ISTM that if you can assume a competent administration, the rest of your problems tend to be reduced almost automatically.
That having been said, you may want to consider the effects nationalization will have on the desire of others to invest in your country in the future. If I am the head of a large, multi-national conglomerate, and I see you merrily nationalizing the industries in your country, I am going to be understandably reluctant to invest in your country without substantial assurance that my investments will not go the way of those you nationalized. And your word for it is not likely to be good enough - even if you keep it, I see no reason to assume that you will be in power ten years from now. And I would really like to be sure that you and your government will keep their cotton-picking hands off the factories I build and the engineers I send into your country. And if I am not sure, you don’t get them, and you can raise the funds from this major restructuring of your nation from someone more gullible than I.
From what I know of the country, you’re right in that Tanzania has a strong sense of “nationhood.” And you know I’ve always chalked this up to the fact that when it gained it’s independence it was run by soft-Marxists. From the start Julius Nyerere set out to build a “nation;” regardless of ethnicity or religion. This was because he was a dedicated socialist and believed in a strong central government against all ethnic/religious divisions.
As a past time, I always like to contrast Tanzania to Kenya. I do this because they share a regional pre-colonial history, are side-by-side, roughly the same size, multi-ethnic/religious (without a plurality), democratic (although imperfect), and both use Kiswahili and English as official languages.
However, there are some differences such as:
Tanzania has a cold independence movement in Zanzibar
Kiswahili is more important in Tanzania and English is more important in Kenya.
Tanzania has slightly more Muslims due to Zanzibar
At independence Tanzania took a strong socialism stance.
When doing this I wouldn’t expect to see ethnic violence (like what happened last year in Kenya) in Tanzania. However, I also wouldn’t expect to see Tanzania to become East Africa’s richest state and hub for trade/finance (which held by Kenya). Strange how history sets up modern politics.
The idea is that “tribalism” is one of those Rorschach Test words like “terrorist/freedom fighter” and “protest/riot” that reveal a lot more about the writer than the thing being written. It doesn’t give us a meaningful understanding of the problem.
Each inter-ethnic conflict in Africa has it’s own complicated history, causes, and solutions. It’s easy to boil it down to “irrational hate”, but really people don’t usually fight each other over what name they call themselves. They fight for control of natural resources.
Most tribal conflicts are like the fight between Northern California and Southern California over water. Yeah, NorCal and SoCal people have their identities as such. And they send their representatives to the government to fight for their cause. And they will fight to win even if it’s not what is best for the states as a whole. There is plenty of resentment and name-calling. But really the whole problem goes back hundreds of years and is tied up in all kinds of economic and social realities.
But if this happened in Africa, we’d say “Oh, the NorCal tribe just irrationally hates the SoCal tribe.” and leave it at that. It’s just not a useful way of framing the problem.
Tribalism is being overplayed as an issue in Africa’s development as a whole. I don’t think it is possible to describe what “Africa” needs when each country has it’s own set of concerns. Building a stronger national identity (if we find the current boundaries of African nations legitimate) is important, but some posters in this thread seem to believe that different tribal groups coexisting peacefully is the exception to the rule (when it is in fact the norm).
In terms of what is needed to fix a “failed African state”, the most important aspect would be maintaining intelligent, honest leadership that will work in the best interest of the nation, stamp out corruption, and who the vast majority of citizens will trust. There will need to be a checks and balances system to prevent democratically elected leaders from becoming dictators. The society must have faith in some kind of overarching principles that they are willing to fight to maintain (for example, in the US the Constitution). Once there is a system of government is in place that the majority agree upon, the other aspects of nation building will come easier.
Just like the beggar’s only problem in riding is that he has no horse.
That was much of the problem back in the 60s, when the colonial powers started getting out of Africa. Then the story of democracy became all too often
Much of your post assumes that the vast majority of African citizens will want honest, non-corrupt leadership. There will be, I believe, a fairly substantial bloc, especially those belonging to the same tribe as the leader, who will expect the leader to fix them up with some lucrative graft, or a soft government sinecure, as a reward for their support. And if they don’t get it, will not necessarily shrug their shoulders and give up their dreams of goodies in the interests of a stable and democratic African state.
A good point, though a bit simplified. One major reason why corruptions continues is that people have invested so much in the system. In Cameroon, to become a teacher in a city- even with the correct degrees- could easily cost you thousands of dollars. A decent police post or desk job in some ministry could be tens of thousands of dollars. Often the whole family will work and save towards the bribe money needed to get a salaried job. So when you get that job, you can’t just opt out. You owe the people above you money, and you probably owe a lot to the people who helped you get where you are. If for some reason you do refuse, you’ll quickly find yourself assigned to a village in the middle of nowhere where you can’t do anything to make change. So while people do wish there was a better system, they are afraid to lose the work they’ve already done.
We can and should help this along, though, by making birth control available either free or at low cost for people who want to use it. Don’t force it on anybody, but make it easily and cheaply available. Then, when people do move to the cities and want to limit the number of children they have, it’s not hard to do.
Reducing infant and child mortality would help with lowering birth rates, too. It’s a lot easier to convince people that they only want to have a few kids if it’s very likely that all the kids they have will live to adulthood. Things like vaccines and bed nets could make a difference here.
This has to be linked (in my view) with a substantial empowerment of women.
One of the cheapest modes of birth control is condoms. It is rather difficult, in many instances, to convince men to use them, even if it benefits women. Same for foam and creams. IUDs and such are much less dependent on the good will of males, but also correspondingly harder to insert - the female needs access to a qualified person to insert it, even if it is only one of those barefoot doctors the Chinese used to use. Much the same can be said for Norplant and so forth. And I think a reliable supply of pills or Depo-provera is going to be hard to maintain, month after month.
No doubt this is true, but it seems there will be a lag between the change where most children live to adulthood and the change in the cultural expectation that a women with eight adult children is particularly fortunate. Then you wind up with a much larger population of young adult Africans, who need jobs to use the education they have been provided - and not as subsistence farmers, and not make-work for the government either.
My short answer to the question of the OP would be “encourage sweatshops”. The Third World in general’s major advantage is cheap labor. Use that, and resist the temptation to try to create a modern, post-industrial state with subsidized health care and pensions and paid vacations and so forth right off the bat. ISTM that sub-Saharan Africa in particular isn’t going to go anywhere until they build up their infrastructure and work force, and live by the rule of law. Either they have oil, in which case they can do this themselves, or they have to make it worthwhile for foreigners to come in and do it for them. Yes, this means there will be pockets of horrible inequity for decades to come, where the cities and such have a small number of rich entrepreneurs and the country remains in agricultural squalor. Can’t be helped.
And it isn’t going to happen if you rely on the benevolence of NGOs and so forth. Africa will remain in its plight until somebody can make money off fixing it.
The problems of failed states are so numerous any help in one area becomes wasted effort without a complete sustained system. Why go to school if there wont be any jobs? Why save money if inflation will steal it? Why work hard in public service if nepotism and toadying are the only true means of getting ahead?
Education, clean water, electricity are all great, but it’s the intricate system that keeps it all together.
My idea:
In order to best effect change the problem must be attacked in manageable pieces. Isolate a small area for a predetermined time (20 years?) that has no natural resources of its own, make it a duty free zone and free of corporate taxes. Encourage investment from foreign companies while using World Bank Money to build the infrastructure. Regrettably some kind of border patrol will be required in the beginning the keep a massive immigration from happening, but eventually a population of healthier, better educated men and women with a future will look for opportunity there instead of trying to leave thereby contributing to the over all brain drain of Africa.
It’ll certainly be difficult to separate a section of a sovereign nation and if it isn’t possible Equatorial Guinea looks like a good place to start for a whole nation.
I’m sorry, perhaps I’m just being dense, but how is any of this not colonialism? I mean, I look at stuff like:
and the first thing I realize is that whatever this let’s-not-call-it-colonialism social experiment is about, it doesn’t involve religious freedom. I mean, what happens when you tell the Catholic church to leave, and the church tells you to go fuck yourself? Who exactly will enforce the ban, and how exactly are they going to enforce it? More to the point, if the enforcers don’t represent a colonial empire, than just what gives them the right to ban anything–let alone an entire religion–in the first place?
As for this:
This blows my mind. Oh sure, 23-Star General Wumpus and his merry band of illiterate psychopaths wiped out an entire village last month, but they get off without so much as a warning, because they agree to sit down with the lone survivor who merely got raped and castrated? What are they going to arbitrate for, coffin prices?
Of course there’s the stipulation that we’ll all just hand it over when the state “fixes itself,” but come on. I mean, let’s get real. Even if this [del]colon[/del] social experiment works (And because of the issues other posters more knowledgeable than myself have presented, I think we can safely assume it would not.), are you saying that a civilized, democratic society would pour billions–if not trillions–of dollars into saving a failed state and just . . . walk away? What exactly are the politicians supposed to tell the voting public about the tax dollars that went into this? It’s political suicide.
Do you know why the wanker trying to help you out is often worse than the wanker trying to rob you, Acid Lamp? It’s because the wanker trying to rob you will only fuck you over while it’s profitable, and when he takes everything from you, he’ll leave you alone to sort things out for yourself. The wanker trying to help you out will fuck you over until the earth crashes into the sun, because he honestly thinks he’s doing the right thing, and that’s a mindset that just won’t quit.
There’s nothing new in anything you’re proposing. It’s the White Man’s Burden in the form of an ordered list instead of a poem.
Religious freedom is of less importance than medical emergency in a state of near total chaos and poverty. If they play ball, the clergy is welcome to stay and assist. If they refuse then they can go and minister elsewhere for a few years while the interim government attempts to reign in the spread of Aids, control the birthrate, and address severe famine. I do not suffer fools gladly, and I make little pretenses about my views on religion in general. Advocating a dogma that runs contrary to all knwon fact and common sense that is detrimental to the health of the population cannot be tolerated initially. Maybe once things settle down they can come back in and start up with their drivel, but they will face a healthy, well fed, somewhat educated population instead of people in desperate poverty clinging to any source of relief they can. If people want to rot their brains with religious idiocy, they are free to do so once they can make a choice about it.
Yep. Even General Wumpus. Know why? Because all the other guys are just as guilty. Everyone who is willing to acquiesce, disarm, and abide by the agreements they reach will receive amnesty. Sometimes the cost of peace means eating some shit all around.
In the previous thread I advocated favored trade agreements for the fostering nation. I see no issue with suggesting the same here.
You seem pretty down on my idea, why don’t you suggest a solution instead of taking cheap racial potshots at mine? There is a vast difference between colonialism and the system I propose and you know it. First off there is no subjugation of the native population, nor their culture. The moneys generated go not to another country but to the failed state to help it get on track. There is no second class citizenship, nor segregation, nor double standards. There is no plundering of natural resources, nor using the population as slave labor. People have mentioned that such an idea is not workable, and that African countries need an African solution. I understand their point, but so far the solution has been to break into innumerable little splinter factions, murder, rape and plunder the hell out of everyone who isn’t fighting, and make off with as much cash as possible while ignoring the deplorable conditions of the population in general. All of this while accepting massive aid from anyone who will give. If you have a better idea lets hear it.
My questions stand. What gives you the right, what gives you the authority, and how do you enforce the ban when the people of the nation don’t suddenly just roll over and acquiesce?
You’re dreaming. You really don’t think that there are tinpot warlords who would find all sorts of loopholes in your little amnesty plan and twist it to suit their purposes? And how do you know every side is just as guilty?
And as far as suggesting solutions, Acid, if either one of us was remotely qualified for that, we wouldn’t be posting on the SDMB on a Friday night. We’d be preparing our Nobel Prize acceptance speech.
Well, other than outlawing the Catholic church and forcibly expelling people who didn’t “play ball.” But no, you’re right, as long as they do exactly what you say, they won’t be suppressed. :dubious:
The aforementioned Catholics, and the victims of General Wumpus. Remember, you yourself have said as much just above.
Once again, you’re dreaming. People have mentioned that such an idea is not workable because it’s not workable! What exactly do you think your policies are going to accomplish? Democracy? You’ve already admitted that you would advocate suppression of religion, while overlooking atrocities, and for what? Again, where is your authority? What flag are you going to be flying?
We’ve tried things like this you know. Remember that '93 peacekeeping mission in Somalia? Look how well that worked out. You want to take that mission about ten steps forward and micromanage the future of an entire African nation without even asking the Africans how they feel. And you don’t think that’s colonialism? Because you have a couple of vague ideas about distributing the actual wealth? Forget it. You’ll wind up fucking the people over even worse.
Linty, I think you are missing several key points here.
First off, I have the right to posit whatever solution I find logical, since the OP specified that this is a thought exercise. I think that my system would produce results through giving the nation something to value peace over. When people are fed, healthy, and relatively secure they tend to be less fractious, violent, and politically unstable. A period of stability is necessary to grow the infrastructure, medical, educational, and economic entities required to function properly. Sometimes that period has to be enforced at the end of a rifle. My authority comes the the country itself. What I suggest is a voluntary program. NOBODY is talking about rolling up into a country unannounced and taking it over for the benefit of the people.
You seem pretty concerned about the system of government as well. Most likely would either a socialist democracy, or democratic parliamentary. They fly their own flag. They still are their own country. All of the officials are local, with a counterpart overseeing and training them. Once they are ready, the contractors go home. The real danger would be from opportunists making power grabs during this period.
It’s all hypothetical, don’t get your panties in such a twist.
Congratulations, you’re talking exactly like a colonial administrator. Oh, sure, you’re not talking about money, but see my comment above about the guy trying to help vs. the guy trying to rob you.
An entire government just handing over their power and national sovereignity to a bunch of do-gooders? That is kind of hypothetical.
No, man. The opportunist making power grabs here is you. Let’s review. You yourself have proposed suppressing religious freedom (one of the key ingredients of any democracy, whether or not you happen to believe in a god), and forgiving atrocities to meet your own questionable ends. Even if those ends are achieved, the populace would never forgive you for doing it. As soon as you pull out, it’s going to be business as usual, only with even more well-justified grudges to fuel the massacres. Gosh, I guess that means your little helpers are going to be staying for awhile.
Sooner or later, by the way, it’s all going to come down to money. You know that, right? Again, how do you propose to pay for this, because as far as I can see, you have two choices. You can put the burden on the taxpayers of the country you represent, or you can use the natural resources of the African state. The politicians who sign on with the first option will be voted out of office the next voting cycle, and they know it, and they won’t play ball. That leaves the second option. Guess what you become as soon as you start using the country’s money and resources for your own ends, whatever they might be. I’ll give you a hint: It rhymes with “colonial administrator,” and it smells like shit.
The British Raj, the French colonies, Somalia, this later clusterfuck in Iraq, none of this is hypothetical. What you are proposing is colonialism period, and the only difference between you and the Raj is that the Brits knew what they were doing, and you do not.
If I choose to get my panties in a twist, it’s because I’m sick of the do-gooder idiots in wealthy governments of well-fed nations who get mired in situations they know nothing about while justifying every misstep and disaster and catastrophe with the words “I was just trying to help.” It doesn’t matter what you think you’re doing. What you *are *doing is getting yourself involved with matters you are unfamiliar with using vague and ill-thought-out plans, while tampering with national sovereignity, and suppressing the people’s rights and freedoms. You know, kind of like Bush did in Iraq.
“President-for-Life Ahmgwanna Kikbooty, we have a problem. You told us to kick the Catholics out of the country because they wouldn’t hand out condoms like Christmas candy. So we did. Not only did we lose the tens of millions of dollars in AIDS treatment they represent, in the upland regions of Gottalottabubu they are the only health care workers available. Now that you kicked the Little Sisters of the Divine Foreskin out of the region, they have been replaced by native witch doctors who are telling people that having sex with a virgin will cure their AIDS, so they are raping children to be sure of getting a virgin. Your infallible plan does not seem to have reduced the rate of AIDS or poverty, and, while the population is certainly being reduced, so is the work force. Any suggestions, Glorious Leader?”
So I assume you will ban all native religion as well. Good luck with that. Where will you get the resources to stamp out religion while you are a state of near-total chaos and poverty?
And when these ridiculous notions come from your native population instead of missionaries, what do you do then?
I assume not all of your rebel factions will immediately make nice. What do you do about them? You are spending an awful lot of resources on an awful lot of other things. You will need (presumably) to maintain an army and defend your capital. Further, why should they trust you not to wipe them out the minute they give up their arms? You don’t seem to be too nice to the Catholic sisters who were giving them health care for free. Nor to the witch doctors who have been part of their culture for generations. But everyone can be quite sure you will forgive and forget that General Wumpus hacked a few hundred thousand people to death, so long as he hands over his machetes?
And how, exactly, can you be sure that General Wumpus will actually abide by his agreement? Why is it in his best interest to do so, when it wasn’t before your august and beneficent rule? See what I said earlier about the unlikelihood of folks seeking graft to say “oh well - never mind, I will return to a life of noble poverty with my eleven wives, eighteen children, and three hundred and sixteen in-laws all wanting a job in my government where they can solicit bribes.”
The fostering nation? You mean the people whose factories you nationalize? These are the people you want to trade with? You are in a state of near-total chaos and poverty - what exactly do you have to trade?
Well let me think… Oh! I know! I’ll replace them with…wait for it…doctors. If the little sisters didn’t spread lies around about disease prevention, they wouldn’t have so many desperate patients to treat now would they?
There is a difference to be made there. I didn’t ban religion, nor expel anyone who isn’t working against my immediate medical concerns. Catholics that are willing to put aside that dogma for a few years are more than welcome to stay and help. Native practices can be addressed with education. The Catholic church however, has a long and sordid history of engendering dependence on their charity, which they exchange for allegiance.
You’re right, some of them won’t. Since I’m not moving unilaterally, and my program will be under intense scrutiny, I assume that the UN will help me with my peace-keeping.
Political exile, for those that do not agree to a modest arrangement. It will take time to get the various factions to come to the table. Presumably they all have political grievances that they want addressed and that is why they are fighting. Those that do not and are the equivalent of mad dogs biting everything in sight will have to be brought to heel and tried in an international court for their crimes.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. I only plan to nationalize, 1. those industries necessary for life (clean water, major agriculture, utilities). and 2. those companies that cannot, or will not agree to reasonable terms in regards to their worker’s treatment or the reinvestment of their funds into local development. The free market takes advantage of the poor to an appalling degree, and i will not stand for near slave labor. Everyone should have enough to eat and keep a roof over their heads. Companies that cannot act ethically can take themselves elsewhere.
If you have a better idea other than: Let the free market sort out the money and the africans kill each other until someone is dominant. I’d like to hear it.
Ooooh, doctors! It’s so crazy it just might work! Two small questions. Where are you going to find them and how are you going to pay them. Doctors Without Borders isn’t that big, and they have other places to go, you know. Plus, I’m not sure how many of them would want to stay that long in this scenario you’re cooking up, unless they’re planning to apply for a job in Doctors Without Fingers.
Oh, so the big bad Catholic church has to go, but you think you can eliminate the native practices (which have been around centuries longer than the church) with a little education? That’s mighty white of you. And before you condemn the Catholic church too much, I’d like to ask you how long you spent in Africa in the filth and the heat and the muck and the danger risking your life for something you believed in. Or does this grand plan of yours represent the first time you actually even thought about Africa? Remember that when it comes to the area and government, those evil, evil religious healthcare workers probably know ten times as much as you ever will.
You know what happens when you make an assumption, right? You make an ass out of U and Mption. Presumably, the UN would like to see your plans fleshed out a bit, especially when it comes to trying to stamp out religion. I’m sure the Russian Federation and South Korea would have something to say about that. They might even sit you down for a little impromptu history lesson.
Do you see what you’re doing here? You started out with a nice little nine or ten point plan for a wonderful renovation of a failed African state, and a few posts later, you’re talking about political exile and mad dogs. And we all know what we have to do with mad dogs, right? Your plan doesn’t sound as peaceful as it did in your first post, and it’s rapidly getting more complicated. An international court? Good fucking luck getting everyone on board with that! You’ll probably just wind up putting them on trial and hanging them right there in the country.
Oh, you won’t stand for it, will you? I thought this was supposed to be a democracy helped out by the UN, but suddenly it’s all about what you want! And what happens when the UN disagrees with you or agrees with you but has to tell you what we’re telling you here: That your solutions won’t work, and we have to try something else?
No one’s saying that. The Catholic church is not part of the free market. I agree that it puts bad shit out there (I’m an atheist.), but getting rid of them will not solve anything and will make the problem worse. People are doing things, Acid. Charities, NGO’s. People are studying the problems in schools of government. Things are being done. You are not the voice in the wilderness.
I’ll tell you right now that I don’t have any idea about what to do with Africa. But that doesn’t mean I can’t call your idea shit. Your ideas sound nice on paper–Well, OK, actually they don’t–but when they start failing, and they will fail, it’s going to start out with exile and mad dogs, and it’s going to wind up as Jonestown on an international level.
Linty, you make good points, and I even agree with a lot of them. My idea probably is unworkable for lots of reasons, but I don’t think that continuing to pump charity into an area where it is basically being flushed down the toilet is the solution either. I also don’t believe that true change will come from charitable organizations. They are a crutch, not a cure. The problem is that most traditional african culture isn’t really compatible with european/american ways of doing business. Our model assumes a certain level of stability, wealth, and education that countries in question don’t possess, and may never have possessed in the past.
The problem is that any solution results in ethical issues. If we cut off aid and let them work it out, we are callous for ignoring the murder that will undoubtedly occur. If we simply allow the market to dictate growth, you end up with desperate people working at near slave levels. At some point, this does become an all or none type issue, as much as I dislike to say it, since any attempt at changing the way things are going is bound to result is cries of colonialism.
I do view the church as a major issue, and retardation in the path to peace in that region. If you let things go you have to basically shout louder than them. the problem is that they’ve managed to convince an uneducated populace that they will suffer for all eternity of they don’t comply. That is a major health hazard and if were not for it’s religious background, I don’t think any government would stand for a blatant campaign of lies that would potentially cause massive medical problems.
I don’t have a solution, just a lot of lofty ideals that would take a lot of money, diplomacy, and luck to pull off, much the OP’s ideas. However, if the goal is to bring such nations to a level on par with western nations, I don’t see how it can be achieved without a certain level of shift in the culture. Cry colonialism if you like on that, but it is pretty clear to me that tribal level government, subsistence agriculture, herding, and the like are not going to achieve those goals. There is nothing wrong with those models, but they don’t build roads, power stations, hospitals, and other western niceties.