NationStates Jolt Archive

Hopefully this will start an interesting, flame-free debate. And as usual, there will be a poll.

Hopefully this will start an interesting, flame-free debate. And as usual, there will be a poll.

Your comments in previous thread sound like a good start.

Edit: Debt relief and an end to unfair trade policies (i.e., forcing them to remove their trade barriers while refusing to the same) would be a great start. Just to elaborate

Your comments in previous thread sound like a good start.

Thanks.

Orbital nuclear silo.

Orbital nuclear silo.

This is a serious topic, so I would like serious responses, please.

The answer is not more aid, debt relief, or change in trade policy. Whats needed is the corrupt governments need to be removed, the people need to stop fighting and more free market policies need to be put in to place. If that were to happen, with the natural resources and tourism opportunities not to mention the size of Africa, it could become a world force with time.

This is a serious topic, so I would like serious responses, please.

Why do you think that wasn't a serious response?

Their governments have to lift the laws that prohibit most commerce from occurring within their societies. John Stossel did a special and showed how it was basically illegal for anyone to start up a simple business unless they bribed the government.

Hopefully this will start an interesting, flame-free debate. And as usual, there will be a poll.

More foreign aid? Nope. Throwing good money after bad just isn't working.
Debt relief? That's a short term only solution. The Kleptocrats will just continue to steal it.
An end to unfair trade policies? That's a good start.
"Regime change," brought about by the West, Iraq style? Aside from an inability to do so, that's just a bad idea.
Reverting African nations to colonies? See above.
Socialism? Hasn't worked so far.
Free-market capitalism? If they can pull it off, yes.
Re-drawing of Africa's borders? If done by Africans, maybe.
A combination of one or more of the above? Yes, plus a few other ideas..

Bascally pull out all the aid going to governments. Stop anyone trying to do so. Accept the refugees that get out. Let the problems work themselves out - it'll be messy as all hell, but that's what it's going to take.

More Bob Geldof!

More foreign aid? Nope. Throwing good money after bad just isn't working.
Debt relief? That's a short term only solution. The Kleptocrats will just continue to steal it.
An end to unfair trade policies? That's a good start.
"Regime change," brought about by the West, Iraq style? Aside from an inability to do so, that's just a bad idea.
Reverting African nations to colonies? See above.
Socialism? Hasn't worked so far.
Free-market capitalism? If they can pull it off, yes.
Re-drawing of Africa's borders? If done by Africans, maybe.
A combination of one or more of the above? Yes, plus a few other ideas..

Bascally pull out all the aid going to governments. Stop anyone trying to do so. Accept the refugees that get out. Let the problems work themselves out - it'll be messy as all hell, but that's what it's going to take.
I agree with the above.

I agree with the above.

Being from Africa, you probably know quite a bit about the continent. I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on the topic. :)

Being from Africa, you probably know quite a bit about the continent. I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on the topic. :)
I could only comment on South Africa to be honest (which is somewhat of an exception to the rule when it comes to African countries), and even then any information I'd be giving would be sketchy at best. I left when I was around 11 years old. In its case I agree with most of what Daistallia mentioned, plus allowing secessions of individuals that are unhappy with the status quo (e.g. the Zulus).

One thing the country has to do is come to terms with reality, and deal with its massive AIDs problem. Until recently, for instance, its health minister pronounced that beets were a cure for AIDs (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15625093/)...

Other -> Stop Meddling in their Affairs

I could only comment on South Africa to be honest (which is somewhat of an exception to the rule when it comes to African countries), and even then any information I'd be giving would be sketchy at best. I left when I was around 11 years old. In its case I agree with most of what Daistallia mentioned, plus allowing secessions of individuals that are unhappy with the status quo (e.g. the Zulus).

Speaking of Zulus, I support the IFP. I would love to see Buthelezi presidency. :(

Other -> Stop Meddling in their Affairs

Amen.

Speaking of Zulus, I support the IFP. I would love to see Buthelezi presidency. :(
So do I. Buthelezi is smart in that he knows how to handle both whites and blacks (which are by no means a homogeneous group), and gets along with both groups. It's disappointing to see how low its approval ratings are though. It's not in a substantially better position than your LP.

People frequently argue its in the country's best interest to stay together - but as far as I am concerned this is nothing but a source of dissatisfaction for many groups in the nation, black and white alike.

It's not in a substantially better position than your LP.

LP?

People frequently argue its in the country's best interest to stay together - but as far as I am concerned this is nothing but a source of dissatisfaction for many groups in the nation, black and white alike.

What do you mean?

a combination of options 2, 3 and 9 would be a start. but i don't think much is going to happen without a solution to rampant corruption. i wonder if the whole nation-state thing can even work in Africa, i mean i've no idea what alternative would work but it seems that the nation-state system has failed in Africa far more than it has anywhere else. whatever's done has to be done by Africans though, there's no way an outside entity is going to be able to just go in and divide and solve everything.

LP?
Libertarian Party.

What do you mean?
Typically the individuals in government tend to be from a certain few tribes in the country - whilst this is usually not a problem, it can lead to discrimination against those not represented, and dissatisfaction on their part. The worst example I can think of is Winnie Mandela, with her ruthless attitude towards non-Xhosa. Many blacks in the country see the new black elite forming as inimical to their interests. The anti-white policies pursued by the current government do not sit well with the Afrikaaners either, many of whom simply wish to co-exist with the blacks. And of course then there is the corruption. Thankfully, the government so far has been wise enough not to damage the country's industry... much. The IFP's idea of decentralizing power is a good way ahead, and perhaps will lead to the eventual secession of some regions.

If I ever decide to return permanently to the country, I'm considering affiliating myself with the IFP and perhaps getting it in touch with CATO or the LVMises Institute.

The first thing that must be done is an end to foreign aid. It's a crutch and it's not working. The rich people of the west like to throw money at the problems of the world so they can feel like they've actually done something and can sleep easy at night. It's fashionable but not effective.

If you want to save a herd of elephants then you'll let a rich man who wants to hang an exotic animal head on his wall have a crack at one for an extremely high price then use that money to pay for guards for the other elephants and improvements to both their habitat and the nearby town. Sacrifice one to save the rest. If you establish an annual quota for otherwise protected animals you have a source of income for their protection and improvements to their habitat. Double-fence off an area for the animals, lay remotely triggered mines between the fences and set up security cameras and warning signs all along the perimeter. If anyone tries to enter the preserve illegally they'll be blown up, if they survive they'll be taken into custody, treated for their injuries and tried for their crime. A similar setup could save the whales and many other endangered species.

If you want to feed the starving you show them how to get food. Build a vertical farm so that there is a year-round source of grown food and power from an on-site coal plant. I shouldn't have to explain again how it works, I've done so several times in the past in more than a few threads. Once they're fed you show them how to make more of the farms and how defend themselves.

And finally, open up the diamond trade. Let those who wish to fight fight till they're dead and those who do not seek sanctuary within the walls of the cities surrounding the sources of food and income.

*snip*

Thanks for clarifying. :)

Eliminate foreign aid. Giving cash to corrupt regimes simply allows them to perpetuate the problem. Putting restrictions on the money doesn’t work as it just shifts money around. The only foreign aid I can really get behind is doing something like setting up schools directly.

Free markets help in innumerable ways. If politicians cannot interfere with trade, it reduces the possible scope of corruption. It provides people with markets to sell goods and an opportunity to buy things they wouldn’t otherwise have available (or at least not at as good a price).

Though it is fashionable to complain about advanced nations keeping poor nations poor with trade barriers, there have been several studies which show the potential benefit of dropping barriers between developing countries to far exceed the potential of trade with advanced nations. A free trade zone in Africa would do more to help the people than all the well intentioned aid programs in the world.

When people are busy making money, they don’t spend as much time worrying about ethnic tensions and tribal warfare. Eventually you realize there is more to be gained by trading with your neighbor than by killing them (at least in some areas).

I would honestly say containing and eventually reversing the HIV/AIDS epidemic will have to be the starting point for any set of policies meant to improve conditions in Africa. That disease is causing economic and social damage of a colossal, even incalcuable scale, with the result being that all of the other methods of change are far less effective and so are unable to achieve the kind of development that is going on in India, China, or other developing region.

Hopefully this will start an interesting, flame-free debate. And as usual, there will be a poll.

I'd put it in a vacuum sealed acrylic box with some oxygen absorber. It ought to stay fresh for years. :)

Africa, as with most of the tropical world, is suffering in large part due to ecological devastation. Most of the major tropical diseases (schistosomiasis, malaria, yellow fever, river blindness, elephantiasis, ebola, possibly even new strains of AIDS) can be traced to ecological disruption causing population explosions among vector organisms. Drought and groundwater mismanagement are leading to famine and warfare (Darfur, for instance, has been in a state of dought for a decade), a situation exacerbated by foreign corporations holding local water rights hostage for profit. Oil extraction has nearly annihilated the ecosystem of the Niger delta, leading to the collapse of local subsistence economies and feeding the vicious cycle of oil-dependence that is choking the country in corruption and misery. Fuelwood demands and overgrazing are leading to erosion and conflicts with displaced wildlife. Cities are creating air pollution and resulting in concentrated environments where disease can proliferate. Desertification is devouring the rich farmlands of the Sahel, leaving more and more people without homes and livelihoods. Deforestation is ruining valuable watersheds and displacing hunter-gatherer societies.

So what can be done about it? This is, unfortunately, not a question with an easy answer. Part of the reason that there has been little meaningful response is that large industrial economies have a substantial inertia regarding change. It's like trying to turn an oil tanker in a narrow passage. Developing nations lack any other model to follow as a sustainable, "ecological" economic model has yet to be implemented in full on any sort of large scale, and so they turn to heavy oil-dependent industrialization as well. This results not only in a fossil-fuel economy doomed by diminishing supply and hegemony by foreign governments and multinational corporations, but also tends to lead those nations into a destructive cycle of boom-and-bust economics and escalating debt. If a sustainable "ecological" economic model can successfully be implemented, it would provide a powerful alternative for developing nations allowing them to become self-reliant and, possibly, to survive after the collapse of the oil economy while traditional industrial economies (such as our own) will not. Costa Rica (not an African nation, admittedly) is attempting this; they have pledged to wean themselves completely from non-renewable energy by next year. They also are pioneering renewable uses of their natural resources, such as ecotourism, permaculture, and recycling. Malawi (an African nation, and one of the worst impoverished) will have provided clean water and sanitation for all its citizens by the end of the year, and is working with NGOs to distribute solar ovens to vastly reduce the consumption of fuelwood.
Unfortunately, significant obstacles still exist to the implementation of such an economic model. Many developing nations face skyrocketing foreign debt due to a broken international financial system designed to keep developing nations dependent upon the industrial nations and the multinational corporations and other monied interests they are represented by. Political corruption, disease, poverty, and ethnic/sectarian violence provide substantial obstacles to proactive efforts to improve things. The given is that the industrial world will eventually lose its power. The question is whether the developing world will be dragged down with us or whether they will find their own way to thrive in the new world order that will result.

Just let HIV deal with Africa and wait what comes out.

nuke

I voted to redraw the borders, without realising the option directly below it. But I think of all of them, the former is one of the most important.

This is a damn hard question. Africa is certainly the most raped continent in modern times and one way to improve the situation would be to kick out the megacorps and stop funding the fundies. Instead an education programme teaching safe sex, sustainable farming methods and medical education combined with irrigation equipment and increased access to fresh water could do loads of good. All these programs exist today, but not enough of them.
This, however, is only a makeshift solution unless the widspread corruption ends, and that's a different question altogether. Just thinking about Africa makes me sad...

I voted to redraw the borders, without realising the option directly below it. But I think of all of them, the former is one of the most important.
What new borders would you draw?

http://www.worldstats.org/continents/africa/maps/africa_relief.jpg

Speaking of Zulus, I support the IFP. I would love to see Buthelezi presidency. :(

Talk about a disaster.

First an foremost, end unfair trade policies. All of us First World-ers are guilty as sin on that count.

Second, end cash/development aid - which is often swindled and focus instead on teaching farmers (two-thirds of the continents population) how to maximise their crop yields. Once the majority can grow more, and export more, they'll see their incomes rise.

As for pesky corrupt governments.... I was reading Francis Fukuyama's "After the Neocons" and came across a few interesting verses.....

Snippets from pages 178 -180:
"State weakness and failure may be among the most important sources of poverty in the developing world ... We can promote political development, goof governance, and democracy at the margin, but for the foreseeable future there will remain a large core of states that simply do not fit the traditional sovereignty model ... This reality ... has led observers to argue that we ought to move ... toward models of shared sovereignty in which states accept long-term help from the international community to provide certain basic government services - importing good governance. The most striking recent example of shared sovereignty is the Chad-Cameroon gas pipeline, in which the government of Chad agreed to put expected energy revenues from natural gas into a trust fund to be administered by the World Bank and other international trustees. Chad in effect agreed with the international community that it could not be trusted to use its own energy revenues properly and needed external help to avoid being dragged into a morass of corruption and rent-seeking."

More foreign aid?

Yes and no. As others have already stated, giving cash is useless if it goes to corrupt governments. A better idea is direct aid, such as building local infrastructure (sanitation, clean water, medical care, education etc). That kind of thing should be done without input or interference from local governments - they can't really complain, and if they do, there's not much they can do about it.

Debt relief?

Yes, considering that the debts are owed by corrupt governments who just screw the local people to repay the interest. Many of the debts were also incurred in highly questionable ways, such as the IMF bribing government officials to privatise their economies - then leaving them with huge debts, no state income and hence no way to pay the money back.

An end to unfair trade policies?

By this I assume we mean barriers to free trade and the like? For a start, it would be nice if the systems were applied fairly. You can argue the merits of having import tariffs (I think they are beneficial in some cases), but to demand removal of them for trade going one way and then imposing them on trade going the other way is just blatantly unfair.

Much more relevant is the Trade Related International Property Rights (TRIPS) treaty, which many countries have foolishly signed up to. As everyone knows, many millions of Africans are getting ready to die of aids - hence they need anti-retroviral medicine ASAP. We also know that this medicine is extortionately expensive. The benefits of world trade are that countries like Argentina, Thailand and India can make these medicines and ship them to Africa for a fraction of the price. The TRIPS treaty prevents this from happening - protecting the profits of multinational pharmaceutical companies is apparently more important than protecting the lives of Africans.

Regime Change?

Very, very bad idea, especially under the direction of Blair / Bush.

Colonial control?

Well, the IMF and the world bank are accomplishing this in many third world countries already, although some African countries simply aren't worth their while. How? It's complicated, but the basic principle is to offer big loans as a bribe to corrupt governments in return for privatising the economy (which allows multinationals to buy up the local infrastructure at a knock-down price) and removing all international capital controls (which allows the rich elite to move their money out of the country). This leads to a bankrupt economy with no state income and a huge debt - this is economic colonialism.
Examples of this: Argentina, Ecuador, Brazil, Chile, Bolivia.

Socialism?

Socialism has got a very bad image at the moment, largely because people assume it leads to immense government corruption and impoverishment of people (which historically has been the case). But there are some aspects of socialism that are worth saving, such as nationalised healthcare, social security, national pensions etc. Plus, whenever socialist principles are implemented after either "market failure" or the collapse of previous governments, the result is usually a dose of generous economic growth, plus improvements in quality of life for most of the population. Examples of this: Chile, Venezuela.

Free Market Capitalism?

Yes, but be careful about the definition of "free" in this context. If you mean the same sort of "free market" capitalism that has been applied to most of South America, then this is a very bad idea.
Free market capitalism is the best approximation of human nature, and therefore it should be the most ideal system. But there are caveats:

1. To respect markets is not to deify them. Markets do NOT always get it right, and they are not good for everything. There are some sectors (particularly healthcare and public service infrastructure) where government control is more effective and more efficient. No, don't laugh - consider that at any one moment, 40 million Americans are without healthcare. Also consider that since privatisation in Britain (where, as locals will tell you, it rains all the time), water supplies have at times been rationed / restricted.

2. Capitalism is human nature, but you can't ignore the fact that the nature of some people is to be greedy, mean, and ride roughshod over others. Therefore you need a referee to regulate the excesses and the rough edges of such a system - the referee is the government.

Re-drawing of the borders?

Why on earth would anyone want to do that, FFS?

First, we should immediately cease subsidising Western agriculture. Its a collosal waste of money, and most farmers would not be able to work in a free market, some specialist will (and good luck to them), but our money would go a lot further if we were to invest in agriculture in Africa. Agriculture is one of the easiest industries to establish, it doesn't need huge amounts of training, few buildings are needed, aside from the odd bit of machinery all you need is soil, seeds and manpower, things Africa already has in abundance.

Free trade is all well and good, and it will hopefully be the way we operate in the future when everything is ironed out. But for now we need to give Africa preferential treatment, for a generation or so, so that we are on a level playing field. If there is a resource that needs buying, we should turn to our African partners first.

Migration is also an important factor. I feel that inter-Mediterranean migration should be liberalised. Europe is on the verge of a crisis as over the next few decades there will not be enough people of working age. Whereas Africa is facing the opposite crisis of having too many people of working age and not enough jobs, to me it seems obvious that dividing these two crises by each other produces one solution: a long-term (in decade-long periods) guest worker program for Africans within the EU. The Africans will be given a legal status that allows them to be taxed fairly, while at the same time they are able to accumulate some wealth that they will be able to send back, or take back to their home countries at the end of their work program, thus helping the economies of both nations.

In exchange, there are things that Africa can do for Europe. Prisons, for example, are incredibly inefficient sectors. I would propose the outsourcing of jailing to friendly African nations. The prospect of being sent off to Africa will probably be much more of a deterrent than being sent to a prison a few miles away, where regular visitations can often interfere with the process of building oneself a new life. Africa also has an abundance of martially trained young men.

Another sector that could be outsourced to Africa is the retirement industry. As I said, Europe's abundance of elderly citizens promises to become quite a problem, by establishing retirement villages in Africa more land in Europe is freed up for productive purposes. And, furthermore, the African retirement facilities would be much cheaper than the indigenous ones, as African wages can be much lower than those of Europeans with similar skillsets.

Turning back to Africa, the importance of education cannot be overlooked. There is already a goal to universalise primary education, and I think this is very productive. In addition, I believe civic education to be an important aspect of this, but I do not believe that this is something that can be taught in the classroom. I would support a 'national service'-type program to be run by the African Union, whereby upon reaching the age of 18 Africans are enlisted into the AU Peacekeeper Corps. This would be useful as it would instill Africans with a sense of discipline, keep them away from the militias, and, more importantly, give them a pan-African sense of civic society. I shall use Israel as an example, the people of Israel are a diverse group with little to bind them but a vaguely shared religion, but, it must be noted, the existance of the mandatory military service, where all Israelis are mashed in together and forced to view eachother as compatriots. I believe this could work in a similar way in Africa. Of course, creating a compulsory, continent-wide military is a gargantuan task, but from the accumulated military spending of African nations and generous Western aid, it is not impossible.

I think that Africa should:

1.Create an internal market, and stop selling its resources for bargain to US, EU and China.
2.Create an EEC-like body and an united intervention force, so that major crisis like Somalia, Darfur, Congo could be managed by africans.
3.Follow the example of countries like Senegal, where in the last 20-30 years there have been no major religious/ethnical strifes (or strives? what is the plural of "strife"?).
4.Create a common policy against desertification, by building, with UN support, desalinisators and huge aqueducts taking water to the inland.
5.Enact a serious demographical policy: some countries cannot allow families with 10 children each - that's a total nonsense. Also the health issue, expecially about sexually transmitted disease, like AIDS but not just that.
6.Stop requiring "money". We've seen too many times how money has been used by african governments: to buy weapons, not to care for their citizens. The richer countries should supply knowledge more than money. Formation of teachers for schools and universities, researchers, enterpreneurs. School is the key to future! Also, encouraging the "small credit". The idea should get Africa to grow its own food and build what it needs by itself. A good example is the South Africa policy about healthcare against AIDS, with local production.
7.Speaking of Northern Africa, I think that a common economical area (with elements of free trade between countries) between the three shores of the Mediterranean (Europe, Africa, Asia) would open a lot of new possibilities for the african economy.

Hopefully this will start an interesting, flame-free debate. And as usual, there will be a poll.
Debt relief etc, as mentioned on the first page, would be terrific. Education, particularly for women and girls, would be essential, along with improved access to health care. In particular, improved reproductive health care would be key. Helping people to control when they have children would go a long way to addressing a lot of the economic and social issues.

What new borders would you draw?

http://www.worldstats.org/continents/africa/maps/africa_relief.jpg

No idea; my geographic knowledge is very limited. But I'd guess the borders should be moved to more accurately reflect cultural, tribal etc divisions.

So as not to be a little wussy, I said the most important step to helping out Africa is to end the unfair trade policies that the industrialized states currently hold.

I've thought before that if HIV is really such a problem in Africa (and I don't know how overhyped it is) then it might be simplest to just systematically exterminate everyone on the continent with the disease. It would prevent it spreading, and it would mean that those with HIV or AIDS would no longer be a burden on the rest of them (eating the food they don't have, slowly dying and not producing anything in return, etc.).

Obviously it wouldn't solve all the problems, but it might help. And yes, it's callous, but sometimes you have to be; and let's face it, it's uncurable everywhere and it's not practicably treatable in third world countries; everyone with the disease was going to die from it sooner rather than later anyway, and it's hardly a quick, easy death.

*Awaits being flamed in 3, 2, 1...*

I've thought before that if HIV is really such a problem in Africa (and I don't know how overhyped it is) then it might be simplest to just systematically exterminate everyone on the continent with the disease. It would prevent it spreading, and it would mean that those with HIV or AIDS would no longer be a burden on the rest of them (eating the food they don't have, slowly dying and not producing anything in return, etc.).

Obviously it wouldn't solve all the problems, but it might help. And yes, it's callous, but sometimes you have to be; and let's face it, it's uncurable everywhere and it's not practicably treatable in third world countries; everyone with the disease was going to die from it sooner rather than later anyway, and it's hardly a quick, easy death.

*Awaits being flamed in 3, 2, 1...*

And so you bloody well should be.

That is a pretty reprehensible idea. Once you start doing that, which in itself is disgusting, it isn't long until you start euthanising the handicapped or anyone with a disability or with a disease or otherwise seen as undesirable.

And so you bloody well should be.

That is a pretty reprehensible idea. Once you start doing that, which in itself is disgusting, it isn't long until you start euthanising the handicapped or anyone with a disability or with a disease or otherwise seen as undesirable.

*Shrugs*, suit yourself. Just a suggestion.
And I think that's the "slippery slope" fallacy.

MTAE?!?!? I thought they banned you for good!

Hahahaha! :D
No, sorry, I think I was here before MTAE.

I've thought before that if HIV is really such a problem in Africa (and I don't know how overhyped it is) then it might be simplest to just systematically exterminate everyone on the continent with the disease. It would prevent it spreading, and it would mean that those with HIV or AIDS would no longer be a burden on the rest of them (eating the food they don't have, slowly dying and not producing anything in return, etc.).

Obviously it wouldn't solve all the problems, but it might help. And yes, it's callous, but sometimes you have to be; and let's face it, it's uncurable everywhere and it's not practicably treatable in third world countries; everyone with the disease was going to die from it sooner rather than later anyway, and it's hardly a quick, easy death.

*Awaits being flamed in 3, 2, 1...*


MTAE?!?!? I thought they banned you for good!

Borders should be redrawn indeed, unfortunately there isn't very good way to get it done. Current African borders are completely retarded, they were drawn by colonial powers who totally ignored local situation. You won't have succesful state then it consists of several tribes that have been hostile towards each other as long as they can remember.

And I think that's the "slippery slope" fallacy.
Not really, since it's essentially a pretty similar action.

Euthanising undesirables because they're a burden on society and spread disease ~= euthanising people with HIV/AIDS because they're a burden on society and spread disease.

"Other" - Lunatic Golfballs.

Not really, since it's essentially a pretty similar action.

Euthanising undesirables because they're a burden on society and spread disease ~= euthanising people with HIV/AIDS because they're a burden on society and spread disease.

I'd take issue with claiming it's the same as killing the disabled, though; disability is rarely contagious for starters.

But you have to remember that over here, in the West, we can afford our nice little sensibilities; a few percent of the adult population not being productive is neither here nor there. In some places they may well not be able to, especially when it's much more than a few percent.

And I think that's the "slippery slope" fallacy.

No, because things of that nature have happened before. It's only a fallacy if there is no evidence that it could happen. Plus, it wouldn't solve the problem by a long stretch. All it would do is kill the very people needed to cure the disease and would completely destroy any real knowledge of how to fight it...and once the disease appears again, so will the killing. It would never stop.

Killing them, aside from the fact that it's murder, would solve nothing and would cost us millions, even billions of innocent lives that could be preserved and turned in to productive members of society if we were to cure the disease and eliminate it through that method. That would be so utterly against the principles of science and medicine, of human nature even, that there's no way it would ever be done.

"Other" - Lunatic Golfballs.

"...and in other news, economic reports from Africa indicate better than expected growth in the clowning and Taco sectors. Further evidence that the African continent is lifting itself out of poverty in a delicious and comic fashion. After the break, Jen will tell you a story about a child predator who will meet your children online, lure them into his van (down by the river) and EAT THEIR SHOES..."

The problem with Africa is the Western Civilization. Before the Colonial Era, despotism and genocide were unheard of. During the Zulu War, for instance, one woman was killed by the Zulus, and then probably by accident. It happened during a gunfight. The British, however, killed both women, children and elders. This story has been repeated so many times during the "cultural development" of the Dark Continent that it's become a way of life.

I'd say that we - the Westerners - have taught them - the Africans - all they know. We have also continued this process by political, economic and medical aid. More often than not, these programs have been engineered to further our own needs.

Not to forget, the Cold war did little to ease the troubles of Africa.

Now, I believe that either the Devil is running things down there, or he's sending his minnions there on an exhange program.

Personally, I maintain that debt relief, and then simply leaving Africa to its fate, would be quite effective.

First an foremost, end unfair trade policies. All of us First World-ers are guilty as sin on that count.

No, we're not. I am against all protectionism, especially trade measures that disproportionately harm Third World countries. I will not be responsible for the stupidity of Western governments that I do not even support notionally.

Talk about a disaster.
How so?

Also consider that since privatisation in Britain (where, as locals will tell you, it rains all the time), water supplies have at times been rationed / restricted.
Then those locals are living in the past. It does not rain all the time here anymore - it's cloudy a lot, and often windy, but heavy rainfall is a thing of the past. Britain, unlike many countries unused to heavy rainfall, does not reserve much of its water. Come warm Summers, and there will be shortages.

All non-African nations should get the hell out of Africa and let them sort themselves out. We've got enough to worry about without worrying about them

Africans need to rely on each other and not on the countries that once colonized them. Africans must do business with other Africans so money can circulate within Africa and not in Europe or elsewhere. Look at trades between North Americans, Europeans, Asians, even in South America; Africa is not even close (Africa seems to make other continents richer). I would love to see the dictators of Africa to be banished as well; their self-interest (more like greed) comes first than their own people. Kinds of governments should be made by in respect to the popular demand by the people and not by foreign nations. African nations must drop their immense military budgets and put them in places that are more productive, like education and health, that way African nations don’t need Western aid for AIDS, or malaria. As an African, I don’t blame the West for Africa’s sorrows anymore, as the saying goes “Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.”, but the blame doesn’t go to the average African, it goes to the ones that benefit from their own people’s sufferings, the ones that knowingly make secret deals behind closed doors with heartless non-Africans.

Then those locals are living in the past. It does not rain all the time here anymore - it's cloudy a lot, and often windy, but heavy rainfall is a thing of the past. Britain, unlike many countries unused to heavy rainfall, does not reserve much of its water. Come warm Summers, and there will be shortages.
I have no idea where the 'it rains all the time' thing came from. Where I live is in perpetual semi drought.

Contrary to the main western point of view, Africa is neither a "poor" continent nor can any amount of "development assistance" solve its current problem of poverty.

While the majority of people in Africa are desperately poor, the countries themselves are very wealthy in terms of natural resources. The problem is that the wealth of African nations goes to two places: Corrupt governments/warlords and multinational corporations. Africans have very little control over the resources of the very countries that they live in. On top of that, the division between countries in Africa is arbitrary and artificial: the countries are relics of European imperialism.

What Africa needs is a genuine attempt by Western nations to prevent the continuation of the evils of past colonialism. The West cannot "save" Africa, it can merely stop taking part in this brutal exploitation.

The people of Africa next need to gain control of their own resources in an egalitarian, democratic sort of fashion. This, of course, means some sort of socialist economy. The people need to control the wealth of their own countries in order to improve the lives of the people and lift themselves out of poverty. This requires an end to unfair trade policies, and a commitment by the west to not interfere with the political and economic self-determination of Africans for their own future.

If the Western nations would be so "generous" as to relieve the debt imposed upon these nations so that they could pay for the costs of surviving post-colonial economic subjugation, this would certainly be helpful. If increased foreign aid were to go directly towards helping Africans control their own resources instead of going primarily right back into multinational corporations, then the chance of meaningful change is there.

Beyond that, Africa as a continent needs to form a supranational union, somewhat like the EU, but much more democratically oriented. Each African state must guarantee its neighbors democracy and economic independence from the West. With some sort of union, Africa could leverage its resource markets to greatest advantage against the West, and finally break free from colonial chains.

More foreign aid? Nope. Throwing good money after bad just isn't working.
Debt relief? That's a short term only solution. The Kleptocrats will just continue to steal it.
An end to unfair trade policies? That's a good start.
"Regime change," brought about by the West, Iraq style? Aside from an inability to do so, that's just a bad idea.
Reverting African nations to colonies? See above.
Socialism? Hasn't worked so far.
Free-market capitalism? If they can pull it off, yes.
Re-drawing of Africa's borders? If done by Africans, maybe.
A combination of one or more of the above? Yes, plus a few other ideas..

Bascally pull out all the aid going to governments. Stop anyone trying to do so. Accept the refugees that get out. Let the problems work themselves out - it'll be messy as all hell, but that's what it's going to take.

I agree with the above.

Excellent.

And, FWIW, that's what I see the solution to the Near/Middle-East as too.

One additional note: I'll allow for limited and well thought out military interventions, in cases where a real clear and present danger exists and a military solution is workable.


Afghanistan would be doable, Iraq would have been a no-go, Iran a possible future Op before Iraq, but now a no-go.

Somalia, now - keep an eye out on the Islamiscists, recognise Somaliland
Sudan, Nigeria, Ivory Coast, Chad, Pakistan, Egypt, Israel, Palestine, et al (I could go on and on, but I won't) - The above prescription - no more aid, ya'll sort it out the hard way - as long as you keep it internal/regional, and as long as the regional conflicts don't threaten the wider world, go for it.

It's not a near term happy scenario, but a long term one.

The problem with Africa is the Western Civilization. Before the Colonial Era, despotism and genocide were unheard of. During the Zulu War, for instance, one woman was killed by the Zulus, and then probably by accident. It happened during a gunfight. The British, however, killed both women, children and elders. This story has been repeated so many times during the "cultural development" of the Dark Continent that it's become a way of life.

I'd say that we - the Westerners - have taught them - the Africans - all they know. We have also continued this process by political, economic and medical aid. More often than not, these programs have been engineered to further our own needs.

Not to forget, the Cold war did little to ease the troubles of Africa.

Now, I believe that either the Devil is running things down there, or he's sending his minnions there on an exhange program.

I'm sorry, but that's just silly.

Tribalism is an exceedingly brutal system of government, those who can't conform to the standards of their chief are murdered and banditry and inter-tribal warfare are the norms. Not to condone it, but the Colonial Age was the most peaceful era in African history by a huge margin.

I'm sorry, but that's just silly.

Tribalism is an exceedingly brutal system of government, those who can't conform to the standards of their chief are murdered and banditry and inter-tribal warfare are the norms. Not to condone it, but the Colonial Age was the most peaceful era in African history by a huge margin.

Let's compare small amount of intertribal warfare (they didn't fight winner take all style) with the millions of people murdered, brutalized and left to starve by European colonialism.

Suddenly, tribalism seems utopic.

there are a lot of thing that need to be done imo.

i don't think it's a good idea to suddenly stop aid. actually i think it would be a catastrophe. we should reconsider where our aid is going though. i think we should mainly trie to fund grassroot organizations and small projects (mostly agriculture, health care and education). we shouldn't invest in governments or big projects wich have proven to be very inefficient (though they looked good for PR-purposes :rolleyes: )
there should also be emergency-aid, during famine or an epidemic for instance.

i don't think we should stop all our inteventions. i don't get why the international community do so little to stop the situation in Darfur for instance. but it would be a good idea to limit our political/military interventions as much as possible.

but the biggest effort should be in other areas imo. relieving debt for instance. but i think it also should be time that we pay third world workers a fair price. this shouldn't mean they earn as much as an European worker, but enough to not starve because a family member became ill. paying them a fair price for their own recources would only be honest. we should make sure that it goes to the local population and not to 1 dictator though (wich, admittedly will be extremely hard). we should also stop to export our own food-surpluses to africa, or at least stop to give exportation-aid. patents should also be abolished for medication essential in Africa (anti-malaria or AIDS drugs for instance), that way affordable drugs should be made available.
also when the world bank or other instances loan money to African countries, they shouldn't demand liberalization or things like that in return, the only effect of this was that a lot of money went in the pockets of western multinationals and that a lot of people were cut off from essential services (like water, electricity) that their government could better distribute.
another big problem is the brain-drain that is happening. we should encourage African scientists to stay in African universities. we should also trie to establish a good cooperation between western universities and African ones. internet could be a very usefull tool to share knowledge.
together with doctors we should also send economists and political and social scientists. they could help beginning democracies, and economies.

a last thing we should do is care about the environment, and help them care for their natural wealth. both climate change and other environmental damage are very large problems for Africa, and it will only get worse. this isn't only bad for the local farmers but also for their health etc.

so yeah, those are some ideas, but tbh i don't think even one of these will ever happen:( .

This is a serious topic, so I would like serious responses, please.

I are serious Congo. This are serious thread. (http://www.vkgfx.com/misc/serious.jpg)

I'm sorry, but that's just silly.

Tribalism is an exceedingly brutal system of government, those who can't conform to the standards of their chief are murdered and banditry and inter-tribal warfare are the norms. Not to condone it, but the Colonial Age was the most peaceful era in African history by a huge margin.

For further reading, I suggest Africa´s Armies by rRobert B. Edgerton . A further look into tribalism would tell you that few tribal rulers were able t o rule as, as you say, with terror.

Good luck.

Africa needs to do what China is doing. Get some regional stability, and create a haven for investment. Get some factories going. As much as I hate to suggest it, place a low minimum wage standard. Low pay better than no pay at all.

Get some foreign cash flow, then turn that to feed your people and begin to get your hands on some of those abudnant natural resources you are sitting on top of.

What we should do is buy up their land and evict everyone except those that live a low-impact lifestyle. We should hire teams of roving poacher hunters to kill poachers on site. We need to save the endangered species of Africa. Hopefully, AIDS will kill of most of the humans and this will save the animals. Nevertheless, I think we should help out by buying the land and hiring the poacher hunters. We also need to influence the laws there to make sure that poacher hunters are free from arrest for their poacher killings.

We could even use poacher hunting as a training system for our military and law enforcement personnel.

Africa needs to do what China is doing. Get some regional stability, and create a haven for investment. Get some factories going. As much as I hate to suggest it, place a low minimum wage standard. Low pay better than no pay at all.

Get some foreign cash flow, then turn that to feed your people and begin to get your hands on some of those abudnant natural resources you are sitting on top of.

Well first and more importantly, we need to get rid of the insanely corrupt government, the warlords, the negative British influence a la Constant Gardener, the negative religious influence from the Catholic church, etc, etc...

*snip*

Socialism is the last thing Africa needs.

I have no idea where the 'it rains all the time' thing came from. Where I live is in perpetual semi drought.
Exactly! I do not know where this delusion comes from. I've been in England for the past few years, and not once have I witnessed continuous, heavy rainfall; not even in the Winter.

This is a serious topic, so I would like serious responses, please.

a serious discussion on NS? Impossible!

a serious discussion on NS? Impossible!

Well, can't blame a guy for trying. ;)

I are serious Congo. This are serious thread. (http://www.vkgfx.com/misc/serious.jpg)

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/youfail26ae.png

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/youfail26ae.png

LOL

Africa needs to do what China is doing. Get some regional stability, and create a haven for investment. Get some factories going. As much as I hate to suggest it, place a low minimum wage standard. Low pay better than no pay at all.
Out of curiosity, where do you stand politically?

I don't live in Africa- nor have I ever been... so I don't know for sure what really would be the best way.

But here's what I think will be quite helpful. Have a Brain Trust-eque group of people working on the problems. Economists, sociologists, doctors, who have some ideas on what ideas seem feasible- not politicians or corporate leaders who's primary goal isn't trying to solve problems in Africa. Most of the experts in field should come from different regions in Africa who are actually connected first hand with some of the problems. I think those that know at least some of the different cultures/situations know how the people would respond. Preaching abstinence to someone who becomes a prostitute out of desperation isn't going to work that well, for example.

I think microcredit should be made more widely available throughout Africa. I've read Nobel Peace Prize Winner Muhammed Yunus' book Banker to the Poor. The idea- and practice of- microcredit seems pretty effective for the poorest of the poor.

Socialism is the last thing Africa needs.

Is that all that you got out of that? I explained what I mean by socialism (popular control of the means of producing and distributing resources), and all you can do is assert that socialism is bad.

Beyond that, I listed several other things that need to be done in order to have any sort of stability and prosperity in Africa.

Africa is catapulting us into a humanitarian disaster with it's overpopulating. The most humane thing to do would probably be a few sterilization programmes to prevent the whole continent from collapsing and us having to pull them out in the end anyway through excessive humanitarian help, mass emigration, etc..

The question though is why would they in charge change the trade laws when it is to their benefit? It is like asking someone to shoot themselves in the foot. I doubt a rich capitalist has the same ideals and morals as a university student hunching over his laptop on his bed, under a poster of che guevara with a joint in his mouth.

Less genocide?

Is that all that you got out of that? I explained what I mean by socialism (popular control of the means of producing and distributing resources), and all you can do is assert that socialism is bad.

Beyond that, I listed several other things that need to be done in order to have any sort of stability and prosperity in Africa.

IMO, Africa needs to stop implementing ideologies from abroad. They need to find an authentic African system that works for them.

IMO, Africa needs to stop implementing ideologies from abroad. They need to find an authentic African system that works for them.

Be that as it may, it will count for absolutely nothing if Africans are not in control of their own destiny, both economically and politically.

Be that as it may, it will count for absolutely nothing if Africans are not in control of their own destiny, both economically and politically.

I fully agree.

Less genocide?

Nah, that's not it.

Free market capitalism would necessarily require an elimination of those unequal trade relationships, so that's a good place to start.

Other: Do everything possible to prevent the spread of AIDS, and if possible eventually cure it.

Many people simply don't understand the extent of the debilitating effect AIDS has on Africa's economic and political systems.

Redrawing borders is a practical impossibility with the rise of urban centers and highway systems. Even in precolonial times, tribal boundaries were dynamic and frequently shifting. Now, with widespread population redistribution, they are impossible to distinguish. Even if borders were redrawn, it would do little to relieve ethnic tensions, and would in fact give credence to "us" and "them" divisions that lead to conflict.

The colonial powers did not draw boundaries randomly, either. They had two factors: resources, and grouping together mutual enemies so that sectarian strife would prevent there from ever being a successful populist revolt. Colonial Africa was never designed for independence.

Other: Do everything possible to prevent the spread of AIDS, and if possible eventually cure it.

Many people simply don't understand the extent of the debilitating effect AIDS has on Africa's economic and political systems.

Well, yeah. When everybody dies at the age of 30 it's hard to have a stable government and businesses.

Socialism via the resurgent USSR with me at the helm. :D

Only africans can develop the solution to their problems. What form they'll take is probably some combination of all of the above.

It really is a people problem, since there are plenty of examples where the conditions now are far worse than they ever were under previous regimes. Whether you like to admit it or not, the rot sets in when the western styles of government are handed over to "one man, one vote, once" in multi-cultural environments where the various cultures don't even have words for "vote" and where corruption in a variety of forms is endemic.

Regretably, AIDS will probably sort out the situation, provided the current residents don't turn the continent into a waste land before that happens.

Best way to save africa, most of oceania, parts of asia, and central/south america?
Recolonize. Colonialism was the best thing in the world for some countries, and the worst thing for others. This was rather arbitrarily based on how responsible the colonial power was in being mindful of the future of their colonies. This had a lot to do with how well the got along with the natives.

Now lets say if we put aside the brutal exploitative colonialism of centuries bygone, and reimagine a 'big-brother' system. Basically colonies are given a mutually beneficial leg up, rather than century long raping.

I genuinely think that we should have a look at all of the third world countires that have tailspinning economies, with no forseeable hope of developement, move in and unpack our shit. Build an infrastructure, make a few bucks while we are there, nationalise a provisional government, and clear out. After 10 years of stability and infrastructure, I expect most colonies would be ok to stand on their own legs.

First we start with 'easy' colonies, who are not hostile to western intervention and have easily fixable problems. Then we move on to 'difficult' colonies who either have hostility or insanely complex problems to fix.

Best way to save africa, most of oceania, parts of asia, and central/south america?
Recolonize. Colonialism was the best thing in the world for some countries, and the worst thing for others. This was rather arbitrarily based on how responsible the colonial power was in being mindful of the future of their colonies. This had a lot to do with how well the got along with the natives.

Now lets say if we put aside the brutal exploitative colonialism of centuries bygone, and reimagine a 'big-brother' system. Basically colonies are given a mutually beneficial leg up, rather than century long raping.

I genuinely think that we should have a look at all of the third world countires that have tailspinning economies, with no forseeable hope of developement, move in and unpack our shit. Build an infrastructure, make a few bucks while we are there, nationalise a provisional government, and clear out. After 10 years of stability and infrastructure, I expect most colonies would be ok to stand on their own legs.

First we start with 'easy' colonies, who are not hostile to western intervention and have easily fixable problems. Then we move on to 'difficult' colonies who either have hostility or insanely complex problems to fix.

Like we've been doing in Iraq?

Nothing is going to get done, anyway, until AIDS has been contained, desertification has been reversed, and the agricultural system has been rebuilt from the ground up. Other than that...

First, tell Bono to sit down and shut the fuck up.

Second, eliminate trade barriers. It helps everyone in the long run.

Third, massive reforms to current aid programs. Simply throwing cash and food into Africa does nothing more than pad the wallets of tinpot dictators and corrupt politicians in addition to making Africans dependent on foriegn aid.

Finally and most importantly, eliminating corruption and some of worse governments. Assclowns like Bashier and Mugabe have to go, Islamofacism must be crushed, and corruption has to be cleaned up. Once reasonably stable governments are in place things can actullay get done.

The best thing to do would be to pull all support and let the dice fall where they may. The West touts democracy as the only kind of government that should be implemented. We forget, however, that it takes a developed and self-responsible people to properly implement a stable democracy. Most Africans are not on that level. Indeed, the best government that can be hoped for in Africa would be a constitutional monarchy.

Personally, I was cheering the ICU when they returned stability to a large portion of Somalia. Sure, it wasn't democratic, but they had popular support and made the streets safe.

The question though is why would they in charge change the trade laws when it is to their benefit? It is like asking someone to shoot themselves in the foot. I doubt a rich capitalist has the same ideals and morals as a university student hunching over his laptop on his bed, under a poster of che guevara with a joint in his mouth.

Agricultural trade laws aren't to our benefit. They benefit our farmers (less than 1% of the population in most first world nations) at the expense of everyone else, including First World consumers who must pay more for food. I AM TIRED of subsidising these farmers. :mad:

Tell them to make up their own systems, rather then using ones that existed in other places.

write off the imf and debt vulturism. the kind of 'capitolised socialism' that has worked for western europe from the 50s through the 90s, and yes, a re-drawing of borders by OTHER THEN military means. to more closely resemble the territories of traditional, pre-colonial cultures. (pre even islamic colonization as well as european, pre even christian, pre even judaic)

also i think a semi-standardized very narrow gauge railway network, using local tallent in all aspects of building and creating. that and education systems and so on. right now it's this finagled indebtedness, that regemes, many of which not even currently existing, were conned into, that is keeping many african nations repressed. though some are less so then popularly believed, while others may actualy be more so.

of course there have been many corrupt local leaders.
what it took to throw off colonialism in the 60s and 70s often proved to be just exactly the worst ways to run a government once they had.

but i don't think, as an outsider, very many of us have any sort of real comprehension of the realities involved and i think i would be fooling myself to try and immagine otherwise.

but i do believe every place has more local tallent then the push for forign investment everywhere gives credit to and for.

enabling this to come to the fore rather then repressing it, as the worlds dominant economic intrests seem hell bent on doing, would bennifit all real people everywhere, as opposed to only little green peices of paper, and those only in hands that already have no shortage of them.

and i see this as applying not only to africa, but many small nations on other continents as well. including some of the less 'developed' parts of asia, such as bhutan and nepal, bangladesh and myanmar/burma. even tibet, if china could ever be talked into allowing that. also places in the carribian under the thumb of the u.s. and g.b. and some of the austalasian island nations.

=^^=
.../\...

I agree that stopping interfering in Africa is the best way to help it. I would also suggest that one of the best things that could be done internationally is to heavily punish corporations that use bribery - for example oil companies in Nigeria. By corrupting politicians these corporations have a large responsibility for the problems that occur.

The United States of Africa!

How good and how pleasant it would be
Before God and man
To see the unification of all Africans
As it's been said already
Let it be done right now

Oops, before I forget, Europa Maxima in response to your question:
I don't trust Buthelezi at all. During the 80s when the UK and US were trying to find a black alternative to the ANC and Mandela they naturally turned to Buthelezi and the IFP. While Buthelezi can speak all 12 national languages of South Africa fluently, he and his party have little influence outside of KwaZulu Natal. And even there, they won less seats in the last provincial election than the ANC did. I view the IFP as predominantly a Zulu party representing Zulu interests, disguising as "decentralism". This is why Botha's armed the IFP when they were fighting the ANC in the townships and in KwaZulu-Natal. While people accuse the ANC of being Xhosa-centric, the ANC wins the majority of the Tswana vote in NorthWest; the Pedi, Venda and Tsonga vote in Limpopo; the Sotho vote in Free State; etc... They are well represented among all black Africans and even win some coloured and Indian votes. The IFP by contrast is overwhelmingly Zulu. There is a reason the other Africans don't vote for them.

Hopefully this will start an interesting, flame-free debate. And as usual, there will be a poll.

What a dull-witted question.

Since when are we the ones who should decide what Africa "should do" or how they should "solve their problems".

Let them work it out for themselves. Did someone drop by and help Europe out of the Dark Ages with foreign aid? How was the US built through the 19th and 20th centuries - were we invaded by a foreign nation to stop our Civil War, or to end slavery?

No - people manage to work these things out for themselves over time.

I don't trust Buthelezi at all. During the 80s when the UK and US were trying to find a black alternative to the ANC and Mandela they naturally turned to Buthelezi and the IFP.
I hope you're not evoking this as evidence against him. ;)

The IFP by contrast is overwhelmingly Zulu. There is a reason the other Africans don't vote for them.
If the IFP went ahead with the decentralization it has planned, then their reasons would evaporate into thin air. Personally I will not return to that country until the ANC is out of the way, or at least significantly reforms itself.

What a dull-witted question.

What a flame.

Personally, I maintain that debt relief, and then simply leaving Africa to its fate, would be quite effective.

I think that debt relief would achieve nothing. Because, without a serious change in african politics, in a few years african countries will have a huge debt, again.

also i think a semi-standardized very narrow gauge railway network, using local tallent in all aspects of building and creating.

A very narrow gauge (I assume you're thinking of something in the order of 80 cm gauge, while the standard is about 145 cm) isn't useful because:
1.It allows transportation of small goods only
2.It allows very short wagons only
3.It allows only locomotives with a very limited power

The standard gauge is better. Also larger gauges could be a good idea (like the Great Eastern gauge, or anything up to about 2 m).

Plus, how are you going to create such a huge infrastructure without:
1.A strong government and strong unitarian african politics that can overcome local and tribal rivalries
2.A modern steel industry

First, stable and strong governments (both in the executive, legislative and judiciary).
Then, industry and infrastructures.

bump

bump

Less genocide.

Africa needs stable, liberal government that can ensure the safety and profitability of foreign investment. Africa needs a lot of Western money and capital goods in order to develop and Western bankers and investors need to know that their investments won't be nationalized or bombed. Africa ultimately needs at least a rudimentary educational system if it's going to be able to compete against other sources of cheap labor, you need people to be able to read instructions and manuals and you usually can't afford to import all of your professional workers(engineers, managers, etc...). Africa isn't going to be developed by foreign aid or by state intervention, but by foreign investment, and currently Africa isn't a very desireable place to invest.

Africa needs stable, liberal government that can ensure the safety and profitability of foreign investment. Africa needs a lot of Western money and capital goods in order to develop and Western bankers and investors need to know that their investments won't be nationalized or bombed. Africa ultimately needs at least a rudimentary educational system if it's going to be able to compete against other sources of cheap labor, you need people to be able to read instructions and manuals and you usually can't afford to import all of your professional workers(engineers, managers, etc...). Africa isn't going to be developed by foreign aid or by state intervention, but by foreign investment, and currently Africa isn't a very desireable place to invest.

Indeed. That's part of the underlying assumption of my earler prescription (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12422145&postcount=9) of no aid to governments in, those who want out can leave, and let them sort themselves out.

You know, poor but resource-rich African countries could always emulate the example set by Botswana. Perhaps Botswana was blessed by the fact that it is an ethnically homogenous society - hence no potential inter-ethnic conflict.

Anyway
http://www.axiss.com.au/assets/images/axissinternet/Section%206_46%20(web).jpg
South Africa also seems to be holding up well. Anyone read the March 3rd-9th edition of "The Economist"?

There is no one solution. Certainly the Dark Continent needs better medical care and in many areas food aid, but those resources are squandered, though their necessity is not lessened, as long as the region goes undeveloped. A combination of debt relief, foreign aid (monetary, material and personnel), a carefully considered fair trade policy and possibly regime change in some of the worse cases is necessary.

The United States on its own could very possibly accomplish this task, not to mention if it had the help of other developed nations, but our resources are expended in other areas, and few have the patience or vision to realize the advantages of a fully-developed world.

You know, poor but resource-rich African countries could always emulate the example set by Botswana. Perhaps Botswana was blessed by the fact that it is an ethnically homogenous society - hence no potential inter-ethnic conflict.

Anyway
http://www.axiss.com.au/assets/images/axissinternet/Section%206_46%20(web).jpg
South Africa also seems to be holding up well. Anyone read the March 3rd-9th edition of "The Economist"?
No, I didn't. What did it say? I'd be interested to know.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/youfail26ae.png

Shaddup, I didn't wanna hotlink.

No, I didn't. What did it say? I'd be interested to know.

Same here.

Unless someone in here knows a magic Genie who grants wishes, Africa can't and won't get better for a VERY long time.

How to save Africa? Simple. Just send all the fat people there for them to feast on. That way we solve both obesity and famine :D







Just so we're clear I am in fact joking. I don't actually advocate the cannibalisation of overweight people.

Unless someone in here knows a magic Genie who grants wishes, Africa can't and won't get better for a VERY long time.

QF(sad)T :(

K, how about this idea.

Europe and America invades all of africa. Then, we redraw national bounderies based on ethnic and historical precidents. Then we leave (without raping the place).

Scratch the America part. Europe caused this problem by divvying up Africa the way they did. Let them solve it.

K, how about this idea.

Europe and America invades all of africa. Then, we redraw national bounderies based on ethnic and historical precidents. Then we leave (without raping the place).

Scratch the America part. Europe caused this problem by divvying up Africa the way they did. Let them solve it.

That would result in hundreds of nation-states, maybe over a thousand. And some states would end up with lots of resources, others wouldn't. The results would be horrendous. As just one example, look at the Nigerian Civil War, when the largely-Igbo people of Biafra attempted to secede, taking with them most of the country's oil reserves. Big mistake.

I would have said Iraq-style, but that's just going to make a whole new mess the USA and allies have to deal with, and there's just way too many hostile forces in Africa that the USA, even with Allies, probably can't handle.

I'm not sure if this will actually work, but I would say more law and order, and an improved and better funded education system, although the law and order men may get corrupted and hostile, knowing Africa.

That would result in hundreds of nation-states, maybe over a thousand. And some states would end up with lots of resources, others wouldn't. The results would be horrendous. As just one example, look at the Nigerian Civil War, when the largely-Igbo people of Biafra attempted to secede, taking with them most of the country's oil reserves. Big mistake.

It would be more stable, though. It seems as though certain groups cannot get along with each other in one nation. So fix it. Somehow. Just about anythings better than the lines the Euros drew on a map in 1885.

It would be more stable, though. It seems as though certain groups cannot get along with each other in one nation. So fix it. Somehow. Just about anythings better than the lines the Euros drew on a map in 1885.

Nations that try to eliminate tribalism can succeed. Julius Nyerere, whatever his faults, was able to establish a sense of national unity in Tanzania. Most other African leaders never even tried. Some, like Jomo Kenyatta, were blatantly biased in favor of their own tribe. Although, even homogenous nations are not immune: Somalia, for example, suffered not from tribalism, but from clan-ism.

I would have said Iraq-style, but that's just going to make a whole new mess the USA and allies have to deal with, and there's just way too many hostile forces in Africa that the USA, even with Allies, probably can't handle.

I'm not sure if this will actually work, but I would say more law and order, and an improved and better funded education system, although the law and order men may get corrupted and hostile, knowing Africa.

Law and order would be good. Generally, few people would invest in lawless or disorderly countries.

It would be more stable, though. It seems as though certain groups cannot get along with each other in one nation. So fix it. Somehow. Just about anythings better than the lines the Euros drew on a map in 1885.Well, since Africans were around much longer than Europeans, they could have developed defenses in all that time.

K, how about this idea.

Europe and America invades all of africa. Then, we redraw national bounderies based on ethnic and historical precidents. Then we leave (without raping the place).

Let's work on redrawing the Middle East first. Free Kurdistan!