pills will, when tested with unannounced home pill counts or electronic pill-bottle caps, turn out to be taking 70 percent.

A study of 29 Ugandan patients found that, on average, they estimated that they were taking 93 percent of pills and proved to be taking 91 percent.

There are a number of possible reason for the difference, including that in African nations a number of people in the AIDS patient’s extended family may be contributing to help pay for the relatively expensive drugs, and that AIDS patients in Africa have a more immediate experience with numerous fatalities from the disease given the relatively high death rate from AIDS in Africa compared to the United States.

Sources:

Africans Outdo Americans in Following AIDS Therapy. Donald G. McNeil Jr., New York Times, September 3, 2003.

Life Expectancy in United States Hits New High

Posted on by
1

The Centers for Disease Control reported this month that life expectancy in the United States reached a new high of 77.2 years.

For men, average life expectance is now at 74.4 years, and for women at 79.8 years. Broken down by race, the average life expectancy for whites is 77.7 years and for blacks 72.2 years.

Statistician Elizabeth Arias who was the lead author of the CDC’s study of life expectancy told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that changes in behavior played a major role in increasing life expectancies,

For instance, the decline in smoking — from 50 percent of the population in the 1950s to about 25 percent now — has a lot to do with decreases in heart disease and cancer.

Source:

Life expectancy climbs to record high in America. M.A.J. McKenna, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, March 15, 2003.

The Mixed Message from Monterrey

Posted on by
3

The United Nations development summit in Monterrey, Mexico, wound up at the end of March with 60 countries agreeing to a broad set of principles to boost foreign aid and help the developing country. Even the United States agreed to increase by $5 billion its foreign aid. But the results of the summit were decidedly mixed.

The Bush administration continues to insist that any aid must be tied to democratic reform within developed countries. This provoked two reactions.

The Economist summed up one reaction which is namely that this is what the Europeans have been doing all along. Well, maybe, but so far they don’t seem to have done a very stellar job at it. It is one thing to talk about requiring internal reform and another to actually follow through.

The other reaction, of course, came from developed countries ruled by corrupt dictators, which claimed that it was colonial oppression rather than corrupt dictators that was responsible for the developing world’s problems.

The chief architect of this vision was Fidel Castro, who insisted it would be wrong for the West to place preconditions on aid packages,

You can’t blame this tragedy on the poor countries. It wasn’t they who conquered and looted entire continents for centuries, nor did they establish colonialism, nor did they reintroduce slavery, nor did they create modern imperialism. They were its victims.

Leave it to Castro who has systematically destroyed freedom and prosperity in Cuba to complain about being a victim.

On the other hand, the Bush administration rightfully appeared as hypocritical with its ongoing insistence that developing countries adopt free trade principles, while Washington reserves for itself extremely protectionist policies. The United States has refused to lower tariffs for Pakistani textiles, just slapped ridiculous tariffs on wood coming into the United States from Canada, and placed tariffs and limit on steel imports. As the Economist put it, seems to support free trade except for the Carolinas.

That is wrongheaded and divisive. It is time to lead by example, Mr. President.

Sources:

UN summit ends with cash pledge. The BBC, March 23, 2002.

What the president giveth . . . The Economist, March 30, 2002, pp. 12-13.

Lift U.S. Quotas on Bangladesh Textiles

Posted on by
Reply

Bangladesh Commerce Minister Amir Khasru Mahmud Chodhury visited the United States in mid-November to ask the U.S. to life its quotas on textile products from that Asian country. The United States should do the right thing and oblige them.

Developed countries such as the United States complain incessantly about the lack of free markets within the developing world, but at the same time maintain backward trade regimes that prevent poor countries from developing export industries of their own (which also raise the cost of living for residents in developed countries).

If the United States really wants to do something about poverty in the Third World, it should immediately lift all trade restrictions with developing nations as soon as possible.

Source:

Bangladesh wants textiles curbs lifted. BBC, November 12, 2001.