NationStates Jolt Archive

The economic outlook for Africa is improving after a decade of growth of 5.4% for the continent that matches global rates, the World Bank has said.

The trend indicates that a fundamental change is occurring in Africa, a World Bank official told the BBC.

But the bank's latest report, Africa Development Indicators 2007 (ADI), says ongoing investment is needed to sustain long-term development on the continent.

Otherwise, a split may grow between affluent nations and stagnant ones.

The report looked at more than 1,000 indicators covering economic, human and private-sector development, governance, the environment and aid.

It concludes that growth in many African countries appears to be fast and steady enough "to put a dent on the region's high poverty rate and attract global investment".

Wide variations

The World Bank's chief economist for Africa, John Page, said he is "broadly optimistic" that there's a fundamental change going on in Africa.

"For the first time in about almost 30 years we've seen a large number of African countries that have begun to show sustained economic growth at rates that are similar to those in the rest of the developing world and actually today exceed the rate of growth in most of the advanced economies," he told the BBC

The key, said Mr Page, was that "Africa has learnt to trade more effectively with the rest of the world, to rely more on the private sector, and to avoid the very serious collapses in economic growth that characterized the 1970s, 1980s and even the early 1990s."

The report points to wide variations in Africa, however, highlighting three distinct groups of countries:


The big oil-exporting countries
Those with expanding, diversified economies
And those which have few natural resources, are conflict-prone and are experiencing slow or no growth.
Uneven growth rates between these groups risks splitting the continent between countries which become affluent and eradicate poverty and those which continue to stagnate.

For example, 60.5% of total net foreign direct investment in sub-Saharan Africa in 2005 went to oil exporting countries.

South Africa and Nigeria account for more than half of the region's gross domestic product.

Poor infrastructure and the high cost of exporting from Africa compared to other regions of the world has been holding the continent back rather than any failures of African enterprise or workers.

Volatility in sub-Saharan Africa has dampened investment, the report says.

Corruption is also a factor that may limit needed investments in education and health.

"Perhaps the easiest illustration of that is in the resource-rich economies where the resources often accrue to a small number of corporations and to government," said Mr Page.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7093912.stm

I wonder which is growing faster Africa's debt or Africa's aids epidemic?

The key, said Mr Page, was that "Africa has learnt to trade more effectively with the rest of the world, to rely more on the private sector, and to avoid the very serious collapses in economic growth that characterized the 1970s, 1980s and even the early 1990s."

how silly

Considering the incredibly low development state of Africa and its attractivity as a market, if it grows, it will probably do so very fast. It's developed places that will have trouble growing.

Africa is so messed up. And its their fault, not ours.

That's excellent news, I'd be willing to bet that a majority of their growth is due to Chinese investment.

Africa is so messed up. And its their fault, not ours.Well, if you're American, you can still shoulder plenty of blame for Liberia.

Africa is so messed up. And its their fault, not ours.

don't make Markeliopia cry now :p

Africa will become prosperous and stable again, the situation right now now can be compared to Europe after the collapse of Roman authority

Africa will become prosperous and stable again, the situation now can be compared to Europe after the collapse of Roman authority

only without all the debt and silly economic plans

Why dosen't africa just capture its own people and sell them as slaves like it used to? That was a huge source of economic prosperity.

Africa will become prosperous and stable again, the situation now can be compared to Europe after the collapse of Roman authority

The Midevil Dark Ages?

Why dosen't africa just capture its own people and sell them as slaves like it used to? That was a huge source of economic prosperity.Are you going to realize how stupid that idea is on your own or does someone have to tell you?

Why dosen't africa just capture its own people and sell them as slaves like it used to? That was a huge source of economic prosperity.

because the WTO can't find a way to force an insane level of liberalization on it

The Midevil Dark Ages?

yes, and with forign investment it won't last as long in Africa

Of course it's a huuuge diverse place so different areas areas are going to develop differently

Well, if you're American, you can still shoulder plenty of blame for Liberia.

Its so true, what was President Monroe thinking!?

I wonder which is growing faster Africa's debt or Africa's aids epidemic?


I heard that AIDS started in Africa and that it was originally a disease carried by chimpanzees. So that the only way it could have been transfered to humans was if an anfrican had sex with a chimp.

Its so true, what was President Monroe thinking!?"They'll name a city after me! =D "

"They'll name a city after me! =D "

I mean, it worked in Isreal, the Jews managed pretty well. But those idiot former slaves in Liberia could not have fucked it up any worse.

I heard that AIDS started in Africa and that it was originally a disease carried by chimpanzees. So that the only way it could have been transfered to humans was if an anfrican had sex with a chimp.

Or perhaps, and more plausibly, someone was bitten by an infected chimp :rolleyes:

Or perhaps, and more plausibly, someone was bitten by an infected chimp :rolleyes:
You've been watching too much 28 Days Later. And Soyut has been watching too much XXX Farm Friends.

You've been watching too much 28 Days Later. And Soyut has been watching too much XXX Farm Friends.

You're right I messed up the Hunter theory slightly.

Switch it around. Humans biting chimps.........or chimp meat to be more precise

You're right I messed up the Hunter theory slightly.

Switch it around. Humans biting chimps.........or chimp meat to be more precise

I don't buy that. A chimp came on to me once at the zoo. If there wasn't a glass sheild between us, who knows what could have happened.

Nice, they've now gone from a GDP of £3.50 to a more respectable £3.66ish.

Huzzah!

Well, if you're American, you can still shoulder plenty of blame for Liberia.

No... Liberia's been independent for 150 years+. That's time enough to get their act in order.

But yeah, there apparently is a ton of Indian and Chinese investment in Africa. They're both looking for long term returns from the continent.

this sucks, the better they do, the worse potentially I will do.

Because of the nature of some of these comments I think it would be a good thing to post some positive images of Africa

Nigeria
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Sv5axgrW1iI

Hausa and Yoruba Royalty
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RiPWcHhzCWc

Africa is so messed up. And its their fault, not ours.

No one is completely blameless. Colonialism, post-colonial meddling by the superpowers, and shoddy leadership in most African countries are all to blame.

I mean, it worked in Isreal, the Jews managed pretty well. But those idiot former slaves in Liberia could not have fucked it up any worse.

Actually, the Americo-Liberians managed Liberia pretty well. Liberia experienced over a century of stability, and did not have its first coup until 1980. The economy grew, as well, especially after World War II during the Tubman Administration. Of course, for most of the 95% of the indigenous (not Americo-Liberian) population, things were less than stellar (Liberia practiced slavery de facto until around the 1930s), but beginning in the 1950s or 1960s, things began to slowly improve. Had Tolbert never been overthrown, Liberia would probably be a lot better today. Granted, the country would still be far from prosperous, and wealth disparity between natives and Americo-Liberians would remain high, but the country would not be the wreck it is today.

That's good news. Hopefully they can leverage the investment boom driven by high world demand for commodities to develop a self-supporting private sector and the infrastructure necessary for cost-competitive manufacturing. Given that the overall situation in Africa has improved considerably since its low point in the late 70's and 80's, the prospect for further improvement is pretty good.

the prospect for further improvement is pretty good.

So long as Africa retains its (mostly) shitty leaders, that's doubtful. Even though nearly all African countries have officially adopted "democracy," many remain, more or less, dictatorships: Cameroon, Guinea, Equatorial Guinea, Republic of the Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Swaziland, Burkina Faso, The Gambia, Chad, Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Angola, Cote d'Ivoire, etc. etc.

And actually, most Africans are actually getting poorer, not richer. High growth does not translate to improved living standards. Angola, for example, has phenomenally high growth, yet virtually all of it is funneled into Swiss bank accounts. Corrupt despots (and even democratically elected leaders) continue to milk their countries like cows, while the people get poorer and poorer.

High growth does not translate to improved living standards.
Some exceptions notwithstanding, I think it does: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/22015_Growth_is_Good_for_Poor.pdf

Some exceptions notwithstanding, I think it does: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/22015_Growth_is_Good_for_Poor.pdf

Not if the state sucks up most of the growth.

Not if the state sucks up most of the growth.
If I recall correctly, the article pretty much makes it clear that economic growth and a reduction of people below the absolute poverty line are positively correlated and one Granger-causes the other.

State or no state, that seems to be the general trend. I think Africa has by now become enough of an interest to international companies and skilled aid- and development agencies for a few really good policies to come through. Ultimately the corrupt, parasitic governments will have to go though, you're right.

Some exceptions notwithstanding, I think it does: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/22015_Growth_is_Good_for_Poor.pdf

You know, quoting right-wing pro-liberalist sources does not prove anything except you're own bias.

You know, quoting right-wing pro-liberalist sources does not prove anything except you're own bias.

Sort of like how quoting left-wing anti-liberalist sources does not prove anything except your own bias?

Why not actually look at his source and point out where it's supposedly wrong, instead of copping out by screaming "BIAS!" and running away?

You're right I messed up the Hunter theory slightly.

Switch it around. Humans biting chimps.........or chimp meat to be more precise

Wounded hunter theory - someone's open wound got in contact with hunted chimp's blood (or something like that).

Why not actually look at his source and point out where it's supposedly wrong, instead of copping out by screaming "BIAS!" and running away?

Because facts and statistics are tools of the capitalist liberalist elite. EA doesn't need facts to prove his point, he's got ideology.

Because facts and statistics are tools of the capitalist liberalist elite. EA doesn't need facts to prove his point, he's got ideology.

2+2=5...

2+2=5...

:D

Sort of like how quoting left-wing anti-liberalist sources does not prove anything except your own bias?

Why not actually look at his source and point out where it's supposedly wrong, instead of copping out by screaming "BIAS!" and running away?

That's what AP/EA does.

Because facts and statistics are tools of the capitalist liberalist elite. EA doesn't need facts to prove his point, he's got ideology.

All he's lacking (and he does truly desire) are guns and death camps.

If I recall correctly, the article pretty much makes it clear that economic growth and a reduction of people below the absolute poverty line are positively correlated and one Granger-causes the other.

State or no state, that seems to be the general trend. I think Africa has by now become enough of an interest to international companies and skilled aid- and development agencies for a few really good policies to come through. Ultimately the corrupt, parasitic governments will have to go though, you're right.

I think if more wealth goes to the common people there will be less looking toward insane leaders. For example the Nazi party became popular in Germany because of the failing economy

I think if more wealth goes to the common people there will be less looking toward insane leaders. For example the Nazi party became popular in Germany because of the failing economy

Yes. When people are in extreme situations, they often turn to extreme solutions - regardless of whether those solutions will actually work.

On the other hand, when things are going okay, middle of the road leadership that won't rock the boat usually looks the best bet.

SNIP

for a positive image of Africa you showed us Nigeria...

State or no state, that seems to be the general trend. I think Africa has by now become enough of an interest to international companies and skilled aid- and development agencies for a few really good policies to come through. Ultimately the corrupt, parasitic governments will have to go though, you're right.

problem is Africa is really expanding on the idea of tourism which as Kenya shows doesn't work.

what Africa really needs is to start patenting technology, unfortunately all the ideas are taken even the local knowledge has already been claimed

problem is Africa is really expanding on the idea of tourism which as Kenya shows doesn't work.
Depends on how you manage it. But most African countries are too big to rely entirely on tourism, it can only be part of a solution.

what Africa really needs is to start patenting technology, unfortunately all the ideas are taken even the local knowledge has already been claimed
AFAIK, you can't patent traditional knowledge. You can patent applications of it, if you can explain what's going on. If you're talking about traditional medicine, I don't think many African locals can actually tell you what happens if you consume Plant X, other than by talking about spirits.

Ultimately the easiest, since already proven, way of getting the inflow of money and the jobs is to take advantage of the cheap labour in these countries. It worked for most of Asia, it's working for China right now. It's not an indefinitely sustainable way of doing it, but it's the most realistic. So African governments basically have to create the physical, legal and human infrastructure that allows entrepreneurs at home and companies from abroad to set up manufacturing operations. The expertise on how to do it is available, the question is where to get the money - hence my thread a few days ago about privatising state-owned companies to earn money rather than take on debt which has much more volatile and dangerous effects on future government funds. Finally cutting subsidies and trade barriers in the rich world is part of the solution too.

And of course African leaders need the willingness to do it. There are a few that might, and a few that seem to be happy just ambling along without any real master plan. I suppose the West needs to concentrate on those with such a plan instead, and competition between the countries will do the rest. It's just important that we don't leave China the only major player there, because the Chinese have already demonstrated that their concern is only with their own economic growth, dictatorship and genocide be damned. I don't know whether you want to call it a moral obligation due to colonialism or whatever, but I think the West has something to offer in the area of freedom, democracy and human rights that is worth pursuing.

Depends on how you manage it.

thats a rather un-globalism sentence you have there, how do you suppose one curtails the drain of money from Kenya :confused:

I mean i could go into the environmental damage silly tourists have done to Kenya...

You can patent applications of it, if you can explain what's going on.

thus Africa suddenly finds itself importing goods it could easily make itself and by all means should have every right to do so no?

Ultimately the easiest, since already proven, way of getting the inflow of money and the jobs is to take advantage of the cheap labour in these countries.

can't globalism offer any other method than racing to the bottom burning away your environmental resources

but saying "no" is always easy so I put forward the idea of having an agricultural revolution (I forget where I heard that) and creating an economic plan similar to Brazil

It worked for most of Asia, it's working for China right now. It's not an indefinitely sustainable way of doing it, but it's the most realistic. So African governments basically have to create the physical, legal and human infrastructure that allows entrepreneurs at home and companies from abroad to set up manufacturing operations.

you mean making companies above the law like in China and India?

The expertise on how to do it is available, the question is where to get the money - hence my thread a few days ago about privatising state-owned companies to earn money rather than take on debt which has much more volatile and dangerous effects on future government funds. Finally cutting subsidies and trade barriers in the rich world is part of the solution too.

pfft as much as I'd rather keep the thread on track, that was done in Iraq and involved the public sector being brought for a pittance

but I think the West has something to offer in the area of freedom, democracy and human rights that is worth pursuing.

we haven't really been so generous in that area though

thats a rather un-globalism sentence you have there, how do you suppose one curtails the drain of money from Kenya :confused:
I don't understand this sentence. What drain of money do you mean and why is it a problem?

I mean i could go into the environmental damage silly tourists have done to Kenya...
Hence why I say you need to manage it right. There are a lot of countries which manage to earn a lot of cash with quite sustainable tourism.

thus Africa suddenly finds itself importing goods it could easily make itself and by all means should have every right to do so no?
Does that actually happen? Can you find me an actual case of that happening?

Fact is that "import substitution" policies aimed at replacing imports with domestically produced goods have been used in Africa and India, which export-focused policies were tried in East Asia. The results really speak for themselves.

can't globalism offer any other method than racing to the bottom burning away your environmental resources
You may want to remember that I'm not one who is swayed by punchlines. So justify this sentence.

but saying "no" is always easy so I put forward the idea of having an agricultural revolution (I forget where I heard that) and creating an economic plan similar to Brazil
And what is Brazil's economic plan?

you mean making companies above the law like in China and India?
I don't think that's necessary if you don't have laws which are directed against the very goal you're trying to achieve, namely to establish an exporting manufacturing base.

pfft as much as I'd rather keep the thread on track, that was done in Iraq and involved the public sector being brought for a pittance
That's hardly a normal situation. You could also mention the formerly communist states.

What I mean is offering state-owned firms to foreign investors in the form of an IPO, to be traded on some big stock market. You get a lot of cash, just like you would if you got a loan, say from the IMF, but you don't have the strings attached and you don't have to worry about interest repayments. The company will pay back your "debt" in the form of dividends...and let's face it, western investors will most likely to a better job at managing these companies than corrupt African officials.

we haven't really been so generous in that area though
All the more reason to be now.

I don't understand this sentence. What drain of money do you mean and why is it a problem?

its where the benefits of (in this case tourism) go especially money which flows out the country to the extent that the industry may as well not exist

Hence why I say you need to manage it right. There are a lot of countries which manage to earn a lot of cash with quite sustainable tourism.

however eco-tourism is still in its infancy, the only tourism that really seems to be working is to large cities in the developed world

Does that actually happen? Can you find me an actual case of that happening?

http://allafrica.com/stories/200710081298.html

Fact is that "import substitution" policies aimed at replacing imports with domestically produced goods have been used in Africa and India, which export-focused policies were tried in East Asia. The results really speak for themselves.

if your referring to the boom that followed from the 60's then I think you really need to consider that Asia built up an industrial might and then opened its markets which created a boom

You may want to remember that I'm not one who is swayed by punchlines. So justify this sentence.

surely Africa has better policy's to follow than trying to compete with China's cheapest labor advantage?

better?

And what is Brazil's economic plan?


well in particular the use of Agribusiness (and considering Zimbabwe has gone to the dogs this is still quite an open sector)

this would essentially clear out the question of the native herders and though to be fair it won't run exactly get the money raining its provides just the stable base to start from

I don't think that's necessary if you don't have laws which are directed against the very goal you're trying to achieve, namely to establish an exporting manufacturing base.

ah but its what has been done in mainland Asia and to be honest I think the fact that it has happened in these nation is more a rule than a result of any corruption

That's hardly a normal situation. You could also mention the formerly communist states.

erm...I'd dare say the exactly same thing only with more of the oligarchy?

What I mean is offering state-owned firms to foreign investors in the form of an IPO, to be traded on some big stock market. You get a lot of cash, just like you would if you got a loan, say from the IMF, but you don't have the strings attached and you don't have to worry about interest repayments. The company will pay back your "debt" in the form of dividends...and let's face it, western investors will most likely to a better job at managing these companies than corrupt African officials.

I've read about this being theorized on a local scale where the community builds the schools and the government "rents" the property (this is part of a radical Green theory so it was suggested as a method to fund pensions)

and to be honest there are things I'd rather not see be connected with a profit

All the more reason to be now.

the question is how though?

I can say in the past 4 years Morocco has taken off like crazy. Much of it to do with free trade zones with the US and economic guidance from the US and other outside nations. The growth there is staggering. New ports, new homes and many new business.

I can say in the past 4 years Morocco has taken off like crazy. Much of it to do with free trade zones with the US and economic guidance from the US and other outside nations. The growth there is staggering. New ports, new homes and many new business.

I'd put that down to non-exploitative trade agreements made with Europe and the US which sadly have been rather absent from Africa

I'd put that down to non-exploitative trade agreements made with Europe and the US which sadly have been rather absent from Africa

Yes that is the main engine I believe. One thing Morocco has that many other African nations have is a stable government even though it is a Muslim monarchy. A stable government is the key to economic growth. When people see that a nation is likely to stay calm and stable then economic benefits start coming in such as foreign investment. Rather basic concept that is lost on some nations.

its where the benefits of (in this case tourism) go especially money which flows out the country to the extent that the industry may as well not exist
You mean when the profits are moved into overseas investments rather than domestic ones?

Generally moving your money around the world is associated with a bit of risk. You're not going to know as well what's going on in the country where you're moving to. It may be difficult to get it back as soon as you want it, there's exchange rate risk and so on. So if people are still choosing to pay those extra costs, that must mean investing at home is pretty damn unattractive: hence the need for governments to improve the infrastructure required for investing there to make sense.

By the way, you might like this article:
http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10146637
African banks

On the frontier of finance

NOT so long ago, a cruel joke among international bankers was that sub-Saharan Africa was less an emerging market than a submerging one. Local bankers had no reason to change that impression; for all the political and economic turmoil, tiny and informal markets, and shabby infrastructure, they mostly made good money doing very little. Using low-cost deposits to buy high-yielding government bonds, they harvested some of the best net-income margins in the world. The corollary, of course, was that most Africans had no access to financial services.

Nowadays, the thinking is shifting. According to the IMF, Africa is enjoying its best period of sustained economic expansion since independence. Real GDP growth is expected to rise from 5.7% in 2006 to 6.1% this year and 6.8% in 2008. This good performance is partly driven by high commodity and oil prices. Foreign aid has also helped. But it is also due to better economic management, more openness and more stable politics. Such policies mean banks have to work harder to make a profit, but also help them to grow. That is encouraging them to reach out to new customers—and so they should. A report from the World Bank on November 13th argues that promoting access to financial services in Africa should be a priority, as it boosts growth and helps reduce the income gap between rich and poor.

[...]

however eco-tourism is still in its infancy, the only tourism that really seems to be working is to large cities in the developed world
I don't know, the Seychelles or Maldives pretty much exist only because of tourism, as does a whole stretch of the Queensland coast north of where I live. It's all a question of how you set it up so it's sustainable and allows you to do what you want to. Ultimately many African countries have unique attractions and therefore have a monopoly on these experiences - if they can get their heads in order, they can shape their tourism industries precisely how they want it.

And you can't tell me that there aren't thousands of consultants and experts who'd be more than happy to help them out.

http://allafrica.com/stories/200710081298.html
I don't think that article actually says that they can't use their own medicines because of foreigners. It says that the knowledge should be protected (a prerequisite for making money with it) and that the use of wild plants by the population should be regulated (because otherwise they'll go extinct and that's not helping anyone). I agree with both of those measures, as they make sense to me from both an economic and an environmental point of view.

if your referring to the boom that followed from the 60's then I think you really need to consider that Asia built up an industrial might and then opened its markets which created a boom
And I am. There are plenty of people who think that protecting infant industries is the way to go...personally I don't think it's really necessary. Taiwan for example did it differently - they didn't grow their own companies (like South Korea did) but they attracted foreign MNCs instead. Those worked together with local contractors, who in turn built up their expertise and became companies like Acer.

Then there's the issue of when to remove protections and how to do it. South Korea is still having issues with this (though it can conveniently blame the IMF for it all :rolleyes:).

Either way, regardless of what to do with imports, there is no way around getting foreign direct investment into the country. They need the foreign money and the foreign expertise if they want to catch up, and the only way to get them is to make sure that their economies are actually attractive environments for that.

surely Africa has better policy's to follow than trying to compete with China's cheapest labor advantage?
Much like China had better policies than Taiwan and South Korea?

No, ultimately those countries grew richer and the focus shifted from low-skill cheap labour to skills and innovation. The same is going to happen in large parts of China (though it may be a special case there, since there are great differences within the country as well).

Either way, there is plenty enough space for Africa to join in. It's got enough people who would be more than happy with even very low wages, because they'd be better than what's on offer now.

well in particular the use of Agribusiness (and considering Zimbabwe has gone to the dogs this is still quite an open sector)

this would essentially clear out the question of the native herders and though to be fair it won't run exactly get the money raining its provides just the stable base to start from
If it does, then by all means go for it. It would of course require rich countries, but also places like India and indeed Brazil to break down trade barriers, but I'd be the last person to object to that.

But you're also right when you say it won't bring in huge amounts. The more of these primary producers you have, the greater the quantities and the lower the prices they can command. Then there's climate change which is going to affect big chunks of Africa quite severely, and the question of what to do in countries like Chad, Eritrea or Sudan which are never going to be great food growers, regardless of what they do.

Secondary industries are less volatile and more likely to significantly increase both income and the skill base.

ah but its what has been done in mainland Asia and to be honest I think the fact that it has happened in these nation is more a rule than a result of any corruption
Look, in China these companies are connected the with government, and the same is generally true in India. That's how they can get away with the things they do, or even get government support for them.

An official who's not corrupt is just not going to be as nice to a foreign firm which breaks the law. Ultimately, firms don't want to break the law either - it's expensive and risky. The best trick is to have a reasonable, consistent and stable legal system which leaves businesses the room they need to move and make money for themselves and others and makes sure that the particular direction of growth that you have in mind is actually what happens.

erm...I'd dare say the exactly same thing only with more of the oligarchy?
I probably expressed that badly. I meant to imply that privatising entire economies in short times and with great political instability, based not on the market but on personal relationships and shadowy backroom deals is not what I have in mind. Companies have IPOs all the time, it shouldn't be too hard to have one for Nigeria's electricity provider for example. Get a big investment bank as the underwriter and you can have some degree of confidence that the whole thing will be above board.

and to be honest there are things I'd rather not see be connected with a profit
I don't really understand. There are things you want done, which require others to put time, effort and money into doing them. The only problem I can see is if the profit and the things you want done aren't connected - and if that's the case (as it may well be in an underdeveloped economy) there's scope for regulation.

But making these people do your bidding without being able to make a profit for themselves is just going to lead to inferior outcomes too often.

the question is how though?
I wish I knew. First of all it will require winning back trust, by doing these mutual free trade deals, by offering genuine advice and get into partnerships with these governments. That's what the Chinese are doing right now (together with throwing a lot of cash at them) and it seems to work.

And at the same time the west has to be more involved in solving conflicts and ending wars in Africa, by acting as a fair and independent arbiter. That goes for Darfur, for the southern regions of Sudan (actually, we'd made a pretty good start there) and Somalia, as well as many other places.

So that way we can reestablish a reputation for being competent and praiseworthy partners both on economic and political issues. And once this trust is established there can be a greater push towards democracy and freedom in general.