Know some people here mention foreigners in Africa is the solution. This is not the case,for African nations have many prominent professionals but most of Africa's professionals tend to seek employment in more stable countries. Constant brain drain is what underdevelops Africa and there is no need for importation of foreigners into Africa. People who make these comments have never even studied any African country but look at few examples like Southern Africa because its the most poblicized.

Rarely do most mention that countries like Senegal since independence have had democratic elections. Senegal has had little trouble in running a democratic goverment and this was without civil disturbances. Senegal has sucessfully curved most of its AIDS rates,and has the lower incidents of AIDS in all of Africa.

Anyway, I hope some of the people making these claims will read Mr. George Ayittey's books about African solutions to corruption,greed,and development.

http://freeafrica.org/index.html

http://www.american.edu/cas/econ/faculty/ayittey.htm

There's a simple formula for econmic development in Africa: common markets, intracontinental trade with South Africa as the hub and South Africa's currency(backed by gold and industrial power) as the medium of exchange and reserve currency for the continent.

The problem for most people in Africa is lack of access to capital and low wages(by international standards). With a standarised currencey and access to capital(small loans offered by Cooperative banks) the unemployed could put off dreaming about going to Europe to do the menial tasks Europeans don't want to do.

Aside from problem of proxy bourgeois governments (either puppets or favorites of the west)in various African nations and the corruption associated with that, Africa is a net exporter of capital to the wealthier nations, than what flows in. Debts play a big part in this, as well as unfair or skewed trade polices enacted by wealthier nations via the WTO.

Alongside a more widespread 'real' democratization of political power on the continent, short term solution for African countries lies in "true" democratization of institutions like WTO and the UN, relief of debts and the abolition of austerity measures enacted by the IMF and World Bank related to debts.

Most African nations, for instance, are supposed to have open markets, where exports from wealthier nations come in unfettered. Without having to deal with tariff, this allows products from wealthier nations to come in at profitable rates, and still be able to compete with domestic products. On the other end, products from developing nations in Africa are met with tariffs in semi-open (if lucky) markets of wealthier countries, particularly those in the "West". These products are therefore forced to settle with marginal additional exchange, in order to stay competitive.

The WTO may be a corrupted institution, but asking for its destruction or removal means playing into the hands of rich nations, who are actually trying to get rid of it:

quote:

---

In order to achieve access to the markets of other nations, rich countries have to be seen to have opened up their economies, to have reduced or eliminated subsidies and removed the protective measures which could bestow unfair advantages upon their own industries. This is what the rich world’s governments claim to have been doing. Our mistake is to have believed them.

The continuing subsidies – defended by France and Germany last week – for farming in Europe and for farming and steel in the United States are generally seen as anomalous interventions in a market which is otherwise mostly free. But while both Europe and the US have been blatantly picking losers, they have also been quietly picking winners, with devastating consequences for the rest of the world...

In principle, the poor members of the WTO can and should outvote the rich ones. In practice, its democratic structure has been bypassed by the notorious “Green Room” meetings organised by the rich nations, by corporate lobbying and by the secret and unaccountable committees of corporate lawyers it uses to resolve trade disputes. All this must change; but it is now clear to me that to call for its destruction is like calling for the dissolution of a corrupt parliament in favour of the monarchy. It is to choose unilateralism over multilateralism. Our key task is not to overthrow the WTO, but to assist the poor nations to use it to overthrow the power of the rich.

In theory, the rules the WTO enforces are supposed to prevent protectionism by the rich nations, while permitting a degree of protectionism by the poor ones. The principles behind this are sound. Most of the countries which are rich today developed with the help of “infant industry protection”: defending new industries from foreign competition until they are big enough to compete on equal terms. The policy makes sense. Established industries have capital, experience and economies of scale on their side; infant industries in poor nations do not. Developing in direct competition with big business overseas is like learning to swim in a torrent: you will be swept away and drowned long before you acquire the necessary expertise. Rich countries, by contrast, have no need for protectionism. By defending their markets against imports from poor nations, they prevent the transfer of wealth.

In practice, because of the way in which the rich members of the organisation have been able to subvert its processes and bully the poor ones, the WTO does precisely the opposite. The “special and differential treatment” it offers the poor nations is both utterly feeble and routinely blocked by the IMF and the World Bank, which insist that their clients drop all their protections in order to be eligible for loans. The “technology transfer” the WTO has long promised to the poor has never materialised. The rich nations, by contrast, are permitted to protect their farmers, their textiles producers and their steel millers and to grant their companies ever greater rights over other people’s intellectual property.

These measures, of course, are fair only inasmuch as they permit the development of economies and the transfer of wealth between nations…Truly fair trade requires a further set of measures: corporations should not be allowed to trade between nations until they can show that they are meeting the standards set by the International Labour Organisation and the United Nations.

The WTO would therefore become a licensing authority, a bit like the Health and Safety Executive in Britain. Like those participating in voluntary fair trade today, all corporations engaged in international trade would be obliged to employ monitoring companies, whose purpose is to make sure they are respecting the rules, and which would report back to the WTO. Any corporation employing slaves or using lethal machinery,banning unions or tipping toxic waste into rivers would be forbidden from trading internationally. If we were to add to these measures the provision that all companies should pay the full environmental cost of the resources they use, we would possess a complete mechanism for ensuring that only the nice guys survive.

None of this would be possible without a world trade organisation. In helping the poor majority to pursue this agenda, we can transform it from a body which enforces unfairness into one which makes economic justice the principle by which the world is run.- George Monbiot; Universal Fair Trade

---

Many African markets are relatively smaller than those found in wealthier nations. Again, the protectionism by the wealthier nations, while pressuring developing nations to completely open their markets has played a big part in this.

quote:

---

The founding myth of the dominant nations is that they achieved their industrial and technological superiority through free trade. Nations which are poor today are told that if they want to follow our path to riches, they must open their economies to foreign competition. They are being conned.

Almost every rich nation has industrialised with the help of one of two mechanisms now prohibited by the global trade rules:

• The first is “infant industry protection”: defending new industries from foreign competition until they are big enough to compete on equal terms.

• The second is the theft of intellectual property. History suggests that technological development may be impossible without one or both.

[Example 1]

Britain’s industrial revolution was founded upon the textile industry. This was nurtured and promoted by means of ruthless government intervention. As the development economist Ha Joon Chang at the University of Cambridge has documented, from the 14th Century onwards, the British state systematically cut out its competitors, by taxing or banning the import of foreign manufactures and banning the export of the raw materials (wool and unfinished cloth) to countries with competing industries.1 The state extended similar protections to the new manufactures we began to develop in the early 18th Century.

Only when Britain had established technological superiority in almost every aspect of manufacturing did it suddenly discover the virtues of free trade. It was not until the 1850s and 1860s that we opened most of our markets.

[Example 2]

The United States, which now insists that no nation can develop without free trade, defended its markets just as aggressively during its key development phase. The first man systematically to set out the case for infant industry protection was Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the US Treasury. In 1816 the tax on almost all imported manufactures was 35%, rising to 40% in 1820 and, for some goods, 50% in 1832.2 Combined with the cost of transporting goods to the US, this gave domestic manufacturers a formidable advantage within their home market…The US remained the most heavily protected nation on earth until 1913. Throughout this period, it was also the fastest-growing.

[Example 3]

The three nations which have developed most spectacularly over the past 60 years – Japan, Taiwan and South Korea – all did so not through free trade but through land reform, the protection and funding of key industries and the active promotion of exports by the state. All these nations imposed strict controls on foreign companies seeking to establish factories.4 Their governments invested massively in infrastructure, research and education. In South Korea and Taiwan, the state owned all the major commercial banks, which permitted it to make the major decisions about investment.5 In Japan, the Ministry of International Trade and Industry exercised the same control by legal means.6 They used tariffs and a number of clever legal ruses to shut out foreign products which threatened the development of their new industries.7 They granted major subsidies for exports. They did, in other words, everything that the World Trade Organisation, the World Bank and the IMF forbid or discourage today.

[Expections to infant industry protectionism]

There are two striking exceptions to this route to development. Neither Switzerland nor the Netherlands used infant industry protection. Instead, as the economic historian Eric Schiff showed in Industrialisation without National Patents, published in 1971, they simply stole the technologies of other nations.8 During their key development phases (1850-1907 in Switzerland; 1869-1912 in the Netherlands), neither country recognised patents in most economic sectors.

[The problem...]

The nations which are poor today are forbidden by the trade rules from following either route to development. New industries are immediately exposed to full competition with established companies overseas, which have capital, experience, intellectual property rights, established marketing networks and economies of scale on their side. “Technology transfer” is encouraged in theory, but forbidden in practice by an ever fiercer patents regime. Unable to develop competitive enterprises of their own, the poor nations are locked into their position as the suppliers of cheap labour and raw materials to the rich world’s companies. They are, as a result, forbidden from advancing beyond a certain level of development - George Monbiot, New Scientist 31st May 2003.

---

Overhaul of the United Nations via democratization, is also essential to African nations, as would other developing or emerging markets.

quote:

---

The UN Security Council should be scrapped, and its powers vested in a reformulated UN General Assembly. This would be democratised by means of weighted voting: nations’ votes would increase according to both the size of their populations and their positions on a global democracy index. Perhaps most importantly, the people of the world would elect representatives to a global parliament, whose purpose would be to hold the other international bodies to account. - George Monbiot

---

Democratization of political structures in Africa aren't enough, when institutions like the IMF and World Bank are around:

quote:

---

“fractional reserve banking” system which causes it, and which arose as a consequence of corruption and mismanagement in western nations. The system ensures that the only way debts can be discharged is through the issue of more debt…This problem, as poor nations know but dare not acknowledge, is compounded by the policing system developed by the rich world in 1944...

World Bank and International Monetary Fund were introduced as a means of persuading only the debtor nations to act, in the certain knowledge that this couldn’t possibly work. This system granted the rich world complete economic control over the poor world. The power nations swing within the IMF is a function of their gross domestic product: the richer they are, the more votes they can cast. The World Bank is run entirely by “donor” states. These two bodies, in other words, respond only to the nations in which they do not operate.

The consequences for national democracy are devastating. African voters can demand a change of government, but they cannot demand a change of policy. All the important decisions affecting the continent are made in Washington, and they always boil down to the neoliberal demolition of the state’s capacity to care for its people. So when the African leaders announce that “Africa undertakes to respect the global standards of democracy”, they are accepting a burden they cannot lift.

Democracy in Africa is meaningless until its leaders are prepared to challenge the external control of their economies.

---

The abolition of austerity measures enforced by these institutions is essential, if African nations have to move on:

quote:

---

...Poor nations, for example, now owe so much that they own, in effect, the world’s financial systems. The threat of a sudden collective default on their debts unless they get what they want would concentrate the minds of even the most obdurate global powers. - George Monbiot

---

Those who have the tendency to uphold the view that not much is being done to address problems faced by various African nations, are again those who hardly know Africans and aren't willing to look at a bigger picture. For instance, African governments have adopted what is called the "Contraction and Covergence" plan devised by Aubrey Meyer for addressing climate change.

This plan is one, in which the acceptable amount of annual carbon dioxide production worldwide is determined, and then divided between populations around the world. On the basis of population size, each nation is given a quota for gas production.

This is to facilitate a steady contraction of climate affecting gasses, to be converged with national gas production per head of population. Those who go over their quota, would have to purchase unused quota from another nation.

quote:

---

Meyer points out that by accelerating convergence we would grant the poor world a massive trade advantage. Those nations using the least fossil fuel would possess a near-monopoly over the trade in emissions. This would help redress the economic balance between rich and poor and compensate the poor for the damage inflicted by the rich nations’ pollution. - G. Monbiot

---

Then there is the issue of outmoded political boundaries drawn by the colonialists. These boundaries don't serve Africans, but were and are in the interest of the colonialists who drew them up. The African Union has seeked to adress this in a way, by working towards the free movement of Africans across the continent.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Super car...that is what happens on this planet when you are poor and weak, you get exploited by those that are rich and strong....hello, earth to super car.....is anyone home?
why do you think American food companies are using near slave labor in central america to pick their fruit...because they can!!!!!
Lets all wake up here and look at reality, the way the world, always has been and always will be.
Smarter people who work harder get all the wealth and power.

---

all african states are not poor or weak,it is just that you have nations in the west that are more stronger on average interms of wealth,and got ahead start last cent,so it takes time to crack that open.east asia and parts of europe and latin america complains about the same thing but nobody calls them weak and poor,so stop it,the strong could complain too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Super car...that is what happens on this planet when you are poor and weak, you get exploited by those that are rich and strong....hello, earth to super car.....is anyone home?
why do you think American food companies are using near slave labor in central america to pick their fruit...because they can!!!!!
Lets all wake up here and look at reality, the way the world, always has been and always will be.
Smarter people who work harder get all the wealth and power.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABAZA:
This is the latest news about International efforts to help find solutions for Africa. This commission for Africa was initiated by Tony Blair of the UK. It would have been better, if the intiative had come from the Africans themselves.

=============================================

[b]Commission for Africa Report Launched

United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (Addis Ababa)

PRESS RELEASE
March 11, 2005
Posted to the web March 11, 2005

Addis Ababa

The Commission for Africa (CFA), brainchild of British premier Tony Blair, launched its long-awaited report [pdf] on 11 March, urging increased aid to the continent, but stressing the need for African governments to do their bit too.

The report, which was launched simultaneously in London and Addis Ababa, is an attempt to come out with sustainable and far-reaching solutions to tackle Africa's grinding poverty and governance issues, and put the continent back on the road to recovery.

The launch ceremony at Africa Hall in the Ethiopian capital heard keynote speeches from commissioners, Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi and the ECA's Executive Secretary K.Y Amoako.

Meles underlined the inter-dependence of the world today, noting there was now a "far better understanding of what works for development and what is clearly a dead end". He repeatedly stressed the "quintessential African spirit" of the report.

For his part, Amoako said the report acknowledged that Africa was responsible for its own destiny, but no previous report had gone as far as this one to note that the developed world also bore responsibility for the obstacles besetting the continent.

"This report is not about blame," he said. "But acknowledging the past is vitally important."

The launch ceremony concluded with six children reading out the Commission's Declaration in their languages before being presented with medals by Prime Minister Meles.

In closing remarks, the head of the Commission's secretariat Myles Wickstead pointed out that now the report had been launched, the next steps would be very important.

At a press conference following the ceremony, both commissioners noted the importance of 2005 for Africa. Meles stated that if the G8 endorses the report at its summit in Britain later this year, this would create an enabling environment for implementing the recommendations. He believed there had been a dramatic change in the approach of some countries towards Africa.

Speaking earlier at a pre-launch briefing, Wickstead also underscored that this was a critical year for Africa. "There is no Plan B," he warned.

Make allAfrica.com your home page

[This message has been edited by ABAZA (edited 12 March 2005).][/B]

---

wrong again,most of the leaders are african leaders who are leading this,but just without side help,like with asia and europe,but folks do not like to pay attention to the serious growth of many african states today,so many reforms are happening but there is still away to go but it would not mean as much if certain nations keep there markets closed that is why africa needs to trade more so within itself and invested like before in the past and that is slowly happening today,but serious growth and progress as awhole is still happening.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Super Car...its not neo nazi and it has nothing to do with destroying the planet. Its the way the world works as opposed to the utopian, moralist crap spouted here on a regular basis.

---

Perhaps if we had humans with your mode of thinking back in the stone age, we would probably have never gotten through the stone age. The thinking would have gone this way:

"Man, we've always hunted with stone, and ate meat raw, while our wives handled business at home. Why the hell should we change that?"

A panel chaired by British Prime Minister Tony Blair called for the international community to spend an extra 25 billion dollars (19 billion euros) a year for the next three to five years to finance urgent reforms in Africa.

In a far-reaching report coinciding with Britain's chairmanship of the G8 group of leading industrial countries, the multinational Commission for Africa labelled widespread poverty and economic stagnation on the continent "the greatest tragedy of our time".

"Africa requires a comprehensive 'big push' on many fronts at once," it said, listing corruption, security issues, education, AIDS and health measures and fair trade as major priorities.

The blue-ribbon Commission for Africa, launched by Blair in February 2004, placed responsibility for change on the shoulders of both Africans and foreign powers.

Africa had a duty to accelerate reform and make its governments accountable to their people, but "the developed world had a moral duty -- as well as powerful motive of self-interest -- to assist Africa," it said.

Blair was to present the commission's first report in London on Friday alongside fellow commissioners including South African Finance Minister Trevor Manuel and Irish pop star-turned debt relief campaigner Bob Geldof.

There was "no excuse, no defence, no justification for the plight of millions of our fellow beings in Africa today", Blair was due to say at the launch of the report, according to extracts of his speech released in advance.

"We cannot allow this to continue. It is, I believe, the biggest moral challenge of our generation. A challenge for all of us -- for the governments of Africa and the countries of the developed world."

Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, another commissioner, was to host a concurrent launch in Addis Ababa, while a third event was to be attended in New York by William Kalema, chairman of the Uganda Investment Authority, and British government minister Baroness Valerie Amos, representing Blair.

Blair and his finance minister Gordon Brown, also expected at the London launch, have put Africa at the top of international agenda this year, during Britain's presidency not only of the G8 but also of the European Union.

An advance copy of the commission's executive summary received by AFP made concrete recommendations for action by donor states.

It called for 100-percent debt relief for poor sub-Saharan countries, an extra 25 billion dollars annually for Africa until 2010-12 and then, following a review, an extra 50 billion dollars per year.

Each year 10 billion dollars should go to infrastructure -- roads and buildings, but also communication technology -- another 10 billion to health services, and eight billion to education reform.

It also cautioned donors against attaching too many strings to their money, saying aid should come as cash grants and without "policy conditionality".

Aid "must be given in ways that make governments answerable primarily to their own people," it said.

Wealthy countries must also agree to eliminate agricultural subsidies that protect farmers but distort international trade and harm Africa, it argued.

Finally, Africans had to have a greater say on the global scene, at financial institutions like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, but also at the United Nations.

The commission called for "greater African representation" on the UN Security Council but stopped short of calling for a permanent seat.

African states were given a slate of actions to undertake, including getting rid of all school fees for primary education, earmarking 15 percent of national budgets to health, and doubling the area of arable land under irrigation in a decade's time.

But the commission conceded that many of its recommendations dealt with less concrete "changes to behavior", notably to root out corruption, protect the rights of women and promote mutual accountability among African states.

There needs to be follow up on all spending and construction activites, so that the level of cheating and corruption is kept in check and hopefully eliminated.

Native Africans, need to accept the truth about the reality of their living conditions and then with massive outside help, they could begin to turn things around.

They could stand to learn from the recent history of Japan and Western Europe after WWII and how these nations were able to rebuild their infrastructrues and economies and eventually emerge to become first class nations.

Africans, of course, can not compare themselves to many of these nations, because their problems are much deeper and their societes are quite different, in the sense that they're mostly agrarian and much less developed than many of these nations were before the war.

The best example, might be for them to follow other African nations, that have actually been transformed from backward nations into world class societies and in that case, we would have no choice, but to look at South Africa and its progression.

Even though, Apartheid, was very destructive and dehumanizing for the majority of Black South Africans, the Whites have to be given a lot of credit for actually building the country and its economy and infrastructures.
They built roads, schools, hospitals, market driven economy, and many other things. They were brutal, no question about that. but the good that they did for the country cannot be discounted at all.

failure to appreciate all the people who helped Africans in the past, is necessary because in this world, nations always need help and especially African Nations.

Africa has a lot of potential and is vastly rich in raw natural resources, but what it lacks is the experience and the know-how that is needed to develope all these resources and then extract benefits from them.

A good example, is the Oil Producing Arab countries, such as Saudi Arabia and others, who needed a lot of help to extract, develope, and sell their oil. If Western nations did not step in and help, many of these nations, would have not been able to actually use their resources and extract value from them, in order to build their economies.

A good example, is someone is hard of hearing, but refuses to get a hearing aid, because he is ashamed of the stigma of being seen wearing one. I call such a person, a total fool, because he knows that he has a problem hearing sounds, but would rather suffer in silence, instead of going out to see a doctor and get fitted with a device that will change his life for the better.

Many Africans seem to me, to exhibit such futile arrogance and refuse to ask for help, when it is badly needed.

Forget about the past. Forget about colonization, because all that matters is the present and the future ahead of us. People need to look at themselves in the mirror and say out loud, "We As Africans, Screwed Up and Need Lots of Help". This is the most logical course of action, rather than Band-Aid solutions that only serve to cover up the problems or even make them worse in the long run.

AFRICA IS LIKE A DIAMOND IN THE ROUGH, THAT NEEDS TO BE POLISHED, SHINED, AND ENJOYED BY THE PEOPLE OF AFRICA, NOT JUST THE AFRICAN DICTATORS AND THEIR FAMILIES!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABAZA:

What Africans need is outside help and also internal cooperation. There is no point in talking and empty rhetoric, Action is what is needed and also a strong commitment for African Governments need to be held accountable to their people and the International community for how foreign aid is used.

---

Could this be the fruitful outside help that is claimed to have been reaching African shores since colonial "independence"?

What Africa needs is a fair world trade system, and "complete" democratization of political institutions both multinational and national, NOT the old tired "outside" help that colonialists have since used as an excuse to further exploit emerging and developing nations. Only reactionaries continue to spew out such blatantly discredited rhetoric, which have outlived their usefulness since independence from colonial occupation. Many African countries may have achieved independence from colonial occupation, but not the economic one. Unfounded debts have been used as a power tool to keep developing nations bondage, when in reality the debtor and the creditor should be reversed the other way around.

Africa: A Continent Self-Destructs

Peter Schwab

Reviews

“For anyone interested in the reality of Africa, this is the book to read.”—Amos Sawyer, President of Liberia, 1990-1994

“Offers brief, invaluable descriptions of several countries’ circumstances...readers will gain much from this astute analysis.”—Publishers Weekly

Book Description

Can Africa survive? Many of the nations of sub-Saharan African have all but ceased to exist as organized states: tyranny, diseases such as AIDS, civil war and ethnic conflict--and border invasions threaten the complete disintegration of a region. Peter Schwab offers a clear, authoritative portrait of a continent on the brink. Globalization and an accompanying level of economic health have passed over Africa. Added to these factors is a patronizing attitude from the West that change in Africa must take place within Western parameters, a UN that lacks any real power, and a US foreign policy in Africa that is unclear. Looking to South Africa as an example of successful Western support of an African nation, Schwab suggests that the US should use its leverage to help democrats into positions of power and then work with them under a framework dictated by the leaders themselves. It is only with a distinctly African approach to African problems that the survival of the continent can be assured.

Table of Contents

The Slave Trade, Colonialism, and the Cold War * Civil Wars, Wars, and Political Collapse * Whither Human Rights? * African Poverty and the AIDS Crisis * Globalization and Africa * Will Africa Survive?

Author Biography

Peter Schwab, an authority on human rights, has published extensively on the politics of Africa. He is Professor of Political Science at Purchase College, SUNY.

Amazon.com Customer Reviews

To better understand Africa (Rating: 5 out of 5)
The current condition of Africa is in pretty bad shape, lagging behind other parts of the thirds world. How did Africa reach this condition since it is where civilization began? Peter Scwab tries to to figure out what's wrong with Africa. He first visited Africa as a peace core volunteer in the early 1960s and has returned to the continent after that. He goes through time looking at the problems the contient has had. He starts by looking at the slave trade and how it perpetuated war among the various different ethnic groups so they could aquire slaves to sell to slave traders. Often, guns were brought in as payment only further increasing the warfare. Then colonialism came to basically economcially exploit the continent and creating an infrastructure that was better suited for the mother country then the colony. As a result of colonial lines, waring ethnic and religious groups were put toghether. Intentional or not, these divisions still cause problems to the present day. The Cold War came in bringing new military aid further increasing warfare. Compound Africa's problems with numourous civil wars, brutal dictators and constant warfare amoung nations only makes the continent worse off. AIDS is a crises in sub-Sahara Africa will large numbers of people becoming infected with no signs of it stopping which places a large number of people at risk for early deaths. Compound this with the countries inability to pay for AIDS medications the legal barriers they have had to obtain these drugs through generic prescripation manufactorors. The growing level of globilization is leaving Africa behind more so than other parts of the third world. Africa faces problems with instable government and transportation problems. Other problems that Schwab deals with are famine, disease, problems with rainfall.
Provides a good account of African problems past and present.

telling it like it is (Rating: 4 out of 5)
Like many Americans, I scan the news of the third world more than I read it. So I opened this book in part to see if the sweeping generalizations about sub-Saharan Africa I'd come to believe, more through osmosis than analysis, were true or needed revision. The conclusion, unfortunately, is that it's even worse than I thought. Corruption, disease, political instability, economic chaos, genocide are all part-and-parcel of Africa four decades after independence (give or take a few years, country to country). Schwab catalogues the horrors, citing statistics, anecdotal evidence, his own visits to the continent, and colors his reporting with excerpts from African novelists (going a little bit overboard with those references, actually).
He's careful to introduce the book with a review of the hand Africa was dealt: slavery; colonialism; and the treatment of African countries as pawns on the capitalist vs. communist chessboard of the cold war. However, the author's implicit argument is that this should not have led inevitably to the current situation. The title after all says self-destructs. Schwab's criticism is largely of greedy and brutal African dictators that have pillaged their own countries. While he hardly lets the industrialized world off the hook, and is especially critical of U.S. foreign-policy neglect of sub-Saharan states (South Africa excepted), he lays much of the blame clearly at the feet of African despots.

While not discounting the enormity of the problems, he does lay out some actions the U.S. can take to reduce the misery and privation. Debt relief and support for the few honest and forthright heads of state who are in place or rise to positions of leadership are prime recommendations.

...

This is an important book, a Western book and a personal book. Important, because it should be read by many in Washington. The cynic in me doubts that it will be -- Africa's off the radar screen right now, and I shudder to think what might put it back on. Western, because an argument can be made for a more Zen or "Star Trek" approach to societies less technologically developed: leave them alone to work it out on their own. Our own predispositions, today's political threats and the humanitarian instincts of many in the West probably preclude that happening now. Personal, because toward the end, Schwab eloquently describes the spirit of hope, idealism and opportunity that Peace Corps volunteers, businessmen, and academics carried with them on their visits to Africa immediately following independence. It's hard not to wonder, in a moment of armchair psychology, about the emotional effect Africa's current morass must have on someone like Schwab who was in the vanguard during that hopeful time of the 1960s.

Some choose to bury their heads in the sand... (Rating: 5 out of 5)
Where present day Africa is concerned, it is easier to ignore what is unpleasant or to minimize it and to discredit those who present an accurate view of it. Dr. Schwab presents a well-organized body of information about recent history and political and social conditions in a country-by-country analysis with specifics that one would have to search for in a variety of sources, all in a concise and easy-to-navigate book. Clearly, one of his main concerns is the denial of both individuals and nations that the conditions in many African countries are relevant to us. His account of historical events is laced with relevant and appropriate quotes from notable African authors. This serves, not as a distraction to the astute reader, but rather as a reminder that these are human beings being affected by these events and not just statistics. Dr. Schwab's suggestions as to what the role of the superpowers should be and how the self-destruction of the nations he discusses could be averted, is, I believe, realistic and is based on the author's many years of scholarly work and direct experience which have provided him with extraordinary insight in this area.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABAZA:
Here is a few more details about this report about solutions for Africa:
=============================================

[b]British-sponsored commission urges double aid to Africa
(Agencies)
Updated: 2005-03-11 14:42

A panel chaired by British Prime Minister Tony Blair called for the international community to spend an extra 25 billion dollars (19 billion euros) a year for the next three to five years to finance urgent reforms in Africa.

In a far-reaching report coinciding with Britain's chairmanship of the G8 group of leading industrial countries, the multinational Commission for Africa labelled widespread poverty and economic stagnation on the continent "the greatest tragedy of our time".

"Africa requires a comprehensive 'big push' on many fronts at once," it said, listing corruption, security issues, education, AIDS and health measures and fair trade as major priorities.

The blue-ribbon Commission for Africa, launched by Blair in February 2004, placed responsibility for change on the shoulders of both Africans and foreign powers.

Africa had a duty to accelerate reform and make its governments accountable to their people, but "the developed world had a moral duty -- as well as powerful motive of self-interest -- to assist Africa," it said.

Blair was to present the commission's first report in London on Friday alongside fellow commissioners including South African Finance Minister Trevor Manuel and Irish pop star-turned debt relief campaigner Bob Geldof.

There was "no excuse, no defence, no justification for the plight of millions of our fellow beings in Africa today", Blair was due to say at the launch of the report, according to extracts of his speech released in advance.

"We cannot allow this to continue. It is, I believe, the biggest moral challenge of our generation. A challenge for all of us -- for the governments of Africa and the countries of the developed world."

Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, another commissioner, was to host a concurrent launch in Addis Ababa, while a third event was to be attended in New York by William Kalema, chairman of the Uganda Investment Authority, and British government minister Baroness Valerie Amos, representing Blair.

Blair and his finance minister Gordon Brown, also expected at the London launch, have put Africa at the top of international agenda this year, during Britain's presidency not only of the G8 but also of the European Union.

An advance copy of the commission's executive summary received by AFP made concrete recommendations for action by donor states.

It called for 100-percent debt relief for poor sub-Saharan countries, an extra 25 billion dollars annually for Africa until 2010-12 and then, following a review, an extra 50 billion dollars per year.

Each year 10 billion dollars should go to infrastructure -- roads and buildings, but also communication technology -- another 10 billion to health services, and eight billion to education reform.

It also cautioned donors against attaching too many strings to their money, saying aid should come as cash grants and without "policy conditionality".

Aid "must be given in ways that make governments answerable primarily to their own people," it said.

Wealthy countries must also agree to eliminate agricultural subsidies that protect farmers but distort international trade and harm Africa, it argued.

Finally, Africans had to have a greater say on the global scene, at financial institutions like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, but also at the United Nations.

The commission called for "greater African representation" on the UN Security Council but stopped short of calling for a permanent seat.

African states were given a slate of actions to undertake, including getting rid of all school fees for primary education, earmarking 15 percent of national budgets to health, and doubling the area of arable land under irrigation in a decade's time.

But the commission conceded that many of its recommendations dealt with less concrete "changes to behavior", notably to root out corruption, protect the rights of women and promote mutual accountability among African states.

[/B]

---

IF YOU EVER LISTEN TO THE BBC the british are known to exaggerate many times,they even called libya a poor state.i even heard one report calling south korea a third world state,so at times they do not realized progress themselves.they sometimes would report the success stories but they ruined it by always finding the bad and blow it up.just because they report more on africa than america in the news it does not make them always correct,they are still western and have they biases.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kenndo:

IF YOU EVER LISTEN TO THE BBC the british are known to exaggerate many times,they even called libya a poor state.i even heard one report calling south korea a third world state,so at times they do not realized progress themselves.they sometimes would report the success stories but they ruined it by always finding the bad and blow it up.just because they report more on africa than america in the news it does not make them always correct,they are still western and have they biases.

which is it? i heard on the bbc that africa as whole had serious growth in the past few years from the 90's and now,so now they are talking about it's going down,but the other night they said most are growing,it seems they can't makeup thier minds,most african states from the cia factbook and other sources states that growth on average is 3 to 6% or higher.
nigeria in 2003-3.5%
angola-9%
botswana-9%
chad-9%
equatorial guinea-22%
ethiopa-7%
sudan around 5%
ghana-3 to 4%
senegal-5%
south africa-3.5% or higher
mozambique-9% or higher
zaire-5%
cameroon-5%rwanda 5%
uganda for most of the 90's 10 to 11% now -4 or 5%
most african states had these types of growth,for most of the 90's to 2003,we do not know what 2004 was like yet until later in this year.
tony blair and some folks to not tell the truth many times and they like to say things for some folks to hear.so growth is happening not stagnation,stagnation happen in the 80's, not now ,so it takes time for that wealth to spread since it is only recently that more real freedom as come to most of africa since the 1990's.

---

the black south africans are the ones who really build south africa.it was there labor that industrailized that nation in the early years,and other nations are talking south africa advice and many are progressing,south africa is increasing investment to many african states and i am talking mostly the black south africans.so you see when blacks to pull themselves up from there boot scraps certain folks like to deny it,so you can't win with racist,there minds are made up and they do not listen to facts.since freedom came to south africa repairs and new building is taking place and you could find africans in all levels of south africa,from the sciences to technology and making their mark but you really not going to hear about new invention and things like that from reading western bias news,and other parts of africa as well.

Playing games with words (semantics} is useless at this point and this is precisely what has happened in the past and now we have the fruits of this futile effort to show for it.

Africa, has the people (work force), the resources (raw materials), but it lacks the strategic plan for improvement.

If you want to leave the solution to the African Dictators, you're just missing the whole point of this candid discussion. The fact is, Africans are fed up with these corrupt rulers and need better and more honest leaders, who really care about the common people and not just their families and friends.

We should all commend the British and especially P.M. Tony Blair for his courage and foresight to lead this International Effort for Africa.

If you leave everything for the Native Africans, which some people suggest, will not help and will probably make things worse in the long run.

IT IS TIME TO STOP POINTING FINGERS AND START LOOKING AT REALISTIC SOLUTIONS THAT CAN WORK FOR AFRICA AND ITS PEOPLE. EMPTY RHETORIC WILL NOT WORK ANY LONGER!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
Instead of living in the daydream world of reactionaries, how about "carefully" reading what I posted much earlier on in the thread. You are obviously out of touch with reality.

[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 13 March 2005).]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABAZA:
What I'm presenting is the Actual Truth, which is Reality as it unfolds at this very minute. The past is over and no matter how much you want to examine it, it will not help Africans pull themselves out of this situation. What is needed is basically two things, first the admission of how bad things really are in Africa and then accepting realistic solutions that would improve these same conditions.

Playing games with words (semantics} is useless at this point and this is precisely what has happened in the past and now we have the fruits of this futile effort to show for it.

Africa, has the people (work force), the resources (raw materials), but it lacks the strategic plan for improvement.

If you want to leave the solution to the African Dictators, you're just missing the whole point of this candid discussion. The fact is, Africans are fed up with these corrupt rulers and need better and more honest leaders, who really care about the common people and not just their families and friends.

We should all commend the British and especially P.M. Tony Blair for his courage and foresight to lead this International Effort for Africa.

If you leave everything for the Native Africans, which some people suggest, will not help and will probably make things worse in the long run.

[b] IT IS TIME TO STOP POINTING FINGERS AND START LOOKING AT REALISTIC SOLUTIONS THAT CAN WORK FOR AFRICA AND ITS PEOPLE. EMPTY RHETORIC WILL NOT WORK ANY LONGER!!
[/B]

---

are you dumb or what?i just said in many of my post africa is making overall progress as awhole and most or alot of the leaders are elected unlike most arab states.corruption needs to be a issue like most of the world,but ways of reducing it is slowly happening but there are ways to go.if this is done than africa will be on a better track,because the wealth a growth like i said for the million times is there,it just needs more spreading out,and in some states progress is happening quicker than others overall.it has only been less than 20 years for many of them to get thier act together,there are problems but i focus on the things that do work more often than the half truths,some truths and just outright lies.focusing on everything blacks do wrong is just another slick racist way of attacking blacks regardless if they are on the right track or not.blacks could do everything right and folks like you will still say they are doing most things wrong,so you already have your minds made up.let me say this again,africa is still making progress,depite some problems,but overall things are looking up to me,and some of those problems are slowly being corrected and others will take time.

I do not look for blacks or africa to fail like you do,so you COULD have something to talk about at black folks expense.YOU YOU DO NOT have at least somthing good to say most of the times do not say anything at all,because you are part of the problem.
african leaders are leader this new idea along with britian,but caution is in order,and i would prefer it that way and many of the leaders are doing it with out outside help,that is the real deal in the end.

by Michael King

A New Visions Commentary paper published April 2004 by The National Center for Public Policy Research. Reprints permitted provided source is credited.

I recently talked with some old classmates about the crises facing Africa. Contrary to popular belief, the crisis isn't insurmountable once the real problems are identified.

Africa's problems are legion. But the perception of Africa's problems is, in and of itself, problematic from the start. Once the root problems are identified, the African continent should begin to see a renaissance that would be welcomed across the globe.

I'm not convinced, however, that there's an easy way to fix the overall situation because no one can currently come up with a solid list of the root problems. Everyone points to things like starvation, disease and poverty, but many ignore equally pressing - or even more important - problems like slavery, racial strife and socialism.

First, there's the political fragmentation and a lack of authoritative government. It's like feudalism. The feudal period of world history was marked by tribal wars and skirmishes that consumed many and left deeply ingrained distrust and bolstered old ways of thought. Fueled by tribalism, feudalism must be addressed for Africa to progress.
No power has yet consolidated authority in Africa into singular governmental and economic entities as had happened elsewhere in the world. This must change.

Next, there's despotism. It, too, is not solely faced by Africans. Zealots, dictators and would-be tyrannical warlords rule many African nation-states - hiding behind their race and their country's perceived oppression as former European colonies.

Thugs like the late Idi Amin in Uganda - who was deposed - and Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe - who is still backed by gangs (tribes in and of themselves) - rose over the past 50 years to impose their tyrannical rule. The West has ignored them. In part, warlords have been overlooked by those who feel criticism of such regimes is akin to racism. Also, the nature of these thugo-cracies is not perceived to be a threat to the West, and therefore ignored. This may be a costly flaw in judgment.

With the influx of Islamist militants into Africa, we can ill-afford to ignore them much longer. Despots and tyrants have gladly given aid and comfort to terrorist groups like al Queda and other enemy elements of the new world war on terror. Who's to know how far they will forge these alliances for their own personal benefit.

Xenophobia is another problem. The so-called elite of Africa believes the West is "tainted" by Anglos. They believe this alone keeps them from moving Africa forward - ignoring the problems already mentioned.

*****This is the key point, that many Idiots seem not to understand!!*****

By keeping an "out of sight, out of mind" attitude toward the problems facing the African continent, we are essentially poking at a hornet's nest.

We must address despots and their acquiescence to radical Islam far more aggressively, lest the terrorists gain a foothold that will be hard to pry loose.

Feudalism, tribalism and xenophobia simply need a change of thinking.

This makes hunger, AIDS and poverty are essentially "band-aid" issues. Western charities are helping, but they must teach self-sufficiency. Biotechnology is helping to ease starvation through innovations in planting and longevity. Homegrown ideas like Uganda's abstinence policy are successfully reducing AIDS.

Africa's root problems must be addressed. The West, as hated as it may be by some on the continent, can help bring about positive change directly and quickly. Africa must accept this helping hand, and even our discussions here should further the case for bringing about this positive change.

(Michael King is a member of the National Advisory Council of the African-American leadership network Project 21 and a freelance writer and Internet consultant in Atlanta, Georgria. Comments may be sent to mhking@bellsouth.net.)

xen·o·pho·bi·a (zn-fb-, zn-)
n.

Fear and contempt of strangers or foreign peoples.

Source: The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Main Entry: xe·no·pho·bia
Pronunciation: "zen-&-'fO-bE-&, "zEn-
Function: noun
: fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign

xenophobia

n : an irrational fear of foreigners or strangers

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University