Can Africa be saved?

I’d guess the vast number of Sub-Saharan Africans are probably honest, good people, who’d like nothing better than peace and prosperity for their homeland.

However, these people aren’t the ones who become tyrants and warlords. Those would be the assholes who don’t care about “saving” anyone or anything. And, good or bad, the guys with the guns win.

Could Africa save itself? Sure…if an African Hitler arises. Or an African Meiji, if we’re lucky. Someone who could unite the place, and raise it into a modern, major, power. But, if history has taught us nothing else, it’s that new major powers usually aren’t content to just rest on their laurels. (Witness Rome. Or England. Or the U.S. or the U.S.S.R.)

Otherwise…if Africa is to be saved, somebody has to save it.

Sorry Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor and **Ranchoth ** but I disagree. Oh, and Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor, don’t be too quick to jump down the other fellows throat. I read Futile Gesture as simply thinking you missed his point, and not being particularly condecending - and certainly not as rude as you are to virtually everyone your note addressed. Oh and I fail to see how any cite he could give would prove what you requested. It does not mean his view is invalid. The existance of an internet cite is not the holy grail…

I live and work out here in Luanda, Angola - although only since last Sept. I don’t regard myself as an expert or that the problems here are typical but I can at least give a first hand account of what I see and hear so far from talking to diplomats, government officials and other members of the educated “elite”, some of the educated poor (my self-taught Portuguese teacher for one), the oil crowd and aid workers. Talking is the main hobby here, there being little else to do!!

Cowgirl came nearest to what I detect as the standard recipe for eventual success that seems to be nearest to a consensus here:

My top pick to drive sustainable change would be trade, which means trade in the things that are their main products and would spread the wealth widest. This has got to be agriculture and until the US, EU and Japan change their approach radically nothing will change. Having a market for agriculture would have more of the vaunted trickle down effect by requiring improved infrastructure linking the rural areas into the economy.

The emergence of a new WTO grouping in the last failed round to block the US/EU agenda until this is addressed is a welcome change for what has been so far a rich mans club with rules for the rich.

I would add education as the other urgent need, but that probably has to fall under her 4th bullet point given the lack of resources.

Education and gradually rising living standards will eventually start to address the politica change necessary. It simply cannot be imposed or resolved from outside if the history of this place is anything to go by.

Exploitation of resources like oil and diamonds, as here in Angola, are easily isolated from the main economy, relies too much on foreign capital and expertise and the benefits simply support the elite in continuing their economic and political domination.

This is a place with more landmines than population and is just emerging from a 28 year civil war largely created by the developed world’s agenda - first the portuguese colonial policies, then the Cold War and its legacy. The idea that we have the answers to their problems would be a joke if not so tragically mistaken.

We largely need to remove some of the barriers to letting them help themselves. Angola is fucked as far as I can see until the oil runs out and the Americans (who see domination of Africa and South American resources as one of the keys to reducing their reliance on the ME) leave the place alone. You should see the “Embassy” the US are just finishing here. Like a castle overlooking the whole of Luanda - talk about arrogance personified…

You make me laugh heartily, sir!

… For no small number of reasons.

[QUOTE=Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor]
[ol]
[li]Do not make condecending remarks about what I do and do not understand![/li][/quote]
My apologies. Next time I find you addressing a point I did not make I shall assume you are doing it deliberately.

[quote]
[li]I asked for a cite, smart guy. Does this look like a cite to you?[/li][/quote]
My reply made it clear I was not making a cite because you were asking for a cite that proved a point I was not making.

[quote]
[li]All you have provided to date is a lot of Euro-Chest beating (BOO-HOO-HOO! I am English, & because somebody had a colonial empire before I was born, that makes me wicked!), and a load of unsupported statements.[/li][/quote]
Hello Mr Strawman, excuse me while I ignore your unwelcome arrival. I do not believe I am wicked, I am not English. I do, however, believe the beginnings of a solution to Africa’s current problems lies in the hands of the Western world. That means both with me and you in part. And to argue for the use of Western force to solve them is to ignore the lessons of history. That is not the same as admitting you are responsible for history.

[quote]
[li]Neither you, nor anybody else alive today, is responsible for the colonial conquest of Africa. The people who ordered & committed those deeds died, decades ago.[/li][/quote]
You do say? :rolleyes:

[quote]
[li]There is no such thing as a collective moral obligation (in reference to a nation), any more than there is collective sin, or collective virtue. All of these are purely individual concepts, applied incorrectly in your case.[/li][/quote]
As a citizen and voter of a Western power I’m afraid you do not get permission to wash your hands completely of your country’s actions. Sorry, I know it’s unpleasant sometimes, but you don’t.

[quote]
[li]Every nation on Earth is under the same trade rules & economy.[/li][/quote]
Not so. I suggest you spend some time reading up on international trade agreements. We like to pretend that we live in a global, open free market. We don’t.

Because Africa is at the bottom of the heap. You may as well argue why can’t poor people charge more for their labour and then they wouldn’t be poor.

Again you address the symptons. The wars and selfish cruelty in Africa are a result of its poverty. The idea that no-one in Africa wants to live in a stable and prosperous continent is ludicrous.

[quote]
[li]Hobbs asserted that Humans are so greedy, & so cruel, & so short-sighted, that they’d destroy themselves without government to keep them from one another’s throats. Isn’t that what the Colonial Governments accomplished? Even though they had other intentions? (I admit Belgium was a complete failure in this. The Belgian Congo was a nightmare, & cannot be condemned too much.)[/li][/quote]
Indeed. And what prevents good government? How about grinding poverty and little hope of escape from it?

[quote]
[li]Sadly, you all assume too much about the “merits” of “leaving Africa alone”. Given the current mindsets that seem to be the basis of postmodern political thinking in Africa, I suspect that somebody will try to “solve” Africa’s problems by “unifying” the continent under a “strongly-led government”. A dictatorship or Totalitarian State. Imposed by a war of conquest, against Africa, carried out by Africans.[/li][/quote]
I made it quite clear that leaving Africa alone is not an option. It is an impossibility. No dictatorship would arise or remain in power without outside influence and trade playing a part. This is why I say that we cannot look at aid alone, we must place it in context with every other influence and pressure place on Africa.

[quote]
[li] We are only Apes. Europe, Africa, America, Asia. All merely Apes.[/li][/quote]
I don’t follow what you are trying to say. We made be apes, but collectively we wield the power. Africa’s problems were caused by ‘apes’ and their solution lies with ‘apes’.

There is war. It is not solving anything. There are African ‘Hitlers’ who wish to expand their domains. They are not solving or succeeding at anything. More of the same will not help Africa.

Silly self-flagellation and attempts at imposing some sort of collective guilt on the Western world will not solve Africa’s woes (especially considering that the Western world is not responsible for them in the first place; Note that the few oasises of relative civalization in sub-Saharan Africa cluster around a sort of mimicry of former colonial rule). Nothing short of the Africans themselves coming up with some sort of solution will solve their woes. Wiping out their debt means nothing when you have cannibalism, people raping infants, rampant AIDS, tribal warfare, slavery, etc.

The Western world can and will maintain pockets of relative stability around needed natural resources. Short of that, it would be folly on a grand scale to try to completely rebuild Africa. They don’t want us to and we can’t afford to do it. And let us not forget, look at how much crap America is catching for trying to rebuild little ol’ Iraq! Any moves to bring Africa into the 21th century (and take out a dictator or two in the process) would be met with crys of ‘Imperialsm!’ and whatnot. Perish the thought.

Oh I don’t know about that Brutus. I think your republic should take at least some responsibility for the destruction of Carthago, as you say: Delenda est Carthago.

All things considered AIDS isn’t such a big problem. As far as I know there are many other sicknesses that claim more lives than AIDS. And even the nations with the highest AIDS rates still have rising population.

I don’t think Africa has fared any worse, with colonisation and all, than most of the rest of the globe (including Europe). Colonisation is not the answer to all her miseries, but by many used as an excuse for expecting less. This helps no one.

Apparently there are some regional relative successful stories, also sub-Sahara. Botswana, though high AIDS rates, has managed fairly good economic growth rates for a long time. The (white) farmers being expelled from Zimbawa are being welcomed with open arms to Zambia which have very high expectation of them. Namibia, free from civil-war, has enough natural resource that it ought to be able to become very rich.

Try reading *Washington Post * writer Keith Richburg’s book Out of America for insight on Africa’s corruption, tribalism, and overall “lost caused-ness”.

Art

**Futile Gesture **-- do you think you could pretty-please provide a little proof for your grand, sweeping assertations? Just a little bit? :dubious:

"The Trade rules are unfair, the banks are unfair, we’re all just terrible people! "

Prove it!
As for your assertations that I am responsible for what others do…

BULL!

No one has any responsibility for other peoples’ moral conduct. Contrarywise, you are always responsible for your own moral conduct, except when your physical or mental condition renders you incompetant. And even then, if the use of drink or drugs has rendered you incompetant, and you yourself chose this, you are still responsible. No exceptions. This is the standard that Western Law, Philosophy & Religion has adhered to for thousands of years, and I utterly reject any other standard.

notquitekarpov
This is Great Debates. We require a little proof. I refuse to accept any such broad statements on blind faith.

Sine Nomen– do you have a point? Or something to contribute? Or a joke? Just asking.

Quite interesting topic.

Even though the conditions on a macro level (trade relations, corrupt government, etc) need to improve considerably for the continent as a whole, there are significant changes on a micro level that may lead to Africa lifting itself up

I must say that the following is a generalisation from the experiences I have had with my wife’s (who is Nigerian) family, but I think they are relevant nonetheless.

Two conditions helped the Western world significantly in their development through the industrialisation:

  1. Individuality and the role of the nuclear family in focussing people’s economic efforts
  2. Identification with an governing entitity that provides conditions for economic growth, stability and the rule of law(in Europe this took the form of Nationalism and the role of the Nation State)

As far as point 2 is concerned, I do not see any ready made solutions. First a semblance of a middle class must establish itself before this can happen.

A middle class may be formed through the impact on the societal changes that come from point 1.

Currently there is a fundamental shift going on towards nuclear families:

  • delcine of polygamy
  • improvement in gender relations
  • declining number of children per family
  • reduced financial pressure from the extended family on economically active family members, resulting in a change in the labor ethics

I guess it will still take a or 2 more generations before the nuclear family becomes fully accepted, but from that moment on, things can improve rapidely.

When people work to build up their own prosperity instead of dumping their money in the collective of the extended family (where, by it’s very nature of being extended, there are a lot of profiteers), they will be pushing for more stability and form organisations to protect their interest (which may lead to political parties with firm roots in society).

Just my thoughts

Niek

Just as soon as you cease placing words in my mouth. Otherwise you’d be better asking your strawman for the cites.

We’re not talking about other people. We’re talking about you. Your government. Your country. Your local supermarket where you shop. And me.

I think this may be the most depressing thread I’ve seen in a long time. I also think that we can’t give up, regardless of how futile our efforts may seem right now. I hope the contributors to this thread can maintain a sense of decorum here and not let this degenerate into a trainwreck. I’m learning a lot. Behave yourselves and please carry on.

Do you even know what a “straw man” is?

You said this—

Note the areas in red. You , Futile Gesture, are totaly dishonest in your conduct of this Debate. You are utterly unable to support one single assertation, yet you lie about your own statements.

Are you simply engaged in your own personal version of a lekatt rant?

Or is this some bizarre varient on religious witnessing?

When? I must have missed the memo. Can you give us some examples?

Untrue. Only third world nations have been subjected to structural adjustment policies, and are forbidden from subsidizing their own industries, and are subjected to outrageous conditions from institutions like the WTO because of their weak credit. Can you imagine a water company successfully suing New York City for more than its annual budget, because its profits from selling water to the citizens were not high enough?

Start here. It is a big page with many subsections, but please at least peruse it before you come barging back asking for ‘cites.’ My contention is that Africa (and many other ‘developing’ nations) are subject to trade regulations that the USA (and most other ‘developed’ nations) would never accept in a million years.

And, which of notquitekarpov’s statements would you like proof for? That education is a good thing? That there are barriers to them helping themselves? That there are lots of landmines?

Come on. Play fair. I’ve given you many cites to support what me, Futile and Karpov have been saying (including, on preview, that

It does remain under these rules. Please go back to some of my cites and check it out.

Good points well put nferyn. Whilst the nuclear family may be emerging in Africa, at least here in Angola I am really surprised just how few Angolan men I know have all their children with the same wife/partner. Not just those wealthy enough to support two or more families either. I think it has some way to go, but maybe your estimate of two more generations is possible.

Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor - I am sorry if you only debate with people who litter their postings with supporting cites. Note “supporting” by the way, not “proof”. If anyone could prove their assertations then it would not be a debate, let alone a Great Debate. All one can do is hope you can change some folks views or at least give a fresh perspective. My viewpoint is gained from actually being here, and getting first hand testimony from other people who actually live here, some all their lives. I was careful to point out I did not think this made me an instant expert but neither is it worthess.

If I got my work colleagues, teacher, drinking buddies and business contacts to write down what they have told me, launch it as a website and cite it then, from what I gather, you might consider it worthy of your attention.

Alternatively you can try DEBATING with us on the points I made without crying “cite!” first.

An informative site

And here.

This article explains also much. (PDF).

Most of the above are compiled by Oxfam, a UK based charity. They usually refer to Less Developed Countries (LDCs) as a whole, but applies to practically all African states. A few highlights:

[ul]
[li]Twenty years ago, the ratio of average income in the LDCs to average income in rich countries was 1:87. It is now 1:98.[/li][li]Nowhere is the failure of international co-operation more apparent than in trade. Having pledged to improve market access, the industrialised countries have operated a policy of highway robbery masquerading as preferential treatment.[/li][li]Average import tariffs in industrialised countries are in the region of five per cent. However, 11 per cent of exports from LDCs face ‘tariff peaks’ in excess of 15 per cent. This is almost three times the share of imports from other countries affected by such tariff peaks.[/li][li]While access to Northern markets remains restricted, many LDCs have introduced radical trade liberalisation programmes…liberalisation under these programmes is not reciprocated, locking LDCs into an unequal bargain.[/li][li]Four LDCs (Zambia, Niger, Guinea, and Mauritania) are spending more[/li]than one-fifth of government revenue on debt servicing.
[/ul]

One could also read about
dumping of US subsidized produce on the world market.

Or
The Developmental implications of EU agricultral policy.

:rolleyes:

Oh dear. A sure sign the barrel has been scraped when we must argue over who said what. Let’s look at your last post again shall we, in which you “paraphrase” my argument?

Now please indicate where I mention:

  • banks, anywhere.
  • How “terrible” we are.

Now the banks are indeed a fair point, but one I had not addressed to date. So the fact you choose to bring them up can only suggest that you wish to argue both sides of the debate yourself. I can only imagine this is because you know well the issues involved, but you’ve got designs there for a nice strawman you wish to try out. In which case: please do carry on, but count me out. Perhaps this one will work out better for you than your opening gambit.

Refer to my previous post for some cites. Please take the time to read some of them. Now as soon as you wish to address these points instead of beating up on spurious ones of your own making we can perhaps progress.

Nice. We’ll call this one Mrs Strawman. Does she need a hat?

notquitekarpov
You and Futile Gesture seem to think that others should merely accept your bland & unsupported assertions as fact, & then mondlessly agree with you on all points.

No chance. I think for myself, and I do not accept “recieved wisdom”.

You are not entitled to make assertations as broad and as sweeping as these, and then bleat complaints at me when I ask you to back them up.

If you want everyone to agree with every word you say, without doubt, question, or requests for evidence, *** then you do not want to Debate!***

Instead, I suggest that you go found your own religion. You’d be happier with that, rather than dealing with people that ask questions, and require some form of proof.

I hear the Bush Administration is starting Faith-Based Initiatives. If you and Futile Gesture apply, your beliefs might qualify you.

The only person here that seems to be taking the subject seriously, or displaying any standard of integrity in this “debate” is cowgirl.

Thank you, cowgirl, for providing material to actually debate.

On the water contract issue–I agree with you. There is good evidence that Bechtel has committed an outrageous fraud, & the whole thing stinks worse than week-old fish.

As for the rest, are you sure you want to go there?

The original loans were given to the dictators, & then grossly misspent. But loans are loans. If 1st World banks are less than crazy about pouring more money into 3rd World nations, can you really blame them? The current world economy ain’t so hot, & if these nations reneg on the loans (which they could do, or at least try, on the basis of National Sovreignity), we could see some major banking instituions go slithering down the toilet at a high rate of speed.

In your arguments, please remember that the world economy is re-inventing itsself–this is not a scheme perpetrated by some cackling fiends hiding in an office tower someplace. The changes are largely unpredictable, & banking, finance, & business leaders alike are real skittish right now.

Yes, the problems you describe exist over a period of decades. But at each point, the people & instituions issuing the loans have been confronted with chaotic changes, often happening with blinding speed. Governments are overthrown almost daily ( no, the US is not responsible for all, or even most of them). Uninformed men in high public offices try to impose their own ideas on national economies, often with disasterous (sp?) results. Like George W., for instance.

Loans are hard to find in a climate like this, because these institution don’t want to be destroyed by non-payment of massive debts.

As for the situation regarding raw materials— how can you expect anything else? Industrial resources can be destroyed in a single day, by natural disaster, war, or terrorism (not the same as war). Trained workforces can easily be devastated by all of the above, plus disease (as a Doper, I aasume that you are well aware oif emergent disease). So, the equivalent of loan collateral becomes the “non-perishables”–natural resources.

Posting from work, gotta go, rtalk more later.

That’s also a reason why these extremely broad generalisations don’t always lead us to a better understanding.
The situation will certainly differ from country to country and from region to region. As a Belgian, I also see there are enormous differences in mentality between the Congolese community and what I see in the small Nigerian community here in Belgium.

Nigerians from the south tend to have a very “can do” mentality, value education very much, whilst most Congolese I know have a more laid back and fatalistic way of thinking.

What I’m referring to is the trend I observe (from my limited sample): less acceptance of promiscuity (although still more accepted than in Western Europe), most younger Nigerian woman would’t accept that their husbands marry a second wife, people want less children, …

I’m taking Nigeria as an example here, but similar scenario’s can be used for other countries:

Nigeria as a country hosts many cultures, but there is an enormous divide between the muslim north and the christian/animistic south, take any southern Nigerian and he has much culturally more in common with someone from Ghana than with his northern fellow countryman.
The colonial borders that were imposed on most African states are very unnatural and decrease the loyalty of the citizens regarding their nation-state. These nations are very unnatural political units, so the citizens rather turn to their traditional tribal authorities than to the official authorities, resulting in a complete lack of involvement in politics (except for the usual lootocracy) If political structures could be built from entities who’s authority is accepted and respected, improvements could be made much quicker.
A functioning state with effective, representational political leadership and the rule of law need to be established before any meaningfull economical development can take place

Niek

Brave words from an opinion filled, yet cite free post. The problems about your demands for cites is that they have almost entirely been on points that no-one has made save yourself. Your problem is not that no-one wishes to debate, but that no will debate with you on what you want to debate. Kind of makes it harder to score points, doesn’t it?

I see Mrs Strawman has her hat. She looking good, where’s she going?

Fortunately you do make some good points. I would say that the banks making the loans knew what they were getting themselves into when they granted the loans to tin-pot dictators. The risks were there and the interest reflected that, this is what their business is about. They are happy take the profit, so they must equally take the loss. They really can have no complaints when it is decided that their debtor must default.

Unfortunately no country is in a position where they can risk taking this step themselves, the consequences would be disasterous for them. Which is why it must be a unilateral, agreed decision. Until then the debtor nations will struggle on, further into the mire of poverty, fractious war, needless famine, AIDs epidemic, etc etc.

The way out of this lies in our hands, and it will not be solved by aid packages which are currently exceeded by debt repayments.

Totally agree nferyn - despite your completion absence of cites to back up your personal experience and insight :rolleyes: :wink:

And thank you cowgirl for the helpful support earlier. I find it interesting that **Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor ** has “left the building” with a response which seems to lack exactly the detailed supporting citations so beloved of the author. Posting to SD is difficult enough with the coms bandwidth I have here hence my reliance on others where possible to back me up. Fortunately I know it is not a difficult job I am asking - there being no shortage of evidence. Sorry - perhaps I should ask the Angolan National Telephone Company for broadband and do it myself. :rolleyes:

I am happy to support statements where possible but hoped that the armchair internet browsers of the world might actually be interested in some feedback from people on the front line, who have been interested enough to ask around. All I have done is report the back the points I heard again and again here from people with first hand experience of the problems of this tragic country. Other than statistical analysis (and we all know how easy it is to mislead with selected stats and careful definitions) I do not see that is any less valid than any number of internet cites whose content is largely opinion. On other threads where I do not have first hand experience I take a different approach.

Meanwhile, am I the only one that cannot actually follow what you are trying to say **Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor **? I think you are solely concentrating on the issue of “loans” but perhaps I am mistaken. You cannot knowingly lend to dictators and corrupt governments and then try to hold subsequent sovereign government liable. If you do and fail to factor in the liklihood that such debt will be rightly repudiated then you are a fool and deserve for your bank to fail.

Unless, of course, the bankers wisely conclude that the First World governments will follow what they have done many times in the past and not allow their banking sectors shareholders to suffer. The will bail out their bad loans with taxpayers money, either directly, indirectly via the World Bank or IMF (funded by world taxpayer) support to repay that debt, or by printing money. Either way banking profit stays privatised whilst risk and loss is effectively nationalised.

Moving on I am baffled by his idea that developing nations natural resources industries and trained workforces can be devastated in a single day? I am working here providing financial risks services to exactly such sectors, having fifteen years worldwide experience behind me and I cannot recall such events. The reality is that the risk of such damage is much more in the developed world where the physical concentration of risk and value exposed to such single events is much more of a worry to the industry. Think earthquake risk in Japan and California, tsunami risk in the coastal Pacific industries and terrorism risk in New York - WTC was the worlds biggest insurance claim.

And as and when Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor returns and trys to support his belief that world trade is a level playing field we will tackle that…