A reader writes, in re: Myth vs. Fact: Is Africa the Lost Continent? "What about all the aid that gets appropriated by corrupt governments in Africa instead of used for its original intent?"

Boy, I'm so glad you asked. One of the points Jeffrey Sachs made, which I did not recount, is that the mismanagement of funds through corruption and poor governance is N0T TRUE — repeat NOT TRUE — for many of Africa's poorest nations. It's a convenient myth for those who'd rather not invest in African development, he says.

Sach doesn't deny that countries like the Democratic Republic of the Congo are horrors of corruption. But those places are not candidates for development aid. A prerequisite for investment is the guarantee that results are measurable in a monitored program that can be independently audited. The U.S. government gives considerable emergency aid to countries in Africa, but very little to development aid. And most people confuse the two. They're different issues.

The reader also asks:

If you want to discuss humanitarian aid vs. defense spending, how much do those enlightened leaders of Europe, who spend far less on defense, give to Africa? I am talking about the same Euro-leaders who really want to help out in Africa and elsewhere, but haven't bought enough air- or sealift to get to Africa.

Boy, I'm glad he asked that question, too. The Europeans have agreed to give a miniscule percentage of their Gross National Products recommended by the U.N. Millenium Project, and so has the United States.

The project recommends that "high-income countries should increase official development assistance from 0.25 percent of donor GNP in 2003 to around 0.44 percent in 2006 and 0.54 percent in 2015" to support the Millennium Development Goals, particularly for qualified low-income countries, and that "each donor should reach 0.7 percent no later than 2015" when other "development assistance priorities" are included.