NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey with all the LIve 8 stuff going on in London and up here in Scotland this week i thought the question how would u sort out Africa would be of interest. Doubtless everyones got tons of ideas but heres my little contribution:

The main thing 2 do would be 2 bring peace because then the impact of all other activities such as debt relief, aid, and fair trade would be maximised. Of course its easier said than done but i think the key lies in realising that Africa is so religiously and culturally diverse and so large nation states bcome very fragmented and unstable. So smaller states based on tribal lands could be the answer like the internationally unrecognised Somaliland in what we term Somalia. However, it may only be introduced voluntarily in areas too devestated by war to want to continue. Or Western governments could try to persuade the less tolerant African nations to be religiously tolerant by offering incentives like fair trade and debt cancellation. Of course it would be an almost impossible task but with care and planning by a powerful enough international body like the EU then I believe it's possible. Your thoughts?

I think if we could only achieve world peace it would solve most other global problems.

though perhaps not global warming.

Try the thread "Freeing Africa" This has been and still is being well debated there.http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=430077&page=7&pp=15

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

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

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

Gee, how do you achieve world peace?

It's not like the major Western nations (or indeed, any non-African nations) are constantly invading and killing people there.

You can't make people be peaceful - even if you invade and conquer their nation, the people who love to be violent will find a way to kill people in any case.

Fair Trade: Clearly the number one reason African people haven't been able to earn their living is the fact that they cannot compete on such a distorted market place.

Social Infrastructure: That's where the aid must go. If necessary, over the heads of the local governments. Most of those have long ago proven that their hope (or even willingness) of improving social infrastructure is nil.

Gee, how do you achieve world peace?

It's not like the major Western nations (or indeed, any non-African nations) are constantly invading and killing people there.

You can't make people be peaceful - even if you invade and conquer their nation, the people who love to be violent will find a way to kill people in any case.

World peace is an unattainable, even foolish goal because humanity is primarily geared to violence.

However stable regimes are needed in Africa in order for big business to take root there and for the benefits of education and health care to be actually felt by all the community.

However stable regimes are needed in Africa in order for big business to take root there and for the benefits of education and health care to be actually felt by all the community.

Stable and generally non-corrupt regimes are needed, as well as major infrastructure investment (there are few international railways and almost no international highways) both domestic and international, debt relief, and more dedication to aid than just handing the government a check. Corporations will lead the way once these are established because Africa is a huge, relatively untapped market of consumers and employment and the investments necessary will be built to profit from it. Nationalized companies need to be privatized and dismantled, because they are generally corrupt, inefficent, and bureaucratized. The workers usually don't recieve decent pay either.

However stable regimes are needed in Africa in order for big business to take root there and for the benefits of education and health care to be actually felt by all the community.

You can't "make" a stable regime if the people there feel like being violent assholes.

You can't "make" a stable regime if the people there feel like being violent assholes.

Well, the governments take the weapons of ordinary people but allow militas to arm themselves freely and kill innocent civilians like in the Sudan, or take their land as in Zimbabwe.

Well, the governments take the weapons of ordinary people but allow militas to arm themselves freely and kill innocent civilians like in the Sudan, or take their land as in Zimbabwe.

The very people who decry the US policy of conquering a nation, helping it to write a democratic constitution, helping it to rebuild its civilian infrastructure, and helping it to hold free and fair elections are the same people who say the US policy is flawed because it can't stop an insurgency.

You'll notice that the US and Iraqi government are not arming the insurgency. It's full of people who would rather go out and slit throats and blow up random people on the street instead of speaking on a public stage and being involved in a civilized political process.

The world is full of assholes like this - you can't reason with them and you can't stop them from being born. Nothing you do will stop the flow of assholes into the world - other than killing them as fast as they can be identified.

But that last part is generally regarded as an asshole policy. So, helping Africa get rid of its violent assholes is something it will have to grow out of on its own - there's nothing we can do.

I would be happy to hire these guys (http://www.blackwaterusa.com/) to depose one asshat dictator, and handle security in a single nation. From there I would hire a contractor firm (think Halliburton) to handle the basics of Infrastructure over as much land as possible. One particular goal would be to encourage urban development as opposed to rural sprawl, that way any progress that can be made along the lines of power, water, medicine, food, and basic security would affect more people in a smaller area. A type of charity fund would likely need to be created, one with as few bureaucratic facets as humanly possible (literally in the horribly cynical "human resources" type of way, as little people wasting money as possible) so that maximum impact from even the smallest contribution would count for at least something. Agriculture and such would be handled by big business on a wage basis (with a comparably high minimum wage) with the goal of putting money into the economy as well as creating a self sufficient food source. I think you get the general idea...

That is scary as hell! As an African the last thing we want is Haliburton and former US soldiers. De Beer's and former Brit/French/SA/Ausie/Canadians/Africa are ok, good propper dogs of War not 4th Generation warfare.. This is not to sound ungreatful, but 1) no self respecting African dictator is afraid of ex-US special forces - no arguement!! 2) while there are some parts of Africa that really hate the British and French troops they never get ridiculed, plus good proper old fashioned capitalists are nowhere near as offensive to our sensibilities as texas oil men.

"Fix" Africa?

Uh.......mass castrations?

I wouldn't fix Africa. It's impossible. There's too many countries, they're a drain on the World as it is. If we attempt to fix them, we'd only be donating to the large fortunes of the Warlords. ADIS is not combatable over there, as the only solution to a large-scale epidepic is quarintine, which nobody would let another county do. Because they do not cause a problem, or pose a threat to those of us in first world countries, they are not a problem, and do not deserve to be looked into at this time.

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

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

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

Yes, because if there's one thing that Africa doesn't have enough of, it's regime change. :rolleyes:

There's pressure and incentives on African politicians from all sides. More pressure or incentive won't do a damn thing. The only thing that will help Africa at this point is a massive economic embargo. If people want out, they can come out, but nothing goes back in until Africa gets its shit together.

It might happen by people realizing that they're fucked if they keep this shit up, it might happen through a series of genocidal wars that bring the population down to a manegable level and leave people so tired of war that they pick a stable government and stick with it. But people are capable of only so much sustained warfare, and entropy will eventually bring all closed systems to a standstill. Right now its being powered by American, European, and Asian economic interests.

I would redraw national boundaries along tribal distinctions rather than arbitrary lines. It would go a long way towards bringing peace to the continent (though not all the way).

That is scary as hell! As an African the last thing we want is Haliburton and former US soldiers. De Beer's and former Brit/French/SA/Ausie/Canadians/Africa are ok, good propper dogs of War not 4th Generation warfare.. This is not to sound ungreatful, but 1) no self respecting African dictator is afraid of ex-US special forces - no arguement!! 2) while there are some parts of Africa that really hate the British and French troops they never get ridiculed, plus good proper old fashioned capitalists are nowhere near as offensive to our sensibilities as texas oil men.

While I can certainly understand why the idea of mercenaries and corporate behemoths is a little unnerving, such a course would completely rid us of the whole political shit field. No lies and such to gain public support, no ganking money from the domestic budget, no selling it to partisan opposition and no reelection to worry about. Just good clean old fashion results, efficient results. Plus with humanitarian concerns built into the security contracts, media open house, and no holds barred on charity groups, a clean ship could be run.

I could care less about Africa. I think there is no point in other countries spending their money their, it will never be fixed, unless someone just bombs it to hell like should have been done years ago. If the people do not help themselves screw em

I think that some TNC's (Trans-national companies) could sponsor countries and pay them for these rights. For example we could have Pepsi Presents Ghana, or Niger is brought to you by nike!

Not all africans want outside help, Africa is the second largest continent and has one of the most diverse people, speaking over 2000 different languages. To speak about or for Africans by non-Africans is really affront. Usually people describe Africa as a country, no it's not a country, it's a continent, there's over 50 countries in Africa (not states or provinces). There's over 740 million people around Africa. To say all these people need Western Aid is bull, and have you ever seen an African literally saying give me food and money, no, it's always some foreigner who stands next to an African saying to the TV viewers that these Africans need some donations. There are countries in Africa that are self-sufficient and actually provide assistance to other African countries, and yes there are other African countries that seem to be heading backwards. Most of these countries should not be backwards because they sit on some of the world's richest resources (such as gold, diamonds, platinum, gas, oil, fertile soil, fishes, forest, exotic animals, and so on). One of the major reasons as to why these countries are bakcwards can be pointed to their leaders. Some african presidents have been in that position since 1960's, some African Presidents used to be military generals who got their position by attempting a coup, and most African presidents don't care about their people and stash the country's cash in the Swiss Bank for themselves. Therefor, giving more money to these corrupted African leaders is really unwise, and it will further continue the ransacking and dispicable poverty of some African nations. It should be known that Africans dont't need money but really want accountable leaders (african) and fair trade among the rich nations. They are as much capitalistic as any non-Africans, they are resourceful (they live on one dollar a day and still seem to survive). There are countries such as Somalia that has no government, no police, nothing and it has been since that since the country fell into a disasterous civil war in 1990 but it's GDP is surprisingly increasing. This is occuring among the day to day chaos because Somalian families abroad send money to their families in the country and in fact, about 1 billion dollars (US) will be going to Somalia anually from abroad (from other Somalis). Private Entriprises are poping up everywhere, internet cafes, newspapers, radio, telecomunications (cell phones), Cocola company, private Ports and Airlines. Its faster and cheaper to install cable wires in Somalia than it is in the rest of the continent. So, what I'm really saying is that Africans have the will to survive and can survive, they need a corrupt free government that endorse capitalism, trading equality among other nations and the rest will work out.

I would...

Oust all African governments and replace them with incorruptible, honest, fiscally sane, democratic, antiwar governments.

Launch massive irrigation programs to turn the Sahara and Kalahari deserts green.

Pursue laissez faire, neoliberal economic policies, but sharply increase funding for education and healthcare

Distribute food, medicine, birth control pills, and condoms throughout Africa

Hire workers to construct new, high-quality housing for the homeless

Massively increase the numbers of police, and have them trained abroad, then pursue a tough law-and-order campaign (especially in South Africa)

well said Greater Somalia and i have to agree. for a stable and uncorrupt regime the west cannot interfere militarily- anyone who suggests that has obviously never seen Iraq or what happened the last time the US visited Somalia. Africans should be allowed to help themselves but do they possess the capability to in the face of warlords and militia? I dont think there are any real right answers but I guess the main question is should you help(if you're going to) on a national level or deal with individual Africans? I would suggest the former- what point is someone building a house for you, or a village well, or giving you tools and training to farm if militia move you on and destroy everything- that's why peace is needed. Not to offend anyone because I believe that Africans can help themselves but perhaps they need Western help to get started?

As for the one who suggested big business sponsers countries- more exploitation? What planet are you on? :headbang:

First of all, I would be African. Everybody else can take their white man's burden trip somewhere else.

Then I would unilaterally decide that my African nation has paid its debts to the World Bank and whoever else we 'owe' money to.

Then we would help ourselves. TFuck you all for wanting to fix us poor black folk.

All you bleeding heart "democrats" should see that democracy breeds corruption as well as any other system put in to place. Democracy is often the method by which most corrupt governments are put into power. (You know I'm not taking a shot at America with that.)

Why not institute a "regime change" replacing the so-called democracies in Africa (or whatever other "poor" nation you like) with a dictator that actually has the best interests of his people at heart. Outlaw involvement of corporations that are not based in, and governed by the laws of the nation of interest. Equip the leader with a police state that can back up social and economic policies that will grow an infrastructure through the efforts of the people there that benefit the people there.

Oh, and get the IMF out of there. Loaning countries money is not doing any good. It just forces countries to sell off resources to "global conglomerates" and encourages "slave labor" in the people. Grants with strings attached have the same effect. Give them money, or leave them alone.

(BTW, I leave you to do your own Googles for articles that support my opinions on the IMF and corruption in democratic nations. Either you want your opinions challenged or you don't.)

The main thing 2 do would be 2 bring peace because then the impact of all other activities such as debt relief, aid, and fair trade would be maximised. Of course its easier said than done but i think the key lies in realising that Africa is so religiously and culturally diverse and so large nation states bcome very fragmented and unstable. So smaller states based on tribal lands could be the answer like the internationally unrecognised Somaliland in what we term Somalia. However, it may only be introduced voluntarily in areas too devestated by war to want to continue. Or Western governments could try to persuade the less tolerant African nations to be religiously tolerant by offering incentives like fair trade and debt cancellation. Of course it would be an almost impossible task but with care and planning by a powerful enough international body like the EU then I believe it's possible. Your thoughts?

Yes, just bring peace and everything will be peachy. *takes another hit*

You, my friend, are what one could classify as a moron. That will never, ever happen. Africa will get nuked in World War III before that happens. Pigs will fly out of your ass riding unicorns while wielding replicas of Excalibur before that happens.

The best thing we could do would be to stage a massive coup and kill every single African official, then keep giving the African people all the money and food we've been giving them for years, because if said food and funding actually made it to the Africans, the problem would, over time, fix itself, and U2 wouldn't have anything to bitch, thus I'd be rid of Bono's whiny bitch ass.

Well, I'm sure that with the proper combination of thermonuclear weapons and smallpox, we could just erase the slate and start over.

You, my friend, are what one could classify as a moron. That will never, ever happen. Africa will get nuked in World War III before that happens. Pigs will fly out of your ass riding unicorns while wielding replicas of Excalibur before that happens.

Hurry.

I want a unicorn.

First of all, I would be African. Everybody else can take their white man's burden trip somewhere else.
Then I would unilaterally decide that my African nation has paid its debts to the World Bank and whoever else we 'owe' money to.

Then we would help ourselves. TFuck you all for wanting to fix us poor black folk.
hahahahhaaa.....did you just call me white? HAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAAAA!!!!!!

And 'fix' is a terrible word. Could we really steralize that many people? :eek:

Well, I'm sure that with the proper combination of thermonuclear weapons and smallpox, we could just erase the slate and start over.
*slaps WL with a frozen Arctic Char*

It's like all the extreme opinions distilled themselves here instead of the Freeing Africa (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=430077&page=5) thread.

*slaps WL with a frozen Arctic Char*

I said that only because of the following:

If the world's most powerful nation (with a bit of help from places like the UK and a few other countries) can't subjugate and stabilize a country (replace its government, build its civilian infrastructure, etc) without having to stay there for the next 50 years, and can't do it without inciting an insurgency to make things difficult, what makes ANYONE think that ANYONE could go to a place that's even bigger and just as troubled - Africa - and "fix" it?

It's a new definition of hubris, IMHO.

Yes. Fix is a stupid idea. What do you think of the ideas put forth in the other thread though?

Dude, nobody wants to fix Africa. Companies don't want to pay people to get off land with big $$$, and then the government to get permits and pay taxes to establish places. It's easier to just pay a dictator a lump sum to set everything up and make big bux mining oil or diamonds or whatever-the-fuck they really want.

A mesh of everything I've put forward so far:

Here's how I see us fixing Africa.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One final comment:
A lot of people here seem very concerned with self-sufficiency. They point to the large amounts of starvation in post-WWII Europe as an indication that if a country is not able to produce food for itself it will be inherently weaker, and in some ways this is true. A country nothing instead of producing food is weaker, but the altenative to agriculture isn't being idle. With our abilities to transport things around the world even greater than they were back in the middle of the 20th century (Berlin Airlift), food movement isn't an issue as long as each country makes something another country wants. The real global danger comes from countries having nothing that other countries want, but thanks to the value of labour, this situation simply does not exist. As long as there are people in a country, that country has a resource, and if there aren't people in a country, well then we don't really need to worry about it. The worry of self-sufficiency might have made sense in the 1800's when the US was fighting the War of 1812, but it's outdated by now.

Yes. Fix is a stupid idea. What do you think of the ideas put forth in the other thread though?

Let's say "Help".

Debt relief will not help Africa. The moment that Museveni got 790 million in debt relief for his country, he ran out and bought a new jet for himself. Similar stories abound in other African nations.

Aid money will not help.

Loans, grants, etc., will not help.

Direct aid will be of little help.

The problem is corruption. As long as the governments of most African countries are that corrupt, nothing will improve. It will only be a big pit where we throw in money and aid and no one gets any help.

"Military cleansing"

Its simple. Post carrier attack groups around Africa, specifically in areas that are currently or were recently in conflicts. Large carrier strikes, from helicopters and attack aircraft, destroy the military structure of these nations. Destroy the air forces, destroy the armour and artillery. Let them keep most of their infantry, but hit as many munitions sites as possible.

The remaining militaries will only be strong enough to maintain control of the countries. Since they wont be able to handle real conflicts against each other anymore, they can worry about internal things.

This wouldnt immediatly change anything, or drastically change it, but it would be the first step. Get them away from military worries.

1. Forcibly remove the dictators and fat cats who keep stealing aid.
2. Make their countries focus less on the millitary and instead on their people.
3. Then and only then give them aid.

"Military cleansing"

Its simple. Post carrier attack groups around Africa, specifically in areas that are currently or were recently in conflicts. Large carrier strikes, from helicopters and attack aircraft, destroy the military structure of these nations. Destroy the air forces, destroy the armour and artillery. Let them keep most of their infantry, but hit as many munitions sites as possible.

The remaining militaries will only be strong enough to maintain control of the countries. Since they wont be able to handle real conflicts against each other anymore, they can worry about internal things.

This wouldnt immediatly change anything, or drastically change it, but it would be the first step. Get them away from military worries.

The only way that we are going to fix these places will require more than that. I say we invade, then because all of the idiot leaders will now be dead, we spend our money for them and build industry and the like. Also instead of trying to help people with AIDS we should just kill them.