Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Africa Earned Its Debt

p0ink

New member
Africa Earned Its Debt
New York Times | October 6, 2004 | ROBERT GUEST

Johannesburg

When the price of crude oil hit $50 a barrel last week, sending ripples of anxiety around the world, analysts blamed a young Nigerian man with a machine gun and a speedboat. He is Mujahid Dokubo-Asari, a militia boss who is threatening to start a civil war and shut down the Nigerian oil industry, which is the fifth-largest supplier of crude oil to the United States. He will do this, he says, unless his people, the Ijaw, who live on top of Nigeria's oil fields, are granted autonomy. By "autonomy," he means "control of the oil money." Nigerian officials dismiss Mr. Asari as a gangster. But if so, he is a gangster who has friends in the ruling party and is taken seriously enough that Nigeria's president, Olusegun Obasanjo, felt obliged to sit down and negotiate with him last week. Mr. Obasanjo is a well-meaning fellow, but his job is made more difficult because he is surrounded by crooks.

Nigeria, like much of Africa, ought to be rich but is miserably poor. The main reason is that rather than striving to create an environment in which their people can freely seek prosperity and happiness, most African governments have chosen instead to rob them. This culture of criminality has spread throughout the ruling class, down to the Nigerian border guard who threatened to beat up my driver last month if I didn't give him a dollar, to the bribe-hungry Cameroonian police officers who stopped a truck I was riding in 47 times in 300 miles.

This corruption makes it hard to do business in Africa. Manufacturers need smooth roads, reliable electricity and efficient ports. But too often in Africa, the roads are craterous because someone has looted the maintenance budget, the power fails because the state monopoly utility company is staffed with politicians' idiot cousins, and the customs officers hang onto your goods for weeks in the hope that you will bribe them to hurry up. In only two African countries - South Africa and Botswana - is it relatively easy to do business, a recent World Bank study found. For bright, energetic Africans, it is often easier to get rich by joining the government than by creating honest wealth.

That is why the debt relief proposal debated over the weekend in Washington by officials from the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the Group of 7 nations would be not be a panacea for Africa. Faster debt relief is a good idea for countries with relatively clean, pragmatic governments that pursue sensible economic policies, like Mozambique and Uganda. But debt relief cannot help the worst-governed countries like Zimbabwe and Angola because their leaders are likely to squander the money it frees up. In those places, extra cash props up despots.

This is a more complex picture than many debt-relief campaigners will admit. It may be, as Oxfam complains, that Zambia cannot hire enough teachers because the monetary fund has told its government not to run too large a budget deficit. But that is not the whole story. The main reason Zambia is bankrupt is that it has been ruled with startling incompetence and venality; for example, its previous president, Frederick Chiluba, is facing multiple charges of embezzlement.

Outsiders cannot fundamentally change the way Africa is governed. That is a task for Africans themselves, and some are rising to the challenge. In Nigeria, President Obasanjo has hired a team of technocrats to curb corruption by making the public accounts more transparent. They are doing their best, but one of them told me that probably no more than one powerful Nigerian in 20 supports the clean-up. That in a nutshell is why Africans are poor: their leaders keep them that way.

Robert Guest, Africa editor for The Economist, is the author of "The Shackled Continent: Power, Corruption and African Lives.''
 
Tru dat! Debt relief is stupid. Why would you forgive a debt? If Africa can get it, why can't I get it?
 
Some cultures are simply less advanced, and their situation reflects this. Help can probably be given, but the core problem remains the same.
 
AristotleBC said:
Help can probably be given, but the core problem remains the same.

and that core problem is government. always has been, always will...but liberals always fail to realize that.

there answer is to create even more government to examine the failures of government. once their new committee comes up with 'the problem' they create even more government to address the problem.

it's a snowball effect.
 
True, that is a big part of it, and governments always tend towards tyranny, but I believe the larger problem is a faulty culture far behind in development compared to the rest of the world. They are bascially barbarians with technology.
 
Nigeria is an example of a failed state. Its failure can be traced back to colonial times when the british colonized it and basically purged everything they could from the country. They set up boundaries/borders with a total disregard for ethnic groups (there's nearly 400 languages spoken in nigeria) and cultural differences. The british set a legacy of pure extraction in nigeria with minimal reinvestment into infrastructure.

This legacy exists today where dominating political groups are either christian or muslim and the presidency is a winner take all deal. All revenues are funneled from the country into the region where the dominating party originated from.

Public projects are almost all trophy projects. Big steel factories, the capitol of nigeria (a ghost town), any roads leading to small villages are all just remnants of leaders past and hold absolutely no significance besides waste in the present.

While you say Africa may have earned its debt, the facts cannot be ignored that the european colonialization set a legacy that has haunts africa to this day.
 
UA_Iron said:
Nigeria is an example of a failed state. Its failure can be traced back to colonial times when the british colonized it and basically purged everything they could from the country. .................

Stop blaming the white man for the failure of black Africans to succeed. The failure of Nigeria lies at the feet of the indigenous people. Any attempt to put responsibility where it belongs opens up the politically incorrect position that perhaps those people are not capable of governing themselves or creating a civil society.

Take Haiti. The Hatians have been free of the evil white demon for over 200 years but they are incapable of raising themselves above a subsistance level. How about Zimbabwe. They were the BREADBASKET of Africa until they tossed the white, commercial farmers out. Now there are millions of their citizens starving and dependant on hand outs from the west (read: white man).

How about something closer to home? Ever been to Detriot? .....shudder.........
 
AristotleBC said:
True, that is a big part of it, and governments always tend towards tyranny, but I believe the larger problem is a faulty culture far behind in development compared to the rest of the world. They are bascially barbarians with technology.

hhmmm
 
p0ink said:
and that core problem is government. always has been, always will...but liberals always fail to realize that.

there answer is to create even more government to examine the failures of government. once their new committee comes up with 'the problem' they create even more government to address the problem.

it's a snowball effect.

poink, i can;t believe you are using africa as an exampke of big government. for starters most of their governments are just people in a big room siphoning money away from people and spending none of it on the actual problem. before you start telling me that centralised government does exactly the same by spending its money on admin, i agree, big givernment is nort working. However at least they take the money and put it into public resources as opposed to expecting the average working person to finance things solely themselves. This is totally different, and we have a responsibility to try and fix that continent

lets also not forget the evil african leaders were placed there by the west to destablise USSR leaning givernments/reigons. As tony blair said, it (Africa) IS a scar on the concience of the west.
 
AristotleBC said:
True, that is a big part of it, and governments always tend towards tyranny, but I believe the larger problem is a faulty culture far behind in development compared to the rest of the world. They are bascially barbarians with technology.

AristotleBC said:
Stop blaming the white man for the failure of black Africans to succeed. The failure of Nigeria lies at the feet of the indigenous people. Any attempt to put responsibility where it belongs opens up the politically incorrect position that perhaps those people are not capable of governing themselves or creating a civil society.

Take Haiti. The Hatians have been free of the evil white demon for over 200 years but they are incapable of raising themselves above a subsistance level. How about Zimbabwe. They were the BREADBASKET of Africa until they tossed the white, commercial farmers out. Now there are millions of their citizens starving and dependant on hand outs from the west (read: white man)..



Africa for the most part was fairly stable before the west got its teeth into it.

The brits managed to trash the reigon, but it was still much better than its current state when the cold war decided to be fought on its territories.

MANY peaceful governments which were socialist (and therefore supported the USSR) were destablised by the CIA as they had rival leaders (you know, the ones that went round massacring men, women and children and generally were anything but benevolent). And thus managed to ensure that any leaders since then would be of a similar calibre. Africa was doing just fine before this stuff hit its shores, as poor as most if it is it is FANTASTICALLY rich in natural resources. yet merely because its people had a different way of life to the west, the west virtually destroyed the continent. And supported apartheid. for oil resources they 'might' need.

but hey....they are the barbarians with technology right? Savages, the lot of them :rolleyes:

and as for Zimbabwe....well we supported 'Rhodesia' for many years. Stripped black farmers of all their land, resources, even filled em with some lead for their troubles. but shit, they should be GRATEFUL we ended up leaving them with an idiot like mugabe, right?

We ALLOWED that twit to stay in power, we have done NOTHING when an impotent fool on an oil well get the most unpopular war in recent times. He isnt just supressing white farmers (who I do feel for as well as their black farm hands) he is supressing ANY opposition, black or otherwise. His people dont want him there, he has is public supporters, those who are afraid of him and the rest are beaten and shot. Most of them lead a perfectly peaeful lifestyle, until we went in there and forced them to start forming governments etc


We (the west) have a LOT to answer for over there & whether people choose to admit it or not, a lot of evil things were done in your countries name. explains why we are so hated by some...
 
They are always going to find ways to blame the white imperialists for Africas failures..
anything else would point to their own people and their fucked up culture as the cause for all their problems.
 
danielson said:
Africa for the most part was fairly stable before the west got its teeth into it.

The brits managed to trash the reigon, but it was still much better than its current state when the cold war decided to be fought on its territories.

MANY peaceful governments which were socialist (and therefore supported the USSR) were destablised by the CIA as they had rival leaders (you know, the ones that went round massacring men, women and children and generally were anything but benevolent). And thus managed to ensure that any leaders since then would be of a similar calibre. Africa was doing just fine before this stuff hit its shores, as poor as most if it is it is FANTASTICALLY rich in natural resources. yet merely because its people had a different way of life to the west, the west virtually destroyed the continent. And supported apartheid. for oil resources they 'might' need.

but hey....they are the barbarians with technology right? Savages, the lot of them :rolleyes:

and as for Zimbabwe....well we supported 'Rhodesia' for many years. Stripped black farmers of all their land, resources, even filled em with some lead for their troubles. but shit, they should be GRATEFUL we ended up leaving them with an idiot like mugabe, right?

We ALLOWED that twit to stay in power, we have done NOTHING when an impotent fool on an oil well get the most unpopular war in recent times. He isnt just supressing white farmers (who I do feel for as well as their black farm hands) he is supressing ANY opposition, black or otherwise. His people dont want him there, he has is public supporters, those who are afraid of him and the rest are beaten and shot. Most of them lead a perfectly peaeful lifestyle, until we went in there and forced them to start forming governments etc


We (the west) have a LOT to answer for over there & whether people choose to admit it or not, a lot of evil things were done in your countries name. explains why we are so hated by some...

Absolutely fucking pwned.
 
Things got worse after the cold war. We supported rulers because if we supported them then that was another country the communists didnt have control over.

Once we dropped funding, support etc then the place turned even more fragmented.
 
UA_Iron said:
Things got worse after the cold war. We supported rulers because if we supported them then that was another country the communists didnt have control over.

Once we dropped funding, support etc then the place turned even more fragmented.


the people you supported were usually whoever would do the job, which inevitably meant insane genocidal maniacs who cared only for themselves. who replaced leaders who genuinely cared for their people and just happened to be supporters of the USSR, which did its best to give them aid (even if their own starved)

ultimately if the USSR had control over their oil or not, they would have been better off with them. The brits fucked that place up as the last century turned, the US (and USSR) screwed it half way through...we choose whether to ignore it or try to stablise it now
 
Hengst said:
How about something closer to home? Ever been to Detriot? .....shudder.........


or Atlanta. Majority population and blacks in power since Jesus died (70's) and they seem to be doing okay for the most part.
 
Dial_tone said:
or Atlanta. Majority population and blacks in power since Jesus died (70's) and they seem to be doing okay for the most part.
But these are american blacks. different from africans in my opinion.
 
Top Bottom