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.
Ja sam vrlo, vrlo srećan da sam okružen nekima od naj -- svetla zaista smetaju mojim očima i odbijaju se o moje naočare. Ja sam vrlo srećan i počastvovan da sam okružen vrlo, vrlo inovativnim i inteligentnim ljudima. Slušao sam prethodna tri govornika, i pogodite šta se dogodilo? Sve što sam nameravao reći, oni su to već rekli ovde, i to izgleda i zvuči kao da nemam ništa drugo za reći.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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.
Ali postoji izreka u mom narodu da ako populjak ostavi drvo bez reči, taj populjak je mlad. Pa ću ja -- pošto nisam mlad i vrlo sam star -- ipak nešto reći.
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.
Održavamo ovu konferenciju u veoma povoljnom trenutku jer druga konferencija se održava u Berlinu. To je samit G8. Samit G8 predlaže da rešenje za probleme Afrike treba da bude masivna porast novčane pomoći, nešto slično Maršalovom planu. Nažalost, ja lično ne verujem u Maršalov plan. Prvo, jer je korist od Maršalovog plana bila preterana. Njegovi najveći primaoci su bili Nemačka i Francuska, i to samo 2,5% njihovog BDP-a. Prosečna afrička zemlja dobija inostranu pomoć u iznosu od 13, 15 % njenog BDP-a, i to je jedan, do tada, nevidjen transfer finansijskih sredstava iz bogatih zemalja u siromašne zemlje.
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.
Ali želim reći da postoje dve stvari koje su nam potrebne za spajanje. Kako mediji pokrivaju Afriku na Zapadu, i posledice toga. Prikazujući očaj, bespomoćnost i beznadje, mediji govore istinu o Africi, i ništa osim istine. Medjutim, mediji nam ne govore celu istinu. Zato što očaj, gradjanski rat, glad i oskudica, iako su deo i breme naše afričke realnosti, nisu jedina realnost. I drugo, to su delići realnosti.
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.
Afrika ima 53 nacije. Imamo gradjanski rat u samo šest zemalja, što znači da mediji pokrivaju samo šest zemalja. Afrika ima velike mogucnosti koje nikad ne prodju kroz mrežu očaja i bespomoćnosti koje Zapadni mediji u velikoj meri prezentuju svojoj publici. Ali efekat te prezentacije je da apeluje na saučešće. Apeluje na sažaljenje; apeluje na nešto što se zove milosrdje. I, kao posledica, zapadni pogled na afričke ekonomske dileme je pogrešno formulisan. Pogrešna formulacija je proizvod razmišljanja da je Afrika mesto očaja. Šta treba da radimo s tim? Treba da damo hranu gladnima. Treba da dostavimo lekove onima koji su bolesni. Treba da pošaljemo mirovne trupe da služe onima koji se součavaju sa gradjanskim ratom. I u tom procesu Afrika je lišena samoinicijative.
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.
Želim reći da je važno prepoznati fundamentalne slabosti koje Afrika poseduje. No, jednako, poseduje mogućnosti i mnogo potencijala. Mi moramo preformulisati izazov sa kojim se Afrika suočava od izazova očaja, očaj koji se zove smanjenje siromaštva, do izazova nade. Mi to formulišemo kao izazov nade, i to je vredna tvorevina. Izazov sa kojim se součavaju svi oni koji su zainteresovani za Afriku nije izazov smanjene siromaštva. To bi trebao biti izazov stvaranja bogatstva.
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.
Jednom kada promenimo te dve stvari -- ako kazete da su afrikanci siromašni i da im je potrebno smanjene siromaštva, imate medjunarodni kartel dobrih namera koji se seli na kontinent, s čim? Lekovi za siromašne, hranu za pomoć gladnoj sirotinji, i mirovne trupe za one koji se součavaju sa gradjanskim ratom. I u tom procesu nijedna od ovih stvari nije zaista produktivna jer leči simptome, a ne uzroke afričkih osnovnih problema. Tako što ćete poslati nekoga u školu i dati mu lekove, dame i gospodo, to ne stvara bogatstvo za njih. Bogatstvo je funkcija prihoda, a prihod dolazi od pronalaska profitabilne mogućnosti trgovanja ili dobro plaćenog posla.
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.
Sada, kada smo počeli govoriti o stvaranju bogatstva u Africi, naš drugi izazov će biti, ko su stvaraoci bogatstva u bilo kom društvu? To su preduzetnici. [Nejasno] rečeno nam je da ih je uvek oko 4% populacije, ali 16% su imitatori. Ali oni takodje uspevaju u poslu preduzetništva. Pa gde bi smo trebali ulagati novac? Moramo ulagati novac tamo gde može produktivno rasti. Podrška privatnim investicijama u Africi, i domaćim i stranim. Podrška istraživičkim centrima, jer znanje je važan deo stvaranja bogatstva.
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.
Ali šta medjunarodna zajednica radi sa Afrikom danas? Oni bacaju velike sume novca na osnovno lečenje, na osnovno obrazovanje, na pomoć sirotinji u hrani. Čitav kontinent je pretvoren u u mesto očaja, kome je potrebna milostinja. Dame i gospodo, može li mi bilo ko od vas reći suseda, prijatelja, rodjaka kojeg znate a da je postao bogat od primanja milostinje? Tako što je držao zdelu i primao milostinju? Da li iko od vas zna takvu osobu? Da li iko od vas zna zemlju koja se razvila zbog nečije velikodušnosti i ljubaznosti? Pa, budući da ne vidim ruke, čini se da je istina ono što sam naveo.
(Bono: Yes!)
Bono: Da!
Andrew Mwenda: I can see Bono says he knows the country. Which country is that?
Endru Muenda: Vidim da Bono kaže da zna takvu zemlju? Koja je to zemlja?
(Bono: It's an Irish land.)
Bono: To je irsko ime.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
(Bono: [unclear])
Bono: [nejasno]
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.
Hvala ti mnogo. Ali ispričaću vam ovo. Spoljni faktori vam mogu jedino dati šansu. Sposobnost da iskoristite tu šansu i pretvorite je u prednost zavisi od vaših unutrašnjih kapaciteta. Afrika je dobila niz mogućnosti, mnoge od njih nisu bile puno od koristi. Zašto? Zato što nam nedostaje interni institucionalni okvir i politički okvir koji će nam omogućiti korist od naših spoljnih odnosa. Daću vam jedan primer.
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.
Pod Kotonovim Sporazumom, ranije poznat kao Lome Konvencija, afričkim zemljama je data prilika od Evrope za izvoz robe, oslobodjene carine, na tržište Evropske Unije. Moja zemlja, Uganda, ima kvote za izvoz 50,000 tona šećera na tržište Evropske Unije. Nismo izvezli još nijedan kilogram. Uvezli smo 50,000 tona šećera iz Brazila i Kube. Drugo, pod protokolom tog sporazuma o govedini, afričke zemlje koje proizvode govedinu imaju kvote za izvoz govedine, oslobodjene carine, na tržiste Evropske Unije. Nijedna od tih zemalja, uključujući i afričku najuspešniju naciju, Bocvanu, nije ispunila svoje kvote.
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.
Zato danas želim da raspravim da je osnovni izvor afričke nemogućnosti da se upusti u ostatak sveta u produtkivniji odnos taj što ima siromašan institucionalni i politički okvir. I svim oblicima intervencija je potrebna podrška, evolucija takve vrste institucija koje stvaraju bogatstvo, institucije koje povećavaju produktivnoost. Kako čemo početi to da radimo i zašto je novčana pomoć loše orudje? Pomoć je loše orudje, a znate li zašto? Jer svim Vladama širom sveta je potreban novac da prežive. Novac je potreban za jednostavne stvari kao što je čuvanje reda i zakona. Morate da platite vojsku i policiju da bi pokazali red i zakon. A budući da su mnoge naše Vlade prilično diktatorske, zaista im je potrebna vojska da izmlati opoziciju. Druga stvar koju treba da uradite jeste da platite vaše političke prirepke. Zašto ljudi treba da podržavaju njihove Vlade? Pa, zato što im daju dobro plaćena radna mesta. Ili su to, u mnogim afričkim zemljama, nezvanične prilike za zaradu od korupcije.
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.
Činjenica je da nema Vlade u svetu, uz izuzetak nekoliko njih poput one u Idi Aminu, koja može da traži da se u potpunosti osloni na snagu kao instrument vladavine. Mnoge zemlje u [nejasno], potreban im je legitimitet. Da bi dobili legitimitet, Vlade često treba da omoguće stvari kao što su osnovno obrazovanje, osnovnoe lečenje, puteve, rade bolnice i klinike. Ako Vladin fiskalni opstanak zavisi o podizanju novca od svog naroda, takva Vlada je vodjena sopstvenim interesima upravljanja na prosvećeniji način. Oni će sedeti sa onima koji su stvorili bogatstvo. Razgovarati sa njima o vrsti politike i institucija koje su potrebne za njih da se proširi lestvica i obim poslovanja tako da mogu prikupiti više prihoda od njih. Problem sa afričkim kontinentom i problem sa industrijom pomoći je taj što imaju iskrivljene strukture podsticaja s kojima se suočavaju Vlade u Africi. Produktivna marža u potrazi naše Vlade za većim prihodom ne leži u domaćoj ekonomiji, leži u medjunarodnim donatorima.
Rather than sit with Ugandan --
Umesto da sede sa ugandskim --
(Applause) --
(Aplauz)
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.
Umesto da sede sa ugandskim preduzetnicima, biznismenima Gane, Južnoafričkim liderima preduzetništva, naše Vlade nalaze produktivnijim da razgovaraju sa MMF-om i Svetskom Bankom. Mogu vam reći, čak i ako imate 10 doktorata, nikada ne možete potući Bil Gejtsa u razumevanju kompjuterske industrije. Zašto? Zato što znanje koje je potrebno za vas da razumete potrebne podsticaje da proširite biznis, zahteva da slušate ljude, aktere privatnog sektora u toj industriji.
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.
Vladama u Africi je, dakle, data šansa od strane medjunarodne zajednice da izbegavaju izgradnju produktivnih aranžmana sa svojim gradjanima, i stoga je dozvolila da započnu beskrajne pregovore sa MMF-om i Svetskom Bankom, potom MMF-om i Svetskom Bankom koji im govore sta je potrebno njihovim gradjanima. U tom procesu mi, afrički narod, smo bačeni na sporedni kolosek iz kreiranja politike, političke orijentacije i političkog procesa implementacije u našim zemljama. Imamo ograničen unos, jer onaj koji plaća svirača zove muziku. MMF, Svetska Banka, i kartel dobrih namera u svetu su preuzeli naša prava kao gradjana, i zato ono što naše Vlade rade, jer zavise od pomoći, jeste da slušaju medjunarodne kreditore radije nego svoje gradjane.
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.
Ali ja želim da uložim prigovor na moj argument, a taj prigovor je da nije istina da je novčana pomoć uvek destruktivna. Neka pomoć je možda izgradila bolnicu, nahranila gladno selo. Možda je izgradila put, a taj put je možda služio u veoma dobre svrhe. Greška medjunarodne industrije pomoći je da pokupi ove izolovane incidente uspeha, generalizuje ih, ulije milijarde i hiljade miljiarde dolara u njih, i onda ih proširi širom sveta, ignorišući specifične i jedinstvene okolnosti u odredjenom naselju, veštine, prakse, norme i navike koje dozvoljavaju da mala pomoć za projekat uspe -- kao u Sauri naselju u Keniji gde radi Džefri Saks -- i stoga generalizuje to iskustvo kao iskustvo svih nas.
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.
Pomoć povećava resurse koje su na raspologanju Vladama, i čini rad u Vladi najprofitabilnijom stvari koju možete imati u Africi kao osoba koja traži karijeru. Povećanjem političke atraktivnosti države, pogotovu u našem etnički fragmentiranom društvu u Africi, pomoć je sklona da akcentira etničku napetost kao i svaka etnička grupa sada počinje da se bori za ulazak u državu kako bi dobili pristup delu kolača od strane pomoći. Dame i gospodo, najpoduzetniji ljudi Afrike ne mogu da pronadju mogućnosti za trgovinu i rad u privatnom sektoru jer je institucionalno i političko okruženje neprijatelj poslovanju. Vlade ne menjaju to. Zašto? Jer nemaju potrebu da razgovaraju sa svojim gradjanima. Oni razgovaraju sa medjunarodnim donatorima. Tako većina afričkih poduzetnika završava odlazeći da radi za Vladu, a to je povećalo političku napetost u našim zemljama upravo zato jer smo ovisni o pomoć.
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?
Takodje želim reći da je važno za nas da imate na umu da tokom poslednjih 50 godina Afrika prima povećanu pomoć od strane Medjunarodne Zajednice. u obliku tehničke i finansijske pomoći, i sve druge oblike pomoći. Izmedju 1960. i 2003. naš kontinent je primio 600 milijardi dolara pomoći, i još uvek nam pričaju da u Africi postoji mnogo siromaštva. Gde je otišla sva ta pomoć?
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.
Želim iskoristiti primer svoje zemlje Ugande i vrstu strukture podsticaja koju je pomoć donela tamo. U budžetu za 2006-2007, očekivani prihod je 2.5 hiljade milijardi šilinga. Očekivana strana pomoć: 1.9 hiljada milijardi. Povratni izdatak Ugande -- šta mislim pod povratni? Od danas do sutra -- je 2.6 hiljada milijardi. Zašto Vlada Ugande troši 110% budžeta iz vlastitih prihoda? To je zato što postoji neko tamo ko je pozvao stranu pomoć da tome doprinosi. Ali ovo pokazuje da Vlada Republike Ugande nije obavezna da troši sopstvene prihode da bi ulagala u produktivne investicije, nego izdvaja ovaj prihod da bi plaćala strukturu javnih izdataka. Državna administracija, koja je u velikoj meri patronaža, uzima 690 milijardi. Vojska, 380 milijardi. Poljoprivreda, koja zapošljava 18% naših siromašnih gradjana, uzima samo 18 milijardi. Trgovina i industrija uzimaju 43 milijarde. Dopustite mi da vam pokažem šta javni rashodi -- radije, izdaci državne administracije -- Ugande čine? Evo. 70 kabineta ministara, 114 savetnika predsednika -- uzgred, koji nikad nisu videli predsednika, sem na televiziji.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
(Applause)
(Aplauz)
And when they see him physically, it is at public functions like this, and even there, it is him who advises them.
A kada ga vide, to je na javnim funkcijama kao što je ova, čak i tamo, on je taj koji ih savetuje.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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.
Mi imamo 81 jedinicu lokalne samouprave, svaka lokalna samouprava je organizovana kao centralna vlast -- birokratija, kabinet, parlament, i tako puno posla za političke prirepke. Bilo je 56, a kada je naš predsednik hteo da izmeni Ustav i ukloni pojam ograničenja, morao je da stvori 25 novih distrikta, a sada ih ima 81. 333 članova parlamenta. Treba vam Vemblej stadion da ugostite naš parlament. 134 komisija i polu-autonomnih Vladinih tela, svi oni imaju direktore i automobile i -- konačna stvar, ovo je upućeno g. Bonu. On nam može pomoći kroz svoj posao.
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.
Skorašnja Vladina studija Ugande pokazala je da postoje 3,000 četvorotočkaša u sedištu ministarstva zdravlja. Uganda ima 961 pod-državu, svaka od njih sa dispanzerom, od kojih nijedna nema ambulantu. Tako četvorotočkaše u ministarstvu voze ministri, sekretarice, birokrate i medjunarodne birokrate koji rade na pojektima pomoći dok siromašni umiru bez ambulante i medicine.
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.
Na kraju, želim reći da pre nego što sam došao da govorim ovde, Rečeno mi je da je princip TEDGlobal-a da dobar govor treba da bude poput mini suknje -- dovoljno kratak da probudi interesovanje, ali isto tako dovoljno dug da pokrije temu. Nadam se da sam to postigao.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
Thank you very much.
Mnogo vam hvala.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)