I am very, very happy to be amidst some of the most -- the lights are really disturbing my eyes and they're reflecting on my glasses. I am very happy and honored to be amidst very, very innovative and intelligent people. I have listened to the three previous speakers, and guess what happened? Every single thing I planned to say, they have said it here, and it looks and sounds like I have nothing else to say.
Sunt foarte fericit sa ma gasesc intre unii dintre cei mai -- luminile imi deranjeaza ochii si mi se reflecta in ochelari. Sunt foarte fericit si onorat sa ma aflu intre oameni foarte foarte inovatori si inteligenti. I-am ascultat pe cei trei vorbitori dinaintea mea si ce credeti ca s-a intamplat? Fiecare lucru pe care planuisem sa il zic, l-au zis ei aici si se pare ca nu mai am nimic de zis.
(Laughter)
(Rasete)
But there is a saying in my culture that if a bud leaves a tree without saying something, that bud is a young one. So, I will -- since I am not young and am very old, I still will say something.
Dar exista o zicala in cultura mea aceea ca daca un boboc paraseste un copac fara a zice nimic, atunci acel boboc este unul tanar. Asa ca voi -- din moment ce nu sunt tanar si sunt foarte batran -- voi spune totusi ceva.
We are hosting this conference at a very opportune moment, because another conference is taking place in Berlin. It is the G8 Summit. The G8 Summit proposes that the solution to Africa's problems should be a massive increase in aid, something akin to the Marshall Plan. Unfortunately, I personally do not believe in the Marshall Plan. One, because the benefits of the Marshall Plan have been overstated. Its largest recipients were Germany and France, and it was only 2.5 percent of their GDP. An average African country receives foreign aid to the tune of 13, 15 percent of its GDP, and that is an unprecedented transfer of financial resources from rich countries to poor countries.
Gazduim aceasta conferinta intr-un moment foarte oportun deoarece o alta conferinta are loc in Berlin. Este vorba de Summit-ul G8. Summit-ul G8 propune ca solutia la problemele Africii ar trebui sa fie o crestere masiva a ajutorului, ceva de genul planului Marshall. Din pacate, eu personal nu cred in planul Marshall. Unu, pentru ca beneficiile planului Marshall au fost supraestimate. Cei mai mari beneficiari ai sai au fost Germania si Franta, si a fost doar 2,5 la suta din PIB-ul lor. O tara africana medie primeste ajutor strain in valoare de aproximativ 13, 15 % din PIB-ul sau, iar acest fapt reprezinta un transfer de resurse financiare fara precedent din partea tarilor bogate catre cele sarace.
But I want to say that there are two things we need to connect. How the media covers Africa in the West, and the consequences of that. By displaying despair, helplessness and hopelessness, the media is telling the truth about Africa, and nothing but the truth. However, the media is not telling us the whole truth. Because despair, civil war, hunger and famine, although they're part and parcel of our African reality, they are not the only reality. And secondly, they are the smallest reality.
Dar vreau sa spun ca exista doua lucruri intre care trebuie sa facem legatura. Felul in care media reflecta Africa de vest si consecintele acestui fapt. Aratand disperare, neajutorare si lipsa sperantei, media spune adevarul si numai adevarul despre Africa. Cu toate acestea, media nu ne spune tot adevarul. Deoarece disperarea, razboiul civil, foamea si foametea, cu toate ca sunt parte integranta din realitatea noastra africana, nu sunt singura realitate. Si apoi, ele reprezinta acea realitate mai mica.
Africa has 53 nations. We have civil wars only in six countries, which means that the media are covering only six countries. Africa has immense opportunities that never navigate through the web of despair and helplessness that the Western media largely presents to its audience. But the effect of that presentation is, it appeals to sympathy. It appeals to pity. It appeals to something called charity. And, as a consequence, the Western view of Africa's economic dilemma is framed wrongly. The wrong framing is a product of thinking that Africa is a place of despair. What should we do with it? We should give food to the hungry. We should deliver medicines to those who are ill. We should send peacekeeping troops to serve those who are facing a civil war. And in the process, Africa has been stripped of self-initiative.
Africa are 53 de natiuni. Avem razboi civil doar in 6 tari, ceea ce inseamna ca media reflecta doar 6 tari. Africa are oportunitati imense care nu trec niciodata prin reteaua disperarii si neajutorarii pe care media vestica o prezinta pe scara larga audientei sale. Dar efectul acelei prezentari este acela ca apeleaza la compatimire. Apeleaza la mila; apeleaza la ceva numit caritate. Si ca o consecinta, viziunea vestica a dilemei economice a Africii este incadrata gresit. Incadrarea gresita este un produs al gindirii ca Africa este un loc al disperarii. Ce ar trebui sa facem cu ea? Ar trebui sa dam mancare infometatilor. Ar trebui sa distribuim medicamente celor bolnavi. Ar trebui sa trimitem trupe de mentinere a pacii pentru a-i servi pe cei care se confrunta cu un razboi civil. Si in cadrul acestui proces Africii i s-a rapit propria initiativa.
I want to say that it is important to recognize that Africa has fundamental weaknesses. But equally, it has opportunities and a lot of potential. We need to reframe the challenge that is facing Africa, from a challenge of despair, which is called poverty reduction, to a challenge of hope. We frame it as a challenge of hope, and that is worth creation. The challenge facing all those who are interested in Africa is not the challenge of reducing poverty. It should be a challenge of creating wealth.
Vreau sa spun ca este important sa recunoastem ca Africa are slabiciuni fundamentale. Dar ca in mod egal, are oportunitati si mult potential. Trebuie sa reincadram provocarea care priveste Africa dintr-o provocare a disperarii, disperare care se numeste reducerea saraciei, intr-una a sperantei. O incadram drept o provocare a sperantei, adica a crearii bogatiei. Provocarea cu care se confrunta toti cei interesati de Africa nu este provocarea de a reduce saracia. Ar trebui sa fie provocarea de a crea bogatia.
Once we change those two things -- if you say the Africans are poor and they need poverty reduction, you have the international cartel of good intentions moving onto the continent, with what? Medicines for the poor, food relief for those who are hungry, and peacekeepers for those who are facing civil war. And in the process, none of these things really are productive because you are treating the symptoms, not the causes of Africa's fundamental problems. Sending somebody to school and giving them medicines, ladies and gentlemen, does not create wealth for them. Wealth is a function of income, and income comes from you finding a profitable trading opportunity or a well-paying job.
Odata ce schimbam aceste doua lucruri -- daca spui ca africanii sunt saraci si au nevoie de reducerea saraciei, asociatiile internationale ale bunelor intentii se muta pe continent, dar cu ce? Medicamente pentru saraci, mancare pentru infometati si trupe de mentinere a pacii pentru cei care se confrunta cu razboiul civil. Si in realitate niciunul dintre aceste lucruri nu este cu adevarat productiv deoarece trateaza simptomele si nu cauzele problemelor fundamentale ale Africii. Trimiterea cuiva la scoala si dandu-i medicamente, doamnelor si domnilor, nu ii creeaza bogatie. Bogatia este o functie a venitului, iar venitul vine din gasirea unei oportunitati profitabile sau a unei slujbe bine platite.
Now, once we begin to talk about wealth creation in Africa, our second challenge will be, who are the wealth-creating agents in any society? They are entrepreneurs. [Unclear] told us they are always about four percent of the population, but 16 percent are imitators. But they also succeed at the job of entrepreneurship. So, where should we be putting the money? We need to put money where it can productively grow. Support private investment in Africa, both domestic and foreign. Support research institutions, because knowledge is an important part of wealth creation.
Acum, din moment ce vom incepe sa vorbim despre crearea bogatiei in Africa, a doua noastra provocare va fi, care sunt agentii care creaza bogatie intr-o societate? Sunt intreprinzatorii. [Neclar] ne-a spus ca ei reprezinta intotdeauna cam 4% din populatie, dar 16% sunt imitatori. Dar si ei reusesc in ocupatia de intreprinzator. Deci unde ar trebui sa punem banii? Trebuie sa punem banii unde pot creste in mod productiv. Sprijiniti investitiile private in Africa, atat cele domestice cat si cele straine. Sprijiniti institutiile de cercetare, deoarece cunoasterea este o parte importanta a crearii bogatiei.
But what is the international aid community doing with Africa today? They are throwing large sums of money for primary health, for primary education, for food relief. The entire continent has been turned into a place of despair, in need of charity. Ladies and gentlemen, can any one of you tell me a neighbor, a friend, a relative that you know, who became rich by receiving charity? By holding the begging bowl and receiving alms? Does any one of you in the audience have that person? Does any one of you know a country that developed because of the generosity and kindness of another? Well, since I'm not seeing the hand, it appears that what I'm stating is true.
Dar ce face comunitatea internationala cu Africa azi? Arunca mari sume de bani pentru sanatatea primara, pentru educatia primara, pentru ajutor de hrana. Intregul continent a fost transformat intr-un loc al disperarii, al nevoii de caritate. Doamnelor si domnilor, imi poate arata vreunul dintre Dvs. un vecin, un prieten, o ruda de-a Dvs., care s-a imbogatit primind caritate? Tinand mana intinsa si primind pomana? Cunoaste vreunul dintre Dvs. o astfel de persoana? Stie careva dintre Dvs. o tara care s-a dezvoltat datorita generozitatii si bunavointei alteia? Ei bine, din moment ce nu vad acea mana ridicata, se pare ca ceea ce zic este adevarat.
(Bono: Yes!)
Bono: Da!
Andrew Mwenda: I can see Bono says he knows the country. Which country is that?
Andrew Mwenda: vad ca Bono spune ca stie o astfel de tara. Care este acea tara?
(Bono: It's an Irish land.)
Bono: e un nume irlandez.
(Laughter)
(Rasete)
(Bono: [unclear])
Bono: [neclar]
AM: Thank you very much. But let me tell you this. External actors can only present to you an opportunity. The ability to utilize that opportunity and turn it into an advantage depends on your internal capacity. Africa has received many opportunities. Many of them we haven't benefited much. Why? Because we lack the internal, institutional framework and policy framework that can make it possible for us to benefit from our external relations. I'll give you an example.
Multumesc foarte mult. Dar vreau sa va spun asta. Actorii externi pot doar sa iti prezinte o oportunitate. Abilitatea de a utiliza acea oportunitate si de a o transforma in avantaj depinde de capacitatea ta interna. Africa a primit multe oportunitati, de multe dintre ele nu am profitat foarte mult. De ce? Deoarece ne lipseste cadrul institutional intern si cadrul politic ce poate face posibil ca noi sa beneficiem de relatiile noastre externe. Va voi da un exemplu.
Under the Cotonou Agreement, formerly known as the Lome Convention, African countries have been given an opportunity by Europe to export goods, duty-free, to the European Union market. My own country, Uganda, has a quota to export 50,000 metric tons of sugar to the European Union market. We haven't exported one kilogram yet. We import 50,000 metric tons of sugar from Brazil and Cuba. Secondly, under the beef protocol of that agreement, African countries that produce beef have quotas to export beef duty-free to the European Union market. None of those countries, including Africa's most successful nation, Botswana, has ever met its quota.
In cadrul Pactului Cotonou, cunoscut in trecut sub numele de Conventia Lome, Europa a dat tarilor africane oportunitatea de a exporta produse, fara taxe, pe piata europeana. Tara mea, Uganda, are o cota de export de 50.000 de tone metrice de zahar pe piata Uniunii Europene. Nu am exportat inca nici un kilogram. Importam 50.000 de tone metrice din Brazilia si Cuba. In al doilea rand, in cadrul protocolului despre carnea de vita, tarile africane care produc carne de vita au cote de export a carnii de vita, fara taxe, pe piata Uniunii Europene. Nici una dintre aceste tari, inclusiv cea mai de succes natiune a Africii, Botswana, nu a indeplinit cota vreodata.
So, I want to argue today that the fundamental source of Africa's inability to engage the rest of the world in a more productive relationship is because it has a poor institutional and policy framework. And all forms of intervention need support, the evolution of the kinds of institutions that create wealth, the kinds of institutions that increase productivity. How do we begin to do that, and why is aid the bad instrument? Aid is the bad instrument, and do you know why? Because all governments across the world need money to survive. Money is needed for a simple thing like keeping law and order. You have to pay the army and the police to show law and order. And because many of our governments are quite dictatorial, they need really to have the army clobber the opposition. The second thing you need to do is pay your political hangers-on. Why should people support their government? Well, because it gives them good, paying jobs, or, in many African countries, unofficial opportunities to profit from corruption.
Deci ceea ce vreau sa argumentez astazi este ca sursa incapacitatii Africii de a antrena restul lumii intr-o relatie mai productiva este un cadru institutional si politic insuficient. Si toate formele de interventie au nevoie de ajutor, evolutia tipurilor de institutii care creeaza bogatie, tipurile de institutii care creeaza productivitate. Cum incepem sa facem asta si de ce este ajutorul un instrument prost? Ajutorul este un instrument prost si stiti de ce? Pentru ca toate guvernele lumii au nevoie de bani pentru a supravietui. E nevoie de bani pentru a mentine un lucru simplu cum ar fi legea si ordinea. Trebuie sa platesti armata si politia pentru a intretine legea si ordinea. Si deoarece multe dintre guvernele noastre sunt dictatoriale, au nevoie ca armata sa innabuse opozitia. Al doilea lucru pe care trebuie sa-l faci este sa-ti platesti asociatii politici. De ce ar trebui ca oamenii sa-si sprijine guvernul? Ei bine, pentru ca acesta le da locuri de munca bine platite. Sau, in multe tari africane, oportunitati neoficiale de a profita de pe urma coruptiei.
The fact is no government in the world, with the exception of a few, like that of Idi Amin, can seek to depend entirely on force as an instrument of rule. Many countries in the [unclear], they need legitimacy. To get legitimacy, governments often need to deliver things like primary education, primary health, roads, build hospitals and clinics. If the government's fiscal survival depends on it having to raise money from its own people, such a government is driven by self-interest to govern in a more enlightened fashion. It will sit with those who create wealth. Talk to them about the kind of policies and institutions that are necessary for them to expand a scale and scope of business so that it can collect more tax revenues from them. The problem with the African continent and the problem with the aid industry is that it has distorted the structure of incentives facing the governments in Africa. The productive margin in our governments' search for revenue does not lie in the domestic economy, it lies with international donors.
Ideea este ca, nici un guvern din lume, cu exceptia catorva ca cel al lui Idi Amin, poate cauta sa depinda in intregime de forta pentru a conduce. Multe tari din [neclar], au nevoie de legitimitate. Pentru a obtine legitimitate, guvernele trebuie adeseori sa puna la dispozitie lucruri cum ar fi educatia primara, sistemul de sanatate primar, drumuri, construirea spitalelor si clinicilor. Daca supravietuirea fiscala a guvernului depinde de strangerea banilor de la propria populatie, un astfel de guvern va fi interesat sa guverneze intr-un mod mai luminat. Se va insoti cu cei care creeaza bogatie. Va vorbi cu ei despre politicile si institutiile necesare pentru ca ei sa-si dezvolte marimea si scopul afacerilor astfel incat sa colecteze taxe mai multe de la ei. Problema continentului african si problema industriei intr-ajutorarii este aceea ca a distorsionat structura stimularii cu care se confrunta guvernele din Africa. Marja productivitatii din cadrul cautarii de fonduri specifica guvernelor noastre nu se afla in cadrul economiei interne, ci se afla in relatiile cu donatorii internationali.
Rather than sit with Ugandan --
Decat sa se asocieze cu oamenii de afaceri din Uganda --
(Applause) --
(Aplauze)
rather than sit with Ugandan entrepreneurs, Ghanaian businessmen, South African enterprising leaders, our governments find it more productive to talk to the IMF and the World Bank. I can tell you, even if you have ten Ph.Ds., you can never beat Bill Gates in understanding the computer industry. Why? Because the knowledge that is required for you to understand the incentives necessary to expand a business -- it requires that you listen to the people, the private sector actors in that industry.
decat sa se asocieze cu antreprenorii din Uganda, sau Ghana sau leader-ii afacerilor din Africa de Sud, guvernele noastre gasesc ca este mai productiv sa discute cu FMI si Banca Mondiala. Va pot spune, chiar daca aveti 10 doctorate, nu veti putea niciodata sa-l intreceti pe Bill Gates in intelegerea industriei computerelor. De ce? Deoarece cunoasterea care ve este necesara sa intelegeti stimulentele necesare extinderii unei afaceri, necesita ascultarea oamenilor, a sectorului privat in aceasta industrie.
Governments in Africa have therefore been given an opportunity, by the international community, to avoid building productive arrangements with your own citizens, and therefore allowed to begin endless negotiations with the IMF and the World Bank, and then it is the IMF and the World Bank that tell them what its citizens need. In the process, we, the African people, have been sidelined from the policy-making, policy-orientation, and policy- implementation process in our countries. We have limited input, because he who pays the piper calls the tune. The IMF, the World Bank, and the cartel of good intentions in the world has taken over our rights as citizens, and therefore what our governments are doing, because they depend on aid, is to listen to international creditors rather than their own citizens.
Guvernelor din Africa le-a fost data o oportunitate de catre comunitatea internationala de a evita dezvoltarea unor intelegeri productive cu proprii lor cetateni, si astfel le-a fost ingaduit sa inceapa negocieri nesfarsite cu FMI si Banca Mondiala si astfel devin FMI si Banca Mondiala cei care le spun guvernelor ce nevoi au cetatenii lor. In cadrul acestui proces noi, poporul african, am fost dati la o parte din procesul crearii politicii, orientarii politicii si implementarii politicii din propriile noastre tari. Avem un aport limitat, deoarece cel care il plateste pe muzician comanda melodia. FMI, Banca Mondiala si cartelul bunelor intentii ale lumii ne-au preluat drepturile de cetateni, si astfel, guvernele noastre, deoarece depind de ajutor, nu fac decat sa asculte de cativa creditori internationali in detrimentul propriilor cetateni.
But I want to put a caveat on my argument, and that caveat is that it is not true that aid is always destructive. Some aid may have built a hospital, fed a hungry village. It may have built a road, and that road may have served a very good role. The mistake of the international aid industry is to pick these isolated incidents of success, generalize them, pour billions and trillions of dollars into them, and then spread them across the whole world, ignoring the specific and unique circumstances in a given village, the skills, the practices, the norms and habits that allowed that small aid project to succeed -- like in Sauri village, in Kenya, where Jeffrey Sachs is working -- and therefore generalize this experience as the experience of everybody.
Dar vreau sa fac o observatie vis-a-vis de argumentatia mea, aceea ca nu este adevarat faptul ca ajutorul este intotdeauna distructiv. Unele ajutoare se poate sa fi construit un spital, hranit un sat infometat. Au construit un drum, iar acel drum sa fi avut un rol bun. Greseala industriei internationale de ajutorare este de a alege aceste incidente izolate de succes, de a le generaliza, de a turna miliarde si trilioane de dolari in ele, pentru ca apoi sa le imprastie in toata lumea, ignorand circumstantele specifice si unice dintr-un anume sat, abilitatile, indeletnicirile, normele si obiceiurile care au permis acelui ajutor minor sa reuseasca -- cum ar fi satul Sauri din Kenya unde lucreaza Jeffrey Sachs -- si sa generalizeze aceasta experienta drept experienta tuturor.
Aid increases the resources available to governments, and that makes working in a government the most profitable thing you can have, as a person in Africa seeking a career. By increasing the political attractiveness of the state, especially in our ethnically fragmented societies in Africa, aid tends to accentuate ethnic tensions as every single ethnic group now begins struggling to enter the state in order to get access to the foreign aid pie. Ladies and gentlemen, the most enterprising people in Africa cannot find opportunities to trade and to work in the private sector because the institutional and policy environment is hostile to business. Governments are not changing it. Why? Because they don't need to talk to their own citizens. They talk to international donors. So, the most enterprising Africans end up going to work for government, and that has increased the political tensions in our countries precisely because we depend on aid.
Ajutorul creste resursele disponibile guvernelor, iar asta face ca serviciul in cadrul unui guvern sa fie cel mai profitabil lucru care iti sta la dispozitie daca esti o persoana ce cauta sa-si faca o cariera in Africa. Crescand atractivitatea politica a statului, indeosebi in cadrul societatii noastre africane fragmentate etnic, ajutorul tinde sa accentueze tensiunile etnice pe masura ce fiecare grup etnic se chinuie acum sa intre in structura statului pentru a obtine acces la placinta ajutorului extern. Doamnelor si domnilor, cei mai intreprinzatori oameni din Africa nu pot gasi oportunitati de a face comert si de a munci in sectorul privat deoarece mediul institutional si politic este ostil afacerilor. Guvernele nu il schimba. Dc ce? Deoarece nu trebuie sa vorbeasca propriilor cetateni. Vorbesc donatorilor internationali. Astfel, cei mai intreprinzatori africani merg sa lucreze pentru guvern si asta creste tensiunile politice in tarile noastre tocmai pentru ca depindem de ajutor.
I also want to say that it is important for us to note that, over the last 50 years, Africa has been receiving increasing aid from the international community, in the form of technical assistance, and financial aid, and all other forms of aid. Between 1960 and 2003, our continent received 600 billion dollars of aid, and we are still told that there is a lot of poverty in Africa. Where has all the aid gone?
De asemenea vreau sa spun ca este important pentru noi sa luam in considerare faptul ca in ultimii 50 de ani Africa a primit ajutor din partea comunitatii internationale sub forma asistentei tehnice si ajutorului financiar precum si a altor forme de ajutor. Intre 1960 si 2003 continentul nostru a primit 600 miliarde de dolari ajutor si inca ni se spune ca exista multa saracie in Africa. Unde este ajutorul primit?
I want to use the example of my own country, called Uganda, and the kind of structure of incentives that aid has brought there. In the 2006-2007 budget, expected revenue: 2.5 trillion shillings. The expected foreign aid: 1.9 trillion. Uganda's recurrent expenditure -- by recurrent what do I mean? Hand-to-mouth is 2.6 trillion. Why does the government of Uganda budget spend 110 percent of its own revenue? It's because there's somebody there called foreign aid, who contributes for it. But this shows you that the government of Uganda is not committed to spending its own revenue to invest in productive investments, but rather it devotes this revenue to paying structure of public expenditure. Public administration, which is largely patronage, takes 690 billion. The military, 380 billion. Agriculture, which employs 18 percent of our poverty-stricken citizens, takes only 18 billion. Trade and industry takes 43 billion. And let me show you, what does public expenditure -- rather, public administration expenditure -- in Uganda constitute? There you go. 70 cabinet ministers, 114 presidential advisers, by the way, who never see the president, except on television.
Vreau sa ma folosesc de exemplul propriei mele tari numita Uganda si de tipurile de structuri stimulative pe care ajutorul le-a adus acolo. In bugetul din 2006-2007, venitul asteptat a fost de 2,5 trilioane de silingi. Ajutorul extern asteptat: 1,9 trilioane. Cheltuielile recurente ale Ugandei -- prin recurente ce vreau sa spun? De azi pe miine -- este de 2,6 trilioane De ce cheltuie guvernul Ugandei 110% din propriile venituri? Deoarece exista ceva acolo numit ajutor strain care contribuie la asta. Dar asta arata ca guvernul Ugandei nu este interesat de cheltuirea propriului venit pentru investitii productive ci isi aloca veniturile spre a plati structurile de cheltuieli publice. Administratia publica, ce este majoritar alcatuita din patronate, ia 690 miliarde. Armata, 380 miliarde. Agricultura, care angajeaza 18% din cetatenii nostri loviti de saracie, ia doar 18 miliarde. Comertul si industria iau 43 miliarde. Si lasati-ma sa va arat ce reprezinta cheltuiala publica -- mai degraba cheltuiala cu administratia publica -- in Uganda? Iata. 70 de cabinete ministeriale, 114 consilieri prezidentiali -- care, a-propos, nu-l vad nicioadata pe presedinte, decat la TV.
(Laughter)
(Rasete)
(Applause)
(Aplauze)
And when they see him physically, it is at public functions like this, and even there, it is him who advises them.
Iar atunci cand il vad fizic, il vad la sedinte publice ca aceasta, si chiar si acolo, este el cel care ii consiliaza pe ei.
(Laughter)
(Rasete)
We have 81 units of local government. Each local government is organized like the central government -- a bureaucracy, a cabinet, a parliament, and so many jobs for the political hangers-on. There were 56, and when our president wanted to amend the constitution and remove term limits, he had to create 25 new districts, and now there are 81. Three hundred thirty-three members of parliament. You need Wembley Stadium to host our parliament. One hundred thirty-four commissions and semi-autonomous government bodies, all of which have directors and the cars. And the final thing, this is addressed to Mr. Bono. In his work, he may help us on this.
Avem 81 unitati ale guvernului local; fiecare guvern local este organizat ca cel central -- o birocratie, un cabinet, un parlament, si atat de multe job-uri pentru parazitii politici. Erau 56 de unitati, iar cand presedintele nostru a vrut sa schimbe constitutia si sa inlature termenele scadentelor, a trebuit sa creeze 25 noi districte si acum sunt 81. 333 membri ai parlamentului. Ai nevoie de stadionul Wembley pentru a gazdui parlamentul nostru. 134 comisii si corpuri de guvern semi-autonome, toate au directori si masini si -- un ultim lucru, acesta se adreseaza D-lui Bono. In munca sa s-ar putea sa ne ajute la asta.
A recent government of Uganda study found that there are 3,000 four-wheel drive motor vehicles at the Minister of Health headquarters. Uganda has 961 sub-counties, each of them with a dispensary, none of which has an ambulance. So, the four-wheel drive vehicles at the headquarters drive the ministers, the permanent secretaries, the bureaucrats and the international aid bureaucrats who work in aid projects, while the poor die without ambulances and medicine.
Un studiu recent al guvernului ugandez a relevat faptul ca exista 3.000 de vehicule cu actionare pe 4 roti la centrul Ministerului Sanatatii. Uganda are 961 subcomitate, fiecare avand un dispensar, niciunul care sa aiba o ambulanta. Deci vehiculele de la centru transporta ministrii, secretarii permanenti, birocratii si birocratii ajutorului international care lucreaza in proiecte de ajutor in timp ce saracii mor fara ambulanta si medicamente.
Finally, I want to say that before I came to speak here, I was told that the principle of TEDGlobal is that the good speech should be like a miniskirt. It should be short enough to arouse interest, but long enough to cover the subject. I hope I have achieved that.
In sfarsit, vreau sa spun ca inainte de a veni sa vorbesc aici, mi s-a spus ca principiul TEDGlobal este acela ca un discurs bun ar trebui sa fie ca o fusta mini -- ar trebui sa fie indeajuns de scurt sa trezeasca interesul, dar indeajuns de lung sa acopere subiectul. Sper ca am reusit asta.
(Laughter)
(Rasete)
Thank you very much.
Va multumesc foarte mult.
(Applause)
(Aplauze)