NationStates Jolt Archive

Considering the recent Live 8 festivals and the situations in Zimbabwe, Dafour and Congo, China replacing the UK as the fourth highest contributer to African Development what do you beleive is required to drap Africa out of the mire?

Putting aid directly into the hands of African citizens to start businesses and modernize agriculture rather than putting that aid in the hands of the corrupt governments would be a good start.

We could also send qualified people to Africa to hire locals at living wages and have them build the roads, factories, and communications infrastructure for a modern economy.

Respect for individual private property, encourage small producers, and invest in education and infrastructure.

*yawn*

We've tried to solve poverty for about 5,000 years. Can we actually get a solution?

*sigh*

*yawn*

We've tried to solve poverty for about 5,000 years. Can we actually get a solution?

*sigh*
We've actually made good progress in the developed world. Look at the percentage of poor people 100 years ago compared to now. We're well on our way to a solution, but since it's a complex global problem it's going to take a while.

We've tried to solve poverty for about 5,000 years. Can we actually get a solution?

5,000 years? 5,000 years is the amount of time we've spent creating poverty. Serious efforts to fight it started only 50 years or so ago.

With all due respect, I wish Africa would stop drowning in self-pity, moaning about "colonialism," and "exploitation," etc. Colonialism ended over thirty years ago. Whether or not it was responsible for putting them in this predicament is up to debate, but it certainly hasn't kept them there. They need to stop whining and begging the rest of the world to take care of them, and start working to help themselves. How long are they going to sit around doing nothing, while moaning and b*tching about how it's all colonialism's fault?

With all due respect, I wish Africa would stop drowning in self-pity, moaning about "colonialism," and "exploitation," etc. Colonialism ended over thirty years ago. Whether or not it was responsible for putting them in this predicament is up to debate, but it certainly hasn't kept them there. They need to stop whining and begging the rest of the world to take care of them, and start working to help themselves. How long are they going to sit around doing nothing, while moaning and b*tching about how it's all colonialism's fault?
Oh, of course. Africa, with one voice, is saying this.

Christ. Wake up. "All due respect" my arse. That's the kind of phrase someone uses when they know they're being a shit but don't want other people to think so too.

We've actually made good progress in the developed world. Look at the percentage of poor people 100 years ago compared to now. We're well on our way to a solution, but since it's a complex global problem it's going to take a while.

Yeh, we can solve poverty - for a certain group of people. You must realise that even in developed countries there are still many people living in poverty - while others can afford several 3,000ft houses (HUGE to urban Hong Kong standards) without borrowing money from the bank.

I don't think we're even close to solving poverty for everybody.

I'm agreeing completely with DC. I would further propose that education and training (health, agriculture, water, etc) be done by employess of the western agencies involved - don't give this aid funding directly to the governments of the African nations.

Corruption is high in many cases and currently there's no guarantee that said funding will be used to benefit the people. Sure, debt relief and funding earmarked for economy-improving or education is necessary - but any funds going directly to government should be given conditionally, and audits should be performed to ensure compliance. No compliance, no more money.

I don't know enough about the organizations that can translate our hopes into action if given enough funding - there's the Peace Corps and a number of UN agencies. I don't know how effectively the UN works in this area, but I have knowledge of the Peace Corps and that is a step in the right direction. Give them additional funding so they can pay enough to attract more people for the field. They're only paying $6,000 now.

If necessary, create agencies for specific purposes - legitimate and with single focus. For example an agency, properly funded, could arrange for African students to study in the west - thousands of them. Give them the full ride. Another agency could arrange to coordinate technical expertise from the private sector in the west - mining, manufacturing, marketing, communications. Pay these people to act as consultants where needed.

What I think should happen is that we treat the African nations on a case-by-case basis - there must be a better evaluation than we have now. And we have to stop throwing guilt money at the continent in the feeble hope conditions will magically improve. Ask them what they need, do our own independent evaluation, then jointly work out how the money will be spent. But a large proportion of the money should be translated into action in the field by western and trained local people, Peace Corps style.

With all due respect, I wish Africa would stop drowning in self-pity, moaning about "colonialism," and "exploitation," etc. Colonialism ended over thirty years ago. Whether or not it was responsible for putting them in this predicament is up to debate, but it certainly hasn't kept them there. They need to stop whining and begging the rest of the world to take care of them, and start working to help themselves. How long are they going to sit around doing nothing, while moaning and b*tching about how it's all colonialism's fault?

Political colonialism may have ended, but certainly not economic colonialism. Subsidies, foreign aid, tariffs, monopolies... How many African brands have you heard of?

5,000 years? 5,000 years is the amount of time we've spent creating poverty. Serious efforts to fight it started only 50 years or so ago.

So for 4,950 years we thought poverty was nothing until they rebelled.

Let's hope solving poverty doesn't take another 4,950 years then.

Political colonialism may have ended, but certainly not economic colonialism. Subsidies, foreign aid, tariffs, monopolies... How many African brands have you heard of?

I agree there. But Africa can't blame all its problems on the West. While no sensible person would deny that the West is partly responsible (how responsible is up to debate) for Africa's dilemma, it isn't responsible for all its problems.

With all due respect, I wish Africa would stop drowning in self-pity, moaning about "colonialism," and "exploitation," etc. Colonialism ended over thirty years ago.
Thirty years is a long time to you? You must have a wickedly short attention span in history class if you think 30 years makes things irrelevant!

Colonialism had an enormous impact on Africa. You can not ignore the repercussions of that, no more than you can ignore the repercussions of colonialism in Latin America. The way the political systems work, the division of land, the class systems, were all imported to these continents and helped shaped them into the nations they are now. No doubt you would say, "Hey, sure the Native Americans were massacred, forced onto reservations, their way of life destroyed...but that was a long time ago! No doubt racism, poverty, addiction and hopelessness is purely their fault and has no link to the past!" Colonialism had both positive and negative effects...would you take the positive ones and ignore the negative?

Colonialism alone is not the root of all of Africa's ills...but it is A root. There are many, and you can discount none of them.



Whether or not it was responsible for putting them in this predicament is up to debate, but it certainly hasn't kept them there. They need to stop whining and begging the rest of the world to take care of them, and start working to help themselves. How long are they going to sit around doing nothing, while moaning and b*tching about how it's all colonialism's fault? You show an extreme ignorance of the efforts of Africans of many nationalities to improve their lot. Do you seriously think that Africans blame everything on colonialism? That they do nothing but bitch and complain, and lay around waiting to be 'saved'? Perhaps you should look outside your ethnocentric news sources and see for yourself what African groups are doing FOR THEMSELVES. We live in an international world, where the ills of other nations affect us in some way, but this does not mean that anyone is trying to 'guilt trip you' into getting you to 'take care of them'. Instead of declaring that Africans 'sit around doing nothing', based solely on lack of knowledge on your part, you should attempt some rudimentary exploration into the subject first?

I agree there. But Africa can't blame all its problems on the West. While no sensible person would deny that the West is partly responsible (how responsible is up to debate) for Africa's dilemma, it isn't responsible for all its problems.

Of course not!

This blaming exercise is not doing any good. It doesn't matter who to blame, because it will always be disputed. It matters for the West, with their capital, expertise, experience and *ahem* genorosity to help.

Let them free themselves

Trillions of dollars have gone into Africa and I haven't seen a change yet.

Maybe we should spend more on countries who actually know how to use money, Ukraine, Jugoslavia, etc.

Another step that should be taken by the Western nations, more IMPORTANT than aid, I believe, is NOT allowing political leaders to quietly stash millions of taxpayer's money (and aid money) into Swiss bank accounts etc. These banking institutions need to take some responsibility for harboring stolen funds.

Putting aid directly into the hands of African citizens to start businesses and modernize agriculture rather than putting that aid in the hands of the corrupt governments would be a good start.

We could also send qualified people to Africa to hire locals at living wages and have them build the roads, factories, and communications infrastructure for a modern economy.

that's a great idea, but how can the citizens keep that money from being appropriated by their area's warlord? (in unstable countries)

Another step that should be taken by the Western nations, more IMPORTANT than aid, I believe, is NOT allowing political leaders to quietly stash millions of taxpayer's money (and aid money) into Swiss bank accounts etc. These banking institutions need to take some responsibility for harboring stolen funds.

Exactly. Instead of sending cash, we should send doctors, teachers, etc., to aid the Africans directly. I have no problem with helping Africa, so long as the help isn't government-to-government aid.

Another step that should be taken by the Western nations, more IMPORTANT than aid, I believe, is NOT allowing political leaders to quietly stash millions of taxpayer's money (and aid money) into Swiss bank accounts etc. These banking institutions need to take some responsibility for harboring stolen funds.


Nice in theory but we know that is never going to happen. If they hid money for the Nazi's and refused to give that back in full to those it was stolen from, there is no way they will stop accepting money from corrupt political leaders.

Sending supplies is a good thing if you can guarantee that the people who need them the most actually get them. Otherwise it'll just end up like Somalia with the Warlords just stealing everything and selling it.

Nice in theory but we know that is never going to happen. If they hid money for the Nazi's and refused to give that back in full to those it was stolen from, there is no way they will stop accepting money from corrupt political leaders.

That's why we should never send money. Most of it gets spent on private jets, etc. Food, medicine, clothing, etc. is okay, though, so long as there are observers present to ensure that it gets distributed fairly, not just to government-supporters.

As soon as Africans begin to become self-dependent, they'll be OK. All we need to do is to get them there; help them build an infrastructure, help them peacefully deal with their corrupt governments wherever possible, and for Christ's sake we need to stop with the unfair trade so they can actually get a foothold on the world economy.

Most importantly of all, we shouldn't patronise them or treat them as helpless little animals like some people seem to do. They're perfectly capable people in their own right, and it makes me sad to see them on charity adverts in the same sort of light as the RSPCA might put abused dogs on their own adverts. All they need is a leg-up, but so far we keep dropping them.

As soon as Africans begin to become self-dependent, they'll be OK. All we need to do is to get them there; help them build an infrastructure, help them peacefully deal with their corrupt governments wherever possible, and for Christ's sake we need to stop with the unfair trade so they can actually get a foothold on the world economy.

Most importantly of all, we shouldn't patronise them or treat them as helpless little animals like some people seem to do. They're perfectly capable people in their own right, and it makes me sad to see them on charity adverts in the same sort of light as the RSPCA might put abused dogs on their own adverts. All they need is a leg-up, but so far we keep dropping them.

Well put.

That's why we should never send money. Most of it gets spent on private jets, etc. Food, medicine, clothing, etc. is okay, though, so long as there are observers present to ensure that it gets distributed fairly, not just to government-supporters.


Are the observers going to be able to do their jobs if someone sticks a gun in their face? Would you tell BILLY BOB he cannot have the supplies if he threatens to shoot you in the face?

The New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD) (http://www.nepad.org/2005/files/home.php)

African Union ( http://www.africa-union.org/home/Welcome.htm)

The South African National NGO Coalition (SANGOCO) ( http://www.sangoco.org.za/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=3&Itemid=25)

The West African NGO Network (WANGO) ( http://www.wangonet.org/)

etc, etc, etc.

There are thousands of AFRICAN NGOs. There are millions of Africans who do much, much more than sit around and bitch about colonialism.

We need to stop dumping aid money into the pockets of despots. We need to stop funding rapists and murders and kidnappers of children through the blood diamond trade. We need to stop making deals with devils in order to make profit (Shell anyone?). We need to stop accepting illegal funds into our banks, and stop taking in corrupt African officials when they are driven out (by we, I mean all of the West, including Canada ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4631687.stm)). We need to stop the aid that is not only ineffective, but harmful, such as dumping food that undercuts local producers and drives them out.

The West can help...but it needs to do it differently. We need to support, to facilitate those Africans doing for themselves, rather than trying to do it our way. Our way won't work there. Our way is not the best way for Africa.

Exactly. Instead of sending cash, we should send doctors, teachers, etc., to aid the Africans directly. I have no problem with helping Africa, so long as the help isn't government-to-government aid.
I agree with you. Government to government aid is ineffective, corrupt, and rife with corruption and incompetence.

The New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD) (http://www.nepad.org/2005/files/home.php)

African Union ( http://www.africa-union.org/home/Welcome.htm)

The South African National NGO Coalition (SANGOCO) ( http://www.sangoco.org.za/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=3&Itemid=25)

The West African NGO Network (WANGO) ( http://www.wangonet.org/)

etc, etc, etc.

There are thousands of AFRICAN NGOs. There are millions of Africans who do much, much more than sit around and bitch about colonialism.

We need to stop dumping aid money into the pockets of despots. We need to stop funding rapists and murders and kidnappers of children through the blood diamond trade. We need to stop making deals with devils in order to make profit (Shell anyone?). We need to stop accepting illegal funds into our banks, and stop taking in corrupt African officials when they are driven out (by we, I mean all of the West, including Canada ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4631687.stm)). We need to stop the aid that is not only ineffective, but harmful, such as dumping food that undercuts local producers and drives them out.

The West can help...but it needs to do it differently. We need to support, to facilitate those Africans doing for themselves, rather than trying to do it our way. Our way won't work there. Our way is not the best way for Africa.

Sorry, I should have phrased it better. By 'Africans bitching about colonialism,' I meant 'African governments.'

We agree more than I suspected, El Caudillo. Nice posts, El Charr and Sinuhue.

Sending supplies is a good thing if you can guarantee that the people who need them the most actually get them. Otherwise it'll just end up like Somalia with the Warlords just stealing everything and selling it.

No. You can't guarantee that the people who need them most get them. Firstly, most of the most impoverished live in the inacessible countryside. Secondly, you will most usually need the help of the local government, which some chunk of some size will inevitably fall into their pockets or on the black market.

that's a great idea, but how can the citizens keep that money from being appropriated by their area's warlord? (in unstable countries)
Use some of the money to arm themselves and start community defense millitias.

Most usually, I think no aid at all is better than any kind of aid.

(snip)


We need to stop dumping aid money into the pockets of despots. We need to stop funding rapists and murders and kidnappers of children through the blood diamond trade. We need to stop making deals with devils in order to make profit (Shell anyone?). We need to stop accepting illegal funds into our banks, and stop taking in corrupt African officials when they are driven out (by we, I mean all of the West, including Canada ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4631687.stm)). We need to stop the aid that is not only ineffective, but harmful, such as dumping food that undercuts local producers and drives them out.
(snip)


African conflict diamonds. Those that buy them make me sick.

The food issue really irks me. Sure you are going to convince a farmer to spill his blood in the floods to help his country when the UN just gives them handouts.

Most importantly of all, we shouldn't patronise them or treat them as helpless little animals like some people seem to do. They're perfectly capable people in their own right, and it makes me sad to see them on charity adverts in the same sort of light as the RSPCA might put abused dogs on their own adverts. All they need is a leg-up, but so far we keep dropping them.

I agree. I find such portrayals of Africans very offensive. Africans are pretty much like any other group of people, except that they're usually a lot friendlier.

As soon as Africans begin to become self-dependent, they'll be OK. All we need to do is to get them there; help them build an infrastructure, help them peacefully deal with their corrupt governments wherever possible, and for Christ's sake we need to stop with the unfair trade so they can actually get a foothold on the world economy.
Yes. Instead of encouraging them to produce cash crops all the time, knowing full well they can not truly compete with western-produced goods, we should be encouraging them to go back to being self-sufficient in terms of food production. Build up the food supply in a nation FIRST, and then look at trade. When people in African nations are buying foodstuffs from abroad, when once they produced them, there is a problem. Fair trade is a start, but it isn't enough, and it's slowly becoming a corrupt system as well. A BIG problem in Africa is not even 'lack of food'...it's lack of infrastructure and storage, so, much like Russia throughout it's history, food can be literally rotting in the fields or in bins while the people who need it starve to death. If we really want to help, we can start with the infrastructure.

Most importantly of all, we shouldn't patronise them or treat them as helpless little animals like some people seem to do. They're perfectly capable people in their own right, and it makes me sad to see them on charity adverts in the same sort of light as the RSPCA might put abused dogs on their own adverts. All they need is a leg-up, but so far we keep dropping them. Yes. Too often, we see pictures of sad little children with swollen stomachs and flies all around. I understand this tactic, but it dehumanizes people...it takes away their power when they are seen only as victims instead of agents of their future. Africans are no less intelligent, hard working, loving, hating, strong or weak, than the rest of us. This 'sympathy' the West has in regards to Africa is a mix of pity, disgust, and superiority. It's disgusting. I wish more people could actually meet Africans, talk to them, realise that they share our hopes and dreams, and that they are capable of fighting, of trying, of CHANGING their continent...but like all of us, they sometimes need a bit of support. Sponsoring a child is not enough. It's just a balm on a uneasy conscience.

Sorry, I should have phrased it better. By 'Africans bitching about colonialism,' I meant 'African governments.'
Thank you for clarifying that. Though for many governments, espousing the evils of colonialism is simply a political ploy to divert attention from their own activities, which is sad, because in a way it takes away from the real problem that colonialism presents in modern-day Africa.

Use some of the money to arm themselves and start community defense millitias.
Yes. That's exactly what they need...more people in militias :(

Use some of the money to arm themselves and start community defense millitias.

good

First you have to care for the emergencies - food, medicine, essentials. Immediately you need to flood the place with trainers - teach them modern agriculture, get them clean water, teach them about health. There's a payback of just a few years. And the knowledge gained is permanent, you won't need to do it again.

You need to provide consultants, thousands of them, to help with technical issues - medical, communications, transportation, mining, timber, etc. Start sending their students to western universities to learn these skills so they can become self-sufficient.

The governments may need some aid, but grant it conditionally for agreed upon purposes - highway construction, hospitals, etc. Ensure compliance through auditing. They steal that money from their people and they get no more. Period.

The money we're spending now is used so inefficiently that it's a joke. And what's a joke is that we care so little what happens to them and our money - it's just guilt money thrown away so we can feel better about ourselves.

If we're going to help African nations then let's focus on it - and do it right.

The food issue really irks me. Sure you are going to convince a farmer to spill his blood in the floods to help his country when the UN just gives them handouts.
It's more complicated than that. Most of Africa is still rural, despite the increasing trend of urbanisation. When you make your livelihood growing onions, for example, and Western onions flood the market, or are given freely to the people, you lose your income, your ability to support your family, and quite often your only choice is to move to the city to find a job. People don't do this sort of thing because they are lazily choosing handouts over work. These are people who have been farmers for many, many generations...all that knowledge, all that love does not get tossed away idly in favour of 'easy food', especially when those UN handouts only last so long...

It is quite suprising how much you all agree with each other, and with us Africans. Of course there are differences in degrees and the odd racist nutter. Unless I missed it, no one mentioned intervention, which in some cases (Zim and Dafour) is needed. Got to go home, see you tomorrow.

Use some of the money to arm themselves and start community defense millitias.
I don't know, DC. I agree that a self armed community could prevent things like Rwanda and most warlords, but a government or a well organized movement can send a few armored cars and maybe a couple of airplanes; shoddy, old airplanes, but airplanes just the same.

It could make things more unstable by itself, if the root cause of unstability is not addressed.

Instead of giving them money and aid that their government just takes and pisses away for itself, just leave them alone and let them figure things out for themselves.

Instead of giving them money and aid that their government just takes and pisses away for itself, just leave them alone and let them figure things out for themselves.
So maybe they'll "evolve" out of evolution???

Sorry, nice one, but it doesn't happen that way.

Renegotiating certain bilateral trade treaties so African nations are allowed to process as well as produce would be an essential component of any deal, I'd say. The aid and debt pledges made by the US, for example, have ridiculous constraints on trade thrown in.

Financial aid is definitely the least important request being made. Revised trade rules, debt relief and, material education, healthcare etc are far more important.

El Caudillo - sorry, for jumping on you earlier, I've been very grumpy recently and seeing the 'bitching and moaning' comments really pisses me off.

Regarding intervention in Darfour I think we should have been there a long time ago. But the question is who the "we" is - if the UN was a functioning organization it might have been there. The rest of the world doesn't want to go. There aren't sufficient African peacekeepers to do the job.

What's the short and long-term solution to providing intervention on the continent?

El Caudillo - sorry, for jumping on you earlier, I've been very grumpy recently and seeing the 'bitching and moaning' comments really pisses me off.

No sweat, Ecopoeia.

You need to provide consultants, thousands of them, to help with technical issues - medical, communications, transportation, mining, timber, etc. Start sending their students to western universities to learn these skills so they can become self-sufficient.
As though Western universities are so much better than African ones?

A major problem facing Africa is the brain drain. The West relies heavily on African nurses and doctors in its retirement homes and in its health care systems. We offer better salaries than what these (mostly women) can get in their own nations, but in return, these people leave their families behind, are often taken advantage of, and live with precarious immigration status. Sending more Africans to western universities will not reverse this trend, it will increase it. African health care systems are seriously under funded, in large part do to neo-liberal policies adopted by their governments in order to 'qualify' for aid.

So maybe they'll "evolve" out of evolution???

Sorry, nice one, but it doesn't happen that way.
You sir, make absolutely no sense whatsoever. What exactly are you talking about by saying evolving out of evolution and how does that apply to what I said?

I don't know, DC. I agree that a self armed community could prevent things like Rwanda and most warlords, Or, as in the case of the Rwanda genocide, it could ENABLE the genocide. Armed community members are the ones who were massacring their fellow countrymen (and by armed, I mean all weapons, not just guns) Even had things been more 'fair', the killing would not have stopped...it just would have been more even in terms of casualties. Handing out weapons to everyone is not going to ensure stalemate and peace.

Yes. That's exactly what they need...more people in militias :(
If the militia defends the people from thieves and rapists it's a good thing.

You sir, make absolutely no sense whatsoever. What exactly are you talking about by saying evolving out of evolution and how does that apply to what I said?

Leaving it there and waiting for it to solve itself - something like what I believe the Theory of Evolution to be - it doesn't work.

Instead of giving them money and aid that their government just takes and pisses away for itself, just leave them alone and let them figure things out for themselves.
I agree, as long as you realise, 'leaving them alone' also means, stop allowing businesses to fund militias, stop allowing Western banks to hide stolen money, stop forcing SAPS on governments in exchange for aid (which force governments to strip healthcare and other social services), stop using tariffs and domestic subsidies to make African goods uncompetitive and so on. Non-involvement is really an impossibility. It is the TYPE of involvement we need to change.

Leaving it there and waiting for it to solve itself - something like what I believe the Theory of Evolution to be - it doesn't work.
Why not?

Regarding intervention in Darfour I think we should have been there a long time ago. But the question is who the "we" is - if the UN was a functioning organization it might have been there. The rest of the world doesn't want to go. There aren't sufficient African peacekeepers to do the job.

What's the short and long-term solution to providing intervention on the continent?
I agree the UN is a pretty useless organisation any more, for various reasons. However, I would suggest that we back up the African peacekeepers themselves. Yes, there are not enough of them, but nations could choose to send additional forces or aid and allow the Africans to spearhead the intervention. The US could be involved in this way as well as Canada and other nations. As long as no one nations wants to jump in there and take all the credit and say, "Hey look what WE did", but instead focus really being part of an international effort, I think it would help. The US is too stuck on itself in terms of "it's our way or the highway". I really don't see why they would have to be the sole nation going in, (or not, because they feel slighted about the lack of support for Iraq), rather than a small contingent of a larger force. Ditto for my nation.

Or, as in the case of the Rwanda genocide, it could ENABLE the genocide. Armed community members are the ones who were massacring their fellow countrymen (and by armed, I mean all weapons, not just guns) Even had things been more 'fair', the killing would not have stopped...it just would have been more even in terms of casualties. Handing out weapons to everyone is not going to ensure stalemate and peace.

Correct. Neighbors that were friendly for 20 years found themselves at odds. Like children being handed machetes and told to go hack up their former friends or risk being killed themselves.

No sweat, Ecopoeia.
Ditto on the apology for jumping on you. I too was riled up by that particular comment, because too many people make it unthinkingly. You've since clarified it, and again I thank you for that:).

If the militia defends the people from thieves and rapists it's a good thing.
And what's to stop these groups of militias taking out ethnic enimity on other militias?

Africa already has a serious problem with various factions vying for power. Arming everyone to the teeth is not going to stop that. Someone is ALWAYS better at killing than someone else...and that cycle never ends.

Leaving it there and waiting for it to solve itself - something like what I believe the Theory of Evolution to be - it doesn't work.
It could...but as I've said before, 'leaving them alone' is really an impossibility in an international world.

Why not?

Ever heard of a "poverty cycle"? A simplified version:

Poverty = low standard of living --> low standards of health and education --> low productivity/mechanisation --> low incomes --> low tax revenues --> low/messy government spending --> low standard of living

If nobody intervenes it will get worse, and worse, and worse, and worse.

Ditto on the apology for jumping on you. I too was riled up by that particular comment, because too many people make it unthinkingly. You've since clarified it, and again I thank you for that:).

No problem. I thank you both for your apologies. Likewise, I apologize for not making my first posts more clear.

If nobody intervenes it will get worse, and worse, and worse, and worse.
Don't assume that the only intervention possibile has to come from outside.

As though Western universities are so much better than African ones?

A major problem facing Africa is the brain drain. The West relies heavily on African nurses and doctors in its retirement homes and in its health care systems. We offer better salaries than what these (mostly women) can get in their own nations, but in return, these people leave their families behind, are often taken advantage of, and live with precarious immigration status. Sending more Africans to western universities will not reverse this trend, it will increase it. African health care systems are seriously under funded, in large part do to neo-liberal policies adopted by their governments in order to 'qualify' for aid.

On average, I would say it's likely that the west has a higher quality of education than Africa. But my point is that we have the capacity, thousands of good universities and technical institutes, to accomodate the massive number of African students that need higher education.

The countries need not only the technical expertise resulting from this, but an educated populace to better shape government. The cultural exchange alone has value.

There are measures that can be implemented to ensure that students return to Africa if required. In some cases it may be wise to permit some to stay and work in the US. But those are details that can be worked out in concert with individual nations.

This will take a decade or two - we in the west are addicted to quick fixes and seem to lack long-term vision. There are some problems, such as brain-drain, that have no immediate solution (though govt.'s if they wish can control this by denying visas) but may resolve themselves if the African economies can grow.

One area that needs immediate attention is making antiretrovirals (for AIDs treatment) more affordable and accessible. AIDs is ravaging the African continent...we all know it, and yes we don't seem to really be facing it. We need to be taking this pandemic more seriously. It is decimating the population, young and old, and this is bound to have serious effects on any project to try to 'better' Africa, both from abroad and from within.

Don't assume that the only intervention possibile has to come from outside.


Intervention...by definition...HAS to be come from the outside...outside the cycle at least.

But leaving it there is NO WAY.

One area that needs immediate attention is making antiretrovirals (for AIDs treatment) more affordable and accessible. AIDs is ravaging the African continent...we all know it, and yes we don't seem to really be facing it. We need to be taking this pandemic more seriously. It is decimating the population, young and old, and this is bound to have serious effects on any project to try to 'better' Africa, both from abroad and from within.

Agreed. We should send both doctors and teachers to educate them about how the virus is spread, and administer aid to those already afflicted with the virus.

On average, I would say it's likely that the west has a higher quality of education than Africa. But my point is that we have the capacity, thousands of good universities and technical institutes, to accomodate the massive number of African students that need higher education.
And how are they going to afford it? And how would the inevitable racist backlash be dealt with as all these immigrants come to study (and most likely stay, rather than returning to their homelands?) So you have people studying computer programming, or whatever...will they actually be able to use that back home? Meanwhile, as students stream out of Africa to study abroad, the quality of education in Africa deteriorates even more and 'Western' education becomes the ideal, just as in colonial times.

The countries need not only the technical expertise resulting from this, but an educated populace to better shape government. The cultural exchange alone has value.
You can not start at the top. First primary education needs to be expanded and made accessible. And in order to truly make it available, we have to deal with the problems that often prevent children from attending school. Violence, poverty, etc. How many Africans would be qualified to study abroad? Probably those with a higher economic standing, and probably those who already study abroad.

Agreed, Sinuhue.

Agreed. We should send both doctors and teachers to educate them about how the virus is spread, and administer aid to those already afflicted with the virus. We are already doing that. Many African nations (not all, some really have their heads stuck in the sand) have quite advanced public awareness programs. But when condoms are unavailable or too expensive, when abstinence is not an option (especially among prostitutes who KNOW what they risk, but have no choice, or when cultural norms make abstinence a very foreign and weird thing), when doctors and nurses know what to do, but do not have the resources, the problem can not be truly addressed. The pharmaceutical companies making antiretrovirals need to allow generic, cheap versions instead of holding on so desperately to their patents. Less focus on hair loss and erectile difficulty. If this means that governments need to get into the drug business in order to change the focus to the diseases that affect the MAJORITY of humans (did you know that childhood illnesses, all of them preventable, are still the number one cause of death in the world?) then so be it. It may not be profitable in the short term, but a healthier global population, less bent on procreation in order to survive, is a long term gain the we would ALL benefit from.

We are already doing that. Many African nations (not all, some really have their heads stuck in the sand) have quite advanced public awareness programs.

Agreed, Botswana is doing quite well in that department. However, there's still much to be done, as some Africans still don't know about how the disease is spread, and/or believe myths such as having sex with virgins will cure it. That's where we come in.

I'd say the answer to African poverty is in this thread title, free it. Western nations need to quit pretending that they can force development on a foriegn power, and Africa needs to be left. All of the current world powers worth their salt didn't need someone to shove money down their throat and provide them with low interest loans.
Cease providing aid, and Africa can no longer exist as it currently does. Either it will sink or swim based on the capabilities of African nations.

Agreed, Botswana is doing quite well in that department. However, there's still much to be done, as some Africans still don't know about how the disease is spread, and/or believe myths such as having sex with virgins will cure it. That's where we come in.
But here is the question. Are we going to pay, or have volunteers (with flights paid perhaps?) go over to Africa to 'educate' them about AIDS...or would the money be better spent beefing up existing programs, perhaps providing employment for African AIDs educators (who are more likely to be listened to than foreigners)? Is our money and time really better spent sending over people who don't really know the culture all that well, who are viewed with suspicion, who may not even speak the local languages?

I'd say the answer to African poverty is in this thread title, free it. Western nations need to quit pretending that they can force development on a foriegn power, and Africa needs to be left. All of the current world powers worth their salt didn't need someone to shove money down their throat and provide them with low interest loans.
Cease providing aid, and Africa can no longer exist as it currently does. Either it will sink or swim based on the capabilities of African nations.

Again, having a policy of non-intervention needs to be more comprehensive than ceasing to provide aid. It needs to include the other things I've mentioned here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9193810&postcount=52).

And how are they going to afford it? And how would the inevitable racist backlash be dealt with as all these immigrants come to study (and most likely stay, rather than returning to their homelands?) So you have people studying computer programming, or whatever...will they actually be able to use that back home? Meanwhile, as students stream out of Africa to study abroad, the quality of education in Africa deteriorates even more and 'Western' education becomes the ideal, just as in colonial times.

You can not start at the top. First primary education needs to be expanded and made accessible. And in order to truly make it available, we have to deal with the problems that often prevent children from attending school. Violence, poverty, etc. How many Africans would be qualified to study abroad? Probably those with a higher economic standing, and probably those who already study abroad.

Yes, there are many challenges. I'm being deliberately general to focus on the central issue of evaluating how our aid to Africa can be more efficiently utilized. We in the west need to do just this. On a case-by-case basis - nations have different needs.

Student exchange is one area that could be helpful. And it could start right away by using some of the billions that are being sent to African nations. Depending on need of the country, training can be in any field - teachers, medicine, agriculture, engineering, economics, business, etc. Practical education to be put to use domestically. Every country, including ours, needs these professions to function.

I disagree that you can't start at the top - get it started and begin to address the issues you mention simultaneously. This needs to be a long-term commitment - think a decade or more - and requires an integrated approach. These countries need more professionals than they have now - make it possible for bright students from lower economic circumstances to be trained.

I don't see why quality of education in Africa need suffer if some students study abroad for 4 years - there are ways to balance that, and they should be returning to help improve the educational system and other areas of society.

Cutltural exchange is a two-edged sword - students returning home have now seen the west and this will cause some cultural changes to occur at home. Some good, some bad. But it's their choice how they want to implement those, which values to choose. I don't see this as brainwashing at all. My children have studied in Asia, and I've traveled extensively in Africa. I think knowledge of other culturals is largely beneficial.

What we must realize that we can't solve all the problems, either. It takes time to make significant changes, and we need to make that commitment. We can only decide on priorities, which naturally must change over time.

But essentially, take the money we give away now and turn it into something practical. Not palaces and Swiss bank accounts. We need to create the agencies to identify need and direct money to it. Money we're largely wasting now can be put to good use if we focus.

Student exchange is one area that could be helpful. And it could start right away by using some of the billions that are being sent to African nations. Depending on need of the country, training can be in any field - teachers, medicine, agriculture, engineering, economics, business, etc. Practical education to be put to use domestically. Every country, including ours, needs these professions to function.
And what kind of agriculture will they be studying? Will it match the environment and needs of the nations these students come from, or will it be based on a technologically-heavy Western model? The medical knowledge...will it be focused on primary health care, or again, on the technology-heavy Western model of medicine? The engineering...will it also focus on tools and technologies not widely available in Africa?

You say 'practical' education, but it isn't. Not really. Practical to the particular country being studies in, perhaps, but not necessarily to the nations you want these people to take their education back to.

And again, on the topic of student exchanges. You need to have a good primary and secondary education before you can go into post-secondary (unless you are talking about lowering standards? I don't think you are.) You are talking about an incredibly small portion of the African population here.


I disagree that you can't start at the top - get it started and begin to address the issues you mention simultaneously. This needs to be a long-term commitment - think a decade or more - and requires an integrated approach. These countries need more professionals than they have now - make it possible for bright students from lower economic circumstances to be trained.
Yes, these countries need more professionals...but they also need the employment and the resources for the professionals they already have. Education alone is not enough, and I know you realise that...but I still disagree you can start from the top down, even with an integrated approach. You will be churning out highly trained professionals with no employment opportunities in their home countries...or underpaid opportunities with poor infrastructure and resources to actually do their job. Neurosurgeons, while highly prized, are next to useless when the proper technology is not available.


I don't see why quality of education in Africa need suffer if some students study abroad for 4 years - there are ways to balance that, and they should be returning to help improve the educational system and other areas of society. Students are already leaving Africa to study abroad, and many of them stay abroad. Now add in the number you are thinking of, and imagine how that would affect the post-secondary funding in Africa, because again, we are talking about a very small percentage of the total population that can actually get into post-secondary education. You start taking more and more of those qualified individuals out, and the quality of the education deteriorates back home. The exact same thing would happen in the West if a sizeable portion of the qualified population chose to study abroad rather than at home. And again, you are grossly underestimating the educational opportunities available in African post-secondary institutions. Do you really envision them as rat-trap buildings with cobbled together desks and students in rags? The elite attend these places, and they are well funded by these tuitions right now. Why on earth should these people go to the West to learn what they can learn at home and much more suited to the realities of their nation? You really want more education? Make sure more Africans receive quality primary and secondary schooling. That is a long term, and more effective solution than handing out scholarships to the few people who likely could afford to study abroad in the first place.


Cutltural exchange is a two-edged sword - students returning home have now seen the west and this will cause some cultural changes to occur at home. Some good, some bad. But it's their choice how they want to implement those, which values to choose. I don't see this as brainwashing at all. My children have studied in Asia, and I've traveled extensively in Africa. I think knowledge of other culturals is largely beneficial. Granted...but it'd be nice if more Westerners stepped out of their cocoons to see 'the other side' as well...instead it seems to be expected that people will come here, learn how to 'live right' and go home to make proper changes. They have a lot to teach us too...and not just the well-educated rich ones. Which your program would be leaving out, unless you were to base it on criteria other than academic?


What we must realize that we can't solve all the problems, either. It takes time to make significant changes, and we need to make that commitment. We can only decide on priorities, which naturally must change over time.

But essentially, take the money we give away now and turn it into something practical. Not palaces and Swiss bank accounts. We need to create the agencies to identify need and direct money to it. Money we're largely wasting now can be put to good use if we focus. Yup. I don't really disagree by and large with what you are saying, I just don't see the University program as being a good step.

And what kind of agriculture will they be studying? Will it match the environment and needs of the nations these students come from, or will it be based on a technologically-heavy Western model? The medical knowledge...will it be focused on primary health care, or again, on the technology-heavy Western model of medicine? The engineering...will it also focus on tools and technologies not widely available in Africa?

You say 'practical' education, but it isn't. Not really. Practical to the particular country being studies in, perhaps, but not necessarily to the nations you want these people to take their education back to.

And again, on the topic of student exchanges. You need to have a good primary and secondary education before you can go into post-secondary (unless you are talking about lowering standards? I don't think you are.) You are talking about an incredibly small portion of the African population here.


Yes, these countries need more professionals...but they also need the employment and the resources for the professionals they already have. Education alone is not enough, and I know you realise that...but I still disagree you can start from the top down, even with an integrated approach. You will be churning out highly trained professionals with no employment opportunities in their home countries...or underpaid opportunities with poor infrastructure and resources to actually do their job. Neurosurgeons, while highly prized, are next to useless when the proper technology is not available.

Students are already leaving Africa to study abroad, and many of them stay abroad. Now add in the number you are thinking of, and imagine how that would affect the post-secondary funding in Africa, because again, we are talking about a very small percentage of the total population that can actually get into post-secondary education. You start taking more and more of those qualified individuals out, and the quality of the education deteriorates back home. The exact same thing would happen in the West if a sizeable portion of the qualified population chose to study abroad rather than at home. And again, you are grossly underestimating the educational opportunities available in African post-secondary institutions. Do you really envision them as rat-trap buildings with cobbled together desks and students in rags? The elite attend these places, and they are well funded by these tuitions right now. Why on earth should these people go to the West to learn what they can learn at home and much more suited to the realities of their nation? You really want more education? Make sure more Africans receive quality primary and secondary schooling. That is a long term, and more effective solution than handing out scholarships to the few people who likely could afford to study abroad in the first place.

Granted...but it'd be nice if more Westerners stepped out of their cocoons to see 'the other side' as well...instead it seems to be expected that people will come here, learn how to 'live right' and go home to make proper changes. They have a lot to teach us too...and not just the well-educated rich ones. Which your program would be leaving out, unless you were to base it on criteria other than academic?

Yup. I don't really disagree by and large with what you are saying, I just don't see the University program as being a good step.

Let me respond your last sentence first: I don't necessarily disagree with most of what you say either - this is a good example of the sort of dialogue that should be occurring in evaluating the specific educational needs of the countries. There should be a debate where the money should be spent - there's only so much, and priorities must be established.

I'd like to point out that I'm not focused on education as the sole solution, as I mentioned in my previous posts. I am suggesting that the first step is to realize that our current solution in Africa is not effective. Identify the problem. Now evaluate how we can really help. Start with beaurocracy - if we don't have effective organizations able to supply integrated help then create them. Ensure that future aid policy is coordinated across the board - make sure the State dept. isn't undermining the Peace Corps' work and that we're not shipping free onions to an onion-producing nation.

But hell, let's take education by itself. Great topic, and I know that's your area so maybe I can learn something. So to Africa: let's start with the concept - education - and evaluate what makes the best fit for the nation in question. It should be an absolute requirement that the nation itself suggest it's needs, and then for us to accomodate. Then there are no end of details to be worked out, and the fact that there are multiple solutions available to each problem should be seen as beneficial, not evidence that the problem can't be solved. The objective is to provide something useful to the nation, not necessarily what we think they need - though we have good experience at running large nations and our input can be helpful.

It's true that western schools can't fill all educational needs perfectly, but it's not a significant problem, in my view. If you'd like to take agriculture as an example - or possibly my area of knowledge, forestry - you may find that a significant part of that knowledge is transferrable and readily adapted to local circumstances. Yes, you'll train more in specific US conditions, but a great part of what you learn can be applied elsewhere. And the technology-heavy western model, while not ideal, can still provide plenty of valuable knowledge.In some cases specialized training is required - I would have needed an extra year or so to become competent in tropical forestry - but that is training also available in the US and in S. America. Just strive to get the best educational fit possible - there's a huge educational resource in the west, and that resource should include Latin America as well. Wait - here I am talking about the west when what I actually mean is the developed world. So please, where I say "the west" read developed world

I completely agree with your remarks regarding the value of primary and secondary education. It's another topic - there are so many needs it's hard to say where to start, so I just left it out, as I did malaria, AIDS, and economic reform, etc. So many things those countries need to fix (not suggesting that we don't have our own issues, just sticking on Africa for now) and so little aid money. But regarding the lower scools, I think the principal solution here is to evaluate the need in concert with the individual nation, whether it be lack of teachers or poor infrastructure, and insist the money be spent there. Enforced by audits.

I hope you don't think I'm being condescending when I suggest offering large-scale western educational funding. I am not saying that western is better than African from a cultural viewpoint, nor am I suggesting that we can offer better training in all areas. But offering a significant foreign study program is generous and can have positive effects - and they may have a smaller capacity to educate than they wish. And some of the best schools in the world are in the developed world - whether that fulfills their needs is up to them. I was attending MIT in the early 1970's and there were a lot of Asian students - those countries sent their brightest abroad to learn skills that they either couldn't teach as well at home or didn't have enough capacity for.

Simply put, ask them how we can help. Explain how we can help, and show them we are committed. And as much as possible spend the money on needs and services ourselves, not just handing it over to the government. I don't trust my government with our money, but I can tell you that I trust theirs less.

Some funds must go to their government to be disbursed for domestic needs. I don't think it's unreasonable to place conditions on it. Many disagree with me on that, but I would say that it all depends on the conditions. You're a rural lady, so you might understand a home-spin example of monetary conditions: occasionally somebody between paychecks or in a tight spot will ask if I can help them out. I do, but if they have a family I will loan (or give, depending) them some money with the condition they don't spend it in the bar or on damn lotto tickets. No difference, really.

Well damn. I agree with everything you've said. Kind of leaves me speechless:)

Actually, this conversation is rather inspiring, because a number of concrete examples of places to start have been given...instead of the usual pointless ranting. And I think most people reading this thread are actually thinking about it in real terms instead of abstracts.

As soon as Africans begin to become self-dependent, they'll be OK. All we need to do is to get them there; help them build an infrastructure, help them peacefully deal with their corrupt governments wherever possible, and for Christ's sake we need to stop with the unfair trade so they can actually get a foothold on the world economy.

How do we, or they, solve the problem in Zimbabwe where the dictator is tearing the infrastructure apart? How to get rid of the dictator? A stable government needs to be in place before the infrastructure can be built and a stable government is a problem in many African nations.

Regarding intervention in Darfour I think we should have been there a long time ago. But the question is who the "we" is - if the UN was a functioning organization it might have been there. The rest of the world doesn't want to go. There aren't sufficient African peacekeepers to do the job.

What's the short and long-term solution to providing intervention on the continent?

Short term = Europe, Asia, Gulf States, Central and South America, and Canada.
Long term = train Africans.

Sending more Africans to western universities will not reverse this trend, it will increase it. African health care systems are seriously under funded, in large part do to neo-liberal policies adopted by their governments in order to 'qualify' for aid.

How about having them sign a contract where they must work in Africa for a specified number of years in return for the education?

The US could be involved in this way as well as Canada and other nations.... The US is too stuck on itself in terms of "it's our way or the highway".

If you want the US to go in, don't bash the US. That's the problem, we are damned if we do, and damned if we don't. That's realy frustrating. :(

Well damn. I agree with everything you've said. Kind of leaves me speechless:)

Actually, this conversation is rather inspiring, because a number of concrete examples of places to start have been given...instead of the usual pointless ranting. And I think most people reading this thread are actually thinking about it in real terms instead of abstracts.

Was that directed at me? If so, you might be surprised how much we can agree on. Surely some significant disagreements as well, but I find it so much more productive to seek common ground and work with that.

Regarding an excellent thread - we're nowhere near done solving the problems yet. I'm hanging around as long as anyone else wants to talk about it.

How about having them sign a contract where they must work in Africa for a specified number of years in return for the education?
How are you going to ensure that the employment will actually be available in their fields?

If you want the US to go in, don't bash the US. That's the problem, we are damned if we do, and damned if we don't. That's realy frustrating. :(
Aww...poor you.

Just as you are tired of what you perceive as 'bashing', I am tired of constant whining and the exact thing you've just said repeated ad naseum.

Yes, you are damned if you do and damed if you don't, because you do it on your own terms, or not at all. Play nice. Be internationalists for a change.


It's frustrating hearing, "If we don't get do to it the American way, then screw you and do it all on your own!"

Regarding an excellent thread - we're nowhere near done solving the problems yet. I'm hanging around as long as anyone else wants to talk about it.I'm probably going to have to beg off for now, and get back into it tomorrow. But yes, I will committ to going into actual concrete strategies then. Yay!

How are you going to ensure that the employment will actually be available in their fields?

If the purpose of the program is for them to go back to Africa and help build the continent, you must make sure their education is applicable. For example, if the need is in Agriculture and Civil Engineering they would not qualify to go to the west to study computer science. When they graduate from school, you insure they are hired in Africa in their field of study. Use some of the direct aid money to hire them or help them start their own business.

Short term = Europe, Asia, Gulf States, Central and South America, and Canada.
Long term = train Africans.

I'm thinking long and short-term, African forces. Here's why:

I can't see how some nations can develop further until there's significant regime change. Sudan and Zimbabwe make the most compelling example. Rhoderick, who is from Zim, feels that is the case and I concur.

The rightful owner of intervention is the UN, but they are dysfunctional right now except in the humanitarian department - and that could use some review as well IMO.

With the history of colonialism in Africa I can't see how any western/Euro nation can unilaterally intervene in either of these countries without significant political problems worldwide. That's certainly true for the US - think of the headlines: "Sudan, is it another Iraq?"

Others who know more could help out, but the only coalitions I think existant are NATO and the African Union. The AU is presently too small to be effective in a significant way, which is why they asked for help from NATO.

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:e8QOnTPzKNQJ:www2.rnw.nl/rnw/en/currentaffairs/region/africa/sud050526%3Fview%3DStandard+african+peacekeepers&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

This article mentions that NATO will supply intelligence and command and control assistance, but it mentions that the EU will send materiel. Unless I read it wrong, no mention of troops.

What do you make of the EU assistance? Is that a synonym for NATO or are individual nations sending materiel, or is there a coalition called EU that can act cohesively here?

So - should we straighten out the UN (I'm pessimistic of the outfit), strengthen the AU with financial aid and training, or are EU/NATO/US coalitions the shape of the future.

I think the AU is the way to go - have them enforce the problems in their neck of the woods. It's politically tolerable and they're a lot closer. And it builds a sense of regional responsibility.

Here's how I see us fixing Africa.

Currently the one thing Africa can actually produce with any ease is agriculture. Farming is a relatively simple practice that the people there can fairly easily undertake. It is irrelevant whether or not we put Africa in poverty. Instead, it is time for us to realize that our own trade practices, especially in farming, are keeping Africa from fully developing.

Case in point: The CAP, or Common Agricultural Policy for Europe. It's a method of subsidizing food production in Europe to make sure that Europe remains self-sufficient. What does that mean for Europeans? Their governments take their tax money and use it to pay farmers to sell their goods cheap enough that they can undercut any business. Tie this in with tariffs against outside farming producers and it guarantees that European farmers feed Europeans.

This sounds fine, but it inevitably causes problems for people in Africa. Europe, with its higher cost of living, would be an excellent place for Third World producers to sell crops and actually maintain a successful agricultual business rather than just subsistence farming. This, in turn, would put money into local African economies as these farmers begin to want to use the money they make to buy other things. Essentially, if the CAP were dismantled, Africa would begin to fix itself, and Europeans wouldn't lose their money to subsidize inefficient farming. In fact, if that money were given back to Europeans or put into social programs, Europe's growth rate would probably start to pick up again.

However, Europe is not the only place engaging in unfair trade practices that hurt Africa. The United States maintains the right to subsidize or put tariffs on any item for "national security" purposes. Most notoriously, the US has subsidized sugar production in Wyoming while putting tariffs against sugar imports. Sugar is another great crop for fledging farmers to grow, but they are cut off from a whole extra market where they could compete for better prices on their goods. The result is similar to the CAP. The American government spends taxpayers' dollars subsidizing the farming industry, which costs the average American money, and meanwhile the Third World farmer can't make the money he should.

If these trade practices were revised and the whole globe was given a chance at free trade, we would see three immediate positive results:

1) Governments of developed countries would no longer have to spend money subsidizing industries, which would mean more money to pay down debt, to fund social programs or to give back to the people in the form of tax cuts, depending on their political slants.

2) People in developed countries would be able to get basic items like food cheaper because there would be no tariffs stopping cheap goods from reaching their grocery stores. This in turn would leave them with more money to spend on other things and as a result would grow the economies of developed countries even more.

3) The Third World would become a market worth investing in. Farmers in the Third World would start to have disposable income, which would mean there would be demand in Africa, which would be filled by either start-up African businesses or direct foreign investment, either of which would provide jobs for more Africans, which would create a cycle of demand that would propel Africa forward.

However, this solution is not without its losers. We're talking about a mass agricultural outsourcing. This means farmers in the developed world will lose their jobs. Overall, their nations will be better for it, but they personally will suffer, much like those who lost their jobs in the Industrial Revolution due to mechanization. Remember though, we have progressive countries. There is a social safety net here for those who lose their jobs, whereas those who can't get a job in Africa starve to death. We can get the people who lose jobs here back into the workforce, which is more than African governments can do right now for a variety of reasons.

This should be a simple case of special interests. Our governments are propping up industries that can't survive on their own, which is something we as a people frown upon. Meanwhile, others are starving, another thing we frown upon. This should be a matter of forcing our farmers to play fair on the world market, yet we refuse to make it one, and as a result, Africa stays poor and our pockets are getting drained to subsidize our farmers.

Direct aid isn't going to work. $100 million in aid to Ethiopia in 1985 ended up reducing personal income 4.6% (average) for the next 10 year.
But at least Ethiopia has pretty MiG-29s. Cause you know jets are just the most effecient form against the starving people in Eritrea who might invade. :rolleyes:

The most critical thing Africa needs right now is free and fair trade. No more government subsidies in the US that crowd out the cash crops in the African economy. No more waiting 100 days and paying exorbinate fees to start a business, too. That'll take care of long-term viability issues.
Other than that, Africa doesn't need much; only the most basic of infrastructure and vaccinations, for instance. Burkina Faso doesn't need a 16 lane highway, and not everyone has to go to college when oppurtinity does not currently exist. Building things like this will only suck up already short supply of decent labor in Africa, driving up inflation and not improving the actual aggregrate supply. (To help out the labor situation, the Peace Corps is going to need a serious increase in funds and labor so it can actually get intelligent Westerners there, too)

What do you make of the EU assistance? Is that a synonym for NATO or are individual nations sending materiel, or is there a coalition called EU that can act cohesively here?

So - should we straighten out the UN (I'm pessimistic of the outfit), strengthen the AU with financial aid and training, or are EU/NATO/US coalitions the shape of the future.

I think the AU is the way to go - have them enforce the problems in their neck of the woods. It's politically tolerable and they're a lot closer. And it builds a sense of regional responsibility.

I agree with what you are saying about the West and the US going in. Perhaps NATO or the EU can supply equipment and training for the AU.
Then they could move forward as Zim suggests one nation at a time. A very slow but perhaps the best solution. Once you get one country stabilized, you start working on neighboring counties.

Rag, what you are saying about farm subsidies is true. The price of domestic products is held down. I think the reason why countries are reluctant to end the practice is they don't want to be at the mercy of some other county, any other country, to feed their people. Think of what would happen if a country were dependant on other countries to feed their population. Any dispute between nations, any war that disrupted the food chain would have a devastating effect on the dependant nation.

On the plus side, since NAFTA went into effect I have seen an increase in produce from South and Central America in the grocery stores here in Oklahoma. I even saw tomatoes on sale this weekend that came from Canada. I thought it was a bit early for tomatoes from the North. I was obviously wrong. :D

Rag, what you are saying about farm subsidies is true. The price of domestic products is held down. I think the reason why countries are reluctant to end the practice is they don't want to be at the mercy of some other county, any other country, to feed their people. Think of what would happen if a country were dependant on other countries to feed their population. Any dispute between nations, any war that disrupted the food chain would have a devastating effect on the dependant nation.

Well we can consider that an economic incentive to remain at peace. We have to stop talking globalization unless we mean it though. We inevitably aren't going to be able to produce all of the essentials for life living in a truly global community, and as a result we're going to have to start to trust other nations with things like food. This clamouring about outsourcing is a step in the wrong direction. The whole idea of globalization is a move towards specialization for greater efficiency, and the United States in particular is trying to have its cake and eat it too on globalization. Even though NAFTA is supposed to guarantee free trade between the United States, Mexico and Canada, Canada still has to deal with American tariffs on softwood lumber, beef and grain. Numerous panels, some from impartial groups like the WTO and others with a majority of panel members being American have ruled against the United States' actions in these cases, but the current administration has refused to play fair with trade agreements. At least in Canada we can help out the people who lose jobs from this irresponsibility through our welfare system, but as I said before, when the powers of the world don't play fair with Africa, the African people don't fall back on welfare, they starve.

Well we can consider that an economic incentive to remain at peace. We have to stop talking globalization unless we mean it though. We inevitably aren't going to be able to produce all of the essentials for life living in a truly global community, and as a result we're going to have to start to trust other nations with things like food. This clamouring about outsourcing is a step in the wrong direction. The whole idea of globalization is a move towards specialization for greater efficiency, and the United States in particular is trying to have its cake and eat it too on globalization. Even though NAFTA is supposed to guarantee free trade between the United States, Mexico and Canada, Canada still has to deal with American tariffs on softwood lumber, beef and grain. Numerous panels, some from impartial groups like the WTO and others with a majority of panel members being American have ruled against the United States' actions in these cases, but the current administration has refused to play fair with trade agreements. At least in Canada we can help out the people who lose jobs from this irresponsibility through our welfare system, but as I said before, when the powers of the world don't play fair with Africa, the African people don't fall back on welfare, they starve.

I agree with your last sentence - playing fair and honest commitment is where it's at with Africa. Regarding globalization and specialization, I'll go along with it but in context of the immediate needs of nations on the continent is considering specialization premature? I don't mean that critically, but should we be considering this issue? I'm thinking globalization near-term is good, increasing the connectivity of nations economically, etc.

I'd mention a few thoughts on the softwood tariffs as an American involved in the forest industries, but I don't want to stray too far off topic - I've rather been enjoying this thread. Perhaps we could exchange views another time if an opportunity presents itself?

...when the powers of the world don't play fair with Africa, the African people don't fall back on welfare, they starve.

Both true and sad. My aunt served in Africa, Biafra (when it was an independent nation) with an Irish order, Medical Missionaries of Mary. She was a Registered Nurse and a midwife. She told us the poor people they were there to serve would come to the clinic for medical treatment during the day. At night, the rebels would come and demand medical treatment.

The Catholic Church feared for the safety of the Sisters and finally pulled them out and sent them back to Ireland. What a shame, what a loss for the common poor people who were caught in the middle of a civil war. Civil wars do happen but unfortunately, it seems to be a common occurrence in Africa.

I'd mention a few thoughts on the softwood tariffs as an American involved in the forest industries, but I don't want to stray too far off topic - I've rather been enjoying this thread. Perhaps we could exchange views another time if an opportunity presents itself?

Why not start a new thread on the software tariffs? I'm and American and surprised with NAFTA in place they exist. I'd like to know more about the subject.

Wow, some very intelligent ideas and not too much blaming each other, why can't this happen in the forums that matter (UN, OAU, G8 etc).

About the higher education ideas, I have the benifit of working in theat feild now (press is not an option), and truth be said, it would be better if Westen Universities opened campuses in African countries, health sciences and ecconomics probably, where their US/European students could do a year in the field and African students could study at a reasonable price.

I think we need regime change. Masses of it. Quite frankly, alot of African countries possess a great deal of inherent wealth - Zimbabwe (prior to the Mugabe regime) had one of the best agricultures in Africa, Nigeria has large oil reserves and the Congo is one of the world's main suppliers of tin. The problem is not money - it is the fact that their leaders squander it on themselves and waging war with their neighbours. In the Congo for instance, various uncontrollable militias run the show because the government is unable to exert any influence over them.

Once the corrupt regimes have been dealt with, financial aid and debt relief will probably have a much greater effect on the entire of Africa as the money will be put towards aiding the people rather than replenshing the pockets of foul tyrants.

Most people seem to think that the G8 will be able to wipe out poverty in Africa with the stroke of a pen. It won't - it will take a century of pressure (both internal and external) on regimes to conform to western standards of democracy before poverty can be trully tackled.

I think we need regime change. Masses of it.
I don't see replacing regimes is going to fix the problem. The infrastructural problems weren't about to be solved before Mugabe either (apart from the matter of the previous government being an Apartheid regime).
Free Trade and Social Infrastructure. Then the governments will solve themselves.

I don't see replacing regimes is going to fix the problem. The infrastructural problems weren't about to be solved before Mugabe either (apart from the matter of the previous government being an Apartheid regime).
Free Trade and Social Infrastructure. Then the governments will solve themselves.

It is exactly because Mugabe waited twenty years before doing anything about land that causes our problems, he always kept it as a last card up his sleeve to prevent being put against a wall. Also the figures banded arrpund about land are nonsense. White Zimbabwean Farmers did not own 70% of Zimbabwe's land, nor 70% of the arible land in Zimbabwe, but really 70% of land that was being used for agriculture, roughly 23.5% of the arable land in the country (with which we fed 16 other countries), the government owed most of the rest and refused to give rural farmers title deeds so they could get loans from banks so they could invest. Free Trade is effectively rape, fair trade is needed.

Free Trade is effectively rape, fair trade is needed.
I specialise in development economics, and I would like to hear your definition of free trade and fair trade.

I specialise in development economics, and I would like to hear your definition of free trade and fair trade.

Maybe you could start by telling us you hypotheses on why various Asian nations such as India, China, and Vietnam (or even places like Singapore) are doing so well, and making such terrific strides in the past 20 years, while Africa sinks into a morass of corruption and civil war.

Free trade, as we understand it is trade without the frustration of trade barries and government interferance - which effectively supports already succesful bussinesses. Fair trade as I would explain it would be trade were for a short period there is a biase in favour of the African exporter of non-raw resourse - processed goods, for a fixed period of time say ten years, without forcing reciprical agreements for western goods, which would allow a country to build up its economic backbone, and then be renegotiated. I feel these terms should only be given to recognised democracies.

Maybe you could start by telling us you hypotheses on why various Asian nations such as India, China, and Vietnam (or even places like Singapore) are doing so well, and making such terrific strides in the past 20 years, while Africa sinks into a morass of corruption and civil war.
Savings rates and social infrastructure (as well as population growth - the more people, the more capital you need to be efficient). Savings rates need to be high in order to create money to increase investment into new capital (ie machines, not money). Foreign Investment can also replace some savings, although not completely. Traditionally, Asian countries had a fairly high savings rate I believe.
Social infrastructure comes down to the usual things - a strong rule of law, physical infrastructure, a relatively small black market and so on.

Free Trade really is fair trade. Free Trade by definition doesn't allow for agricultural subsidies and so on. But it would give locals the opportunity to actually make money and move above a subsistence level, for example enable them to save something.
And Social Infrastructure is something that a Government is necessary for really, but I don't see any African Government moving past simple "I'll make myself richer'-sentiments any time soon. And so I propose that aid be directly invested in a country, rather than given to Governments to be distributed.

Maybe you could start by telling us you hypotheses on why various Asian nations such as India, China, and Vietnam (or even places like Singapore) are doing so well, and making such terrific strides in the past 20 years, while Africa sinks into a morass of corruption and civil war.

Having just returned from India, let me tell you I thought it was worse than any non war zone in Africa in terms of poverty. Just because a country's ecconomy is doing well does not mean its people are.

...Fair trade as I would explain it would be trade were for a short period there is a biase in favour of the African exporter of non-raw resourse - processed goods...
Apart from the matter of getting rich countries to agree - what would such a bias towards an exporter look like?
And what about 3rd world countries which generally have no infrastructure to really process raw materials?
And who would produce, considering how you don't like international companies to do things? The local sugar farmer? Someone needs to get a production going in the first place - without capital, without investment and without an educated workforce. Plus having to bribe a billion officials to get things to happen.

Having just returned from India, let me tell you I thought it was worse than any non war zone in Africa in terms of poverty. Just because a country's ecconomy is doing well does not mean its people are.

I've been to India, China, and Singapore, and they all seem to have skyrocketing economies. Sure, not everyone has a downtown office job, but compared to 20 years ago, it's a radical difference.

I was talking to someone in Beijing not long ago who commented that 20 years ago, he dreamed that one day he might be able to own a car - not even a new one - and today, here he was getting an E-ticket for a connecting flight. He said the country has come further than anyone ever dreamed.

I've heard the same from Indians. Sure, they still have poor people. But there is a wave of development that no African nation has ever come close to achieving.

Considering the recent Live 8 festivals and the situations in Zimbabwe, Dafour and Congo, China replacing the UK as the fourth highest contributer to African Development what do you beleive is required to drap Africa out of the mire?

I personally like the Sam Kineson approach....

"Give me a couple of busses, and I'll solve this problem.... Excuse me, Zumbobway.... come here a second.... You see this [reaches down and grabs a handfull of sand]... This is saaaaand... Yes sand.... See, saaaand... HERE EAT IT!!!! Sand... Nothing grows in sand...... Ok grab your kids; pack your shit up; we're moving you where ther food is....."

In Mumbai and Calcutta I saw people sleeping out on the streets in their thousands, on every street and in ditches, on roofs of house because they have no where to go, I've never seen that in South Africa, Rwanda, Kenya, Mauritious or Congo (Brazavil). At home, in Zimbabwe, that didn't happen until six weeks ago - and is politically motivated. In Mumbai they have the world's second largest slum of 4 million people, the biggest in Africa is either in Nairobi or Cairo and it is a fraction of that. China's wealth is isolated to the Costal regions arround Bejing, over 60 % of the population lives in abject poverty. Singapore's wealth comes at the cost of civil liberties, but apart from that I can't really comment.

As for how Fair (preferntial) trade starts, well not all at once, countries have to earn that through democratic and human rights reform and for products that they can produce - Ghana, Chocolate not coco, Zimbabwe, cars not steel sheeting, Tanzania, jewlary not uncut stones etc etc. Also, have you never heard of investment?

Why should the West do this?: 1) 9/11, and the lesson you should have learnt from it that keeping peoples poor and down trodden by stable dictatorships only results in them lashing out under the guidance of Zealots, in Africa's case Chritian and Muslim Zealots, 2) China, which is getting in there and if you want to remain the world's powers and not simple ecconomic colonies of Sino state industry you'll fix your foregn policies, quick time.

You should see the slums in Lagos.

Fair point, I haven't.

One other reason why you should, coz it is the right thing to do.

Wow, some very intelligent ideas and not too much blaming each other, why can't this happen in the forums that matter (UN, OAU, G8 etc).

About the higher education ideas, I have the benifit of working in theat feild now (press is not an option), and truth be said, it would be better if Westen Universities opened campuses in African countries, health sciences and ecconomics probably, where their US/European students could do a year in the field and African students could study at a reasonable price.

As you know we've been thrashing the idea of education as one of the long-term solutions. My thinking is that technical training brings necessary skills into the nations quickly (2-4 years) and that the developed world has the university capacity to handle large amounts of African students now. So I'm thinking capacity is what the west has to offer - a way to educate thousands more (at no cost) than the national colleges can handle at present. Quickly.

Since I don't know what capacity might exist, I looked up Uganda as an example and learned that 5,000 students enter Makere University annually in a nation of 27 million with a literacy rate of 69% (CIA factbook). That's not much capacity if you suddenly need more skills.

In year 2000 there were 490,000 foreign students studying in the US and 51% were from China. Proving nothing but that the west has a large capacity for post-secondary and that other nations are seeking what Africa might need from the west.

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:7tbFHx8tnXIJ:www.asianweek.com/2000_01_20/news_students.html+number+of+students+entering+college+in+the+united+states&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

The benefit I anticipate is that vital skills nations may be lacking right now can be supplied QUICKLY, i.e. teachers, medical personnel. Agricultural shortages can be reversed by having trained Ag. people, teachers can get started, no end of brushfires can be put out. That's a short-term solution - a few educational cycles and you're off to a good start. Get some economists, communications experts, business people, etc. and get them plugged in.

It does make sense to me to evaluate local universities and considering if higher educational capacity is needed - it is clearly necessary to create educational self-sufficiency at home. Maybe what they have is sufficient, maybe they need more classrooms, dorms. Maybe they need additional ot higher quality faculty - most schools could use a few faculty educated in the top western schools - Harvard, MIT, Oxford, Sorbonne, etc. But that takes a while.

I like your idea of having western students do a year at an African school - cultural exchange will really help the west understand African issues, not to mention it's valuable to get in the field under different conditions.

Rhoderick, you mentioned elsewhere that history taught in Zim was slanted at best. Would it benefit Zim if students were educated abroad, given a more complete view of things? Do you see benefit to the society if a critical mass of western-educated people are imbedded there? What are your views on cultural changes brought about by western education that might occur in some countries that haven't had close contact with the west in some time?

So - should we straighten out the UN (I'm pessimistic of the outfit), strengthen the AU with financial aid and training, or are EU/NATO/US coalitions the shape of the future.

I think the AU is the way to go - have them enforce the problems in their neck of the woods. It's politically tolerable and they're a lot closer. And it builds a sense of regional responsibility.
I think, forget the UN. It just isn't going to happen. I support the idea of facilitating an AU intervention, meaning, individual countries can contribute in their own way to the effort, with troops, materials, intelligence, planning, post-operation clean-up etc. I agree that NO country should go in unilaterally. For one thing, doing so would mean a major commitment, and it seems to me that most nations are fairly stretched militarily. The US in particular would not be able to commit the forces necessary on their own right now, and nor should they. This is a problem that really affects the entire world in one way or another. For another, were NATO or any other 'foreign' organisation to go in, it simply disempowers the Africans themselves. To make lasting change, they are going to have to be the ones with the driving will to make that change. We can help, but we should not 'take over'.

Fair point, I haven't.

One other reason why you should, coz it is the right thing to do.

My point is that India and China are at least improving their economies. It may not have touched everyone, but it is improving, and in a highly visible and substantial manner.

African nations seem to excel at going backwards.

As for how Fair (preferntial) trade starts, well not all at once, countries have to earn that through democratic and human rights reform and for products that they can produce - Ghana, Chocolate not coco, Zimbabwe, cars not steel sheeting, Tanzania, jewlary not uncut stones etc etc. Also, have you never heard of investment?
Yes, yes, yes.

In Mumbai and Calcutta I saw people sleeping out on the streets in their thousands, on every street and in ditches, on roofs of house because they have no where to go, I've never seen that in South Africa, Rwanda, Kenya, Mauritious or Congo (Brazavil). At home, in Zimbabwe, that didn't happen until six weeks ago - and is politically motivated. In Mumbai they have the world's second largest slum of 4 million people, the biggest in Africa is either in Nairobi or Cairo and it is a fraction of that. China's wealth is isolated to the Costal regions arround Bejing, over 60 % of the population lives in abject poverty. Singapore's wealth comes at the cost of civil liberties, but apart from that I can't really comment.

As for how Fair (preferntial) trade starts, well not all at once, countries have to earn that through democratic and human rights reform and for products that they can produce - Ghana, Chocolate not coco, Zimbabwe, cars not steel sheeting, Tanzania, jewlary not uncut stones etc etc. Also, have you never heard of investment?

Why should the West do this?: 1) 9/11, and the lesson you should have learnt from it that keeping peoples poor and down trodden by stable dictatorships only results in them lashing out under the guidance of Zealots, in Africa's case Chritian and Muslim Zealots, 2) China, which is getting in there and if you want to remain the world's powers and not simple ecconomic colonies of Sino state industry you'll fix your foregn policies, quick time.

Do you still live in Zimbabwe?

My point is that India and China are at least improving their economies. It may not have touched everyone, but it is improving, and in a highly visible and substantial manner.

African nations seem to excel at going backwards.

I know this is going to sound racist (the opening line of most racist statements I know, please forgive me) but the reason why Africa is going backwards is our black leaders (the reason we are not going forward is your trade policies), because no head of a white country dear critisie them for fear of looking racist (and they know it) and we have to be fighting civil wars before you are prepared to interveen.

Do you still live in Zimbabwe?


No I am not allowed to go home, like about twenty thosand others (both black and white) I have lost both my citizenship and residancy status while I was away studying.

No I am not allowed to go home, like about twenty thosand others (both black and white) I have lost both my citizenship and residancy status while I was away studying.

If it were in my power to do so, I'd blow Mugabe's head off with a shotgun.

My point is that India and China are at least improving their economies. It may not have touched everyone, but it is improving, and in a highly visible and substantial manner.

African nations seem to excel at going backwards.

I'm thinking part of it is education. And obviously inefficent if not corrupt governments.

If the servants of the government aren't capable then there's no forward movement. How good are their economists? Their civil engineering department? Their communications division?

Maybe get some capable people in there and you'd get a handle on the nuts and bolts of running a country. Start turning out teachers and get the people to read.

If these trade practices were revised and the whole globe was given a chance at free trade, we would see three immediate positive results:

1) Governments of developed countries would no longer have to spend money subsidizing industries, which would mean more money to pay down debt, to fund social programs or to give back to the people in the form of tax cuts, depending on their political slants.

2) People in developed countries would be able to get basic items like food cheaper because there would be no tariffs stopping cheap goods from reaching their grocery stores. This in turn would leave them with more money to spend on other things and as a result would grow the economies of developed countries even more.

3) The Third World would become a market worth investing in. Farmers in the Third World would start to have disposable income, which would mean there would be demand in Africa, which would be filled by either start-up African businesses or direct foreign investment, either of which would provide jobs for more Africans, which would create a cycle of demand that would propel Africa forward.

However, this solution is not without its losers. We're talking about a mass agricultural outsourcing. This means farmers in the developed world will lose their jobs. Overall, their nations will be better for it, but they personally will suffer, much like those who lost their jobs in the Industrial Revolution due to mechanization. Remember though, we have progressive countries. There is a social safety net here for those who lose their jobs, whereas those who can't get a job in Africa starve to death. We can get the people who lose jobs here back into the workforce, which is more than African governments can do right now for a variety of reasons.

This should be a simple case of special interests. Our governments are propping up industries that can't survive on their own, which is something we as a people frown upon. Meanwhile, others are starving, another thing we frown upon. This should be a matter of forcing our farmers to play fair on the world market, yet we refuse to make it one, and as a result, Africa stays poor and our pockets are getting drained to subsidize our farmers.

Yes...free trade needs to be much freer than it is right now. The scales need to be balanced more. However, I think one provision that needs to be made is that individual nations should also have the right to protect their staple foodstuffs. For example, if a nation relies heavily on rice as a staple food, domestic production could still be protected with a tariff, or by other means to ensure that production does not fail. I don't think we really want to see a world in which the South alone produces all the food, and the North is completely reliant on them for it. It would create a very scary situation.

I would like to see the developed nations reconsider their eating habits. Eat foods more in season, locally produced, and pay more for the 'exotics' from abroad. Each nation should work at being fairly self-sufficient in terms of basic food production. Reorganise our trade so that it makes sense. Here are some important things to consider about agriculture:

Farmers
Farming the land provides the livelihood of a large proportion of the world’s people.5
Agriculture provides the main source of income for some 2.5 billion people

96% of the world’s farmers live in developing countries
Clearly, maintaining the livelihood of those who are employed in the agricultural sector is important.

Cash crops
Every year an extra million hectares is transferred from food crops to plantation crops – almost always for export.11
We need to reverse this trend in order to make sure more nations are somewhat self-sufficient in terms of food production. This is especially crucial in Africa, where the majority of this crop transference is currently happening.
TRADE
The subsidy to each cow in the EU, at $2.50, exceeds the daily income of many Africans. The richest 20% of EU farmers get 80% of the subsidies. The total amount of support to agriculture in rich countries stands at some $300 billion per annum.

Bangladesh reduced import tariffs from 102% to 27% between 1988 and 1996. Ghana, Kenya and Tanzania cut tariff rates by a half or more during the 1990s5

Trade liberalization has not necessarily led to cheaper food prices for consumers in poor countries. More than 20% of the total population of some strong trade liberalizers, such as Bolivia, Nepal and Mali, are undernourished5
Reducing tariffs alone won't help, but a concerted effort to cut unnecessary subsidies, tariffs, and beefing up domestic food production in favour of cash crops is a start.
UNECESSARY TRADE
In 1998 Britain imported 61,000 tonnes of poultry meat from the Netherlands. It also exported 33,100 tonnes of poultry meat to the Netherlands.
Global corporations searching for the lowest commodity prices fuel this kind of unnecessary trading. Local producers are often undercut by cheap meat flooding into the country.
Often, nations 'create' markets for political, rather than practical reasons. We need to cut back on this 'scratch your back scratch mine' way of trading food.
UNECESSARY TRADE CONT.
Aviation fuel is not taxed. This is a hidden subsidy to the global food trade. While much food goes by sea, air-freighted food – such as chickens from Brazil and Thailand, mainly for use in processed foods – makes a major contribution to global warming.
Aside from the global warming issue, we should also be looking at the REAL costs of transporting foods from afar. We need to understand that petroleum is not going to last forever, and act accordingly. While certainly, we would be doing no one a favour by including the total transportation costs into the end product (for example, making bananas $10 each), we could factor in transportation costs, costs of labour and production in more than we are. Yes, this will mean foods from 'abroad' will cost more.

However. This would also mean that nations would then have to rely more strongly on domestic food production. This is still going to put the North (developed nations) in somewhat of a weaker position food-wise than the rich, agricultural south. That is, in certain crops. However, we would likely make up that shortfall with other export goods. In the end, it would balance out. (well, it would be more complicated than that, but this is just a general idea).

I'm thinking part of it is education. And obviously inefficent if not corrupt governments.

Their governments are the main problem. Africa is the continent of dictatorships. Yes, there are a few exceptions, such as Botswana and Ghana, but they are the exception, not the rule.

Well we can consider that an economic incentive to remain at peace. We have to stop talking globalization unless we mean it though. We inevitably aren't going to be able to produce all of the essentials for life living in a truly global community, and as a result we're going to have to start to trust other nations with things like food. This clamouring about outsourcing is a step in the wrong direction. The whole idea of globalization is a move towards specialization for greater efficiency...
Right. Each nation can start growing the foodstuffs necessary for survival, but certain nations are going to overproduce specialty foods (or other crops) desired by other nations. The US, Canada and the Ukraine in particular are still going to be strong wheat exporters. Argentina, the US, New Zealand and Canada will still be strong beef exporters, but net banana importers. What we DON'T want is any nation that is 100% cash crops...you can't eat cotton, and if the market crashes, hell, you can't even sell it for enough to buy food.

If it were in my power to do so, I'd blow Mugabe's head off with a shotgun.

You would be at the back of one of the longest lines in the world, if we had the power to shoot Uncle Bob.

Oddly enough I don't think that it is Mugabe that is the sorce of the problem, I'll explain:

Mugabe is ruthless, he is heartless and wouldn't blink at killing millions to get his way! BUT, the policies of the last four years are not rational, and Mugabe is rational. His government has undermined the ecconomy, Bob spent twenty years trying to avoid that, he has made the old war veterans powerful, even though he can't control them and knows it, he has been forced to turn away from Britain, the country he admires the most, and turn to the Chinese and Cuban, who supported his predesessors Tongogara and Takawera (Who either Bob or the Rhodesians bumbed off - my money is with Bob). The schooling system is one of the primary targets of the repressive moves, he is a teacher, loves teaching and holds it more scared than anything else in the world apart from power, he has created a rift between himself and the Catholic church that could lead to his excommunication, but he is a feircly religious Catholic. My assesment is that Mugabe's juniors, with racist intent and poor political sense have been competeing with each other to be more and more radical revolutionaries, and Mugabe can't control them, nor can he bring himself to admit to the rest of us that he is not in control. So he takes the blame/credit and lumbers on. You can see this in his previous actions, when his last wife was dying Bob turned to his secretary as a shoulder (Arse and beasts as well) to cry on, and the press found out, so when Sally died, after a respectable period, he married Grace. Grace had kids, the don't look like Bobs, but they were conceived when Bob was having his bit on the side with her so he adopted them as his own, mean while the person we all beleive was the father (Peter Pamire, our equivilant of a young Richard Branson) had a fatal car crash that just happened to leave tank track all over his Pajero. What I am saying here is that Bob took Grace as a wife so not to look morally weak, and he kept the kids to not look sexually weak, and he killed PP not to look socially weak, but few of the things that happend were a result of his planning them.

This is taken from the New Internationalist online, issue 353 to illustrate why food aid is harmful, and what sparks the 'dumping' of food in this manner:



Dumping (exporting at a price below the cost of production) by rich countries creates unfair competition for local producers. Giving food away as food aid is one way of dumping.

World Food Programme figures show that food aid peaks in years when world cereal prices are low and stocks are high. Ironically this means that food aid is most readily available in overproduction years – when it is least needed. Between 1996 and 2000 the price of wheat dropped while food-aid shipments increased by more than 50 per cent. The US and the EU account for half of all wheat exports, with prices respectively 46 per cent and 34 per cent below the cost of production. WTO rules which outlaw dumping make exceptions for aid. The US is unique in giving its aid in kind rather than cash, helping to undercut local economies.

The International Food Policy Research Institute estimates that in 2000 US food aid – coupled with imports from the EU and Turkey – depressed local wheat prices in Bangladesh by 20 per cent; an additional 100,000 tonnes of food aid reduced local wheat production by as much as 91,000 tonnes.

USAID’s own website reads: ‘The principal beneficiary of America’s foreign-assistance programs has always been the US. Close to 80 per cent of the USAID contracts and grants go directly to American firms. Foreign-assistance programs have helped create major markets for agricultural goods.’

You would be at the back of one of the longest lines in the world, if we had the power to shoot Uncle Bob.

Oddly enough I don't think that it is Mugabe that is the sorce of the problem, I'll explain:

Mugabe is ruthless, he is heartless and wouldn't blink at killing millions to get his way! BUT, the policies of the last four years are not rational, and Mugabe is rational. His government has undermined the ecconomy, Bob spent twenty years trying to avoid that, he has made the old war veterans powerful, even though he can't control them and knows it, he has been forced to turn away from Britain, the country he admires the most, and turn to the Chinese and Cuban, who supported his predesessors Tongogara and Takawera (Who either Bob or the Rhodesians bumbed off - my money is with Bob). The schooling system is one of the primary targets of the repressive moves, he is a teacher, loves teaching and holds it more scared than anything else in the world apart from power, he has created a rift between himself and the Catholic church that could lead to his excommunication, but he is a feircly religious Catholic. My assesment is that Mugabe's juniors, with racist intent and poor political sense have been competeing with each other to be more and more radical revolutionaries, and Mugabe can't control them, nor can he bring himself to admit to the rest of us that he is not in control. So he takes the blame/credit and lumbers on. You can see this in his previous actions, when his last wife was dying Bob turned to his secretary as a shoulder (Ares and beasts as well) to cry on, and the press found out, so when Sally died, after a respectable period, he married Grace. Grace had kids, the don't look like Bobs, but they were conceived when Bob was having his bit on the side with her so he adopted them as his own, mean while the person we all beleive was the father (Peter Pamire, our equivilant of a young Richard Branson) had a fatal car crash that just happened to leave tank track all over his Pajero. What I am saying here is that Bob took Grace as a wife so not to look morally weak, and he kept the kids to not look sexually weak, and he killed PP not to look socially weak, but few of the things that happend were a result of his planning them.

Actually, Mugabe is the source of the problem. Prior to Mugabe, Zimbabwe (then Rhodesia) was a stable, thriving country, with a robust economy, some of the best healthcare and education facilities in Africa, a very low crime rate, and, for the most part, prevalent stability and law and order. If the West had supported Ian Smith, and allowed him to continue his meritocratic approach, Zimbabwe wouldn't be in the mess it's in today.

It's possible this was brought up already but has anyone considered what Africas population is doing when thinking of ways to end poverty? Have you seen the prediction for Africa's population pyramid in the next 10 years or so? It's scary. Aids is taking out an entire generation from the 20-40 age bracket. The pyramid is huge on the bottom with children, tiny in the middle with few middle age, and only slighty bigger on top with the elderly. So when disussing ways to solve the problem of Africa, don't forget that the county is soon going to be populated almost totally by orphaned children in some regions.

I think we need regime change. Masses of it. Quite frankly, alot of African countries possess a great deal of inherent wealth - Zimbabwe (prior to the Mugabe regime) had one of the best agricultures in Africa, Nigeria has large oil reserves and the Congo is one of the world's main suppliers of tin. The problem is not money - it is the fact that their leaders squander it on themselves and waging war with their neighbours. In the Congo for instance, various uncontrollable militias run the show because the government is unable to exert any influence over them.

Absolutely true. People seem to think of Africa as impoverished in resources, when the opposite is true. They have plenty of resources, but not the stability to use them efficiently. Regime change is probably the most important first step. Weeding out corruption so that the resources that DO exist actually benefit Africans.

Here is some information on the real cost of conflict and war in Africa:


• In Africa, economic losses due to war are approximately $15 billion per year.2
• Between 1989-2001 there have been 115 armed conflicts around the world, 108 of which were civil conflicts. The most serious of these have been in Africa.4
• The more that states rely on exporting raw materials, the worse their standard of living is likely to be. The greater a country’s level of mineral dependence, the lower its ranking in the Human Development Index between 1991-98.6
• More than 14 million people face hunger due to present or recent conflicts globally.10
• Today, as many as 300,000 children under 18 serve in government forces or armed rebel groups, some as young as eight years old.2
War and conflict are ravaging the continent. We can deal with nothing else in any effective fashion before this issue is addressed.

I don't see replacing regimes is going to fix the problem. The infrastructural problems weren't about to be solved before Mugabe either (apart from the matter of the previous government being an Apartheid regime).
Free Trade and Social Infrastructure. Then the governments will solve themselves.
No, no they won't. The African people will solve the governments, and they must be given help to do so. Until then, no amount of monies poured into infrastructure, education, aid, NONE of it will be truly effective. Too much of it will be squandered away by corruption, and the instability that comes with the major conflicts in Africa will derail and real changes.

Actually, Mugabe is the source of the problem. Prior to Mugabe, Zimbabwe (then Rhodesia) was a stable, thriving country, with a robust economy, some of the best healthcare and education facilities in Africa, a very low crime rate, and, for the most part, prevalent stability and law and order. If the West had supported Ian Smith, and allowed him to continue his meritocratic approach, Zimbabwe wouldn't be in the mess it's in today.


Rhodesia failed because Britain refused us independance in 1965, when Zambia and Malawi got it. Had we been given that independance the Liberal parties would have won and allowed multi racial elections based on academic level - ie, finish high school vote, drop out your not smart enough to vote. That failure lead to a semi literate bigot taking over who lead us down the road to genocide. I have less respect for Smith than I do for Mugabe, and I have the experience of meeting both men several times.

The only thing that Smith was right about was his assessment that the West were prepared to help him as long as he stood in the way of Russian influence, but as soon as ZANU were assured of beating PF ZAPU he ceased to be important.

If it were in my power to do so, I'd blow Mugabe's head off with a shotgun.
Emotional response to an emotional issue.

But surely you realise no one single person is responsible for the ills of a nation, and the death of one man will not suddenly solve the situation there? In fact, his murder may make a martyr out of a tyrant...and increase the support for his policies post-mortem.

This is taken from the New Internationalist online, issue 353 to illustrate why food aid is harmful, and what sparks the 'dumping' of food in this manner:



Dumping (exporting at a price below the cost of production) by rich countries creates unfair competition for local producers. Giving food away as food aid is one way of dumping.

World Food Programme figures show that food aid peaks in years when world cereal prices are low and stocks are high. Ironically this means that food aid is most readily available in overproduction years – when it is least needed. Between 1996 and 2000 the price of wheat dropped while food-aid shipments increased by more than 50 per cent. The US and the EU account for half of all wheat exports, with prices respectively 46 per cent and 34 per cent below the cost of production. WTO rules which outlaw dumping make exceptions for aid. The US is unique in giving its aid in kind rather than cash, helping to undercut local economies.

The International Food Policy Research Institute estimates that in 2000 US food aid – coupled with imports from the EU and Turkey – depressed local wheat prices in Bangladesh by 20 per cent; an additional 100,000 tonnes of food aid reduced local wheat production by as much as 91,000 tonnes.

USAID’s own website reads: ‘The principal beneficiary of America’s foreign-assistance programs has always been the US. Close to 80 per cent of the USAID contracts and grants go directly to American firms. Foreign-assistance programs have helped create major markets for agricultural goods.’

Would it be too simplistic to say that the solution is to calculate the recipient nation's wheat demand/supply and to not add to the supply unless needed?

In the long term, and very hypothetically, it might be possible for nations to partally convert wheat land to cash crops if there were a long-term commitment from the west to supply wheat. Should not be total conversion since a guarantee against starvation should be ensured.

Thing with the wheat is that no place in the world can grow wheat as efficiently as the US and Canada or in such quantity. We produce inexpensive wheat of which we have a surplus. Maybe we need to fine-tune how we distribute it.

I still think the problem is that there are too many agencies working at this in an uncoordinated manner. Each country has numerous, from the state departments to local groups. There's not enough communication and no clear long-term objective, either political or practical. A super-agency should be created that will coordinate needs.

I'm thinking part of it is education. And obviously inefficent if not corrupt governments.

If the servants of the government aren't capable then there's no forward movement. How good are their economists? Their civil engineering department? Their communications division?

Maybe get some capable people in there and you'd get a handle on the nuts and bolts of running a country. Start turning out teachers and get the people to read.
Yes...I'm agreeing with this. Now that I understand you intend this to be part of a very integrated approach, I would agree that some high level training would help, especially in the areas you've mentioned. Thumbs up for education et al:)

Emotional response to an emotional issue.

But surely you realise no one single person is responsible for the ills of a nation, and the death of one man will not suddenly solve the situation there? In fact, his murder may make a martyr out of a tyrant...and increase the support for his policies post-mortem.

Inteligent answer but wrong in Zimbabwe's case. I mean that once Mugabe is dead - hopefully soon and hopefully at the hands of one of his henchmen or naturally - his party will implode into a internal civil war, which will affect only a few inocent bystanders. Hopefully the West (and not South Africa) will move quickly and interveen, so we can have our democratic ideals back.

Their governments are the main problem. Africa is the continent of dictatorships. Yes, there are a few exceptions, such as Botswana and Ghana, but they are the exception, not the rule.
This isn't strictly true, actually. There are many democracies - albeit fledgling - in Africa, plus let's not forget that a couple of the countries held up as economic tigers in Asia are fairly dictatorial in nature.

I think that, from what I've read on the subject, the patronage networks in many African nations are the biggest obstacle to eradicating corruption, irrespective of whether or not said countries are democracies or otherwise.

This isn't strictly true, actually. There are many democracies - albeit fledgling - in Africa, plus let's not forget that a couple of the countries held up as economic tigers in Asia are fairly dictatorial in nature.

True democracy has to be seen as the ultimate goal and development as one step on that road.

Inteligent answer but wrong in Zimbabwe's case. I mean that once Mugabe is dead - hopefully soon and hopefully at the hands of one of his henchmen or naturally - his party will implode into a internal civil war, which will affect only a few inocent bystanders. Hopefully the West (and not South Africa) will move quickly and interveen, so we can have our democratic ideals back.
Yes, I read your description of the turmoil within the ranks, and I'm taking it at face value, since I don't know enough about it to think you are wrong:) I think you may be right...that killing Mugabe would set of a civil conflict between those within his party who want to seize control after him...but I doubt it would affect only them. It may not be worse than the situation is now...but then again, it may be. I would say intervention is definately needed.

I'm interested about the comment you made about South Africa (hoping they wouldn't intervene). Could you expand?

Would it be too simplistic to say that the solution is to calculate the recipient nation's wheat demand/supply and to not add to the supply unless needed?

In the long term, and very hypothetically, it might be possible for nations to partally convert wheat land to cash crops if there were a long-term commitment from the west to supply wheat. Should not be total conversion since a guarantee against starvation should be ensured.

Market forces would be the best means for keeping wheat prices sustainable for farmers in these regions, so I agree with the idea of having aid chained to supply/demand.

However, cash crops should never be encouraged because they almost always lead to one of two things:

1. Foreign companies buy up land for cash crops and monopolize the markets, preventing individuals from making money, which leads to dependence on these plantations for their economic sustenance and thus a kind of "wage slavery".

2. The economy becomes dependent on this crop (usually only one) for a massive chunk of its economy, and when prices fall, so does the economy. This leads to high unemployment and government debt (their revenues are almost centered on cash crops), which in turn leads to political instability, and the government will likely collapse.

Comprehensive education and responsible stable government, along with judicious allocation of foreign aid will allow African economies to diversify, which in turn results in both stronger growth and political stability. From there, the system sustains and improves itself (barring disasters or unpredictable events like terrorism, wars etc.)

True democracy has to be seen as the ultimate goal and development as one step on that road.
Somewhat tangentially, I think the West / North / [label as you please] ought to recognise Somaliland in northern Somalia. Where a region is flourishing (relatively) and in particularly adverse conditions, we should be supporting it, politically as well as economically.

Somewhat tangentially, I think the West / North / [label as you please] ought to recognise Somaliland in northern Somalia. Where a region is flourishing (relatively) and in particularly adverse conditions, we should be supporting it, politically as well as economically.

In general, I believe that Africans should be allowed to determine their borders, and not be stuck in the ones defined by their European conquerors 121 years ago. This is why there is so much intertribal violence, because the Europeans totally ignored these tribal borders and instead focused on spheres of influence and rapid decolonization.

I'm interested to see what people think are the most pressing issues facing the African continent right now...the issues we think must be dealt with FIRST, or at least in which order we rank their severity. Please rank these from a scale of 1 (most severe, needing immediate attention) to 5, (still important, but hard to deal with without these other issues being managed first).

1) Civil conflicts/need for intervention

2) Government corruption/need for regime change

3) Infrastructure

4) AIDs

5) Brain drain/lack of education

6) Trade liberalisation (NEGATIVE) (trade with strings attaches such as structural adjustment programs slashing social services, focus on cash crops over food etc)

7) Trade liberalisation (POSITIVE) (getting the West to 'level' the playing field by cutting domestic subsidies etc)



Please add in other points as you think of them...this is by no means a comprehensive list. I've ordered them according to how I currently view them in terms of import...though I'm not set in stone on this.

In general, I believe that Africans should be allowed to determine their borders, and not be stuck in the ones defined by their European conquerors 121 years ago. This is why there is so much intertribal violence, because the Europeans totally ignored these tribal borders and instead focused on spheres of influence and rapid decolonization.
I partially agree; however, an enormous amount of effort (taking various forms) has been made by African governments over the last 50 years or so to reinforce these boundaries and, to a significant degree, this has been successful. Considering what they started with, it's impressive (not necessarily good, I'm not making a value judgement here) that so few countries ahave actually fractured.

not saying we shouldent help africa and thoise who are povery stricken,
but can anyone else here see the similarities current day africa has with 1700's and 1800's europe?
africa may have more problems caused by externa sources, but their main problems seem to be quite similar, which suggests to me that it will take the next 2 to 3 centuries before they are not considered third world.unfortunatly.

However, cash crops should never be encouraged *snip*
The current system of reliance on cash crops should never be encouraged, you're right. However, agriculture has ALWAYS been about cash crops. As in, you produce what is needed to feed you and your family, and then you sell the excess to meet your other needs.

This can be done on a national level as well. Once the nation is able to provide enough foodstuffs to feed its population, it can look at producing crops for export. However, the terms under which these crops are produced, harvested and sold need to be reworked. No point in overproducing sugar, dumping it all on the market at once, and then getting less money than you put into it. Cash crops need to be more moderate than they are now...they are NOT the only answer to increasing a nation's wealth. Far from it. When cash crops are produced IN PLACE of food stuffs, you have the ridiculous situation of people who once fed themselves being completely reliant on imported food, bought with the meager funds from their cash crop.

I partially agree; however, an enormous amount of effort (taking various forms) has been made by African governments over the last 50 years or so to reinforce these boundaries and, to a significant degree, this has been successful. Considering what they started with, it's impressive (not necessarily good, I'm not making a value judgement here) that so few countries ahave actually fractured.

It's also fortunate that the number of large scale wars has been low. Generally, Africa has been dealt a very rough hand so to speak, but they've tried to right it. With properly allocated aid and determination, I think that they have considerable opportunity. Africa is one of the most resource rich continents on Earth, so all they need is help to overcome the man made problems.

True democracy has to be seen as the ultimate goal and development as one step on that road.

I agree. And there are some that look hopeful. I don't see how to change the Mugabe regime without force or prejudicial political influence. At least not while he controls his people with force.

I will blurt this out and maybe chastised by some for it, but why not use force if/when it could effective and not at great cost? It must be multilateral or African for obvious reasons.

It need not necessarily unseat the ruling party, but a swift kick in the division or the destruction of an aggressive air force could give the rulers of the Sudan pause for thought. Cripple them militarily as punishment - humiliate the leadership. Then welcome them back into the fold when they want to play by the rules.

The AU could be the enforcer and call for specialized assistance from NATO, EU, US. This is happening right now in the Sudan, except it's a peacekeeping and not aggressive role.

Now the AU is not large enough or well provisioned and trained for this now, but it could be - if an enforcer of rules is a good thing.

I'm interested to see what people think are the most pressing issues facing the African continent right now...the issues we think must be dealt with FIRST, or at least in which order we rank their severity. Please rank these from a scale of 1 (most severe, needing immediate attention) to 5, (still important, but hard to deal with without these other issues being managed first).
Argh, I don't think I could really separate the issues to such an extent. 6 and 7 are clearly strongly linked; solving 6 should naturally lead to 7. 1 is of no importance to many countries but paramount in Congo-Kinshasa, Sudan, etc. 4 is a massive, massive issue in southern Africa but not really any more of a priority in, say, Ghana or Burkina Faso than in Europe or North America.

It's an obvious point, but solutions need to be tailored to individual countries.

1) Civil conflicts/need for intervention

2) Government corruption/need for regime change

3) Infrastructure

4) AIDs

5) Brain drain/lack of education

6) Trade liberalisation (NEGATIVE) (trade with strings attaches such as structural adjustment programs slashing social services, focus on cash crops over food etc)

7) Trade liberalisation (POSITIVE) (getting the West to 'level' the playing field by cutting domestic subsidies etc)



Please add in other points as you think of them...this is by no means a comprehensive list. I've ordered them according to how I currently view them in terms of import...though I'm not set in stone on this.

I agree. And there are some that look hopeful. I don't see how to change the Mugabe regime without force or prejudicial political influence. At least not while he controls his people with force.

I will blurt this out and maybe chastised by some for it, but why not use force if/when it could effective and not at great cost? It must be multilateral or African for obvious reasons.

It need not necessarily unseat the ruling party, but a swift kick in the division or the destruction of an aggressive air force could give the rulers of the Sudan pause for thought. Cripple them militarily as punishment - humiliate the leadership. Then welcome them back into the fold when they want to play by the rules.

The AU could be the enforcer and call for specialized assistance from NATO, EU, US. This is happening right now in the Sudan, except it's a peacekeeping and not aggressive role.

Now the AU is not large enough or well provisioned and trained for this now, but it could be - if an enforcer of rules is a good thing.
I can just imagine the arguments between those who were pro- and anti- the war on Iraq... I think you're right though.

The current system of reliance on cash crops should never be encouraged, you're right. However, agriculture has ALWAYS been about cash crops. As in, you produce what is needed to feed you and your family, and then you sell the excess to meet your other needs.

This can be done on a national level as well. Once the nation is able to provide enough foodstuffs to feed its population, it can look at producing crops for export. However, the terms under which these crops are produced, harvested and sold need to be reworked. No point in overproducing sugar, dumping it all on the market at once, and then getting less money than you put into it. Cash crops need to be more moderate than they are now...they are NOT the only answer to increasing a nation's wealth. Far from it. When cash crops are produced IN PLACE of food stuffs, you have the ridiculous situation of people who once fed themselves being completely reliant on imported food, bought with the meager funds from their cash crop.

Yes, that's what I meant. The selling of surpluses after your own needs are met is what works, and the current system is flawed.

Your example of cash crops replacing foods is best illustrated by Nigeria. During the 1960's they were producing a net surplus which was exported, but now they must import it. Instead, they grew products like coffee, cocoa, palm oil, and rubber:

Cocoa Prices are now at levels less than 50% of those in the 1960's
Coffee is almost permanetly depressed, with thousands of acres of excellent land left fallow and abandoned.

Palm oil and rubber are doing well, but the demand is for Asian plam oil/rubberand not Nigerian.

Here is a graph showing the dramatic drop in African food production:

http://www.grida.no/climate/vitalafrica/english/graphics/26-foodproduction.jpg

Production is less per capita then it was in 1961.

I can just imagine the arguments between those who were pro- and anti- the war on Iraq... I think you're right though.

A crippling blow to military materiel and infrastructure would have little effect on the people, unlike a war. An embargo or blockade usually hurts the people more than it hurts the regime.

The use of force, if properly applied, can accomplish political objectives quickly. Unfortunately many people have an overwhelming emotional reaction to the concept which usually prevents any reasonable debate.

1) Civil conflicts/need for intervention

2) Government corruption/need for regime change

3) Infrastructure

4) AIDs

5) Brain drain/lack of education

6) Trade liberalisation (NEGATIVE) (trade with strings attaches such as structural adjustment programs slashing social services, focus on cash crops over food etc)

7) Trade liberalisation (POSITIVE) (getting the West to 'level' the playing field by cutting domestic subsidies etc)


6 and 7 may be more important than 5(specifcially brain drain). It is possible that, when more oppurtinity exists for profit in Africa, more of Africa's intelligent youth will stay at home to start their own businesses.

The current system of reliance on cash crops should never be encouraged, you're right. However, agriculture has ALWAYS been about cash crops. As in, you produce what is needed to feed you and your family, and then you sell the excess to meet your other needs.
A cash-crop(or any other resoruce commodity) economy very rarely encourages actual economic growth or political freedom.
In theory, the funds gained from it can be allocated to improving infrastructure and education, but, in practice, it takes away incentive to actually improve technologically (and thus increase productivity, which is what is needed in Africa), and also removes government-citizen cooperation (as government has a source of easy money)
Plus, when the cash-crop or resource in question suffers a big fall in price, the economy as a whole collapses. A market economy is better insulated against this.

Here is a graph showing the dramatic drop in African food production:

http://www.grida.no/climate/vitalafrica/english/graphics/26-foodproduction.jpg

Production is less per capita then it was in 1961.
Good post. A couple of the reasons for the drop are:

1) Many African governments urbanisation as key to development and consequently; their actions in pursuing this policy shafted the agricultural sector. However, the real killer was that, 2) once they realised the importance of the cash crops, they squeezed the farmers dry, offering them sub-market rates for the produce in order to fund ever-expanding public sector institutions that did, er, nothing. So, what happened? Farmers stopped bothering, or sold their produce on the black market.*

One of the principle reasons for the debt/loan crisis is that the fall in coffee and cocoa prices coincided with the rise in oil prices. Within the space of a few years, African farmers found themselves sitting on worthless crops.

*that's a massively simplistic analysis, but I'm at work and don't have the specifics handy

I'm interested to see what people think are the most pressing issues facing the African continent right now...the issues we think must be dealt with FIRST, or at least in which order we rank their severity. Please rank these from a scale of 1 (most severe, needing immediate attention) to 5, (still important, but hard to deal with without these other issues being managed first).

1) Civil conflicts/need for intervention

2) Government corruption/need for regime change

3) Infrastructure

4) AIDs

5) Brain drain/lack of education

6) Trade liberalisation (NEGATIVE) (trade with strings attaches such as structural adjustment programs slashing social services, focus on cash crops over food etc)

7) Trade liberalisation (POSITIVE) (getting the West to 'level' the playing field by cutting domestic subsidies etc)



Please add in other points as you think of them...this is by no means a comprehensive list. I've ordered them according to how I currently view them in terms of import...though I'm not set in stone on this.

Pretty much have the primary issues. Actually, this list could be used for specific nations as well - answer yes or no as to whether your issues apply, then research the facts. Order the priorities then start working out specific solutions.

A general comment about food production - I agree that cash has always been part of farming. I mean, farmers, once fed, need cash like anyone else to buy goods and services with. Farming is a business, really, even at the food plot level, and it is the stated intention of most farmers that they grow a surplus to sell. Subsistence farming is a last resort, but where we find that occurring we need to bring in technical assistance to improve production and do what it takes to improve marketing ability.

I can't blame countries for converting to export cash crops, cocoa, coffee, etc. - they want the money. But for the fact that they do it at the expense of food for their people it would be understandable.

Is it reasonable for a nation to have a long-term objective of agricultural self-sufficiency (within crop suitability constraints), with the understanding that small amounts of food imports not locally available will be imported? That's what I would do.

There's some good discussion on international import/export but I suspect that some focus should be placed on local/regional trade. Simple lack of proper highways and food storage facilities can wreak havoc with food supplies and prevent the flow of food around the nation. Seasonal starvations can be nearly as serious as famines.

One point to consider for your list would be something like "how this country is perceived by other nations". What is the perception of corruption, how safe is it physically, what is the legal system like.

Direct foreign investment, cash if you will and billions of it, will not flow to a place that isn't safe. And it leaves instantly when conditions deteriorate. DFI is driving much of the economic growth in Asia - note that when things went south in Russia the money left, look at them now.

Foreign investment, or how the money is invested, can be controlled by the government. It doesn't necessarily need mean losing control of local banana land.

All of the suggestions I've made in terms of 'priorities' of course are aid priorities. That doesn't mean we do it FOR them. And of course we need to take the diverse needs and desires of Africans into account rather than imposing our own paradigm on them. We've done enough of that. Aid should be facilitation, not useless charity...beefing up and strengthening existing African NGOs or groups working on these issues. We can not do it better than those who live the reality...but we can help much more effectively than we currently are.

Funny...take this paragraph and apply it to my own people, and it would still be true.

It's Growth, Stupid (http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4126793)

I posted here a while ago and thought the thread had just gone and died, so rather than going through everything that has been said, I thought I'd just give you some good source material to go through.

This is a long article, but it articulates exactly what needs to happen in Africa, especially towards the end:

"Many—including The Economist and Messrs Rajan and Subramanian—think the answer is trade. Gordon Brown, Britain’s finance minister, seems to think they have a point. Now that progress has been made on securing promises from rich countries on aid and debt relief, Mr Brown has gone on the offensive against rich-world agricultural subsidies, which put farmers in poor countries at a disadvantage. Since poverty in the developing world tends to be highest in rural areas, giving those countries’ farmers access to the lucrative agricultural markets of richer nations would ease the suffering of the world’s poor."

No, no they won't. The African people will solve the governments, and they must be given help to do so. Until then, no amount of monies poured into infrastructure, education, aid, NONE of it will be truly effective. Too much of it will be squandered away by corruption, and the instability that comes with the major conflicts in Africa will derail and real changes.
Yeah, maybe I should've said that better. Point is, with a working economy, and rising standard of living and education, the governments will change one way or the other.

Yes, I read your description of the turmoil within the ranks, and I'm taking it at face value, since I don't know enough about it to think you are wrong:) I think you may be right...that killing Mugabe would set of a civil conflict between those within his party who want to seize control after him...but I doubt it would affect only them. It may not be worse than the situation is now...but then again, it may be. I would say intervention is definately needed.

I'm interested about the comment you made about South Africa (hoping they wouldn't intervene). Could you expand?

Four reasons I don't want South African Military intervention, South Africa wants to be a super power and to do that it needs hegimony in the region which means that we will effectively be an ecconomic colony - I don't want that. Also, South africans view us through the prism of Apathied, which Mugabe has capatalised on extreemly well, but after about 1998, the majority of black Zimbabweans, even those who had fought in the war, were begining to look as their white country men as just other tribe of Zimbabwe, and to look at colonialism as just another phase in by gone history of invasions and population migrations, just like the Ndebele 80 years before us and the Shona 200 years before them, basically we had finally got over the 70s - except for some government hardliners. Thirdly, Lesotho and Angola proove that the South African military machineary is ineptly run and possibly fundamentally incopetant - if they invade they will get beaten and that crates an opening for an authoritarian military ruler to rise to the top after Mugabe. Finally, South Africa is an inherantly unstable mix, the country could implode at any moment and I don't want us to get caught in the blast radius.

Somewhat tangentially, I think the West / North / [label as you please] ought to recognise Somaliland in northern Somalia. Where a region is flourishing (relatively) and in particularly adverse conditions, we should be supporting it, politically as well as economically.


Hell yes, recognise the Somaliland Republic, and don't put Somalia's debts on Somaliland.

I beleive that when the OAU agreed that the colonial boarders would be protected there were two different intentions, the good and bad. Those who feared a continental genocide and tried to avoid it, and those who wanted to insure that their personal empires and tribal hegimonies could not ligitimately be apposed.

Personally I fell that the AU is a bad institution and one of the worst problems it has is that it still panders to the last set of people. Some countries should be broken up because they are ungovernable (Sudan, Congo) and some because the keep a population trapped in them that should be independant (the Zulu Kingdom in South Africa, the Kaprivi strip in Namibia), but other countrys have created genuine collective identities (Zimbabwe, Botswana, Senegal, Kenya, Tanzania). As with the rest of Africa's problems, these should be looked at country by country.

One of the best things the "west" could do quickly is send military assistance (Not massive armies or expensive technology) to Northern Uganda to fight the Lords risitance army - one battalion of Gurkhas or a Rangers deployment or French Paratroopers, to cut the head off of the movement, sorted qickly.

One of the best things the "west" could do quickly is send military assistance (Not massive armies or expensive technology) to Northern Uganda to fight the Lords risitance army - one battalion of Gurkhas or a Rangers deployment or French Paratroopers, to cut the head off of the movement, sorted qickly.
Hell, yeah. The LRA need to be dealt with.

How do you think today's events will affect the world's attentions to Africa?

How do you think today's events will affect the world's attentions to Africa?
Draw it away. Of course. Major events tend to do that.

I don't want to belittle the victims of this terrible act, but perhaps it is the fact that this sort of thing is NOT commonplace in the West that it shocks people so much and gets attention? Darfur, and continuing atrocities elsewhere in the African continent are so prevalent that I think people are just numb to the quantity of horrors there.

Rhodesia failed because Britain refused us independance in 1965, when Zambia and Malawi got it. Had we been given that independance the Liberal parties would have won and allowed multi racial elections based on academic level - ie, finish high school vote, drop out your not smart enough to vote. That failure lead to a semi literate bigot taking over who lead us down the road to genocide. I have less respect for Smith than I do for Mugabe, and I have the experience of meeting both men several times.

The only thing that Smith was right about was his assessment that the West were prepared to help him as long as he stood in the way of Russian influence, but as soon as ZANU were assured of beating PF ZAPU he ceased to be important.

The West was never prepared to help Smith. In fact, the "anticommunist" U.S. imposed sanctions when Smith declared independence.