Sir, I very much enjoyed Amity Shlaes' column "Slavery's link to the war on terror" (November 3) pointing out the long-term value of Britain's 19th-century struggle against slavery despite the short- term economic costs. Yet I am left with one overwhelming question. Why do American conservatives rush to spend vast sums on Iraq in order to establish freedom and economic development but oppose even a tiny fraction of such efforts for new and struggling democracies in Africa, Latin America and Asia? Why do they build hospitals in Iraq but refuse to fund malaria control in impoverished Africa?

When I and others make exactly the same points as Ms Shlaes with regard to Bolivia, Nigeria, Tanzania, Ghana and many other places in much more desperate conditions than Iraq, the conservatives stand in opposition. While they pine for large-scale help for Iraq, they claim that poverty in Africa is Africa's own fault and responsibility. Foreign aid is a waste of time and money . . . except in Iraq.

Is this simply racism? Is it ignorance? Is it the naive view that Iraq matters to US interests but that Africa and other impoverished regions do not?