posted
After reading the article please open the link below and read the comments section, interesting indeed. One poster states: "My former South African roommate once told me that Africa would be so lovely without the blacks."
Whether this statement is true or not, I am sure this is the world view of most whites. Given their horrendous track record and surreptitious meddling in African affairs, colonization, interjecting man made diseases, the ruse of divide and conquer, and writing Africans out of their own history, Africans and Africans in diaspora must regard these very real threats seriously because their agenda is clear; keep Africa weak, fragmented, and control Africa for their own benefit. What other evidence do we need to reverse the current external policies targeting Africa?
--------------------------------------
20+ African countries are selling or leasing land for intensive agriculture on a shocking scale in what may be the greatest change of ownership since the colonial era. March 10, 2010 | LIKE THIS ARTICLE ? Join our mailing list: Sign up to stay up to date on the latest World headlines via email. Advertisement Awassa, Ethiopia -- We turned off the main road to Awassa, talked our way past security guards and drove a mile across empty land before we found what will soon be Ethiopia's largest greenhouse. Nestling below an escarpment of the Rift Valley, the development is far from finished, but the plastic and steel structure already stretches over 50 acres* -- the size of 20 soccer fields.
The farm manager shows us millions of tomatoes, peppers and other vegetables being grown in 1,500 foot rows in computer controlled conditions. Spanish engineers are building the steel structure, Dutch technology minimises water use from two bore-holes and 1,000 women pick and pack 50 tons of food a day. Within 24 hours, it has been driven 200 miles to Addis Ababa and flown 1,000 miles to the shops and restaurants of Dubai, Jeddah and elsewhere in the Middle East.
Ethiopia is one of the hungriest countries in the world with more than 13-million people needing food aid, but paradoxically the government is offering at least 7.5 million acres of its most fertile land to rich countries and some of the world's most wealthy individuals to export food for their own populations.
The 2,500 acres of land which contain the Awassa greenhouses are leased for 99 years to a Saudi billionaire businessman, Ethiopian-born Sheikh Mohammed al-Amoudi, one of the 50 richest men in the world. His Saudi Star company plans to spend up to $2-billion acquiring and developing 1.25 million acres of land in Ethiopia in the next few years. So far, it has bought four farms and is already growing wheat, rice, vegetables and flowers for the Saudi market. It expects eventually to employ more than 10,000 people.
But Ethiopia is only one of 20 or more African countries where land is being bought or leased for intensive agriculture on an immense scale in what may be the greatest change of ownership since the colonial era.
Land rush
An Observer investigation estimates that up to 125 million acres of land -- an area more than double the size of the UK -- has been acquired in the last few years or is in the process of being negotiated by governments and wealthy investors working with state subsidies. The data used was collected by Grain, the International Institute for Environment and Development, the International Land Coalition, ActionAid and other non-governmental groups.
The land rush, which is still accelerating, has been triggered by the worldwide food shortages which followed the sharp oil price rises in 2008, growing water shortages and the European Union's insistence that 10% of all transport fuel must come from plant-based biofuels by 2015.
In many areas the deals have led to evictions, civil unrest and complaints of "land grabbing".
The experience of Nyikaw Ochalla, an indigenous Anuak from the Gambella region of Ethiopia now living in Britain but who is in regular contact with farmers in his region, is typical. He said: "All of the land in the Gambella region is utilised. Each community has and looks after its own territory and the rivers and farmlands within it. It is a myth propagated by the government and investors to say that there is waste land or land that is not utilised in Gambella.
"The foreign companies are arriving in large numbers, depriving people of land they have used for centuries. There is no consultation with the indigenous population. The deals are done secretly. The only thing the local people see is people coming with lots of tractors to invade their lands.
"All the land round my family village of Illia has been taken over and is being cleared. People now have to work for an Indian company. Their land has been compulsorily taken and they have been given no compensation. People cannot believe what is happening. Thousands of people will be affected and people will go hungry."
It is not known if the acquisitions will improve or worsen food security in Africa, or if they will stimulate separatist conflicts, but a major World Bank report due to be published this month is expected to warn of both the potential benefits and the immense dangers they represent to people and nature.
Leading the rush are international agribusinesses, investment banks, hedge funds, commodity traders, sovereign wealth funds as well as UK pension funds, foundations and individuals attracted by some of the world's cheapest land.
Together they are scouring Sudan, Kenya, Nigeria, Tanzania, Malawi, Ethiopia, Congo, Zambia, Uganda, Madagascar, Zimbabwe, Mali, Sierra Leone, Ghana and elsewhere. Ethiopia alone has approved 815 foreign-financed agricultural projects since 2007. Any land there, which investors have not been able to buy, is being leased for approximately $1 per year per 2.5 acres.
Saudi Arabia, along with other Middle Eastern emirate states such as Qatar, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi, is thought to be the biggest buyer. In 2008 the Saudi government, which was one of the Middle East's largest wheat-growers, announced it was to reduce its domestic cereal production by 12% a year to conserve its water. It earmarked $5-billion to provide loans at preferential rates to Saudi companies which wanted to invest in countries with strong agricultural potential .
Meanwhile, the Saudi investment company Foras, backed by the Islamic Development Bank and wealthy Saudi investors, plans to spend $1-billion buying land and growing seven million tonnes of rice for the Saudi market within seven years. The company says it is investigating buying land in Mali, Senegal, Sudan and Uganda. By turning to Africa to grow its staple crops, Saudi Arabia is not just acquiring Africa's land but is securing itself the equivalent of hundreds of millions of gallons of scarce water a year. Water, says the UN, will be the defining resource of the next 100 years.
Huge deals Since 2008 Saudi investors have bought heavily in Sudan, Egypt, Ethiopia and Kenya. Last year the first sacks of wheat grown in Ethiopia for the Saudi market were presented by al-Amoudi to King Abdullah.
Some of the African deals lined up are eye-wateringly large: China has signed a contract with the Democratic Republic of Congo to grow 7-million acres of palm oil for biofuels. Before it fell apart after riots, a proposed 3 million acres deal between Madagascar and the South Korean company Daewoo would have included nearly half of the country's arable land.
Land to grow biofuel crops is also in demand. "European biofuel companies have acquired or requested about 10 million acres in Africa. This has led to displacement of people, lack of consultation and compensation, broken promises about wages and job opportunities," said Tim Rice, author of an ActionAid report which estimates that the EU needs to grow crops on 43 million acres, well over half the size of Italy, if it is to meet its 10% biofuel target by 2015.
"The biofuel land grab in Africa is already displacing farmers and food production. The number of people going hungry will increase," he said. British firms have secured tracts of land in Angola, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Nigeria and Tanzania to grow flowers and vegetables.
Indian companies, backed by government loans, have bought or leased hundreds of thousands of acres in Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Senegal and Mozambique, where they are growing rice, sugar cane, maize and lentils to feed their domestic market.
Nowhere is now out of bounds. Sudan, emerging from civil war and mostly bereft of development for a generation, is one of the new hot spots. South Korean companies last year bought 1.75 million acres of northern Sudan for wheat cultivation; the United Arab Emirates have acquired 1.875 million acres and Saudi Arabia last month concluded a 100,000 acre deal in Nile province.
The government of southern Sudan says many companies are now trying to acquire land. "We have had many requests from many developers. Negotiations are going on," said Peter Chooli, director of water resources and irrigation, in Juba last week. "A Danish group is in discussions with the state and another wants to use land near the Nile."
In one of the most extraordinary deals, buccaneering New York investment firm Jarch Capital, run by a former commodities trader, Philip Heilberg, has leased 2 million acres in southern Sudan near Darfur. Heilberg has promised not only to create jobs but also to put 10% or more of his profits back into the local community. But he has been accused by Sudanese of "grabbing" communal land and leading an American attempt to fragment Sudan and exploit its resources.
New colonialism Devlin Kuyek, a Montreal-based researcher with Grain, said investing in Africa was now seen as a new food supply strategy by many governments. "Rich countries are eyeing Africa not just for a healthy return on capital, but also as an insurance policy. Food shortages and riots in 28 countries in 2008, declining water supplies, climate change and huge population growth have together made land attractive. Africa has the most land and, compared with other continents, is cheap," he said.
"Farmland in sub-Saharan Africa is giving 25% returns a year and new technology can treble crop yields in short time frames," said Susan Payne, chief executive of Emergent Asset Management, a UK investment fund seeking to spend $50-million on African land, which, she said, was attracting governments, corporations, multinationals and other investors. "Agricultural development is not only sustainable, it is our future. If we do not pay great care and attention now to increase food production by over 50% before 2050, we will face serious food shortages globally," she said.
But many of the deals are widely condemned by both Western non-government groups and nationals as "new colonialism", driving people off the land and taking scarce resources away from people.
We met Tegenu Morku, a land agent, in a roadside cafe on his way to the region of Oromia in Ethiopia to find 1,250 acresof land for a group of Egyptian investors. They planned to fatten cattle, grow cereals and spices and export as much as possible to Egypt. There had to be water available and he expected the price to be about 15 birr (about $1) per 2.5 acres per year -- less than a quarter of the cost of land in Egypt and a tenth of the price of land in Asia.
"The land and labor is cheap and the climate is good here. Everyone -- Saudis, Turks, Chinese, Egyptians -- is looking. The farmers do not like it because they get displaced, but they can find land elsewhere and, besides, they get compensation, equivalent to about 10 years' crop yield," he said.
Man-made famine Oromia is one of the centers of the African land rush. Haile Hirpa, president of the Oromia studies' association, said last week in a letter of protest to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon that India had acquired 2.5 million acres, Djibouti 2,500 acres, Saudi Arabia 250,000 and that Egyptian, South Korean, Chinese, Nigerian and other Arab investors were all active in the state.
"This is the new, 21st-century colonization. The Saudis are enjoying the rice harvest, while the Oromos are dying from man-made famine as we speak," he said.
The Ethiopian government denied the deals were causing hunger and said that the land deals were attracting hundreds of millions of dollars of foreign investments and tens of thousands of jobs. A spokesperson said: "Ethiopia has [187 million acres] of fertile land, of which only 15% is currently in use -- mainly by subsistence farmers. Of the remaining land, only a small percentage -- 3 to 4% -- is offered to foreign investors. Investors are never given land that belongs to Ethiopian farmers. The government also encourages Ethiopians in the diaspora to invest in their homeland. They bring badly needed technology, they offer jobs and training to Ethiopians, they operate in areas where there is suitable land and access to water."
The reality on the ground is different, according to Michael Taylor, a policy specialist at the International Land Coalition. "If land in Africa hasn't been planted, it's probably for a reason. Maybe it's used to graze livestock or deliberately left fallow to prevent nutrient depletion and erosion. Anybody who has seen these areas identified as unused understands that there is no land in Ethiopia that has no owners and users."
Development experts are divided on the benefits of large-scale, intensive farming. Indian ecologist Vandana Shiva said in London last week that large-scale industrial agriculture not only threw people off the land but also required chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, intensive water use, and large-scale transport, storage and distribution which together turned landscapes into enormous mono-cultural plantations.
"We are seeing dispossession on a massive scale. It means less food is available and local people will have less. There will be more conflict and political instability and cultures will be uprooted. The small farmers of Africa are the basis of food security. The food availability of the planet will decline," she says. But Rodney Cooke, director at the UN's International Fund for Agricultural Development, sees potential benefits. "I would avoid the blanket term 'land-grabbing'. Done the right way, these deals can bring benefits for all parties and be a tool for development."
Lorenzo Cotula, senior researcher with the International Institute for Environment and Development, who co-authored a report on African land exchanges with the UN fund last year, found that well-structured deals could guarantee employment, better infrastructures and better crop yields. But badly handled they could cause great harm, especially if local people were excluded from decisions about allocating land and if their land rights were not protected.
Water is also controversial. Local government officers in Ethiopia told the Observer that foreign companies that set up flower farms and other large intensive farms were not being charged for water. "We would like to, but the deal is made by central government," said one. In Awassa, the al-Amouni farm uses as much water a year as 100,000 Ethiopians.
posted
If anyone doesn't see it by now, then they are blind. The world economic system created under colonialism and white racist industrialists has only one vision for Africa: black peasants working for white and other foreign "multinationals" with no ownership of land, no control over resources and no wealth of their own. That has been the vision and agenda all along. The current world economic system was built on this racist framework and will never benefit black Africans as long as it continues to exist. It will not feed Africans. It will not develop Africa. It will only starve and attempt to depopulate Africa in the interests of foreigners.
The whole idea of a global food crisis is fake. It was engineered by the bankers and multinational corporations in order to justify land-grabbing. The whole agenda is to put as much of the world's agricultural land under the control of white and other multinationals as possible, so that people will not be able to plant and grow food for their own benefit, it will have to come from some multinational corporate controlled corporate agricultural enterprise. This guarantees the bankers and industrialists more money and at the same time guarantees that the people of the third world will face EVEN MORE starvation. These mega plantations will be selling food to the highest bidder and since they will be built in some of the poorest countries in the world, the locals will be unable to afford the food. And they will be unable to afford it because they won't have access to any money to buy the food since their countries have no real economic system of their own.
At the end of the day, like I have said before, the purpose of agriculture is to feed the people. In the globalist capitalist racist industrial complex however, the purpose of agriculture is to make money and f*ck the people. How own earth can they be concerned about a global food crisis, which means people starving, if the plantations they create aren't feeding the starving local people? Therefore, they are depriving these people of the ability to feed themselves by taking their land and selling the food produced on their land to foreigners overseas.
Note how all of these major deals have the backing of their host governments, who often provide financing and other support for these projects. Where is the financial support for Africans developing their own farms to feed Africans to stop the real African food crisis? Where is the irrigation technology, water rights and infrastructure to support Africans growing and distributing food for Africans? Why aren't African farmers allowed to develop mega farms on millions of acres to feed not only Africans, but others around the world? If the technology and financing can be made available to help non Africans eat, then why can't it be made available for Africans to eat as well? If it isn't, then it is because these people are not interested in helping Africans.
The governments of Africa are mostly flunkies of international business and foreign interests who have no desire to make Africa self sufficient in any way.
quote: Nairobi — Food worth millions of shillings is rotting on farms across the country due to lack of markets and impassable roads.
From Marakwet in the North Rift to Mathira in Central and Hola at the Coast, it is the same story of anger and disappointment at wasted labour.
The irony is that all this food is going to waste in a country where some citizens are starving.
Nowhere is the situation as dire as the Hola Irrigation Scheme in Tana River District.
Farmers at the scheme, celebrating a bumper harvest for the first time in 20 years, are a bitterly disappointed lot.
Failed to buy
More than 200 tonnes of maize from the scheme revived last year by President Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga are rotting after the National Cereals and Produce Board failed to buy the crop.
The scheme was revived under the National Economic Stimulus Programme late last year.
Farmers said they could not believe this was the same government that was frustrating them, just three months after encouraging them to produce the maize.
"What are we supposed to do? How can the government do this to us? How can it let us invest so much only to leave our crops to rot?" demands Mr Said Mugawa of Hola Farmers Cooperative Society.
Mr Mugawa said all efforts to sell the maize to the NCPB had failed. Delegations sent to the Ministry of Agriculture in Nairobi to beg it to buy the maize have also been in vain.
Allocated money
"We are constantly told the government has not allocated the money to buy our maize," he said.
The farmers had put 850 acres out 1,240 under maize.
"Our stores, which can accommodate only 3,000 bags are full. A lot of maize is still on the farm, rotting and has been there for more than a month," Mr Mugawa said.
Ms Fatuma Galgalo, the chairperson of the Hola Farmers Advisory Committee, said the maize was at risk of contamination by aflatoxin.
"Although the crop was tested and approved for human consumption, we fear that with continued exposure to moisture and other conditions, it could soon be contaminated," she said.
"Our children are at home as we are unable to pay school fees. We are so worried as life has ground to a halt at the scheme," said Mr Mugawa.
Agriculture minister William Ruto toured the scheme in January and assured the farmers that the NCPB would buy their crop.
Mr Alex Wainaina, the manager of the scheme, is a depressed man after seeing all the farmers' efforts going down the drain.
"It's hard to comprehend when one reflects on the hard work we all put in to revive the scheme," he said.
"It is very sad that the country does not have enough food while here, tonnes and tonnes of maize are going to waste," he said.
In the North Rift, thousands of litres of milk are going to waste as a result of increased production that has stretched the processing capacity of New Kenya Cooperative Creameries (New KCC) and private dairies.
Counting losses
Horticultural farmers are also counting their losses with produce worth more than Sh35 million also going to waste.
Uasin Gishu District earned more than Sh27 million from vegetables last year and Sh3.4 million from fruits.
"The heavy rains have made it impossible to access markets for our produce despite the plentiful harvest," said Ms Rachael Chematia from Tot in Marakwet District.
Landslides have hit parts of Kerio Valley, making most roads impassable.
Dairy farmers incurred losses of more than Sh2.5 million in two months after their milk went to waste due to lack of markets.
The region has an estimated 1.2 million dairy cows and between 400,000 and 500,000 heifers.
"Attractive prices offered by New KCC and support from international partners motivated us to venture into modern dairy farming but we can no longer sell the produce to anyone," complained Mr John Kiptoo of Chepkumia, Nandi South District.
Daily milk deliveries to the New KCC factory in Eldoret has doubled from 40,000 litres to 80,000 litres in the last two months but the plant can only process 6,000 litres. "A serious milk glut is expected in the next six months as production will be high because most parts of the country will have adequate pastures due to the rains," said Mr Kiptoo.
"The government should improve the roads for easier transportation of inputs and produce to avoid exploitation by cartels," said Mr Musa Barno of the Kenya Federation of Agricultural Producers Uasin Gishu chapter.
Grain farmers in the region are having difficulties selling more than 600,000 bags of maize harvested last season.
"The pathetic state of the roads has made it impossible to get our produce to the markets," said Mr Peter Boit, a large-scale farmer in the district.
A survey by the Nation showed that farmers are to incur more losses as they have not yet started shelling their maize.
Sources at the NCPB say deliveries from farmers had shot up to an average 15,000 bags from 4,000 two months ago. The board pays Sh2,300 for a 90kg bag.
"We intended to buy 1.5 million bags of maize from last season's produce but we might only be able to get 800,000 bags," an official said.
Farmers in Uasin Gishu harvested 4.3 million bags of maize last year from 85,697 hectares while those in Trans Nzoia District harvested 5.3 million bags.
Wheat production in the region declined from 3.7 million to 2.8 million bags last season due to erratic climatic conditions.
"We have nowhere to sell our wheat as we can not get to the markets," said Mr Joseph Kipkoech of Kaptagat, who has 150 bags of wheat in his store.
"We are forced to sell our produce at throwaway prices to get money for inputs but a glut in the market has pushed prices down," said Ms Leah Chemasunde, a maize farmer at Moi's Bridge.
The drop in prices and poor state of roads come at a time when fertiliser costs between Sh1,800 and Sh2,300 a bag, which farmers say is too high.
The government, through the ministry of Agriculture, has delivered 500,000 bags of subsidised fertiliser to the North Rift for this season's planting.
The fertiliser is sold through NCPB depots but farmers say the clearing process is too slow.
The lack of market for ready produce is hurting farmers as they need money to buy farm inputs for the coming planting season.
quote: Winnie Madikizela-Mandela has launched an astonishing attack on Nelson Mandela, accusing the former president of failing black people.
In an interview published in a UK newspaper, she also called Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu a "cretin".
Her comments follow her surprise absence from the 20th anniversary celebration of Mandela's release from prison on February 11.
In yesterday's unprovoked attack, she described the international icon as a betrayer who had turned soft and let down the black people of South Africa.
She alleged that Mandela had become a "corporate foundation" who was "wheeled out" by the ANC globally to collect money.
She and Mandela married in 1958, but divorced in 1996.
Madikizela-Mandela, 73, who holds the first position on the ANC's national executive committee, was interviewed by Nadira Naipaul, the wife of novelist VS Naipaul, for the London Evening Standard.
Her comments have been met with dismay by an ANC spokesman who told the Cape Argus that the party was distancing itself from the attack.
In the interview, Madikizela-Mandela was quoted as saying: "This name 'Mandela' is an albatross around the necks of my family.
"You all must realise that Mandela was not the only man who suffered. There were many others, hundreds who languished in prison and died.
"Mandela did go to prison and he went in there as a young revolutionary but look what came out.
"Mandela let us down. He agreed to a bad deal for the blacks. Economically we are still on the outside. The economy is very much 'white'.
"I cannot forgive him for going to receive the Nobel (peace prize) with his jailer, (FW) De Klerk. Hand in hand they went. Do you think De Klerk released him from the goodness of his heart? He had to. The times dictated it, the world had changed."
Dave Steward, head of the FW de Klerk Foundation, immediately laughed off the slur.
"If Winnie Mandela is criticising FW de Klerk at the same time as Mr Mandela, then Mr De Klerk would feel that he's in good company and on the right side of the equation."
Madikizela-Mandela also spoke of her own struggle against apartheid, and admitted to having been scared.
"Yes, I was afraid in the beginning. But then there is only so much they can do to you. After that it is only death. They can only kill you and, as you see, I am still here."
In addition, Madikizela-Mandela laid into the Truth and Reconciliation Committee, chaired by Tutu, before which she appeared in 1997 and which implicated her in gross violations of human rights.
She said: "What good does the truth do? How does it help anyone to know where and how their loved ones are killed or buried?
"That Bishop Tutu who turned it all into a religious circus came here (Soweto). He had a cheek to tell me to appear. I told him that he and his other like-minded cretins were only sitting there because of our struggle and me."
A spokesperson from Tutu's Milnerton office said hat the Archbishop was in Washington DC and would respond, if he chose to, tomorrow.
In the interview, Madikizela-Mandela also claimed that the ANC was exploiting her ex-husband.
"Look what they make him do. The great Mandela. He has no control or say any more.
"They put that huge statue of him right in the middle of the most affluent white area of Johannesburg. Not here (in Soweto) where we spilled our blood.
"Mandela is now like a corporate foundation. He is wheeled out globally to collect the money."
In response to the article, the ANC said it would ask Madikizela-Mandela to explain her attack on the former president.
ANC spokesman Jackson Mthembu said that when the NEC met next week, they would ask Madikizela-Mandela whether she had indeed said Mandela had done nothing for the poor and had betrayed the black nation.
"We have to be fair, so we would want to hear from her whether she has been correctly quoted.
"It sounds very much out of character, but we will want to know in what capacity she was speaking because this sounds like a very drastic attack on the former president," he said.
An aide who answered her phone this morning said she was not available to speak.
A spokesman for the Nelson Mandela Foundation had not returned calls at the time of going to press.
posted
So then its pretty much pointless to do anything accept talk about it I guess.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JMT2: After reading the article please open the link below and read the comments section, interesting indeed. One poster states: "My former South African roommate once told me that Africa would be so lovely without the blacks."
Whether this statement is true or not, I am sure this is the world view of most whites. Given their horrendous track record and surreptitious meddling in African affairs, colonization, interjecting man made diseases, the ruse of divide and conquer, and writing Africans out of their own history, Africans and Africans in diaspora must regard these very real threats seriously because their agenda is clear; keep Africa weak, fragmented, and control Africa for their own benefit. What other evidence do we need to reverse the current external policies targeting Africa?
Ido no think you should worry much about the "LAND grab". It could benefit the nations concern especially when they adopt new methods of farming introduced by investors. Besides that if the people do not like it they will simply throw foreign farmers out.Land is a very sensitive issue in Africa. If you want a civil war touch peoples land. In my country the gov tried to nationalize land but threat of people taking up arms to defend their property forced gov withdrew the bill. OT. When Amin threw out indians Museveni invited them back and they reclaimed the properties they lost. Alot of families were thrown in the street. One thing is for sure Ugandans hate the return of Asians. The gov knows it and Asian know it too. Am afraid for them. It is like people are waiting for an opportunity to throw them out again. This time it will be bloody.
Posts: 87 | From: Sweden | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also think there could be a positive spin to this. Most of these African countries need FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) to help with the infrastructure of their countries. Many are unable to accomplish this without the aid of IMF, and this essentially keeps them forever indebted and the economy backwards. China as well as Dubai are prime examples of how Foreign Investment improved economies. The same case with Equitorial Guinea, although the population is very small, direct investment in oil reserves help put the country in line with Western economies, which is basically unheard of in Africa as a whole.
If you're wise, you'll try to get in on this $1/acre/year deal yourself. TBH
However the negative spin, is a corrupt government, who can care less about the average citizen, and this will only lead to civil unrest, and no one would want to invest in such an atmosphere, the economy would only diminish further, as is the case with Zimbabwe. Remember the land reform initiated to "kick" all the white commercial farmers out, which led to sanctions, foreign divestment, droughts, hyper inflation, to the point where people are existing on grain hand-outs, in a country RICH in natural resources.
Posts: 747 | From: Atlanta, GA USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is not w/ the exploiters. The problem lies w/the native Africans. Africans have not done anything with the land, to advance their civilization, both technologically and economically. Why allow a fruitful land go to waste? I say, let the companies reap all they can off the land. The situation in Africa is dismal. Take Nigeria for instance. The Niggerians cannot even build their own oil rigs. They have to get western companies to do this for them. How pathetic! Even the great cities of Africa owe the infrastructure to former colonial powers like Europe, America and now China.
Africans have no one to blame but themselves. Do you see American contractors building Chinese infrastructure? NO! They do it themselves. They educate the cream of the crop to become engineers, technologists and scientists. China is rapidly becoming a super-power. Why Can Africans do this? We know why but we won't or refuse to admit it.
Posts: 2025 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
U r a damn albino prick Alcoholic. Why, because the same phenomenon exists even in Canada where Chinese companies are buying up the land
Read:
Plusieurs pays avec une forte croissance démographique cherchent à acquérir des terres agricoles hors de leurs frontières, avec en toile de fond la crise alimentaire. Cette quête conduit notamment des entreprises chinoises à s'intéresser à des terres arables au Québec.
C'est ainsi que le producteur de porc Pierre Désoudry, à Saint-Valérien-de-Milton, s'est vu offrir de vendre ses terres. « Ils m'ont dit combien tu veux? Combien ça vaut là les porcheries, la maison, tout », raconte-t-il. ........
posted
No amount of spin will change the facts. These deals and mega plantations are not being built to feed Africans. Therefore they are of no benefit to Africans and cannot be claimed as being such. They are not growing crops to put into the mouths of Africans. They are not building infrastructure to distribute those crops to Africans. And starving people will therefore continue to starve. You cannot stop starvation by watching other people eat.
There is no comparison of the levels of poverty and starvation in SOME parts of Africa and the so-called "crisis" facing rich countries. In fact, there is no crisis in that sense. Saudi's are certainly not facing any threat of starvation. Yet and still they claim that all of this is part of some response to a global "food crisis". What food crisis? Europeans, Asians and Arabians are not starving. Africans are starving, yet nobody creating massive plantations using the latest technology to feed Africans. Therefore the whole thing is a fraud and a scam to take more land from Africans for the benefit of everyone BUT Africans. And only an absolute IDIOT would see this as somehow beneficial to Africans.
The only solution to starvation is to plant more food, harvest it, store or preserve it and then eat it. Period. NONE of this provides that simple solution and in fact does the opposite: takes the ability to plant food and eat it away from those who need it most.
The whole issue is one of land rights to begin with anyway. Africans have no rights to own and control their own lands. During colonialism most Africans were kicked off the best lands and forced to live in the bush. After independence, most governments did nothing but maintain the pre existing system of land distribution and did nothing to give deed and title of ownership of lands to the blacks who were dispossessed by whites. At the same time they are ready and willing to bend over backwards to give deed and title to foreigners for almost free. Yet they won't give deed and title to that same land to their own people who have been on that land for thousands of years, as if they don't even count.
Without deed and title to land you cannot participate in economics. All wealth and support from life comes from the land, so if you don't own it you cannot legally use it to support yourself or support the nation as a whole. You cannot hunt on it, you cannot plant food on it, you cannot irrigate it, you cannot mine it, you cannot build on it and so forth and so on. Therefore by law you cannot profit off that land or create and control the wealth that is produced from that land. Which means you become a landless peasant, a squatter and a nobody who depends on those who do own land and wealth for your very survival.
quote: Property is any physical or intangible entity that is owned by a person or jointly by a group of persons. Depending on the nature of the property, an owner of property has the right to consume, sell, rent, mortgage, transfer, exchange or destroy their property, and/or to exclude others from doing these things.[1][2][3] Important widely-recognized types of property include real property (land), personal property (physical possessions belonging to a person), private property (property owned by legal persons or business entities), public property (state owned or publicly owned and available possessions) and intellectual property (exclusive rights over artistic creations, inventions, etc.), although the latter is not always as widely recognized or enforced.[4] A title, or a right of ownership, is associated with property that establishes the relation between the goods/services and other persons, assuring the owner the right to dispose of the property as they see fit. Some philosophers assert that property rights arise from social convention. Others find origins for them in morality or natural law.
quote: and Reform is a crucial issue across much of Africa. Although the literature is quite extensive on this for countries throughout Africa, perhaps due to the years of conflict, very little is available on the topic for Liberia. In that country, as well as others, there was a fundamental misunderstanding about owning and using land between newcomers and the indigenous peoples.
As outlined in "Land Tenure and Resource Access in West Africa: Issues and Opportunities for the Next Twenty-Five Years" [http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdf/full/7396IIED.pdf]:
Land administration in [the Atlantic forest] sub-region is characterised by the colonial establishment of dual tenure regimes, in which private rights were established by colonial and (in the case of Liberia and Sierra Leone), Creole settler elites, for purposes of cash crop production, primarily in coastal areas. Throughout the hinterlands, customary tenure was accepted.
Customary and statutory land tenure collide even today. Use by others was not ruled out by the indigenous population's concept of ownership by another. Furthermore, the "sale" of lands at gunpoint to form what is now Liberia was not an auspicious start. Finally, the appropriation of much profitable land by the government hampers the goal of wide, fair, and profitable distribution.
quote:Originally posted by Recovering Afro-holic: China is not investing in building Canadian infrastructure, porch monkey.
Non-sequitor Albino ape, non sequitor...
Article says that China is buying up Canadian land in vast tracts solely to feed its huge population. Why don't you curse Canadians then as your dirty accursed lying mind would contrive to curse on Africans?
Ignoramus supremo!
Perhaps you are dysfunctional when its comes to comprehending the truth? Would that be another albiono recessive triat? Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: No amount of spin will change the facts. These deals and mega plantations are not being built to feed Africans. Therefore they are of no benefit to Africans and cannot be claimed as being such. They are not growing crops to put into the mouths of Africans. They are not building infrastructure to distribute those crops to Africans. And starving people will therefore continue to starve. You cannot stop starvation by watching other people eat.
What's your solution? Those countries were "starving" before investors interest in the land. Using revenues from investors, the governments can install their own subsidy programs to satisfy the "needy". As I stated it depends on how efficient the government is. Just because someone owns the land, doesn't mean they control the government's policies. If the countries are destitute to began with, how do they obtain the funds to build the infrastructure needed? Do you suggest they keep "borrowing" and increasing their debt, or should they just keep relying on "handouts" foreign aid without investment. Please give a solution.
quote: There is no comparison of the levels of poverty and starvation in SOME parts of Africa and the so-called "crisis" facing rich countries. In fact, there is no crisis in that sense. Saudi's are certainly not facing any threat of starvation. Yet and still they claim that all of this is part of some response to a global "food crisis". What food crisis? Europeans, Asians and Arabians are not starving. Africans are starving, yet nobody creating massive plantations using the latest technology to feed Africans. Therefore the whole thing is a fraud and a scam to take more land from Africans for the benefit of everyone BUT Africans. And only an absolute IDIOT would see this as somehow beneficial to Africans.The only solution to starvation is to plant more food, harvest it, store or preserve it and then eat it. Period. NONE of this provides that simple solution and in fact does the opposite: takes the ability to plant food and eat it away from those who need it most.
Proves you don't know much about economics and agriculture. A lot of African land is drought land, and without the FINANCIAL means for COSTLY infrastructure needed to turn this into FERTILE land, your proposed solution is just wishful thinking. Many African countries have subsistence agriculture, meaning they only grown enough to feed their tribes throughout the year, NOT to feed the entire continent, and definitely not enough to export. Then you have internal conflicts, like the case with Sudan, people residing on drought land fighting against those who harbor all the "limited" fertile land.
quote:The whole issue is one of land rights to begin with anyway. Africans have no rights to own and control their own lands. During colonialism most Africans were kicked off the best lands and forced to live in the bush. After independence, most governments did nothing but maintain the pre existing system of land distribution and did nothing to give deed and title of ownership of lands to the blacks who were dispossessed by whites. At the same time they are ready and willing to bend over backwards to give deed and title to foreigners for almost free. Yet they won't give deed and title to that same land to their own people who have been on that land for thousands of years, as if they don't even count.
You are correct, that's why we continue to see the devastating effects of post-colonialism. We now live in a global market, where people are not just trading goods as they did in pre-colonial times, they are trading CURRENCIES, and with a highly depreciated currency, these countries face high inflation, trade and budget deficits, etc. They have to look to the global market,to determine the REAL value of their country's resources. And lets not forget that several of these Asian countries were colonized as well, UAE, India, and so on, and they have also benefited from Foreign Investment. And African countries like Ethiopia who were never formerly colonized, yet the global market leaves them at the bottom of the economic ladder.
You need to try to understand the effects of Globalization, else your view wouldn't be so simplistic. Thousands of talented, educated, African professionals, have essentially been "snatched away" from the countries where there talent is needed the most. Why? Because some wealthier country can pay them a lot more than their own place of origins. Now they can repatriate funds to assist their immediate families, but not enough to assist the entire country as a whole. This has to be done internally, with a sound government policy, that uses Foreign investment to their benefit, NOT to their detriment.
quote: Without deed and title to land you cannot participate in economics. All wealth and support from life comes from the land, so if you don't own it you cannot legally use it to support yourself or support the nation as a whole. You cannot hunt on it, you cannot plant food on it, you cannot irrigate it, you cannot mine it, you cannot build on it and so forth and so on. Therefore by law you cannot profit off that land or create and control the wealth that is produced from that land. Which means you become a landless peasant, a squatter and a nobody who depends on those who do own land and wealth for your very survival.
Lol, just because a foreign entity owns land in another country, doesn't give them sovereignty over that countries politics. Have you ever heard of a simple term called "taxation"? Where the government obtains revenues from land YOU own. The government can still control what you build and do on the land, after all it's still in THEIR country.
quote: Property is any physical or intangible entity that is owned by a person or jointly by a group of persons. Depending on the nature of the property, an owner of property has the right to consume, sell, rent, mortgage, transfer, exchange or destroy their property, and/or to exclude others from doing these things.[1][2][3] Important widely-recognized types of property include real property (land), personal property (physical possessions belonging to a person), private property (property owned by legal persons or business entities), public property (state owned or publicly owned and available possessions) and intellectual property (exclusive rights over artistic creations, inventions, etc.), although the latter is not always as widely recognized or enforced.[4] A title, or a right of ownership, is associated with property that establishes the relation between the goods/services and other persons, assuring the owner the right to dispose of the property as they see fit. Some philosophers assert that property rights arise from social convention. Others find origins for them in morality or natural law.
There are no INTERNATIONAL property rights, they differ from country to country. Plus in another post you listed "leased" property, which doesn't necessarily have the same rights. The government still controls the policies. If they install laws that state you can only build homes on "said" property, and you decide, its your property and you're gonna build a "casino" for example, they can literally, snatch the property from under your feet. My family are real estate developers, trust me on this part.
quote: and Reform is a crucial issue across much of Africa. Although the literature is quite extensive on this for countries throughout Africa, perhaps due to the years of conflict, very little is available on the topic for Liberia. In that country, as well as others, there was a fundamental misunderstanding about owning and using land between newcomers and the indigenous peoples.
Why would you use land GIVEN to freed slaves to make your point. We are still talking about POST colonial times, stay on track.
It's people with these "whining" ultra-liberal elementary solutions that keep African countries on average, stagnant and with backward economies. Let's stop whining about colonialism, its done, and think of sound solutions for them to compete in the GLOBAL market, without consistent "handouts" and a global welfare mentality. Lets get these underdeveloped resources into full production!
They have already began this trend with organizations like AEC (African Economic Commission); AFTZ(African Free Trade Zone), which hopefully will find a solution to end individual countries high trade deficits(where they import more from foreign countries than they export). The difference is THEY would be the one controlling the economic policies, NOT their former Colonialist. These countries want to attract Foreign Investment and become self-reliant, the "parameters and conditions" set by the countries give them more 'bargaining' power when they are a United organization, as opposed to individually trying to accomplish this. OPEC is a primary example. This organization allowed THEM to control the input/output and hence the prices of their valuable resources.
Corporations, rather they are foreign or domestic, pay taxes, and these revenues provide the funds to complete a country's infrastructure. That is ONLY if the government is not corrupt, and ensure that the 'average' citizen benefits from such investments.
Posts: 747 | From: Atlanta, GA USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: No amount of spin will change the facts. These deals and mega plantations are not being built to feed Africans. Therefore they are of no benefit to Africans and cannot be claimed as being such. They are not growing crops to put into the mouths of Africans. They are not building infrastructure to distribute those crops to Africans. And starving people will therefore continue to starve. You cannot stop starvation by watching other people eat.
There is no comparison of the levels of poverty and starvation in SOME parts of Africa and the so-called "crisis" facing rich countries. In fact, there is no crisis in that sense. Saudi's are certainly not facing any threat of starvation. Yet and still they claim that all of this is part of some response to a global "food crisis". What food crisis? Europeans, Asians and Arabians are not starving. Africans are starving, yet nobody creating massive plantations using the latest technology to feed Africans. Therefore the whole thing is a fraud and a scam to take more land from Africans for the benefit of everyone BUT Africans. And only an absolute IDIOT would see this as somehow beneficial to Africans.
The only solution to starvation is to plant more food, harvest it, store or preserve it and then eat it. Period. NONE of this provides that simple solution and in fact does the opposite: takes the ability to plant food and eat it away from those who need it most.
The whole issue is one of land rights to begin with anyway. Africans have no rights to own and control their own lands. During colonialism most Africans were kicked off the best lands and forced to live in the bush. After independence, most governments did nothing but maintain the pre existing system of land distribution and did nothing to give deed and title of ownership of lands to the blacks who were dispossessed by whites. At the same time they are ready and willing to bend over backwards to give deed and title to foreigners for almost free. Yet they won't give deed and title to that same land to their own people who have been on that land for thousands of years, as if they don't even count.
Without deed and title to land you cannot participate in economics. All wealth and support from life comes from the land, so if you don't own it you cannot legally use it to support yourself or support the nation as a whole. You cannot hunt on it, you cannot plant food on it, you cannot irrigate it, you cannot mine it, you cannot build on it and so forth and so on. Therefore by law you cannot profit off that land or create and control the wealth that is produced from that land. Which means you become a landless peasant, a squatter and a nobody who depends on those who do own land and wealth for your very survival.
quote: Property is any physical or intangible entity that is owned by a person or jointly by a group of persons. Depending on the nature of the property, an owner of property has the right to consume, sell, rent, mortgage, transfer, exchange or destroy their property, and/or to exclude others from doing these things.[1][2][3] Important widely-recognized types of property include real property (land), personal property (physical possessions belonging to a person), private property (property owned by legal persons or business entities), public property (state owned or publicly owned and available possessions) and intellectual property (exclusive rights over artistic creations, inventions, etc.), although the latter is not always as widely recognized or enforced.[4] A title, or a right of ownership, is associated with property that establishes the relation between the goods/services and other persons, assuring the owner the right to dispose of the property as they see fit. Some philosophers assert that property rights arise from social convention. Others find origins for them in morality or natural law.
quote: and Reform is a crucial issue across much of Africa. Although the literature is quite extensive on this for countries throughout Africa, perhaps due to the years of conflict, very little is available on the topic for Liberia. In that country, as well as others, there was a fundamental misunderstanding about owning and using land between newcomers and the indigenous peoples.
As outlined in "Land Tenure and Resource Access in West Africa: Issues and Opportunities for the Next Twenty-Five Years" [http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdf/full/7396IIED.pdf]:
Land administration in [the Atlantic forest] sub-region is characterised by the colonial establishment of dual tenure regimes, in which private rights were established by colonial and (in the case of Liberia and Sierra Leone), Creole settler elites, for purposes of cash crop production, primarily in coastal areas. Throughout the hinterlands, customary tenure was accepted.
Customary and statutory land tenure collide even today. Use by others was not ruled out by the indigenous population's concept of ownership by another. Furthermore, the "sale" of lands at gunpoint to form what is now Liberia was not an auspicious start. Finally, the appropriation of much profitable land by the government hampers the goal of wide, fair, and profitable distribution.
Doug, you're an expert at pointing out Africas problems. Can we hear some solutions? What would you have Africa countries do?
Posts: 87 | From: Sweden | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
Africans are starving, yet nobody creating massive plantations using the latest technology to feed Africans. Therefore the whole thing is a fraud and a scam to take more land from Africans for the benefit of everyone BUT Africans. And only an absolute IDIOT would see this as somehow beneficial to Africans.
You posted this article. Food seems to be going to waste. Are Africans capable of producing food?
Nairobi — Food worth millions of shillings is rotting on farms across the country due to lack of markets and impassable roads.
From Marakwet in the North Rift to Mathira in Central and Hola at the Coast, it is the same story of anger and disappointment at wasted labour.
The irony is that all this food is going to waste in a country where some citizens are starving.
Nowhere is the situation as dire as the Hola Irrigation Scheme in Tana River District.
Farmers at the scheme, celebrating a bumper harvest for the first time in 20 years, are a bitterly disappointed lot.
Failed to buy
More than 200 tonnes of maize from the scheme revived last year by President Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga are rotting after the National Cereals and Produce Board failed to buy the crop.
The scheme was revived under the National Economic Stimulus Programme late last year.
Farmers said they could not believe this was the same government that was frustrating them, just three months after encouraging them to produce the maize.
"What are we supposed to do? How can the government do this to us? How can it let us invest so much only to leave our crops to rot?" demands Mr Said Mugawa of Hola Farmers Cooperative Society.
Mr Mugawa said all efforts to sell the maize to the NCPB had failed. Delegations sent to the Ministry of Agriculture in Nairobi to beg it to buy the maize have also been in vain.
Allocated money
"We are constantly told the government has not allocated the money to buy our maize," he said.
The farmers had put 850 acres out 1,240 under maize.
"Our stores, which can accommodate only 3,000 bags are full. A lot of maize is still on the farm, rotting and has been there for more than a month," Mr Mugawa said.
Ms Fatuma Galgalo, the chairperson of the Hola Farmers Advisory Committee, said the maize was at risk of contamination by aflatoxin.
"Although the crop was tested and approved for human consumption, we fear that with continued exposure to moisture and other conditions, it could soon be contaminated," she said.
"Our children are at home as we are unable to pay school fees. We are so worried as life has ground to a halt at the scheme," said Mr Mugawa.
Agriculture minister William Ruto toured the scheme in January and assured the farmers that the NCPB would buy their crop.
Mr Alex Wainaina, the manager of the scheme, is a depressed man after seeing all the farmers' efforts going down the drain.
"It's hard to comprehend when one reflects on the hard work we all put in to revive the scheme," he said.
"It is very sad that the country does not have enough food while here, tonnes and tonnes of maize are going to waste," he said.
In the North Rift, thousands of litres of milk are going to waste as a result of increased production that has stretched the processing capacity of New Kenya Cooperative Creameries (New KCC) and private dairies.
Counting losses
Horticultural farmers are also counting their losses with produce worth more than Sh35 million also going to waste.
Uasin Gishu District earned more than Sh27 million from vegetables last year and Sh3.4 million from fruits.
"The heavy rains have made it impossible to access markets for our produce despite the plentiful harvest," said Ms Rachael Chematia from Tot in Marakwet District.
Landslides have hit parts of Kerio Valley, making most roads impassable.
Dairy farmers incurred losses of more than Sh2.5 million in two months after their milk went to waste due to lack of markets.
The region has an estimated 1.2 million dairy cows and between 400,000 and 500,000 heifers.
"Attractive prices offered by New KCC and support from international partners motivated us to venture into modern dairy farming but we can no longer sell the produce to anyone," complained Mr John Kiptoo of Chepkumia, Nandi South District.
Daily milk deliveries to the New KCC factory in Eldoret has doubled from 40,000 litres to 80,000 litres in the last two months but the plant can only process 6,000 litres. "A serious milk glut is expected in the next six months as production will be high because most parts of the country will have adequate pastures due to the rains," said Mr Kiptoo.
"The government should improve the roads for easier transportation of inputs and produce to avoid exploitation by cartels," said Mr Musa Barno of the Kenya Federation of Agricultural Producers Uasin Gishu chapter.
Grain farmers in the region are having difficulties selling more than 600,000 bags of maize harvested last season.
"The pathetic state of the roads has made it impossible to get our produce to the markets," said Mr Peter Boit, a large-scale farmer in the district.
A survey by the Nation showed that farmers are to incur more losses as they have not yet started shelling their maize.
Sources at the NCPB say deliveries from farmers had shot up to an average 15,000 bags from 4,000 two months ago. The board pays Sh2,300 for a 90kg bag.
"We intended to buy 1.5 million bags of maize from last season's produce but we might only be able to get 800,000 bags," an official said.
Farmers in Uasin Gishu harvested 4.3 million bags of maize last year from 85,697 hectares while those in Trans Nzoia District harvested 5.3 million bags.
Wheat production in the region declined from 3.7 million to 2.8 million bags last season due to erratic climatic conditions.
"We have nowhere to sell our wheat as we can not get to the markets," said Mr Joseph Kipkoech of Kaptagat, who has 150 bags of wheat in his store.
"We are forced to sell our produce at throwaway prices to get money for inputs but a glut in the market has pushed prices down," said Ms Leah Chemasunde, a maize farmer at Moi's Bridge.
The drop in prices and poor state of roads come at a time when fertiliser costs between Sh1,800 and Sh2,300 a bag, which farmers say is too high.
The government, through the ministry of Agriculture, has delivered 500,000 bags of subsidised fertiliser to the North Rift for this season's planting.
The fertiliser is sold through NCPB depots but farmers say the clearing process is too slow.
The lack of market for ready produce is hurting farmers as they need money to buy farm inputs for the coming planting season.
Posts: 87 | From: Sweden | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
To all those asking for the solution. It is simple. If the problem is starvation, then the solution is to put seeds, in the ground, grow food and eat it. The same solution that Africans invented thousands of years ago. It is not new.
The reason this simple solution isn't being followed is because the SAME international economic system that some of you believe is a solution for African starvation is actually responsible for creating the starvation in the first place. And whatever this international economic system does it has not and never will be in business to feed Africans and provide for their needs. It didn't do it during colonialism and it won't do it now because Africans are not even part of the "markets" that this system looks to profit off of.
So again, stick to the facts. The global economic system that we see today was built on destabilizing and destroying the societies and cultures built over thousands of years by Africans which did not have the massive amounts of starvation you see today. And this system is therefore no solution for it. Taking millions of acres of land to feed OTHER PEOPLE has no benefit to Africans in any sense of the word and shows just how far some will go in trying to turn anything into something good even when it isn't.
Like I said, the problem is land ownership. And the fact that Africans didn't have deed and title to the land means that they cannot establish the sorts of farming and economic actitivity necessary to lift themselves above the levels of starvation and poverty seen in some places. Therefore, they cannot truly participate in economics. And this is solely a result of colonial and neo colonial policies which all have the same goal of turning Africans into landless peasant near slave workers, whose lives have little to no importance to the global economic system. This has not changed since the days of colonialism. You cannot participate in economics without land ownership. Therefore, unless you plan on being a permanent slave, in order to participate in economics you have to own land and be able to sell and trade the resources produced from it and to accumulate wealth from it or to benefit from the food and other materials produced from it. That is the same no matter where you go on the planet.
But some people want to pretend that those "bad old days" are over and that everything is now fair and equal, as if Africans have the same opportunities to participate in economics and trade as everyone else, which is a joke.
Many posters here simply regurgitate the lies and half truths told by whites as opposed to really knowing the facts. The truth is that most Africans do not get their food from massive organized white or foreign owned agriculture. Most Africans get their food from small African owned farms. And most small African farmers do not own the land that they are farming on. Therefore, they have no way to get loans or the financing needed to expand their farms in order to make them more drought resistant and use up to date technology, because banks need collateral in order to make the loans. Because they don't own the land, these farmers are unable to stop the government from selling the land to foreigners for whatever reason which means they are treated like squatters, which means they are kicked off the land and stop producing food, which then causes a lack of food for Africans to eat. So the claim that Africans cannot farm or that they are not using the land for farming is a lie. The fact is that their own governments will not support them by providing them with deed and title to the land and by supporting them with financing and support, which almost ALL OTHER countries who are grabbing up land in Africa are doing for their own farmers. Not only that, none of these global enterprises have any intent on providing food for Africans. Their sole purpose is to create a profit for themselves by exporting food to richer countries where people can pay the prices necessary to make such operations profitable. They aren't going to make money feeding poor Africans and aren't in business to do so.
Again, economics is a local affair, which means the purpose of industry and agriculture is to provide for the needs of the people locally not simply to make profits globally and ignore the needs of the locals. Ignoring the needs of the locals is the hallmark of the colonial capitalist system where land globally is stolen from the locals and used solely for the benefit of the foreign industrialists and elites who could care less about the well being of the people they enslave and oppress on a daily basis.
Anyone who looks at the history of African agriculture over the last 40 years will see that Africa was a net exporter of food as recently as the 70s. But that isn't a good thing. Most of that was a direct result of the "investment" related to colonial plantations and slavery which produced all sorts of products for global white industries: palm oil, coffee, tobacco, etc. After the 70s, more and more African countries became independent and suddenly the system imploded. There was a sudden drop in the amount of money put into agriculture? Obviously because those people who financed and benefited from the colonial plantation system had no interest in supporting Africans being independent. Their main interest was in protecting the land and wealth they had stolen through all sorts of deals and concessions with newly independent African countries. As a result of this, most land that had been cultivated under colonial rule went into legal limbo, meaning that those Africans who were forcibly evicted from those lands never got their rights to that land recognized by the new "independent" governments. On top of that, there were new policies put into place by the world bank and IMF to replace the financing under the old colonial regime with debt that came with strings attached. Those schemes further devastated the African agricultural sector and only hastened its decline. The point being that the only time agriculture gets the financing, support and acknowledgment of deed and title in Africa under the current global economic system, is when some white person or other foreigner controls thousands of acres with hundreds or thousands of blacks as peasant laborers. And this is simply because that is the colonial plantation model which provides for the most profits and benefit to foreigners in Africa, with little to no benefit to Africans. And it is precisely that model that the current world economic system seeks to promote. It will not provide financing and support for blacks owning massive farms, with blacks being the primary recipient of the benefit, either in terms of food produced or wealth created from it. It is simply not what this current world economic system is built for.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug maybe this is all way over your head. Your simplistic approach, that is. International trading has existed since Ancient times, nothing new here. Africa is not some massive structure of land where people are free to roam and 'set up shop' where they see fit. Post colonialism created BORDERS that didn't exist before.
People who reside in ARID countries which CANNOT produce certain agriculture, cannot simply walk over to a country that has said agriculture and exclaim, "I'm hungry, feed my people".
Using your approach, please explain why this did not happen for Zimbabweans, when they tookover the land once owned by Apartheid regimes. Why are so many of them starving, if its a simple matter of just planting seeds?
And further, if any government gives up their control when selling or leasing land, then that government has no business managing its people.
I recall reading how the Egyptian government gave away massive desert land to its people to build homes, only to discover that the people didn't have the money to build anything on it, much less to make the land inhabitable in harsh arrid climate, without basic infrastructure. Then they found the solution by selling this land to foreign investors like these Billionaire Saudis, who in return helped stimulate the economy, as they created massive job opportunities in the construction sector that would not have existed on its own. Otherwise the low cost laborers who may be working for "chump change" would not be working at all and couldn't even afford to buy the seeds to plant to feed themselves.
The world population is much bigger now. It's macroeconomics, get with the picture.
Posts: 747 | From: Atlanta, GA USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by homeylu: Doug maybe this is all way over your head. Your simplistic approach, that is. International trading has existed since Ancient times, nothing new here. Africa is not some massive structure of land where people are free to roam and 'set up shop' where they see fit. Post colonialism created BORDERS that didn't exist before.
People who reside in ARID countries which CANNOT produce certain agriculture, cannot simply walk over to a country that has said agriculture and exclaim, "I'm hungry, feed my people".
Using your approach, please explain why this did not happen for Zimbabweans, when they tookover the land once owned by Apartheid regimes. Why are so many of them starving, if its a simple matter of just planting seeds?
And further, if any government gives up their control when selling or leasing land, then that government has no business managing its people.
I recall reading how the Egyptian government gave away massive desert land to its people to build homes, only to discover that the people didn't have the money to build anything on it, much less to make the land inhabitable in harsh arrid climate, without basic infrastructure. Then they found the solution by selling this land to foreign investors like these Billionaire Saudis, who in return helped stimulate the economy, as they created massive job opportunities in the construction sector that would not have existed on its own. Otherwise the low cost laborers who may be working for "chump change" would not be working at all and couldn't even afford to buy the seeds to plant to feed themselves.
The world population is much bigger now. It's macroeconomics, get with the picture.
Like I said, the solution is simple....
Put seed in the ground, grow food and eat it. THAT was invented in Africa thousands of years ago and has not changed since then. It is not a question of simple or complex, it is a question of the fundamental facts of human existence. You cannot live without food and water and food and water only comes from the earth. No technology has replaced it.
Therefore any plan or scheme that does not produce more food for Africans to eat is not a solution. Likewise, any plan or scheme that does not support black Africans putting more land under cultivation and producing more food to put in the mouths of Africans is not a solution.
Watching other people eat is not a solution and this is the only thing that this current "land grab" is doing.
But again, I am talking facts. Please provide citations where these lands are providing food for locals to eat and addressing starvation in the countries that they are operating in. As an example, in Sudan and Ethiopia. If they are not feeding Sudanese and Ethiopians with that food, then what sort of solution are you talking about? What other solution is there other than planting crops and eating them?
quote: Abuja — In order for Africa to be liberated from hunger and unemployment among its youths, the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) yesterday advised the continent to embrace modern method of farming.
Director-General of UNIDO Dr. Kandeh Yumkella said this at the High Level Conference on Development of Agribusiness and Agro-industries in Africa which ended in Abuja yesterday.
According to him, we are doing Agribusiness the same way our ancestors were doing it 2000 years ago, this 21st century for us to meet up with the current situation there is need for us to embrace modern method of farming as to address unemployment problem in the Africa continent.
This is as the Acting President Goodluck Jonathan said Federal Government has injected about N542 billion to the development of Agriculture in the country.
Part of which N240 billion was injected to commercial agriculture especially in the area of production, processing, storage and market infrastructure development over the next three years, while Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) doled out 200 billion for some selected banks , also another 100 billion was injected into development of Nigeria's Cotton-Textile-Garment.
The Acting President who agreed that Nigerian agricultural sector has suffered from being dominated by ageing farming said the federal government of Nigeria has set in a motion a major milestone in Nigeria agricultural development programme.
In his words," in addressing the existing of shortcoming in the agriculture sector of the economy , the commercial Agriculture Development Programme(CADP) of the federal government of Nigeria as part of the National Programme for Agriculture and Food Security (NPAFS) has set motion in major milestone in Nigeria agricultural development programme. The overall objective of the programme is to contribute to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and objective of the country of 7- point agenda and vision 20:2020 development strategies, by addressing Nigeria's challenges of the critical infrastructure."
He assured the stakeholders that the incumbent administration has deliberately formulated a policy framework to encourage Public Private Partnership (PPP) in the commercial agriculture facilitated by the development of the relevant infrastructure, human and availability of unencumbered land to site the various projects.
In the presentation of UN Economic Commission for Africa(ECA) the representative of the Commission Economic Commission for Africa Mr Abdoulie Janneh said UNECA has embarked in the advocacy of the development of the regional value chains for selected strategic agricultural commodities that were defined at the AU summit held in Abuja December 2006.
He also said the commission convicted that most Africa's annual food import bill of $33billion can be diverted to domestic production for regional and global trade , thereby contributing to reducing poverty and hunger and reposition the continent in the global economy adding that this can be done provided that African farmers are increasingly connected to agricultural input and product market through vibrant agro-industrial and agribusiness sector.
In the same development, the minister of Agriculture and Water Resources, Dr. Sayyadi Ruma said while brief the newsmen after the event that no fewer than 20 Agro-industrial business will start in month time in other to energize agricultural sector of the economy,
He also said that the Federal Government will set up implementation committee in order to implement Abuja Declaration insisting that everything adopted at the event will be implemented by the country.
The programme which lasted for three days was attended by 40 African countries and 40 minister across the continent , the Prime Minister of Tanzania and Serria lone President were in attendance with the Acting President Goodluck Jonathan
Which means the solution is for Africans to develop their own organized system of agriculture and industry to support their own people in terms of food production. There is no other solution. Depending on foreigners who are only interested in their own profits or food for the benefit of their own populations is not a solution. That is retarded.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The reason this simple solution isn't being followed is because the SAME international economic system that some of you believe is a [U]solution for African starvation is actually responsible for creating the starvation in the first place.[/U] And whatever this international economic system does it has not and never will be in business to feed Africans and provide for their needs. It didn't do it during colonialism and it won't do it now because Africans are not even part of the "markets" that this system looks to profit off of.
Doug, have been to Africa? Where do you get your info that Africans are starving? Except for few African countries colonialists did not throw people off their land. The few countries that come to mind are Kenya, Zimbabwe and south Africa. Not my country and not alot countries.
By the way African farmers can produce all the food their countries need at a subsistance level but due to bad infrustrature they can not take their food to markets. That is the case in my country anyway. Farm stop producing more than they can consume.
Corupt govts let EU and the US dump subdicized food products on the African markets driving African farmers out of business. It is cheaper for a senegalis farmers to by rice imported from the abroad than grow their own. Now that is the biggest thread to the continent.
Posts: 87 | From: Sweden | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you claiming there is no starvation in Africa, because if you read what I wrote I never claimed all Africans are starving. The point I was making is that the current world economic system is not going to address starvation or better food production for Africans. Other than that, I don't see the disagreement.
And yes, the current economic system is definitely a reason behind a lot of the starvation in Africa, no matter if all Africans are starving or not. A good example is Sudan and Ethiopia, both of which have suffered from foreign backed wars and upheavals that have left the people suffering and landless, followed by foreigners snapping up large plots of land.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Are you claiming there is no starvation in Africa, because if you read what I wrote I never claimed all Africans are starving. The point I was making is that the current world economic system is not going to address starvation or better food production for Africans. Other than that, I don't see the disagreement.
And yes, the current economic system is definitely a reason behind a lot of the starvation in Africa, no matter if all Africans are starving or not. A good example is Sudan and Ethiopia, both of which have suffered from foreign backed wars and upheavals that have left the people suffering and landless, followed by foreigners snapping up large plots of land.
Not all sudanese are starving either. And the reason they have food shorteages and taking food aid is because of the civil war. IN Ethiopia land is state owned that could the cause of their problems. You take two cases(possibly the only ones) and make a blanket statement about the continent- "Africans are starving". Zimbabwe's case is result of sunctions imposed on it than white farmers being thrown off the land. You people are as much victims of western media as Africans who can't get investors to invest on the continent because of bad image western media feeds the rest of the world.
Posts: 87 | From: Sweden | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Are you claiming there is no starvation in Africa, because if you read what I wrote I never claimed all Africans are starving. The point I was making is that the current world economic system is not going to address starvation or better food production for Africans. Other than that, I don't see the disagreement.
And yes, the current economic system is definitely a reason behind a lot of the starvation in Africa, no matter if all Africans are starving or not. A good example is Sudan and Ethiopia, both of which have suffered from foreign backed wars and upheavals that have left the people suffering and landless, followed by foreigners snapping up large plots of land.
Not all sudanese are starving either. And the reason they have food shorteages and taking food aid is because of the civil war. IN Ethiopia land is state owned that could the cause of their problems. You take two cases(possibly the only ones) and make a blanket statement about the continent- "Africans are starving". Zimbabwe's case is result of sunctions imposed on it than white farmers being thrown off the land. You people are as much victims of western media as Africans who can't get investors to invest on the continent because of bad image western media feeds the rest of the world.
Well when you quote where I said all Africans are starving then what you are saying will make sense.
I think you prefer to pretend that white folks really care about African well being when in reality they don't. So you would like to avoid the major point I made which is really an attack on non Africans and focus on some strawman that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.
But again, some folks find it easier to believe that they are equal members of the global "club" of industrialists and capitalists versus being the descendants of the oppressed who continue to be oppressed in various ways for the benefit of those who are really in the "club".
So again, since some people love to spin and spin in order to avoid the point, let me make it clear: starvation in Africa, whether it is one African or 10 million Africans, will not be solved by depending on the current global economic system which has never ever cared one bit for or done anything to improve the well being and access of Africans to food, water, shelter, clothing or anything else needed for survival. The only answer is for Africans to become better organized and to build their own systems of self support economically and socially as the primary means for their survival.
I think the confusion comes from the references to the global food crisis, which fake to begin with. The point being that rich countries like Europe and Saudi Arabia are not having any sort of food crisis compared to the situation facing many African countries where the situation is a bit more fragile in terms of food production, infrastructure and environmental conditions. That does not mean that all Africans are starving, it means that such land grabs are not designed to help Africans achieve food security, which does not mean all Africans are starving.
And foreigners will not invest in Africa unless that investment furthers the interests of white supremacy, which has never ever intended for any investment to go directly to Africans and support the growth of independent African economics or capital controlled by Africans. No major investment has gone directly to black Africans as opposed to going to further white control and domination of African economics. Likewise, it is not really true there is no foreign investment in Africa as the article that started this thread clearly shows where that investment is going and it isn't to feed Africans, which is the point.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The solution: 1. Engender nationalism with political interludes of ultra-nationalism or patriotism for African nations.
2. Disallow indoctrination that instills adoration of any group of people who once held your own in disregard. Rid from political and business leadership anyone who shows already such tendencies.
3. Arms and more arms (self manufactured). Full scale wars that gain territory and resources and not useless regional conflicts that only squander resources and lives.
4. "I will use you, until I no longer need you, or have gained control of you and what is yours." Have leadership that understands that a necessary mindset of any successful business, political, cultural, religious leader involves adoration of their nation and peoples and not praise of Paris or London, Marx or Smith, Wall Street, Jerusalem, Mecca, or most anything/anyone beyond their own country.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Are you claiming there is no starvation in Africa, because if you read what I wrote I never claimed all Africans are starving. The point I was making is that the current world economic system is not going to address starvation or better food production for Africans. Other than that, I don't see the disagreement.
And yes, the current economic system is definitely a reason behind a lot of the starvation in Africa, no matter if all Africans are starving or not. A good example is Sudan and Ethiopia, both of which have suffered from foreign backed wars and upheavals that have left the people suffering and landless, followed by foreigners snapping up large plots of land.
Not all sudanese are starving either. And the reason they have food shorteages and taking food aid is because of the civil war. IN Ethiopia land is state owned that could the cause of their problems. You take two cases(possibly the only ones) and make a blanket statement about the continent- "Africans are starving". Zimbabwe's case is result of sunctions imposed on it than white farmers being thrown off the land. You people are as much victims of western media as Africans who can't get investors to invest on the continent because of bad image western media feeds the rest of the world.
I am so happy that you stated this coming from an African perspective. Americans rely on Western media to get an outlook, because of the fear of the Western powers, realization that the relationship between Africa, China, and the Middle East is strengthening, while western EX-colonial powers are weakening.
The implications that Africans are so damn stupid that they can't do something as simple as planting a seed to feed the starving, is the type of liberal-hyped BS fed to African sympathizers. Africans do not want constant hand-outs under the auspices of AID that encourage western powers to keep 'meddling' in their internal affairs. China is upstaging a lot of former colonial powers with regards to their economic relations with Africa. Recently Iraq, awarded a contract to an African country. African governments are uniting to benefit themselves economically, and meanwhile American media is passing propoganda to portray Foreign investment as 'land grabbing'. When American officials know damn well, how much they themselves have benefited from investors from China and Saudi Arabia. We are so heavily indebted to China, that if they were to suddenly divest, it could bankrupt our country.
Posts: 747 | From: Atlanta, GA USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sub saharan africa will continue to change throughout the century. Look for africa to be less black than it has been. He who has the money rules. This is not an emotional question.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Are you claiming there is no starvation in Africa, because if you read what I wrote I never claimed all Africans are starving. The point I was making is that the current world economic system is not going to address starvation or better food production for Africans. Other than that, I don't see the disagreement.
And yes, the current economic system is definitely a reason behind a lot of the starvation in Africa, no matter if all Africans are starving or not. A good example is Sudan and Ethiopia, both of which have suffered from foreign backed wars and upheavals that have left the people suffering and landless, followed by foreigners snapping up large plots of land.
Not all sudanese are starving either. And the reason they have food shorteages and taking food aid is because of the civil war. IN Ethiopia land is state owned that could the cause of their problems. You take two cases(possibly the only ones) and make a blanket statement about the continent- "Africans are starving". Zimbabwe's case is result of sunctions imposed on it than white farmers being thrown off the land. You people are as much victims of western media as Africans who can't get investors to invest on the continent because of bad image western media feeds the rest of the world.
I am so happy that you stated this coming from an African perspective. Americans rely on Western media to get an outlook, because of the fear of the Western powers, realization that the relationship between Africa, China, and the Middle East is strengthening, while western EX-colonial powers are weakening.
The implications that Africans are so damn stupid that they can't do something as simple as planting a seed to feed the starving, is the type of liberal-hyped BS fed to African sympathizers. Africans do not want constant hand-outs under the auspices of AID that encourage western powers to keep 'meddling' in their internal affairs. China is upstaging a lot of former colonial powers with regards to their economic relations with Africa. Recently Iraq, awarded a contract to an African country. African governments are uniting to benefit themselves economically, and meanwhile American media is passing propoganda to portray Foreign investment as 'land grabbing'. When American officials know damn well, how much they themselves have benefited from investors from China and Saudi Arabia. We are so heavily indebted to China, that if they were to suddenly divest, it could bankrupt our country.
Again this is about facts.
Where in Africa or anywhere else in the world are there large plantations in the thousands of acres with food or any other kinds of products explicitly for the mouths of black people? So it is odd to hear people being so "upset" when my point is that I feel the ultimate solution is to increase the number of well financed and supported large scale black owned farms in Africa, who are in business to grow food for Africans.
For Africans to become food secure and have a stable supply of food to support the growth of African populations, developed societies and economic growth, you need more large farms with irrigation and technology primarily owned by Africans for the purpose of feeding Africans.
Being happy about foreigners having plantations in Africa is baseless, given the historical track record of foreigners and plantations in Africa.
Now it could be that these mega plantations will help Africans become food secure, but then again only time will tell.
But my point is that it seems odd that while some here are so vocal in their support of foreigners owning thousands of acres of land for vast plantations to feed non Africans, they are mute on the bigger issue. What about black Africans owning thousands of acres of land and vast plantations to feed Africans? I don't mind foreigners having farms in Africa as long as it is one part of a larger picture where Africans have equal access to the financing, land rights and technology to have their own large commercial farms and other endeavors for their own benefit. It is historically retarded to claim that depending on foreigners with big plantations and large numbers of near peasant workers is somehow beneficial for Africa.
In the long run my point is that the only solution is to increase the number of large farms and other agricultural and industrial activities in Africa run by Africans for Africans. Nothing else will provide the sort of economic growth needed for the future.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And again, the issue is land and water rights:
quote: The Jonglei Canal Project in Southern Sudan: why the hurry and for whose benefit is it?
By Jacob K. Lupai*
May 26, 2007 — The expected resumption of the digging of the Jonglei canal is bringing back fresh memories of the controversies surrounding the Jonglei canal project when it first started. The project was considered one of the most important integration projects between Egypt and the Sudan with the primary objective of ensuring the flow of 4.7 billion cubic metres of the Nile water annually to be distributed between Egypt and the Sudan. It was seen as the development of modern irrigation and drainage facilities that would put an end to agriculture being tied to the annual patterns of flooding and drought in the two countries. In 1974 Egypt and the Sudan agreed on the construction of the Jonglei canal that would drain the Sudd and provide Egypt with water needed during the arid season. This may provide some answers to the questions why the hurry and for whose benefit is the resumption of digging the Jonglei canal in Southern Sudan.
A brief background to what has become the Jonglei canal project may be helpful. The Nile is acknowledged as the world’s longest river flowing from south to north over 6,800 kilometres until it reaches the Mediterranean Sea. Its basin includes ten states of Rwanda, Burundi, the Congo, Tanzania, Kenya, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Egypt and the Sudan. The Nile water provides the basis for human life in the arid lands of the Sudan and Egypt. The annual flood of the Nile has throughout the ages provided both the alluvial soils and the water on which the irrigated agriculture of Egypt has been based. However, Egypt is always paranoid that somebody somewhere may cut the flow of the Nile as without the Nile water there will not be Egypt. With about 98 percent of the country being desert and with a growing population dependent on irrigated agriculture for food the threat of water stress is real in Egypt. Understandably the Nile is the main source for any expansion of water use in Egypt.
In the colonial era Britain was the dominant power in the region and controlled the major part of the Nile basin. In 1922 when Egypt became independent the Egyptians repeatedly asserted their aspirations concerning the Sudan. From time to time the use of the Nile water emerged as a serious issue in Anglo-Egyptian relations. The Egyptians caused the most problems for the British as planned developments on the Nile became a disputed matter between the Egyptians and the British government. The problem was resolved when in 1929 British sponsored the Nile Water Agreement which regulated the flow of the Nile and apportioned its use. However, the Nile Water Agreement was nothing but for Egypt to consolidate its grip on the use of the Nile water. This agreement included the following:
Egypt and the Sudan utilise 48 and 4 billion cubic metres of the Nile flow per year respectively The flow of the Nile during January 29 to July 15 (dry season) would be reserved for Egypt Egypt reserves the right to monitor the Nile flow in the upstream countries Egypt assumed the right to undertake Nile river related projects without the consent of upper riparian states Egypt assumed the right to veto any construction projects that would affect its interests adversely
It is abundantly clear that the Nile Water Agreement of 1929 favoured Egypt and apportioned it the lion’s share of the Nile water. It is also clear that the agreement makes Egypt to hold the other states in the Nile basin hostages with threats of war if any of the countries dares to assert its independence in the use of the Nile water. Egypt nearly went to war with Ethiopia after Ethiopia opposed attempts by Egypt to divert the Nile water to the Sinai desert.
In 1959 an agreement of the full utilisation of the Nile water was signed between Egypt and the Sudan. The agreement is known as the Nile Waters Treaty which has been held until the present time. The average flow of the Nile is considered to be 84 billion cubic metres per year, and evaporation and seepage are considered to be 10 billion cubic metres. This leaves 74 billion cubic metres for Egypt and the Sudan to divide between themselves. According to the 1959 Nile Waters Treaty the allocation for Egypt is 55.5 and for the Sudan is 18.5 billion cubic metres per year respectively. Egypt and the Sudan took upon themselves, perhaps selfishly, to agree that the combined needs of the other riparian countries wouldn’t exceed 1-2 billion cubic metres per year and that any claims would be met with one unified Egyptian-Sudanese position.
It can be seen that both the 1929 and 1959 agreements combined as Nile Waters Treaty has bestowed the ownership of the Nile water upon Egypt and the Sudan in an apparent lack of consideration for the other countries in the Nile basin. However, it could have been that, with the exception of Ethiopia, the other countries in the Nile basin were still under colonial rule and did not have a voice when the Nile Waters Treaty was signed. The countries were not yet independent to have a say on how the Nile water should have been apportioned. It was appropriate, though, that Ethiopia should have been included in the negotiations that produced the agreement.
About 96 percent of the economically active population in Egypt is engaged in agriculture and Egyptian agriculture is entirely dependent on irrigated land. In Egypt 88 percent of the water is consumed in agriculture. As Egypt is about 98 percent desert any expansion of agriculture to feed the growing population means an increase in irrigated land. Egypt’s desperate need for enormous quantities of water is therefore abundantly clear. The Jonglei canal project was seen as the ultimate solution to Egypt’s high demand for water. In the colonial era the British were quick to realise the importance the Nile would have for their colonies in Africa. Over the centuries strong winds and the force of the Nile had created natural dams made up of plants and soil in the swamps of the Sudd in Southern Sudan. These natural dams made navigation up the Nile past a certain point completely difficult if not impossible. Soon after the Sudan was reconquered in 1989, the British began to free the Nile of the vegetation which was obstructing the passage of steamers. When enough blockages had been removed to clear a path through the Sudd, the British had already begun drawing up alternative drainage plans for a swift flow of the Nile.
We have seen that Egypt is about 98 percent desert and Egypt needs more water to irrigate more land to feed its exploding population. Egypt therefore has an ambitious desert reclamation plan of 6,000 square kilometres of new fields so that it needs another 9 billion cubic metres of the Nile water per year. To increase the flow of the Nile in order for Egypt to realise its ambitious desert reclamation plan, Egypt sees the completion of the digging of the Jonglei canal through the vast swamps of the Sudd in Southern Sudan as the top priority. It is therefore not a surprise when the Egyptians are desperately urging the Government of Southern Sudan (GOSS) to be given a green light for the completion of the Jonglei canal project. Let’s hope that members of the GOSS will not be duped by Egyptians diplomatic skills or even bribed. However, I am confident that the GOSS and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) will serve the best interest of the South in particular and the marginalised in general.
It is only a fool that may not know for whose benefit is the Jonglei canal project. The hurry to complete the Jonglei canal project is because Egyptians are no fools. The Egyptians are precisely aware of the likely outcome of the referendum in 2011 if it at all will take place. The overburden of oppression and the scandalous underdevelopment of the South in the name of unity and with the costly loss of lives and property may be an enough reminder to Southerners on how to vote in the referendum. Only a miracle will make unity attractive. Even a Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon has a block of flats and houses and streets and roads that are nowhere to be found in Southern Sudan. The Egyptians may like the completion of the Jonglei canal project before the referendum because of uncertainties. However, it will be a clear case of abdication of power for the GOSS to allow itself to be remotely controlled by the Egyptians for a project that seems to have no clearly defined development models and benefits for the inhabitants notwithstanding the possible destruction the canal may bring to the area.
It seems obvious that the Jonglei canal project was mostly conceived, planned and decided upon by outsiders with hardly the participation of the indigenous people of the area whose lives would be affected by the project. It was clear form the outset that when completed the project would mainly benefit Egypt and Northern Sudan because there were no irrigation schemes in Southern Sudan comparable to those in Egypt and Northern Sudan. The Jonglei canal project was therefore the creation of Egypt and Northern Sudan. The claim that water was lost at Sudd through evaporation and transpiration to justify the Jonglei canal project was not convincing. In theory the evaporated and transpired water would fall back as rains hence topping up whatever was lost through evaporation and transpiration. There is no mention of where did the water lost go except the impression that the water was lost forever.
The Jonglei canal project is likely to affect the bio diversity and ecosystem of the area. The Sudd is one of the largest floodplains in Africa, providing watering and feeding grounds for populations of migratory mammals and birds. This floodplain borders the arid Sahelian region and is an important watering place for many species as they move across the landscape. The floodplain ecosystem supports a variety of plant species. Wild rice grassland dominates the seasonally inundated floodplains. This seems to suggest that rice may grow in the Sudd area. Improved rice varieties may grow in the floodplains in addressing poverty in Southern Sudan. During the 1980s Southern Sudan had among the highest population levels of antelope in Africa and the Sudd has been listed as a key location for the recovery of threatened antelope in Sub-Saharan Africa. Among the most abundant species found are the white-eared kob, the tiang and the Mongalla gazelle and these three species of antelopes make large-scale migration over the relatively undisturbed habitat of the Sudd. A million individuals of white-eared kob undertake a massive migration following the availability of floodplain grasses.
It is to be noted that the floodplains of the Sudd provide important habitat for several species of birds. The floodplains support the largest population of shoebill in Africa. The endangered white pelican flies over 2,000 kilometres from Eastern Europe and Asia to reach one of its most important wintering grounds on the floodplains of the Sudd. The Sudd is also a stronghold for the black crowned cranes, a species that has been designated vulnerable. Annual floods are crucial to the maintenance of biological diversity in the Sudd. The Dinka, Nuer and Shilluk (or Cholo) co-exist in the Sudd with tens of thousands of large herbivores depend on the annual floods and rain to regenerate floodplain grasses which feed their herds of cattle. Fishing in the Sudd is also a means of livelihood.
There is evidence to suggest that the Jonglei canal project is mainly to the advantage of Egypt and Northern Sudan. However, one advantage to Southern Sudan may be that travel time to the north will be shorter. Nonetheless in this jet age who would really use a boat to travel to the north with all the inconveniences of mosquitoes feasting on one’s body. At any rate it is seen that diversion of the water may most likely cause the Sudd swamps and associated floodplains to shrink dramatically, threatening the fauna and flora that depend on the swamps and floodplains for survival.
The Jonglei canal is likely to have a significant impact on climate, groundwater recharges, silt and water quality. This is also likely to involve the loss of fish habitat and grazing areas which in turn will have serious implications for the indigenous people of the area. A whole range of effects of the canal may be shown to be disadvantageous to the inhabitants of the Jonglei canal area. The river-flooded grasslands are an essential seasonal resource during the driest months of the year. A severe decrease in the discharge into the Sudd resulting from the Jonglei canal would bring about the total disappearance of many lakes in the papyrus zone and reduce others to status of seasonal logons with a serious loss of year-round fish and fishing potential.
The canal may in many areas drive a barrier between wet season villages and dry season grazing grounds along the river channels and therefore dislocate the pastoral cycle. Crossing the canal will present a logistical problem and besides raises questions of landownership among those who may need to cross the canal and cross each other’s territory. It can be seen that the Jonglei canal project is not without serious problems to bio diversity and ecosystem inn the area. The people at the receiving end are the inhabitants of the area in particular and Southern Sudan in general. However, for Egypt there is no problem as long as the Jonglei canal will provide the needed water for the growing population of Egypt.
The Nile is the main source of water for the ten nations which make up the Nile basin. Access to the Nile water has been defined as a vital national priority by countries such as Egypt and the Sudan and it is an issue over which the two countries have professed themselves to go to war. However, as more of the countries in the Nile basin develop their economies, the need for water in the region will likely increase. Other countries of the Nile basin consider the Nile Water Agreement of 1929 granting Egypt the lion’s share of the Nile water and with absolute authority over the Nile as a colonial relic. The Nile Water Agreement which Britain signed on behalf of its east African colonies forbids any project that could threaten the volume of water reaching Egypt. However, all is now changing despite Egypt’s warmongering. Tanzania has completed a pipeline from Lake Victoria to benefit people in towns and villages in the arid north-west of Tanzania. This was interesting as the Nile Water Agreement of 1929 gives Egypt the right of veto over any work which might threaten the flow of the Nile. It could be that the quantity of water drained through the pipeline was insignificant. It could have also been because the other Nile basin countries have now started to speak out openly about the challenges they face as they try to equitably share out the Nile’s resources and to have outdated colonial treaties abrogated.
One big step forward is that the days of the Nile Water Agreement of 1929 are numbered. Egypt and the other nine countries of the Nile basin have agreed to review the 1929 Nile Water Agreement which gave Egypt veto power over any use of Nile or Lake Victoria water by its southern neighbours. This has become possible as a Nile basin initiative was launched in 1999 as a transitional arrangement until a permanent framework is in place. However, this has not stopped the other countries Egypt had deprived for too long to start initiating their own projects for the use of the Nile water. It seems it is now an open challenge to Egypt which has been acting like a tyrant to the poor Nile basin countries. Ethiopia with chronic food insecurity has announced its intentions to develop about 200,000 hectares of land through irrigation projects and construction of two dams in the Blue Nile sub-basin. It is worth noting that although the Blue Nile originates from Lake Tana in Ethiopia and discharges about 86 percent of water downstream to Egypt, Egypt did not allow Ethiopia to use the Blue Nile water or Ethiopia would facer threats of war.
In East Africa Tanzania has launched a project to draw water from Lake Victoria to supply one of its arid regions despite Egypt’s veiled threats. Tanzania has not budged. Kenya was also considering non-recognition of the Nile Water Agreement of 1929 despite Egypt’s threats. A senior Kenyan parliamentarian suggested that the Nile water should be sold to Egypt and the Sudan for oil. Uganda is also constructing a hydroelectric dam at Bujagali. It seems Egypt’s self-proclaimed status of being a super power in Africa by threatening war over the Nile is coming to an end. Egypt is most likely to find it a mammoth task to go to war with all the remaining countries in the Nile basin. However, Egypt may still be living in the past glory of absolute lordship over the use of the Nile water but times have changed and Egypt may need to adapt faster for it may be unlikely that it will win a war in Africa.
This article has gone to some length to demonstrate that the completion of the Jonglei canal project is being hurried up for the benefit of Egypt to great extent. As the article has shown Egypt does not care about the other countries of the Nile basin as long as it receives its lion’s share of the Nile water uninterrupted. Egypt’s greed for the Nile water is likely to be a prolonged war either through the battle field or through arm-twisting in conference halls. Egypt wouldn’t care about the plight of Southern Sudan if that would guarantee its lion’s share of the Nile water. The other countries in the Nile basin have allowed Egypt for too long to enjoy absolute hegemony over the Nile
The Jonglei canal is a likely disaster to the bio diversity and ecosystem of the area. Worse still there seems to be no development model for the area. What is the proposed agricultural and industrial development for a high standard of living of the people in the area on both sides of the canal? What are the linkages to the wider development of Southern Sudan? In other words what will Southern Sudan benefit from the Jonglei canal project when it is clear that livelihood may be affected which will likely be a burden to cope with.
In conclusion Southern Sudan did not fight two costly wars that lasted forty years to be at the receiving end of predatory outsiders’ imposed projects and to allow its natural resources to be plundered with impunity. We have to stand up for the people’s gains and aspirations for a better quality of life for all and security as the peace dividends.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Again this is about facts.
Where in Africa or anywhere else in the world are there large plantations in the thousands of acres with food or any other kinds of products explicitly for the mouths of black people? So it is odd to hear people being so "upset" when my point is that I feel the ultimate solution is to increase the number of well financed and supported large scale black owned farms in Africa, who are in business to grow food for Africans.
If your aim is to promote Socialism, just simply state this, and we will show how it has failed Post-independence in many parts of Africa. We will show how this system is what led to Africans being dependent of IMF for survival.
quote:For Africans to become food secure and have a stable supply of food to support the growth of African populations, developed societies and economic growth, you need more large farms with irrigation and technology primarily owned by Africans for the purpose of feeding Africans.
Where would they obtain the funds to promote these large scale farms with "irrigation" and "technology", will they borrow it from other African countries, who are basically in the same financial situation as they?
quote:Being happy about foreigners having plantations in Africa is baseless, given the historical track record of foreigners and plantations in Africa.
Bad attempt at twisting logic to argue against your own baseless claims.
quote: Now it could be that these mega plantations will help Africans become food secure, but then again only time will tell.
Actually the "negotiating power" of the African governments will tell. It's the basic theory of supply and demand. If you have something in demand by these "foreign" governments, and they have a short supply of said resource; then you are in a better position of negotiating the terms of an agreement to the benefit of yourself AND your country. BUT, as I stated above, (and you continuously) ignore, if you are a CORRUPT government official, whose only aim is to line your own pocket, and could care less about the average citizen, then you can bet that your citizens will be EXPLOITED, and this will eventually lead to civil unrest, which would only further deteriorate the economy. These politicians must walk a very fine line.
quote:It is historically retarded to claim that depending on foreigners with big plantations and large numbers of near peasant workers is somehow beneficial for Africa.
See above:
quote:In the long run my point is that the only solution is to increase the number of large farms and other agricultural and industrial activities in Africa run by Africans for Africans. Nothing else will provide the sort of economic growth needed for the future.
One cannot ignore short-term needs to accomplish "long-term" goals. Actually I agree with you on this, but the government must implement policies from the ONSET of the negotiations, to trigger a trickle down effect, so that it will benefit them in the long run.
This is what occurred in the UAE, in the beginning they used foreigners to exploit their massive oil resources, with the revenues obtained, they improved their infrastructure, building schools, roads, housing and hospitals, which created job opportunities in other sectors besides the oil industry. This is the trickle-down effect. Initially they were all individual emirates, under British control and exploitation, its when they UNITED they overtook the control the British initially had. The same can occur with these African countries with collective valuable resources, if they are united on an economic basis, like the European Union, for example. I showed where this trend is beginning to form, with organizations like the AEC and African Free Trade Zones.
Posts: 747 | From: Atlanta, GA USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Are you claiming there is no starvation in Africa, because if you read what I wrote I never claimed all Africans are starving. The point I was making is that the current world economic system is not going to address starvation or better food production for Africans. Other than that, I don't see the disagreement.
And yes, the current economic system is definitely a reason behind a lot of the starvation in Africa, no matter if all Africans are starving or not. A good example is Sudan and Ethiopia, both of which have suffered from foreign backed wars and upheavals that have left the people suffering and landless, followed by foreigners snapping up large plots of land.
Doug are you white? You repeatedly use the same language western media uses when describing Africa.
Here is an image that seems to be for a good cause(championing the Darfur cause) but the way it is presented will not make westerners see Africans in a positive "light". I took this photo. The pix where placed along side each other. I think the pictures speak for themselves. If am wealthy white business man looking for places to invest my money Africa would not be it. The image of the kid with flys all over the face tell me we are dealing with backward place. In Sweden not a day goes by without such nasty images on TV and new paper.
posted
If these guys are the same guys operating in the U.S then you should be worried because they all but destroyed the independent farmers I saw it and I worry..if you can find the full video please do or watch it pcs mele on youtube..
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Are you claiming there is no starvation in Africa, because if you read what I wrote I never claimed all Africans are starving. The point I was making is that the current world economic system is not going to address starvation or better food production for Africans. Other than that, I don't see the disagreement.
And yes, the current economic system is definitely a reason behind a lot of the starvation in Africa, no matter if all Africans are starving or not. A good example is Sudan and Ethiopia, both of which have suffered from foreign backed wars and upheavals that have left the people suffering and landless, followed by foreigners snapping up large plots of land.
Doug are you white? You repeatedly use the same language western media uses when describing Africa.
Here is an image that seems to be for a good cause(championing the Darfur cause) but the way it is presented will not make westerners see Africans in a positive "light". I took this photo. The pix where placed along side each other. I think the pictures speak for themselves. If am wealthy white business man looking for places to invest my money Africa would not be it. The image of the kid with flys all over the face tell me we are dealing with backward place. In Sweden not a day goes by without such nasty images on TV and new paper.
posted
It does suspiciously sound as if Doug wants Africans to maintain the status quo, or reverse to pre-colonial periods and track the deserts on camels and horses to trade with their neighboring Africans.
Below are my suggested solutions,If I were an African President
1. Unite with several other African countries who share a common goal and interest; countries with civil unrest and corrupt dictatorship would be excluded from this union.
2. Pool our natural resources to determine which country would be responsible for the production of a particular resource based on their observed reserves.
3. Do away with individual currencies, and create a united currency such as the Euro, but call it the Afro .
4. Break down all the economic barriers that exist between the countries within the Union, to encourage freedom of exchange between private citizens. So that farmers in Ethiopia, need not only rely on markets within Ethiopia to exchange agricultural goods, as have negative results as posted above.
5. Encourage foreign investment, by creating "Unionized"(meaning countries in the Union) corporations with the Union initially owning 100% of the shares in an open market.
6. Use revenues from foreign investments to develop infrastructure; building schools, universities, road repair and rebuilding, improvement in technology, medical facilities, renewable energy and massive housing projects, thereby creating other economic sectors, which would encourage even more foreign investment.
7.Once infrastructure is improved, encourage National citizens to reinvest in the corporations that may be predominantly owned by foreigners creating "fair" redistribution of ownership rather than tyrant modes such as kicking any NON-African off of the property.
8. Tax the corporations majority owned by foreigners up to levels of 35% of their profits to continue to generate revenues to maintain state held institutions.
9. Require that all corporations must maintain a higher level of national personnel versus immigrants with the same skills as the nationals. Which would create more job opportunities of the local nationals as opposed to bringing in all personnel from the foreigners country.
10. Maintain a sound balanced budget to keep the 'Afro' from depreciating in value. All countries within the union must share a common Monetary policy managed by the president, but their fiscal policies are left within each country's individual control.
11. Use a democratic process to elect a President of the union, and limit his term to a maximum of 5 years.
12. Allow other 'haters' on the sidelines to join our Union, when they have proven that they can overthrow corrupt dictatorship and diminish civil unrest.
13. Build up a strong highly trained military of unionized nationals to protect our interests on the world stage.
..and not necessarily in this order.
Posts: 747 | From: Atlanta, GA USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Again this is about facts.
Where in Africa or anywhere else in the world are there large plantations in the thousands of acres with food or any other kinds of products explicitly for the mouths of black people? So it is odd to hear people being so "upset" when my point is that I feel the ultimate solution is to increase the number of well financed and supported large scale black owned farms in Africa, who are in business to grow food for Africans.
If your aim is to promote Socialism, just simply state this, and we will show how it has failed Post-independence in many parts of Africa. We will show how this system is what led to Africans being dependent of IMF for survival.
If you love foreigners and believe only foreigners can do anything for Africa then say so. You must believe Africans cannot do anything for themselves, because of the "failure" of post independence. So I guess that means that foreigners owning and controlling everything are the only answer because Africans are too dumb and stupid to do it for themselves. Africans cannot get ahead without having foreign plantations to give them jobs and work to do to make them useful. Therefore, of course you don't support Africans developing and owning their own major agricultural concerns as their primary means of support.
quote:
quote:For Africans to become food secure and have a stable supply of food to support the growth of African populations, developed societies and economic growth, you need more large farms with irrigation and technology primarily owned by Africans for the purpose of feeding Africans.
Where would they obtain the funds to promote these large scale farms with "irrigation" and "technology", will they borrow it from other African countries, who are basically in the same financial situation as they?
From the same place as everyone else: trade, commerce and economic activity. But wait, are you saying that Africa has no trade, commerce and economics to support African development? And if not then why not if foreigners have been able to make hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars of money off African resources in the last 100 years, why are Africans unable to do the same. But again, you obviously believe Africans aren't smart enough to make money off their own gold, silver, tin, copper, steel and everything else. You sound as if you believe only foreigners know how to make money off African resources and that Africans should depend on them to make money and drive economics in Africa. Otherwise, the question is dumb. If you don't own and control the land, the factories, the mines and the farms, then of course you won't have any money. That is my only point. You don't make money as a worker. Economic development is based on full participation in economics, not just being a peasant worker. Full participation means owning and controlling some portion of the wealth being generated from the extraction, processing and trade of goods, services and resources. Just working for foreigners is not engaging in economics. The "solution" to not having economics is to engage in economics: create farms, industry and trade to generate the money and wealth that will drive development. Simply depending on foreigners will not do this. And fundamentally, the responsibility for feeding yourself is strictly a local affair. You do what you have to do.
quote:
quote:Being happy about foreigners having plantations in Africa is baseless, given the historical track record of foreigners and plantations in Africa.
Bad attempt at twisting logic to argue against your own baseless claims.
How so? Please elaborate. Are you claiming that there is no history of foreign plantations in Africa and that we shouldn't look at this history as a guide for what may happen in the future? What kind of nonsense is that? But again, since you seem to only believe that foreigners can build Africa, you don't care about the historical facts that show otherwise, ie: that foreigners have not ever cared about building Africa for anyone other than themselves.
quote:
quote: Now it could be that these mega plantations will help Africans become food secure, but then again only time will tell.
Actually the "negotiating power" of the African governments will tell. It's the basic theory of supply and demand. If you have something in demand by these "foreign" governments, and they have a short supply of said resource; then you are in a better position of negotiating the terms of an agreement to the benefit of yourself AND your country. BUT, as I stated above, (and you continuously) ignore, if you are a CORRUPT government official, whose only aim is to line your own pocket, and could care less about the average citizen, then you can bet that your citizens will be EXPLOITED, and this will eventually lead to civil unrest, which would only further deteriorate the economy. These politicians must walk a very fine line.
Government corruption is an issue, however, pretending that foreign plantations in Africa are "new" and that the history of foreigners using Africans as forced cheap labor on them comes from corrupt African governments is nonsense. Foreigners have ALWAYS wanted this for Africa. So corrupt governments or no corrupt governments, we shouldn't be pretending that foreigners are going to Africa with Africa's best interest in mind. They aren't.
quote:
quote:It is historically retarded to claim that depending on foreigners with big plantations and large numbers of near peasant workers is somehow beneficial for Africa.
See above:
quote:In the long run my point is that the only solution is to increase the number of large farms and other agricultural and industrial activities in Africa run by Africans for Africans. Nothing else will provide the sort of economic growth needed for the future.
One cannot ignore short-term needs to accomplish "long-term" goals. Actually I agree with you on this, but the government must implement policies from the ONSET of the negotiations, to trigger a trickle down effect, so that it will benefit them in the long run.
This is what occurred in the UAE, in the beginning they used foreigners to exploit their massive oil resources, with the revenues obtained, they improved their infrastructure, building schools, roads, housing and hospitals, which created job opportunities in other sectors besides the oil industry. This is the trickle-down effect. Initially they were all individual emirates, under British control and exploitation, its when they UNITED they overtook the control the British initially had. The same can occur with these African countries with collective valuable resources, if they are united on an economic basis, like the European Union, for example. I showed where this trend is beginning to form, with organizations like the AEC and African Free Trade Zones.
So it sounds like you agree with me after all, meaning that Africans have the primary responsibility for determining and controlling their own economic destiny by not standing around waiting for foreigners to "help" them. Otherwise, I don't see your point.
My solution has been consistently the same:
African ownership and control of their own industry, trade and agriculture with the primary purpose of producing things needed for Africans FIRST and then general trade and economics with everyone else. There are potentially billions of dollars in the development of trade and economics within Africa alone, supplying the demand for food, water, infrastructure and everything else needed by Africans as a market. Developing organization, institutions, business and agencies to grow and support such development are the only answer. There are trillions of dollars worth of minerals and natural resources in the soil of Africa. It is in Africa's long term interest that the Africans be the experts in extracting and processing those resources, just as Africans were the primary experts until colonialism kicked them off their own mines.
Depending on foreigners is not the answer.
But some here simply believe that Africans cannot proceed without depending on foreigners, who by the way have never ever by any historical account done anything to help grow Africa economically.
And if anyone wants an example of that reality, one only needs to look at South Africa. Where is the transfer of 100% white and foreign owned industry and land into the hands of the blacks. It hasn't happened and it won't happen and the government is in the pocket of those whites. The status quo is most blacks are poor, most are unemployed, a good majority still work as peasant laborers for whites in some capacity, with those in upscale "middle class" jobs in the minority. That is the sort of "trickle down" effect that comes from believing in foreigners and their economic policies, which are inherently exploitative in nature. Nothing about foreign economics in Africa is not exploitative, but some people here simply see nothing bad about foreigners and wish to promote foreign interests over that of Africans.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Are you claiming there is no starvation in Africa, because if you read what I wrote I never claimed all Africans are starving. The point I was making is that the current world economic system is not going to address starvation or better food production for Africans. Other than that, I don't see the disagreement.
And yes, the current economic system is definitely a reason behind a lot of the starvation in Africa, no matter if all Africans are starving or not. A good example is Sudan and Ethiopia, both of which have suffered from foreign backed wars and upheavals that have left the people suffering and landless, followed by foreigners snapping up large plots of land.
Doug are you white? You repeatedly use the same language western media uses when describing Africa.
Here is an image that seems to be for a good cause(championing the Darfur cause) but the way it is presented will not make westerners see Africans in a positive "light". I took this photo. The pix where placed along side each other. I think the pictures speak for themselves. If am wealthy white business man looking for places to invest my money Africa would not be it. The image of the kid with flys all over the face tell me we are dealing with backward place. In Sweden not a day goes by without such nasty images on TV and new paper.
The question of whether I am black or white is irrelevant. What we should be talking about is facts.
You suggest that not supporting "white investment" in Africa is evil or that blacks starving in the Sudan is due to lack of white "investment". But the opposite is true. It is precisely the white and foreign "investment" in the oil fields of Sudan that are the primary reasons behind the Sudan conflict. Quiet as it is kept, the U.S. actually helps arm and train the Southern "rebels" in Sudan, one of the aims being to overthrow Al Bashir.
Likewise, the facts are that many of the people of Southern Sudan are actually starving and many others are facing food shortages. This is ironic considering that the South is much more fertile in the north, which is again part of the reason for the conflict. Meanwhile, all the "investment" in agriculture in Sudan is coming from Arab states to feed Arabs or coming from Egypt to feed Egypt. So, I don't see where foreigners are putting money in Sudan to feed the Sudanese. Your point is that there are whites sitting around in Europe wanting to create farms to feed Africans. My point is that this is purely a figment of your imagination.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by homeylu: Doug maybe this is all way over your head. Your simplistic approach, that is. International trading has existed since Ancient times, nothing new here. Africa is not some massive structure of land where people are free to roam and 'set up shop' where they see fit. Post colonialism created BORDERS that didn't exist before.
People who reside in ARID countries which CANNOT produce certain agriculture, cannot simply walk over to a country that has said agriculture and exclaim, "I'm hungry, feed my people".
Using your approach, please explain why this did not happen for Zimbabweans, when they tookover the land once owned by Apartheid regimes. Why are so many of them starving, if its a simple matter of just planting seeds?
And further, if any government gives up their control when selling or leasing land, then that government has no business managing its people.
I recall reading how the Egyptian government gave away massive desert land to its people to build homes, only to discover that the people didn't have the money to build anything on it, much less to make the land inhabitable in harsh arrid climate, without basic infrastructure. Then they found the solution by selling this land to foreign investors like these Billionaire Saudis, who in return helped stimulate the economy, as they created massive job opportunities in the construction sector that would not have existed on its own. Otherwise the low cost laborers who may be working for "chump change" would not be working at all and couldn't even afford to buy the seeds to plant to feed themselves.
The world population is much bigger now. It's macroeconomics, get with the picture.
I don't think Doug realizes the full scope of Foreign investment and its benefits, seems to focus only on the Drawbacks. I think investing with China is the best thing Africans can do by now as well as Africans in the diaspora returning to help growth in Africa. America and the West's Epoch is closing, just look around. Africa is fertile ground and the Chinese are looking interested plus I don't see any reason to set up Colonies by China.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: none of that is going to happen, the money is not there and there is way too much corruption.
Some of you guys act as if it is the responsibility of first world nations to build you up. Our job is to make money for ourselves.
Coruption is not in the genes. Take the next generation and teach good values, poof! goes coruption. The problem with Africans is they are not racially concious like other races. They look at the world at the tribal level and not at a satellite point of view. They do not think in terms of them and us. They are we are the world types.
Doug M seems to think it is the responsibility of the first world to develope Africa. I don't. Alot of African leader think the same. They look to the west for solutions to their problems unfortunately.
My solution to Africans problem is build a wall arround sub-saharan Africa. Get the best minds to come up with solutions to our problems. Our ambition should not be to become like the west but to provide every citizen the basic needs. Western consumerism should not be our goal.
Posts: 87 | From: Sweden | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jari-Ankhamun: I don't think Doug realizes the full scope of Foreign investment and its benefits, seems to focus only on the Drawbacks. I think investing with China is the best thing Africans can do by now as well as Africans in the diaspora returning to help growth in Africa. America and the West's Epoch is closing, just look around. Africa is fertile ground and the Chinese are looking interested plus I don't see any reason to set up Colonies by China.
You are correct, but to Doug, us Africans in Diaspora, are nothing but foreigners. We have no business investing in Africa, using his simplistic view.
China's policy in Africa is too not meddle in the in their internal affairs, they want to keep it strictly business.
Posts: 747 | From: Atlanta, GA USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: From the same place as everyone else: trade, commerce and economic activity. But wait, are you saying that Africa has no trade, commerce and economics to support African development? And if not then why not if foreigners have been able to make hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars of money off African resources in the last 100 years, why are Africans unable to do the same. But again, you obviously believe Africans aren't smart enough to make money off their own gold, silver, tin, copper, steel and everything else. You sound as if you believe only foreigners know how to make money off African resources and that Africans should depend on them to make money and drive economics in Africa. Otherwise, the question is dumb. If you don't own and control the land, the factories, the mines and the farms, then of course you won't have any money. That is my only point. You don't make money as a worker. Economic development is based on full participation in economics, not just being a peasant worker. Full participation means owning and controlling some portion of the wealth being generated from the extraction, processing and trade of goods, services and resources. Just working for foreigners is not engaging in economics. The "solution" to not having economics is to engage in economics: create farms, industry and trade to generate the money and wealth that will drive development. Simply depending on foreigners will not do this. And fundamentally, the responsibility for feeding yourself is strictly a local affair. You do what you have to do.
Will you stop making up things in order to argue against baseless claims, you exhibit poor debating skills with statements like;"But wait, are you saying that Africa has no trade, commerce and economics to support African development?"
Further ALL countries make money off foreign investors, including former 'communist' countries. That's pretty much the theme in a globalized society.
Further you are very simplistic to assume that all of the world's resources exist only on the continent, and that Africa could survive without trading with the outside world.
Simplistic because we exist in the here and now. Cell phones, internet, computers, and so on and so forth, all have components manufactured outside the continent. If Africans need these items they have to TRADE with foreigners. In order to TRADE with foreigners, they need FOREIGN currency. In order to obtain FOREIGN currency, they need FOREIGN investment.
But again, you obviously believe Africans aren't smart enough to make money off their own gold, silver, tin, copper, steel and everything else. I could show you several other countries with the EXACT same natural resources. If you want Africans to 'excuse' themselves from the world stage, these resources can be obtained elsewhere.
And by all means stop portraying Africa as if it's a country without borders. It is a CONTINENT with over 50 countries, each with varying interest. They are essentially FOREIGNERS amongst each other. It's like assuming that Canadians and say, Cubans, are essentially U.S. citizens, just because they are all on the North American continent.
Posts: 747 | From: Atlanta, GA USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
Here is an image that seems to be for a good cause(championing the Darfur cause) but the way it is presented will not make westerners see Africans in a positive "light". I took this photo. The pix where placed along side each other. I think the pictures speak for themselves. If am wealthy white business man looking for places to invest my money Africa would not be it. The image of the kid with flys all over the face tell me we are dealing with backward place. In Sweden not a day goes by without such nasty images on TV and new paper.
These stereotypical images are why the idiotic racist think Africans in general are azz backwards and desperate. Though the situation is dire in Sudan, one should not take the image of one country and apply to an entire continent. But people like Doug cannot imagine Africans as separate entities on their own. He imagines pre-colonial periods to base his arguments on.
One of my best friends is a journalist, and I suggested that she explores the 10 most beautiful cities to visit in Africa, and do a commentary on it, you know, to try to encourage more tourism to Africa by African Americans and others. Many African Americans have never visited Africa, and rely solely on media sources who often portray grim images. If I had the same outlook as many of them, I would never have stepped foot on the continent. I want to visit more cities in the future, and possibly invest in land, in the one I see with the most promise.
Posts: 747 | From: Atlanta, GA USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
Here is an image that seems to be for a good cause(championing the Darfur cause) but the way it is presented will not make westerners see Africans in a positive "light". I took this photo. The pix where placed along side each other. I think the pictures speak for themselves. If am wealthy white business man looking for places to invest my money Africa would not be it. The image of the kid with flys all over the face tell me we are dealing with backward place. In Sweden not a day goes by without such nasty images on TV and new paper.
These stereotypical images are why the idiotic racist think Africans in general are azz backwards and desperate. Though the situation is dire in Sudan, one should not take the image of one country and apply to an entire continent. But people like Doug cannot imagine Africans as separate entities on their own. He imagines pre-colonial periods to base his arguments on.
One of my best friends is a journalist, and I suggested that she explores the 10 most beautiful cities to visit in Africa, and do a commentary on it, you know, to try to encourage more tourism to Africa by African Americans and others. Many African Americans have never visited Africa, and rely solely on media sources who often portray grim images. If I had the same outlook as many of them, I would never have stepped foot on the continent. I want to visit more cities in the future, and possibly invest in land, in the one I see with the most promise.
Im sure African Americans travel to africa when they can although here in America Trips to places like Hawaii, the Tropics and Criuse ships are more Attractive also to other U.S cities. The probem is on vacation people want to live in a tourist ideal place...Africans should invest in resorts etc, and give folks a Tourist Psudo area. Especially when Africa is the next frontier, they should harp on ASAP.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by homeylu: If your aim is to promote Socialism, just simply state this,
This is exactly what Doug wants. However, its an even more romantic kind than the socialism of post-colonial African leaders. Its one that devoid if practicality, history and context. It harkens back to a simpler time. This is because Doug himself is a simpleton. This is why he argues is extremes and only attacks straw man; he cannot bring himself to appreciate the complexities of the modern world. he is a waste of time, trust me on this.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jari-Ankhamun: I don't think Doug realizes the full scope of Foreign investment and its benefits, seems to focus only on the Drawbacks. I think investing with China is the best thing Africans can do by now as well as Africans in the diaspora returning to help growth in Africa. America and the West's Epoch is closing, just look around. Africa is fertile ground and the Chinese are looking interested plus I don't see any reason to set up Colonies by China.
You are correct, but to Doug, us Africans in Diaspora, are nothing but foreigners. We have no business investing in Africa, using his simplistic view.
China's policy in Africa is too not meddle in the in their internal affairs, they want to keep it strictly business.
Well I stil think Doug is a smart guy overall, and I understand his frustration that leads to his distrust in Foreign investment but the fact is China is hands down the next World Power. If one can not see this simple fact go ask an economist, the Epoch of the West is coming to an end. China is the next story in Human history. with this said China has so much on its plate trying to set up Colonies and trying invade Africa is not worth its time. China is first and formost Sinocentric they are not like Euros who need people to admire them and worship them. The Chinese actually don't really care what you think of them. This is their policy towards Africa, Do your thing and help us do ours. A smart policy, not saying China is all Good and benevolent but As first I was skeptical but so far China seems to be there for Trade with resources..PERIOD.
The smartest thing Africans can do I Trade with China, also try to attract other Africans in the Diaspora to return to Africa, which is the best considering the future of the West. Africa has a chance and if she plays her Cards right the Next Big Apples will be Dar Es Salaalam, Cairo, Johannesburg, Nairobi etc rather than New York or Chicago..
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by homeylu: If your aim is to promote Socialism, just simply state this,
This is exactly what Doug wants. However, its an even more romantic kind than the socialism of post-colonial African leaders. Its one that devoid if practicality, history and context. It harkens back to a simpler time. This is because Doug himself is a simpleton. This is why he argues is extremes and only attacks straw man; he cannot bring himself to appreciate the complexities of the modern world. he is a waste of time, trust me on this.
Well Socialism when taken into a romantic sense and taken to its basic ideals is actually nice sounding, but Doug forgets that the problem does not lie within economics its lies within Power which is the basic aspect of Human corruption. Considering the corruption that occurs now in Africa I am not convinced that Socialism would work.
What is your take on Free Market Capitalism?
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: This is exactly what Doug wants. However, its an even more romantic kind than the socialism of post-colonial African leaders. Its one that devoid if practicality, history and context. It harkens back to a simpler time. This is because Doug himself is a simpleton. This is why he argues is extremes and only attacks straw man; he cannot bring himself to appreciate the complexities of the modern world. he is a waste of time, trust me on this.
Sounds cute, but as you state impractical. I've never corresponded with him before, and try to debate against the subject at hand, in other threads I may find myself agreeing with some of his post, I try not to form prejudices against poster's idealism so long as they are not the 'racist' type, which I don't think he is, his heart is in the right place, but the practicality is not there.
quote:Originally posted by Jari-Ankhamun:
The smartest thing Africans can do I Trade with China, also try to attract other Africans in the Diaspora to return to Africa, which is the best considering the future of the West. Africa has a chance and if she plays her Cards right the Next Big Apples will be Dar Es Salaalam, Cairo, Johannesburg, Nairobi etc rather than New York or Chicago..
Actually I have been keeping my eyes on Africa as a possible place for retirement for over a decade now. I don't like the big city life of Cairo, Nairobi,etc, I would probably be looking at a small resort type city on the coast. The problem with many African Americans is ignorance. They have to stop imagining all Africans as people with bones pierced thru their lips, or bedouins living in tents in the desert riding camels.
Posts: 747 | From: Atlanta, GA USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: From the same place as everyone else: trade, commerce and economic activity. But wait, are you saying that Africa has no trade, commerce and economics to support African development? And if not then why not if foreigners have been able to make hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars of money off African resources in the last 100 years, why are Africans unable to do the same. But again, you obviously believe Africans aren't smart enough to make money off their own gold, silver, tin, copper, steel and everything else. You sound as if you believe only foreigners know how to make money off African resources and that Africans should depend on them to make money and drive economics in Africa. Otherwise, the question is dumb. If you don't own and control the land, the factories, the mines and the farms, then of course you won't have any money. That is my only point. You don't make money as a worker. Economic development is based on full participation in economics, not just being a peasant worker. Full participation means owning and controlling some portion of the wealth being generated from the extraction, processing and trade of goods, services and resources. Just working for foreigners is not engaging in economics. The "solution" to not having economics is to engage in economics: create farms, industry and trade to generate the money and wealth that will drive development. Simply depending on foreigners will not do this. And fundamentally, the responsibility for feeding yourself is strictly a local affair. You do what you have to do.
Will you stop making up things in order to argue against baseless claims, you exhibit poor debating skills with statements like;"But wait, are you saying that Africa has no trade, commerce and economics to support African development?"
Further ALL countries make money off foreign investors, including former 'communist' countries. That's pretty much the theme in a globalized society.
Further you are very simplistic to assume that all of the world's resources exist only on the continent, and that Africa could survive without trading with the outside world.
Simplistic because we exist in the here and now. Cell phones, internet, computers, and so on and so forth, all have components manufactured outside the continent. If Africans need these items they have to TRADE with foreigners. In order to TRADE with foreigners, they need FOREIGN currency. In order to obtain FOREIGN currency, they need FOREIGN investment.
But again, you obviously believe Africans aren't smart enough to make money off their own gold, silver, tin, copper, steel and everything else. I could show you several other countries with the EXACT same natural resources. If you want Africans to 'excuse' themselves from the world stage, these resources can be obtained elsewhere.
And by all means stop portraying Africa as if it's a country without borders. It is a CONTINENT with over 50 countries, each with varying interest. They are essentially FOREIGNERS amongst each other. It's like assuming that Canadians and say, Cubans, are essentially U.S. citizens, just because they are all on the North American continent.
And again why do you not address what I posted.
My point is that foreigners "investing" in Africa should not be the basis and primary means for Africans to further their own development. First of all, in the history of humanity, economic development never ever started with foreigners. Economic development starts with trade and commerce, which are a result of the needs of the local community. African cultures including Egypt did not grow strong and wealthy due to "foreign investment". Foreign investment is solely a modern abstraction that has absolutely nothing to do with fundamental economic principles. The core of all economics is that trade and commerce develop as a result of local populations organizing themselves for their own survival. It has been like that for thousands of years and been the basis for the development of many very large and sophisticated cultures world wide.
Modern economics is based on the exploitation of land, labor and resources as a "global" system of economics initiated by the British during the colonial period. It was typified by using the resources of other people to build the wealth of European industrialists and capitalists. That form of exploitation led to the gap between the "haves" of the first world and the "have nots" of the third world. Investment as an economic principle started during this time as a means for wealthy financiers to support the colonial expansion of British mercantile interests by funding expeditions and trade ventures in foreign lands. Such expeditions were designed solely for the benefit of the British, the financiers and their banking system and not the natives.
Modern global capitalism is built on this foundation.
You have not done anything to address those facts other than inject your opinion that Africa needs to depend on foreigners in order to develop.
Sorry, but I disagree. No amount of spin is going to change my point which is that African development is going to depend fully on Africans and their ability to organize themselves and develop economic frameworks and institutions to support Africans and their needs.
There is no historical proof that foreigners have ever built African economies for the benefit of Africans. So whatever you are talking about it isn't based on any historical precedent. And that model of economic development you posted is again purely something that does not exist in reality. In reality the goal of foreign investment in Africa is to make all of Africa like South Africa. Note they are not transferring any land, wealth or anything else from the whites who stole it and the blacks are still at the bottom of the social and economic ladder, even after over 100 years of white investment in the country. That investment has indeed created industry and infrastructure along with agriculture and prosperity, but not for the blacks. So basically whatever concept you are preaching it is totally not based on reality.
The point is that of course foreigners have a role to play in economics. But that does not mean that any and all economic activity should be owned and controlled by foreigners. Africans can and must be the primary agents within their own economics just like all other people are in their own respective countries. The fact that blacks have had everything of economic value taken from them and who own and control nothing on the planet is not "natural" and not based on anything other than the selfishness and greed of the same economic system and "investors" that people are claiming to be a solution for Africa's economic development issues. That is a contradiction and depends on ignorance versus an understanding of the facts.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Avee: Coruption is not in the genes. Take the next generation and teach good values, poof! goes coruption. The problem with Africans is they are not racially concious like other races. They look at the world at the tribal level and not at a satellite point of view. They do not think in terms of them and us. They are we are the world types.
Doug M seems to think it is the responsibility of the first world to develope Africa. I don't. Alot of African leader think the same. They look to the west for solutions to their problems unfortunately.
My solution to Africans problem is build a wall arround sub-saharan Africa. Get the best minds to come up with solutions to our problems. Our ambition should not be to become like the west but to provide every citizen the basic needs. Western consumerism should not be our goal.
This pretty much sums up the entire problem. Many give white people and other foreigner too much credit. White people and the others just simply aren't that smart nor us melanites that dumb.
Inroads are being made, but still, too many leaders want to waist money trying to make their country into Frankfurt or London, replete with double-decker style buses. Also, while ethnic pride has it's postives, as I tried to explain to Kalonji, it's not replicated across ethnic lines to nationlistic black pride. These european educated "leaders" trust and treat a foreign white person better than his brother of a different ethnicity, but fellow countryman. What you see going on in the continent is the outcome of that type of thinking at the top.
You don't need modern tractors and 1,000 hectare commercial farms run by foreigners (unless you need your pockets lined with euros and greenbacks). There are local ways of producing in mass if these governments would do their job and facilitate it and encourage the locals to do so, i.e. concentrate on infrustructure such as roads and storing facilities.
Posts: 455 | From: Tharsis Montes | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
The rest of you are in la la land if you think private ownership of land by foreign multinationals will EVER result in the benefit of African people. You do realise that this happened just a few hundred years ago. It was called colonisation and apartheid. The Dutch East India company, Cecil Rhodes?? Ring a bell? This is about virtual slave labour and foreign ownership of Africa... hence, Mugabe, enemy of the state no. 1.
Posts: 365 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic