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.
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.
So then its pretty much pointless to do anything accept talk about it I guess.
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
^ and dont even think about asking "Doug M" about a solution! lol
Posted by Avee (Member # 16937) on :
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.
Posted by homeylu (Member # 4430) on :
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.
Posted by Recovering Afro-holic (Member # 17311) on :
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.
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
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. ........
China is not investing in building Canadian infrastructure, porch monkey.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
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? Posted by homeylu (Member # 4430) on :
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.
Posted by Avee (Member # 16937) on :
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?
Posted by Avee (Member # 16937) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
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.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
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.
Posted by homeylu (Member # 4430) on :
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.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
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.
Posted by Avee (Member # 16937) on :
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.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
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.
Posted by Avee (Member # 16937) on :
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.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Avee:
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.
Posted by Novel (Member # 14348) on :
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.
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
If people haven't yet guessed who this "Doug M" is by now, they never will. Posted by homeylu (Member # 4430) on :
quote:Originally posted by Avee:
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.
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
People, "Doug M" is a white guy. Come on, you must see this by now.
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
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.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by homeylu:
quote:Originally posted by Avee:
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.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
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.
Posted by Avee (Member # 16937) on :
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 by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
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 by homeylu (Member # 4430) on :
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.
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
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.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by homeylu:
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.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Avee:
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.
Posted by Jari-Ankhamun (Member # 14451) on :
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.
Posted by Avee (Member # 16937) on :
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.
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
Jari, "Africans in disporia." Posted by homeylu (Member # 4430) on :
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.
Posted by homeylu (Member # 4430) on :
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.
Posted by homeylu (Member # 4430) on :
quote:Originally posted by Avee:
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.
Posted by Jari-Ankhamun (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by homeylu:
quote:Originally posted by Avee:
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.
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
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.
Posted by Jari-Ankhamun (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by homeylu:
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..
Posted by Jari-Ankhamun (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
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?
Posted by homeylu (Member # 4430) on :
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.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by homeylu:
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.
Posted by The Gaul (Member # 16198) on :
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.
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
Doug M is spot on.
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.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by homeylu:
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.
Funny you should mention cell phones and electronics and then trade. The last I checked Africa was one of the primary sources of coltan used in the manufacturing of those cell phones and electronics. But Africans do not control the extraction, processing or distribution of coltan in Africa and most of those who participate in mining coltan are doing so as peasant laborers who are often forced to do so at gun point by "hired guns" bought and paid for by foreign "investors".
I would love the Africans to be able to engage in "free" and "fair" trade, by which they could trade their coltan in return for electronics and other goods. But the reality is that this is not what is happening. Foreign backed thugs and other African governments are stealing the coltan, putting it on planes and the Africans get nothing, but war, disease, rape and murder. So what trade are you talking about and where are these foreign investors who are doing so much "good" in Africa as a result of "investing" in coltan? They don't exist.
What are the Africans going to trade if the foreigners own all the land, mines and industry? Trade what? Air? You can't trade if you don't have anything to trade, which means ownership and control of land, resources and industry. Being a laborer is not engaging in trade, that is the only thing that you can negotiate if you don't own or control anything.
Simply put, you deal in abstract theoretical nonsense that has nothing to do with reality. You try and pretend that foreigners are all goodness and light and Africa trying to keep out that light, when in reality it is the foreigners who brought the darkness in the first place.
More and more some people on this board are becoming to sound like mouthpieces for the "white" establishment even as they try and pretend to be pro-black. Either that or they are simply brainwashed. Do blacks control the economics in America? No. Do blacks control any economics in South America? No. Who controls it and why? There is no place on this planet where blacks own or control any substantial aspect of economic activity, even though blacks are a major portion of the world's population. Yet some people here want to pretend this is all simply a "misunderstanding" of economics principles. A "misunderstanding" because it does not paint the white racists as the cause of the disparity and suffering among blacks or the fact that blacks do not control any sort of economic activity and then tries to paint these same whites as somehow the saviors of blacks economically. What absurd logic is that?
And the sure sign of these white liberal economic liberal sympathizers is that they get highly upset when you call the economic system built by whites "racist" or whites "racist" for the dirt they have done or when you present facts showing that they are not interested in developing Africa for Africans. The last 100 years of history makes that clear, yet these sympathizers will hear none of it and love to push this notion that Africa is "resisting" the benefits of economic development that foreigners are trying to bring to Africa. The only thing that Africans have been resisting is foreign domination of their land and resources, but according to some on this board that is "evil", which again is a sure sign of a sympathizer for white neoliberal policies.
Posted by homeylu (Member # 4430) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
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.
I think I addressed your posts already, this entire post is just a REPETITION of what you've previously posted. Trying to drive a point into the ground is not a convincing way of arguing, IMO.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by homeylu:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
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.
I think I addressed your posts already, this entire post is just a REPETITION of what you've previously posted. Trying to drive a point into the ground is not a convincing way of arguing, IMO.
No you haven't. You haven't addressed a word I have said. In fact you are simply being childish. Why? Because you ignore facts in order to try and force people to believe in something that does not exist. It is tantamount to claiming the foreigners do not have a 2000 year history of raping Africa. That foreigners have not desired to own and control all African land and resources under the guise of "global trade" or that these things have ever benefited Africans. On top of that you pretend that the modern economic system is somehow different from the racist colonial system that built it. In other words you want to pretend that Africans are equals with everyone else in the world of trade and commerce when they aren't. And they aren't because of the facts of the history of the development of that economic system and the racism at the core of it. No amount of denial will change that fact.
Posted by homeylu (Member # 4430) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Funny you should mention cell phones and electronics and then trade. The last I checked Africa was one of the primary sources of coltan used in the manufacturing of those cell phones and electronics. But Africans do not control the extraction, processing or distribution of coltan in Africa and most of those who participate in mining coltan are doing so as peasant laborers who are often forced to do so at gun point by "hired guns" bought and paid for by foreign "investors".
This is the fault of their CORRUPT leaders, not the foreign investors who are in the business of making profits, not appealing to the masses.
quote:I would love the Africans to be able to engage in "free" and "fair" trade, by which they could trade their coltan in return for electronics and other goods. But the reality is that this is not what is happening. Foreign backed thugs and other African governments are stealing the coltan, putting it on planes and the Africans get nothing, but war, disease, rape and murder. So what trade are you talking about and where are these foreign investors who are doing so much "good" in Africa as a result of "investing" in coltan? They don't exist.
Again problem with corrupt leadership, not investment in general. Raw material is imported from various countries, why do we only see the above listed situation in Africa, could it be...leadership??????
quote:What are the Africans going to trade if the foreigners own all the land, mines and industry? Trade what? Air? You can't trade if you don't have anything to trade, which means ownership and control of land, resources and industry.
This is what I mean by 'strawmen' arguments. Who in the hell stated that ALL THE LAND should be owned by foreigners? That would be like saying, they should be RE-COLONIZED.
quote: Simply put, you deal in abstract theoretical nonsense that has nothing to do with reality. You try and pretend that foreigners are all goodness and light and Africa trying to keep out that light, when in reality it is the foreigners who brought the darkness in the first place.
I deal with practicality in the global society in which we exist, not an idealistic society that existed several hundred years ago.
quote:More and more some people on this board are becoming to sound like mouthpieces for the "white" establishment even as they try and pretend to be pro-black. Either that or they are simply brainwashed. Do blacks control the economics in America? No. Do blacks control any economics in South America? No. Who controls it and why? There is no place on this planet where blacks own or control any substantial aspect of economic activity, even though blacks are a major portion of the world's population. Yet some people here want to pretend this is all simply a "misunderstanding" of economics principles. A "misunderstanding" because it does not paint the white racists as the cause of the disparity and suffering among blacks or the fact that blacks do not control any sort of economic activity and then tries to paint these same whites as somehow the saviors of blacks economically. What absurd logic is that?
This entire paragraph is based on sheer sensationalism. Please point out where any poster in support of Foreign Investment excludes BLACK people from this equation. Otherwise you're arguing for the sake of argument.
quote:And the sure sign of these white liberal economic liberal sympathizers is that they get highly upset when you call the economic system built by whites "racist" or whites "racist" for the dirt they have done or when you present facts showing that they are not interested in developing Africa for Africans.
Africans must do this for themselves. They must install leaders that look out for their interest. Again, investors are in the business of making money. Being an investor myself, if I find an opportunity to purchase cheap land, then I will sure as hell take an advantage of it. If the person selling it hasn't figured out away for this sell to benefit him or his family, then that's his problem, not mine.
quote: The only thing that Africans have been resisting is foreign domination of their land and resources, but according to some on this board that is "evil", which again is a sure sign of a sympathizer for white neoliberal policies.
Those strawmen again, Foreigners invest in the U.S. but they don't control ALL of our resources, and the same could be done in Africa, it's not an ALL or NOTHING deal; as you keep implying.
Posted by homeylu (Member # 4430) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: No you haven't. You haven't addressed a word I have said. In fact you are simply being childish. Why? Because you ignore facts in order to try and force people to believe in something that does not exist. It is tantamount to claiming the foreigners do not have a 2000 year history of raping Africa. That foreigners have not desired to own and control all African land and resources under the guise of "global trade" or that these things have ever benefited Africans. On top of that you pretend that the modern economic system is somehow different from the racist colonial system that built it. In other words you want to pretend that Africans are equals with everyone else in the world of trade and commerce when they aren't. And they aren't because of the facts of the history of the development of that economic system and the racism at the core of it. No amount of denial will change that fact.
Everything stated here, shows you lack the comprehension to understand anything that I stated, or you simply choose not to. All I did was show how foreign investment could have a positive spend if implemented correctly. No where did I emphatically state that there are not negative consequences as well. I've continuously stated that it depends on the leadership, whether its corrupt or not.
Yet you cannot find a 'positive' spin, because your view for Africa in this day in time is that of 'gloom', you don't see hope, you would like to maintain the status quo or dream about a situation that can't exist, given the society we NOW live in.
quote:Originally posted by homeylu: 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.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by homeylu:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Funny you should mention cell phones and electronics and then trade. The last I checked Africa was one of the primary sources of coltan used in the manufacturing of those cell phones and electronics. But Africans do not control the extraction, processing or distribution of coltan in Africa and most of those who participate in mining coltan are doing so as peasant laborers who are often forced to do so at gun point by "hired guns" bought and paid for by foreign "investors".
This is the fault of their CORRUPT leaders, not the foreign investors who are in the business of making profits, not appealing to the masses.
quote:I would love the Africans to be able to engage in "free" and "fair" trade, by which they could trade their coltan in return for electronics and other goods. But the reality is that this is not what is happening. Foreign backed thugs and other African governments are stealing the coltan, putting it on planes and the Africans get nothing, but war, disease, rape and murder. So what trade are you talking about and where are these foreign investors who are doing so much "good" in Africa as a result of "investing" in coltan? They don't exist.
Again problem with corrupt leadership, not investment in general. Raw material is imported from various countries, why do we only see the above listed situation in Africa, could it be...leadership??????
quote:What are the Africans going to trade if the foreigners own all the land, mines and industry? Trade what? Air? You can't trade if you don't have anything to trade, which means ownership and control of land, resources and industry.
This is what I mean by 'strawmen' arguments. Who and the hell stated that ALL THE LAND should be owned by foreigners? That would be like saying, they should be RE-COLONIZED.
quote: Simply put, you deal in abstract theoretical nonsense that has nothing to do with reality. You try and pretend that foreigners are all goodness and light and Africa trying to keep out that light, when in reality it is the foreigners who brought the darkness in the first place.
I deal with practicality in the global society in which we exist, not an idealistic society that existed several hundred years ago.
quote:More and more some people on this board are becoming to sound like mouthpieces for the "white" establishment even as they try and pretend to be pro-black. Either that or they are simply brainwashed. Do blacks control the economics in America? No. Do blacks control any economics in South America? No. Who controls it and why? There is no place on this planet where blacks own or control any substantial aspect of economic activity, even though blacks are a major portion of the world's population. Yet some people here want to pretend this is all simply a "misunderstanding" of economics principles. A "misunderstanding" because it does not paint the white racists as the cause of the disparity and suffering among blacks or the fact that blacks do not control any sort of economic activity and then tries to paint these same whites as somehow the saviors of blacks economically. What absurd logic is that?
This entire paragraph is based on sheer sensationalism. Please point out where any poster in support of Foreign Investment excludes BLACK people from this equation. Otherwise you're arguing for the sake of argument.
quote:And the sure sign of these white liberal economic liberal sympathizers is that they get highly upset when you call the economic system built by whites "racist" or whites "racist" for the dirt they have done or when you present facts showing that they are not interested in developing Africa for Africans.
Africans must do this for themselves. They must install leaders that look out for their interest. Again, investors are in the business of making money. Being an investor myself, if I find an opportunity to purchase cheap land, then I will sure as hell take an advantage of it. If the person selling it hasn't figured out away for this sell to benefit him or his family, then that's his problem, not mine.
quote: The only thing that Africans have been resisting is foreign domination of their land and resources, but according to some on this board that is "evil", which again is a sure sign of a sympathizer for white neoliberal policies.
Those strawmen again, Foreigners invest in the U.S. but they don't control ALL of our resources, and the same could be done in Africa, it's not an ALL or NOTHING deal; as you keep implying.
Like I said, you are in denial. Anyone who would deny that foreigners have had a desire to own and control ALL of Africans land and resources for over the last 200 years especially is not someone who deals in reality. Claiming that African corruption is the reason for foreigners owning and controlling trade is nonsense. That is what they have wanted all along, which means that they are not trying to help Africans develop.
So again you come off trying to make it seem as Africans are solely to blame for this or that foreigners have never had anything but good intentions in "investing" in Africa when we all know this is not the case.
Likewise, the facts on the ground are that paying off leaders and promoting corruption is part of the policy for foreign investment in Africa in the first place. African leaders aren't forcing foreigners to come in and take over everything. It is the foreigners who are using their money to force African officials to give everything to them.
quote: Halliburton and Kellogg Brown & Root have agreed to pay $579 million in fines related to allegations of foreign bribery, the biggest fines ever paid by U.S. companies in a foreign corruption case, federal authorities and the companies said yesterday.
The Securities and Exchange Commission and Department of Justice alleged that Houston-based Halliburton and KBR were part of a joint venture that spent $182 million to bribe Nigerian government officials over a 10-year period to win more than $6 billion in construction contracts.
Again the facts on the ground show that foreigners are not a benign force in Africa and that the corruption is the desired result of foreign 'investment' as it allows them to maximize profit.
Keep in mind that the colonial mercantile era was typified by monopolies created under crown charter. Many of the wars in the early colonial period were due to European powers fighting over these colonial monopolies of trade.
Posted by homeylu (Member # 4430) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Like I said, you are in denial. Anyone who would deny that foreigners have had a desire to own and control ALL of Africans land and resources for over the last 200 years especially is not someone who deals in reality. Claiming that African corruption is the reason for foreigners owning and controlling trade is nonsense. That is what they have wanted all along, which means that they are not trying to help Africans develop.
So again you come off trying to make it seem as Africans are solely to blame for this or that foreigners have never had anything but good intentions in "investing" in Africa when we all know this is not the case.
Likewise, the facts on the ground are that paying off leaders and promoting corruption is part of the policy for foreign investment in Africa in the first place. African leaders aren't forcing foreigners to come in and take over everything. It is the foreigners who are using their money to force African officials to give everything to them.
Please stop sensationalizing your arguments with adjectives such as "everything" and "all". Africans have tried several different approaches since gaining their independence. One of the first approaches was socialism..they wanted NO outside influence from foreigners whatsoever. This approach, similar to yours, nearly bankrupted African governments. Then they began to rely on loans from the established IMF, by those exact same foreigners they didn't want any influence from. How ironic is that. Now they have to try a new approach, one that will meet their short term needs and help reach long term goals. One of those needs, is the investment in their basic infrastructure. They WANT to appeal to Foreign Investment, many have come to the realization that socialism only works when we live in a non global society. This society is based off capitalism, and they will have to figure out how to make this work for them, just as African Americans such as yourself, have figured out how to make it work for you. I'm sure you're not growing vegetables and raising livestock in your back yard. You've integrated into this society just as the rest of us have.
This is why most of the wealthiest Black people in the world, so happen to be African Americans, because many of us have figured out how to make this capitalistic society work to our benefit. If African Americans were to form their own country, it has been determined that we would be one of the 10th wealthiest countries in the world. Mind you, we have been oppressed longer than some of the former colonial African countries.
Posted by homeylu (Member # 4430) on :
quote:Likewise, the facts on the ground are that paying off leaders and promoting corruption is part of the policy for foreign investment in Africa in the first place. African leaders aren't forcing foreigners to come in and take over everything. It is the foreigners who are using their money to force African officials to give everything to them.
These leaders who enjoy sometimes 25 Mercedes Benz, multi-million dollar mansions etc., while people in their country are starving to death, are being FORCED to give up African's resources to to foreigners? Let me marinate on this for a while...the old classic case of blame the white man for all of our problems and exempt our dear old leader, it's not his fault, the white man FORCED him into it. Lovely.
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
Can you name these leaders and provide proof of this opulent lifestyle?
quote:Originally posted by homeylu:
quote:Likewise, the facts on the ground are that paying off leaders and promoting corruption is part of the policy for foreign investment in Africa in the first place. African leaders aren't forcing foreigners to come in and take over everything. It is the foreigners who are using their money to force African officials to give everything to them.
These leaders who enjoy sometimes 25 Mercedes Benz, multi-million dollar mansions etc., while people in their country are starving to death, are being FORCED to give up African's resources to to foreigners? Let me marinate on this for a while...the old classic case of blame the white man for all of our problems and exempt our dear old leader, it's not his fault, the white man FORCED him into it. Lovely.
Posted by homeylu (Member # 4430) on :
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: Can you name these leaders and provide proof of this opulent lifestyle?
What would naming them prove, they exist that's all that matters. Do a google search. And don't try the cliche; the burden is on me to provide the proof, this is a non- scientific debate based on differing economic theories. We're talking about some 50 odd countries making up one continent. Don't expect me to utilize my time to go thru all 50 of them, when most of it common knowledge the average laymen should expect to be aware of.
Posted by Avee (Member # 16937) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: Jari, "Africans in disporia."
Yes, Africans in diaspora like this man.
"Dr Mo Ibrahim, named in the list as Britain's most powerful black man. Ibrahim is credited with bringing the mobile phone revolution to Africa, making it the only continent where mobiles outnumber landlines and improving millions of lives. It is this achievement which gained the recognition of a judging panel which, after six months' research, has drawn up a 'Powerlist' of Britain's 100 most influential black people.
"
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by homeylu:
quote:Likewise, the facts on the ground are that paying off leaders and promoting corruption is part of the policy for foreign investment in Africa in the first place. African leaders aren't forcing foreigners to come in and take over everything. It is the foreigners who are using their money to force African officials to give everything to them.
These leaders who enjoy sometimes 25 Mercedes Benz, multi-million dollar mansions etc., while people in their country are starving to death, are being FORCED to give up African's resources to to foreigners? Let me marinate on this for a while...the old classic case of blame the white man for all of our problems and exempt our dear old leader, it's not his fault, the white man FORCED him into it. Lovely.
Nope. Oh so whites are all goodness and light and blacks are vile and backwards then?
Sorry, the example I posted shows that KBR had every intention from day one of corrupting as many African officials as possible in order to further their business interests. If one official did not take a bribe they moved onto another.
Like I said, you live an alternate reality where whites are somehow innocent victims who only want to spread peace and progress through investment while blacks are the epitome of corruption and decay, which is non sense. Again showing childish thinking as opposed to any understanding of facts on the ground. The way foreign money works is they will find an official to do their bidding and use underhanded means to ensure that those leaders most willing to accept their money to the detriment of their people get put into positions of power. All of this is documented historical fact. You simply have no grasp of those facts and therefore your theories have no merit.
quote: GUINEA's newly nominated candidate for prime minister, Jean-Marie Dore, was expected to be sworn in yesterday to head an interim government as lobbying intensified for the mines portfolio in the world's top bauxite exporter, sources in the country said.
Dore, leader of the Union for the Progress of Guinea Party, on Friday stopped disbursements from the national coffers, except wages and pensions until his cabinet is formed.
He has agreed to run a six-month transition government until the next presidential elections, due to replace the junta headed by Moussa Dadis Camara and Sekouba Konate.
Dore was selected last week following talks in Burkina Faso's capital Ouadougou, where Camara is convalescing from wounds he suffered in an assassination attempt on December 4.
Dore has yet to select a new cabinet, and there has been fierce lobbying between political groups in Conakry, the Guinean army led by Camara and Konate, and international mining companies, notably United Company Rusal, controlled by Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska, to select the most influential portfolios.
So it isn't as if Africans are doing nothing. I don't know the details of his farm plan in Ethiopia but I doubt it will be solely for shipping food overseas to Saudi arabia (his fathers home country). But only time will tell.
Posted by Avee (Member # 16937) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Like I said, you are in denial. Anyone who would deny that foreigners have had a desire to own and control ALL of Africans land and resources for over the last 200 years especially is not someone who deals in reality. Claiming that African corruption is the reason for foreigners owning and controlling trade is nonsense. That is what they have wanted all along, which means that they are not trying to help Africans develop.
So again you come off trying to make it seem as Africans are solely to blame for this or that foreigners have never had anything but good intentions in "investing" in Africa when we all know this is not the case.
Likewise, the facts on the ground are that paying off leaders and promoting corruption is part of the policy for foreign investment in Africa in the first place. African leaders aren't forcing foreigners to come in and take over everything. It is the foreigners who are using their money to force African officials to give everything to them.
quote: Halliburton and Kellogg Brown & Root have agreed to pay $579 million in fines related to allegations of foreign bribery, the biggest fines ever paid by U.S. companies in a foreign corruption case, federal authorities and the companies said yesterday.
The Securities and Exchange Commission and Department of Justice alleged that Houston-based Halliburton and KBR were part of a joint venture that spent $182 million to bribe Nigerian government officials over a 10-year period to win more than $6 billion in construction contracts.
Again the facts on the ground show that foreigners are not a benign force in Africa and that the corruption is the desired result of foreign 'investment' as it allows them to maximize profit.
Keep in mind that the colonial mercantile era was typified by monopolies created under crown charter. Many of the wars in the early colonial period were due to European powers fighting over these colonial monopolies of trade.
You are not holding African leaders accountable for some of the bad deal they make with foreign investors just to line their own pockets at the expense of their countries. Case in point:
Uganda's oil contracts leaked - a bad deal made worse Held secret by the Ugandan government and oil companies Tullow Oil and Heritage Oil, PLATFORM can today reveal the terms of the contracts for oil operations by Lake Albert on the Uganda-Congo border, and their economic implications.
For the first time, one of Uganda's Production Sharing Agreements is available to the public to read, after a leaked copy was placed online. PLATFORM's analysis of the contract reveals that the repeated claims by the Ugandan government and the oil companies that Uganda has received a very good deal and the best in the region are not only a fiction, but were reliant on the real terms of the contracts being kept secret. While the contracts will deliver vast profits to Tullow Oil and Heritage Oil, the contracts will prevent the Ugandan people from receiving their due benefits. The terms of the contracts and the lack of openness are placing Uganda on a track set for the "resource curse".
Posted by Avee (Member # 16937) on :
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: Can you name these leaders and provide proof of this opulent lifestyle?
quote:Originally posted by homeylu:
quote:Likewise, the facts on the ground are that paying off leaders and promoting corruption is part of the policy for foreign investment in Africa in the first place. African leaders aren't forcing foreigners to come in and take over everything. It is the foreigners who are using their money to force African officials to give everything to them.
These leaders who enjoy sometimes 25 Mercedes Benz, multi-million dollar mansions etc., while people in their country are starving to death, are being FORCED to give up African's resources to to foreigners? Let me marinate on this for a while...the old classic case of blame the white man for all of our problems and exempt our dear old leader, it's not his fault, the white man FORCED him into it. Lovely.
Mobutu was one of them. The president of Equatorial Africa. Saw a documentary on one of his children shopping in Paris. The boy bought a couple 11,000 dollar suits. When he was done shopping he had spent 50,000 dollars. How many people especially children slept hungry in his country that day.
The president of Uganda gave his daughter the presidential jet for her to deliver his grand daughter in Germany because he did not trust Uganda's healthcare. The trip cost 20,000 dollar. That day about 100 women died giving birth because they could not afford to go to hospital. His daughter did not want to take public fights like everybody and alot of wealthy people do. Stories like that make a man's blood fire. Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Avee:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Like I said, you are in denial. Anyone who would deny that foreigners have had a desire to own and control ALL of Africans land and resources for over the last 200 years especially is not someone who deals in reality. Claiming that African corruption is the reason for foreigners owning and controlling trade is nonsense. That is what they have wanted all along, which means that they are not trying to help Africans develop.
So again you come off trying to make it seem as Africans are solely to blame for this or that foreigners have never had anything but good intentions in "investing" in Africa when we all know this is not the case.
Likewise, the facts on the ground are that paying off leaders and promoting corruption is part of the policy for foreign investment in Africa in the first place. African leaders aren't forcing foreigners to come in and take over everything. It is the foreigners who are using their money to force African officials to give everything to them.
quote: Halliburton and Kellogg Brown & Root have agreed to pay $579 million in fines related to allegations of foreign bribery, the biggest fines ever paid by U.S. companies in a foreign corruption case, federal authorities and the companies said yesterday.
The Securities and Exchange Commission and Department of Justice alleged that Houston-based Halliburton and KBR were part of a joint venture that spent $182 million to bribe Nigerian government officials over a 10-year period to win more than $6 billion in construction contracts.
Again the facts on the ground show that foreigners are not a benign force in Africa and that the corruption is the desired result of foreign 'investment' as it allows them to maximize profit.
Keep in mind that the colonial mercantile era was typified by monopolies created under crown charter. Many of the wars in the early colonial period were due to European powers fighting over these colonial monopolies of trade.
You are not holding African leaders accountable for some of the bad deal they make with foreign investors just to line their own pockets at the expense of their countries. Case in point:
Uganda's oil contracts leaked - a bad deal made worse Held secret by the Ugandan government and oil companies Tullow Oil and Heritage Oil, PLATFORM can today reveal the terms of the contracts for oil operations by Lake Albert on the Uganda-Congo border, and their economic implications.
For the first time, one of Uganda's Production Sharing Agreements is available to the public to read, after a leaked copy was placed online. PLATFORM's analysis of the contract reveals that the repeated claims by the Ugandan government and the oil companies that Uganda has received a very good deal and the best in the region are not only a fiction, but were reliant on the real terms of the contracts being kept secret. While the contracts will deliver vast profits to Tullow Oil and Heritage Oil, the contracts will prevent the Ugandan people from receiving their due benefits. The terms of the contracts and the lack of openness are placing Uganda on a track set for the "resource curse".
Of course you are pretending that Tullow and Heritage are simply innocent bystanders in all of this huh? Please. That is silly. Like I said, it is the corrupt government officials who are on the payrolls of these foreign companies that are the basis of the corruption. You cannot separate the two. The companies need corrupt officials in order to guarantee that they get sweet deals that have no benefit to the locals. It is called neo-colonialism, which means you have blacks who operate primarily in a colonial fashion purely for the interests of foreign industrialists.
Calling the government corrupt without including the foreigners who pay them off is simply trying to pretend that the foreigners are not part of the problem.
Note, the "singing bonus" they are referring to in this article is what we normally call a bribe. But of course they use terminology that sounds legit in order to hide the facts. In fact, the signing bonus itself is only 1 million dollars which is far less than what you would see in other similar sized projects around the world.
But of course, it is all the Africans fault only.
quote: Even more intriguing is the fact that while the Production Sharing Agreements entitle the Ugandan state to take up to 20 per cent stake of the oil ventures without any prior capital injection, this information has not been made public.
There are no visible efforts to establish a National Oil Company that would be the custodian of this public stake.
At just over $1 million, the sum received in signature bonuses may be small, but an international NGO that published a report disclosing Uganda’s closely guarded Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs) with oil companies argues that the missing raises doubts about the government’s ability to manage the much larger oil revenues anticipated in the longer term.
This news comes on the back of revelations that Uganda signed lopsided revenue sharing agreements that will see oil companies walk away with disproportionately high revenue ratios as crude prices rise in international markets.
In a report entitled, "Cursed contracts: Uganda’s oil agreements place profit before people," Platform, a London-based NGO in partnership with the Civil Society Coalition on Oil (CSCO) in Uganda states that while at least $500,000 has been received in signature bonuses for two blocks whose PSAs have been signed, these transactions cannot be traced in Uganda’s public accounts.
"It appears that there has been no accountability regarding the bonus money already paid to the government and which revenue stream it has been channelled through.
"The income has not appeared in any published budget and experts within the Ministry of Finance deny any knowledge of the money’s location and/ or use.
"While the sum is comparatively small ($1 million plus in total), it generates concern that future bonuses, including the $5 million production bonus stipulated in the Block 4 Dominion Petroleum PSA, will likewise disappear," Platform and CSCO warn in the report released in Kampala on February 23.
Platform and CSCO add further that: "On a larger level, if the government has failed to track and account for the destination of these bonus payments, it raises questions over its intention and ability to manage the larger oil revenues to come."
Suggesting that Ugandan negotiators could have been distracted into signing lopsided agreements with the oil companies by the prospect of the signature bonuses, Platform observes that host governments are often attracted by signature bonuses, because they represent hard cash up front.
And the Ugandan government appears to have fallen for this bait "as the minister described the $300,000 bonus on Block 3A as a 'significant improvement of the fiscal terms' compared with the original Block 3," where there was no signature bonus.
While oil contracts such as these determine revenue flows of billions of dollars, Ugandan negotiators appear to have been oblivious of the insignificance of the money they were being offered.
"In this context, a $300,000 payment is largely irrelevant to both the company paying it and to government income. Even in this context, $300,000 is a surprisingly small bonus. The Congo government received a $3.5 million bonus upon signing a PSA for Block 1 in 2008," Platform says.
Ugandan Energy Minister Hillary Onek was not willing to comment on this aspect of the PSAs — or the authenticity of the oil contracts Platform has made public — when The EastAfrican called him.
The point being that the companies and the government are both complicit in this and it is most likely that the details of the contract originated with the company not the government. I am almost sure that the government didn't suggest such terms. Of course, the fact that they agreed to those terms is a failure of leadership, but it does not lessen the fact that the companies are the ones who most likely came up with those terms in the first place.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Avee:
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: Can you name these leaders and provide proof of this opulent lifestyle?
quote:Originally posted by homeylu:
quote:Likewise, the facts on the ground are that paying off leaders and promoting corruption is part of the policy for foreign investment in Africa in the first place. African leaders aren't forcing foreigners to come in and take over everything. It is the foreigners who are using their money to force African officials to give everything to them.
These leaders who enjoy sometimes 25 Mercedes Benz, multi-million dollar mansions etc., while people in their country are starving to death, are being FORCED to give up African's resources to to foreigners? Let me marinate on this for a while...the old classic case of blame the white man for all of our problems and exempt our dear old leader, it's not his fault, the white man FORCED him into it. Lovely.
Mobutu was one of them. The president of Equatorial Africa. Saw a documentary on one of his children shopping in Paris. The boy bought a couple 11,000 dollar suits. When he was done shopping he had spent 50,000 dollars. How many people especially children slept hungry in his country that day.
The president of Uganda gave his daughter the presidential jet for her to deliver his grand daughter in Germany because he did not trust Uganda's healthcare. The trip cost 20,000 dollar. That day about 100 women died giving birth because they could not afford to go to hospital. His daughter did not want to take public fights like everybody and alot of wealthy people do. Stories like that make a man's blood fire.
The president of Equatorial Guinea is Teodoro Obiang not Mobutu. But since you mention Mobutu keep in mind he was put in place by the CIA to begin with. Not to mention most of Obiangs money was in banks from the U.S.
quote: Equatorial Guinean funds
In July 2004, the US Senate published an investigation into Riggs Bank, into which most of Equatorial Guinea's oil revenues were paid until recently. This showed that accounts based at the embassy to the United States of Equatorial Guinea were allowed to make large withdrawals without properly notifying federal authorities. At least $35 million were siphoned off by long-time dictator of Equatorial Guinea, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, his family and senior officials of his regime. The same Teodoro Obiang Nguema bought, on November 2006, a $ 35 million house in Malibu, California.
Simon Kareri, the Riggs employee in charge of the Equatorial Guinea and other accounts, stands accused of money-laundering in separate charges. As the account manager, it is alleged that he established a fake holding company in his wife's name, and diverted funds into this account.
In the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations hearing in July, 2004, Kareri, under advisement from legal counsel, refused to answer any questions of the panel by invoking his 5th Amendment Rights.
In that hearing, the President of Riggs Bank was asked why the bank would willingly enter into a business arrangement with the dictator of Equatorial Guinea, a man who willingly exercises his hold over his people with demonstrations of murder and torture on state-run television. In a copy of correspondence to President Mbasogo, the letter, "thanked the president for his establishment of several bank accounts, and encouraged a working relationship to help establish and secure the stable reign of his country..." [edit] Repercussions
Riggs Bank was fined $25 million for violations of money-laundering laws. A long running Justice Department investigation was wrapped up quickly in February 2005 with Riggs pleading guilty and paying a $16 million fine for violations for the U.S. Bank Secrecy Act after a Wall Street Journal article reported December 31, 2004, that Riggs had extensive ties to the CIA, including that several bank officials held security clearances. Also in February 2005, the bank and Allbritton family agreed to pay $9 million to Pinochet victims for concealing and illegally facilitating movement of Pinochet money out of Britain.[4] No similar payment has been made with regard to Equatorial Guinea, as reported in this weekly Anti-Money Laundering Report from the Fair Finance Watch The abuses at Riggs led Congress to consider forming a single agency with greater authority to enforce money laundering and currency control laws. Daniel E. Stipano, deputy chief counsel for the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, said, "What happened with Riggs is unacceptable. It cannot be repeated."[5]
Riggs and its executives denied any wrong-doing, although some executives may now face criminal trials. Members of the Albritton family resigned from the bank board. The operation was acquired by PNC in 2004, who phased out the scandal-plagued embassy business. On May 16, 2005, the Riggs name was officially retired, and all Riggs branches opened as PNC Bank branches.
But again, using payoffs to bribe local officials are the name of the game in industries involved in Africa.
quote: Soon after arriving in Equatorial Guinea in 1991, the U.S. ambassador discovered an unusual arrangement involving the country's despotic president and the first successful oil company operating in the poor, West African nation.
Walter International Inc. was paying to send the president's son to study at Pepperdine University in Malibu, Calif., company employees told the ambassador, John E. Bennett. The staff of the Houston company told Bennett about the arrangement, grousing that the son was "spending at will," bringing the tab for a year in Southern California to at least $50,000, the former ambassador said.
After Walter became successful with its business -- and government relations -- some of the biggest names in oil rushed to drill off the shore of a country the size of Maryland. They expanded on the type of arrangement Walter had with President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasago, but on a much larger scale.
Their business activities provide a picture of how oil companies have operated in a developing country with a history of corruption. The companies paid for scholarships for children of the country's leaders, formed business ventures with government officials, hired companies linked to Obiang and rented property from government officials and their relatives, according to a U.S. Senate report released in July that reveals the companies' operations in striking detail. The report, which described the relationship between Riggs Bank of Washington and the oil firms operating in Equatorial Guinea, said the companies' actions raised "concerns related to corruption and profiteering."
A Securities and Exchange Commission investigation includes the three companies with the largest presence in the country -- Exxon Mobil Corp., Amerada Hess Corp. and Marathon Oil Corp. -- along with ChevronTexaco Corp., Devon Energy Corp. and CMS Energy Corp., the companies have said. The Senate report also cited activities of a private company, Vanco Energy Co.
Some of the companies' annual reports show their broadening investment in Equatorial Guinea. Since 1997, the amount of oil produced in Equatorial Guinea has increased seven times, to about 360,000 barrels a day. The country has emerged as the third-largest producer in sub-Saharan Africa and derives most of its revenue from oil.
Oil companies have a history of supplying cash and lavish gifts to leaders of countries whose oil reserves they want to exploit. Bribery of foreign officials was outlawed in 1977 under the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, after SEC investigations led more than 400 U.S. companies to admit that they had made questionable or illegal payments in other countries. The act outlaws payments to foreign officials for the purpose of obtaining or keeping business.
Officials at the Justice Department and SEC, both of which are responsible for enforcing the act, could not provide statistics on the number of oil companies that have been accused of violations. A Justice Department spokesman said no officials wanted to discuss enforcement of the act. Paul R. Berger, associate director of the SEC's enforcement division , cited several cases in recent years that his agency had brought against oil companies, but he added that violations can be hard to discover and prove.
Two subsidiaries of ABB Ltd. -- ABB Vetco Gray of Houston and ABB Vetco Gray UK of Scotland -- pleaded guilty in the United States in July to violating the corrupt practices act. Federal regulators said they made more than $1.1 million in illicit payments to Nigerian government officials to gain advantage on oil and gas projects.
Halliburton Co., a Houston oil field services company, said in SEC filings last month that federal regulators were investigating possible improper payments under the corrupt practices act involving a project in Nigeria in which the company had participated.
In Equatorial Guinea, a former Spanish colony, human rights activists said the oil companies' payments there have helped prop up Obiang, who has ruled since seizing power in a military coup in 1979. State department reports have for years cited the regime for human rights violations, including torture, beatings and abuse of prisoners and suspects, sometimes resulting in death.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Like I said, you are in denial. Anyone who would deny that foreigners have had a desire to own and control ALL of Africans land and resources for over the last 200 years especially is not someone who deals in reality. Claiming that African corruption is the reason for foreigners owning and controlling trade is nonsense. That is what they have wanted all along, which means that they are not trying to help Africans develop.
So again you come off trying to make it seem as Africans are solely to blame for this or that foreigners have never had anything but good intentions in "investing" in Africa when we all know this is not the case.
Likewise, the facts on the ground are that paying off leaders and promoting corruption is part of the policy for foreign investment in Africa in the first place. African leaders aren't forcing foreigners to come in and take over everything. It is the foreigners who are using their money to force African officials to give everything to them.
quote: Halliburton and Kellogg Brown & Root have agreed to pay $579 million in fines related to allegations of foreign bribery, the biggest fines ever paid by U.S. companies in a foreign corruption case, federal authorities and the companies said yesterday.
The Securities and Exchange Commission and Department of Justice alleged that Houston-based Halliburton and KBR were part of a joint venture that spent $182 million to bribe Nigerian government officials over a 10-year period to win more than $6 billion in construction contracts.
Again the facts on the ground show that foreigners are not a benign force in Africa and that the corruption is the desired result of foreign 'investment' as it allows them to maximize profit.
Keep in mind that the colonial mercantile era was typified by monopolies created under crown charter. Many of the wars in the early colonial period were due to European powers fighting over these colonial monopolies of trade.
You are not holding African leaders accountable for some of the bad deal they make with foreign investors just to line their own pockets at the expense of their countries. Case in point:
Uganda's oil contracts leaked - a bad deal made worse Held secret by the Ugandan government and oil companies Tullow Oil and Heritage Oil, PLATFORM can today reveal the terms of the contracts for oil operations by Lake Albert on the Uganda-Congo border, and their economic implications.
For the first time, one of Uganda's Production Sharing Agreements is available to the public to read, after a leaked copy was placed online. PLATFORM's analysis of the contract reveals that the repeated claims by the Ugandan government and the oil companies that Uganda has received a very good deal and the best in the region are not only a fiction, but were reliant on the real terms of the contracts being kept secret. While the contracts will deliver vast profits to Tullow Oil and Heritage Oil, the contracts will prevent the Ugandan people from receiving their due benefits. The terms of the contracts and the lack of openness are placing Uganda on a track set for the "resource curse".
Of course you are pretending that Tullow and Heritage are simply innocent bystanders in all of this huh? Please. That is silly. Like I said, it is the corrupt government officials who are on the payrolls of these foreign companies that are the basis of the corruption. You cannot separate the two. The companies need corrupt officials in order to guarantee that they get sweet deals that have no benefit to the locals. It is called neo-colonialism, which means you have blacks who operate primarily in a colonial fashion purely for the interests of foreign industrialists.
Calling the government corrupt without including the foreigners who pay them off is simply trying to pretend that the foreigners are not part of the problem.
Note, the "singing bonus" they are referring to in this article is what we normally call a bribe. But of course they use terminology that sounds legit in order to hide the facts. In fact, the signing bonus itself is only 1 million dollars which is far less than what you would see in other similar sized projects around the world.
But of course, it is all the Africans fault only.
quote: Even more intriguing is the fact that while the Production Sharing Agreements entitle the Ugandan state to take up to 20 per cent stake of the oil ventures without any prior capital injection, this information has not been made public.
There are no visible efforts to establish a National Oil Company that would be the custodian of this public stake.
At just over $1 million, the sum received in signature bonuses may be small, but an international NGO that published a report disclosing Uganda’s closely guarded Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs) with oil companies argues that the missing raises doubts about the government’s ability to manage the much larger oil revenues anticipated in the longer term.
This news comes on the back of revelations that Uganda signed lopsided revenue sharing agreements that will see oil companies walk away with disproportionately high revenue ratios as crude prices rise in international markets.
In a report entitled, "Cursed contracts: Uganda’s oil agreements place profit before people," Platform, a London-based NGO in partnership with the Civil Society Coalition on Oil (CSCO) in Uganda states that while at least $500,000 has been received in signature bonuses for two blocks whose PSAs have been signed, these transactions cannot be traced in Uganda’s public accounts.
"It appears that there has been no accountability regarding the bonus money already paid to the government and which revenue stream it has been channelled through.
"The income has not appeared in any published budget and experts within the Ministry of Finance deny any knowledge of the money’s location and/ or use.
"While the sum is comparatively small ($1 million plus in total), it generates concern that future bonuses, including the $5 million production bonus stipulated in the Block 4 Dominion Petroleum PSA, will likewise disappear," Platform and CSCO warn in the report released in Kampala on February 23.
Platform and CSCO add further that: "On a larger level, if the government has failed to track and account for the destination of these bonus payments, it raises questions over its intention and ability to manage the larger oil revenues to come."
Suggesting that Ugandan negotiators could have been distracted into signing lopsided agreements with the oil companies by the prospect of the signature bonuses, Platform observes that host governments are often attracted by signature bonuses, because they represent hard cash up front.
And the Ugandan government appears to have fallen for this bait "as the minister described the $300,000 bonus on Block 3A as a 'significant improvement of the fiscal terms' compared with the original Block 3," where there was no signature bonus.
While oil contracts such as these determine revenue flows of billions of dollars, Ugandan negotiators appear to have been oblivious of the insignificance of the money they were being offered.
"In this context, a $300,000 payment is largely irrelevant to both the company paying it and to government income. Even in this context, $300,000 is a surprisingly small bonus. The Congo government received a $3.5 million bonus upon signing a PSA for Block 1 in 2008," Platform says.
Ugandan Energy Minister Hillary Onek was not willing to comment on this aspect of the PSAs — or the authenticity of the oil contracts Platform has made public — when The EastAfrican called him.
The point being that the companies and the government are both complicit in this and it is most likely that the details of the contract originated with the company not the government. I am almost sure that the government didn't suggest such terms. Of course, the fact that they agreed to those terms is a failure of leadership, but it does not lessen the fact that the companies are the ones who most likely came up with those terms in the first place.
I don't know man. I can go as far as to say all foreigners would exploit Africa if given a chance. Africa does not have well wishers out there. It is up to our leaders to look out for the interests of our people. Investors are in the business of making profit. When it come to Africa they want what we have for next to nothing. The sweeter the deal the more profit they make.
What would you suggest? Build a wall around Sub-SA. I personally think something akeen to that would be a better solution. African need to put all the knowledge they aquired to the test.
Posted by AswaniAswad (Member # 16742) on :
This will not last they cant try to do this but it will eventually fall in there face.
White land owners black workers wont work im moving to africa next year game over
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
I will say this again If the people who want to mega farm all over Africa are the same ones in the U.S.A then look at how they treat their workers,products and even the farmers that they have contracts with, be afraid be very afraid it doesn't boad well for Africans or anyone.American farmers who make contracts quickly find themselves surfs on their own land,they may not criticize their new lords, cannot actually own the seeds that they plant.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/monlink.cfm Go here^ I like development, I like return on my investments I am not anti-Capital..but there has to be some kind of checks and balances and if they are so unkind to Americans then they will most definitely will be unkind to Africans..IMHO Africans should not let them in.
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
quote:Originally posted by homeylu: I think I addressed your posts already, this entire post is just a REPETITION of what you've previously posted. Trying to drive a point into the ground is not a convincing way of arguing, IMO.
LOL I WARNED you about him. This guy will go for days with this sh!t. LOL
quote:Originally posted by Jari-Ankhamun: What is your take on Free Market Capitalism?
I think any economic system if applied in a pragmatic way will "work".
Posted by homeylu (Member # 4430) on :
Moving to elementary tones
I could sell my kidney (a vital organ) to feed my children. If someone is one the market for buying kidneys, I could not expect this person to care if I feed my child with the money earned from the sale or not. They are going to try to get this kidney for the lowest price possible, what I do with the money is up to ME, not THEM.
If I buy a car with this money, and allow my child to starve, this is MY neglect. I cannot go and shout at these "Kidney buyers" *trying to sound like I'm talking to elementary children* and blame them for my child's starvation.
On the other hand if they STEAL my kidney, and my children starve as a result, then THEY are to blame.
O.k. children, imagine ME the parent as the government leader. The "Kidney Buyers" as the investors, and the "Kidney Thieves" as Colonialist. Class over.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by homeylu: Moving to elementary tones
I could sell my kidney (a vital organ) to feed my children. If someone is one the market for buying kidneys, I could not expect this person to care if I feed my child with the money earned from the sale or not. They are going to try to get this kidney for the lowest price possible, what I do with the money is up to ME, not THEM.
If I buy a car with this money, and allow my child to starve, this is MY neglect. I cannot go and shout at these "Kidney buyers" *trying to sound like I'm talking to elementary children* and blame them for my child's starvation.
On the other hand if they STEAL my kidney, and my children starve as a result, then THEY are to blame.
O.k. children, imagine ME the parent as the government leader. The "Kidney Buyers" as the investors, and the "Kidney Thieves" as Colonialist. Class over.
But that analogy has nothing to do with the facts presented. Those facts show clearly that foreign "investors" use bribes and promote corruption as part of their investment strategy. Yet you wish to pretend this is simply an issue of African leadership alone, where foreign investors are simply innocent businessmen forced to make corrupt deals by African leaders. Which is absolutely false.
It seems you are desperate to paint foreign investors as simply god's gift to Africa and Africans purely the cause of their own problems.
Sorry, but that point of view is purely without merit and not based on any historical fact.
So to me you simply present a fantasy world where foreigners and trade are waiting and hoping to do good things for Africans while Africans and their leaders are trying to stop them from engaging in trade and investment.
Reality is not that simple. Reality is more like the investors want your kidneys at a price where you will not be able to feed your kids as the basis for getting a good profit. And the fact that you have no other means of feeding your kids simply shows that you are in no real position to do anything else but to accept what they give you. Reality is you should put yourself in a position of independence by being able to acquire the things you need without depending on foreigners and their self interests for your survival. That is your fundamental right as a human, unless you think you should give up those rights for the best interest of foreign economic "investment".
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: It seems you are desperate to paint foreign investors as simply god's gift to Africa and Africans purely the cause of their own problems
You f!cking idiot aren't you tired of building straws?
quote:Reality is not that simple.
WAHAHAHHAH
Now he realizes! Arent you the one who keeps going "its simple" "its simple" "its simple"! LOLOL
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: It seems you are desperate to paint foreign investors as simply god's gift to Africa and Africans purely the cause of their own problems
You f!cking idiot aren't you tired of building straws?
quote:Reality is not that simple.
WAHAHAHHAH
Now he realizes! Arent you the one who keeps going "its simple" "its simple" "its simple"! LOLOL
Well facts are facts.
It seems to me the only thing some people get upset about is portraying the reality of the situation, where black leaders are not simply dumb apes and foreigners are not simply all goodness and light.
Which is childish.
The only thing you hear from some people is how ignorant and corrupt black leaders are, but when the subject of the foreign complicity in such corruption comes up, there is a whole flurry of whining and moaning. It is as if some people don't feel foreigners should get any blame in all of this and that it is all the black mans fault.
That is the only thing I get from some peoples responses here.
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
^ LOL!
You unbelievable jackass, you are the most guilty of posters when it comes to childish analysis.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Yawn. Your antics are boring.
If you were so serious about the subject you would stick to it instead of petty name calling.
Which as I said is indicative of how childish some people are concerning the topic. Can't address the things actually posted so they rant and rant and never make a coherent point.
Do you have a point or are you just here to spread sour grapes as if I have done something to you? Which is obviously nonsense as this is simply a forum for exchanging ideas.
So what is your point?
Posted by homeylu (Member # 4430) on :
Doug, Leaders, are responsible for looking out for their country's best interest. Investors look out for their own interest-profits. Hell, they don't even look out for the interest of their OWN country, much less another. How often do you hear about U.S. Billion dollar corporations, transferring jobs from Americans to "cheaper" labor in developing countries, only to export the final product back to Americans. This is the way of the system.
Do you honestly think they are shipping agriculture back to their countries because they give a damn about whose starving in their country? NO! They are doing it because they can sell the goods for a higher price, than they could in the host country, hence a higher yield on their investment.
They are INVESTORS, not HUMANITARIANS.
Please stop making up invisible arguments, no one is "pretending" that foreigners are better than Africans, unless they are racist. Then their opinion doesn't count does it?
It's so easy to play the 'blame it on the white man' card, when so so many Africans are prejudiced against others from different ethnic groups. Most of this turmoil we see are inter-ethnic conflicts of interest, fighting over which group will control these scarce resources. Unity has always been our downfall.
I think most of us would like to see nothing more than Africans to reinvest in themselves. But we have to create more African Billionaire Corporations before that can become a reality. And if the leaders keep selling themselves short, then that reality becomes further off mark. They should negotiate a win/win deal, and stop thinking of the own short-term interest in lieu of their country, as their days will be numbered should some rebel come along and throw their asses out of office. Then the conflicts that ensue, will ensure that the entire country continues to suffer in vain.
Posted by Avee (Member # 16937) on :
quote:Originally posted by homeylu: Doug, Leaders, are responsible for looking out for their country's best interest. Investors look out for their own interest-profits. Hell, they don't even look out for the interest of their OWN country, much less another. How often do you hear about U.S. Billion dollar corporations, transferring jobs from Americans to "cheaper" labor in developing countries, only to export the final product back to Americans. This is the way of the system.
Do you honestly think they are shipping agriculture back to their countries because they give a damn about whose starving in their country? NO! They are doing it because they can sell the goods for a higher price, than they could in the host country, hence a higher yield on their investment.
They are INVESTORS, not HUMANITARIANS.
Please stop making up invisible arguments, no one is "pretending" that foreigners are better than Africans, unless they are racist. Then their opinion doesn't count does it?
It's so easy to play the 'blame it on the white man' card, when so so many Africans are prejudiced against others from different ethnic groups. Most of this turmoil we see are inter-ethnic conflicts of interest, fighting over which group will control these scarce resources. Unity has always been our downfall.
I think most of us would like to see nothing more than Africans to reinvest in themselves. But we have to create more African Billionaire Corporations before that can become a reality. And if the leaders keep selling themselves short, then that reality becomes further off mark. They should negotiate a win/win deal, and stop thinking of the own short-term interest in lieu of their country, as their days will be numbered should some rebel come along and throw their asses out of office. Then the conflicts that ensue, will ensure that the entire country continues to suffer in vain.
True dat. Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by homeylu: Doug, Leaders, are responsible for looking out for their country's best interest. Investors look out for their own interest-profits. Hell, they don't even look out for the interest of their OWN country, much less another. How often do you hear about U.S. Billion dollar corporations, transferring jobs from Americans to "cheaper" labor in developing countries, only to export the final product back to Americans. This is the way of the system.
Do you honestly think they are shipping agriculture back to their countries because they give a damn about whose starving in their country? NO! They are doing it because they can sell the goods for a higher price, than they could in the host country, hence a higher yield on their investment.
They are INVESTORS, not HUMANITARIANS.
Please stop making up invisible arguments, no one is "pretending" that foreigners are better than Africans, unless they are racist. Then their opinion doesn't count does it?
It's so easy to play the 'blame it on the white man' card, when so so many Africans are prejudiced against others from different ethnic groups. Most of this turmoil we see are inter-ethnic conflicts of interest, fighting over which group will control these scarce resources. Unity has always been our downfall.
I think most of us would like to see nothing more than Africans to reinvest in themselves. But we have to create more African Billionaire Corporations before that can become a reality. And if the leaders keep selling themselves short, then that reality becomes further off mark. They should negotiate a win/win deal, and stop thinking of the own short-term interest in lieu of their country, as their days will be numbered should some rebel come along and throw their asses out of office. Then the conflicts that ensue, will ensure that the entire country continues to suffer in vain.
Which again is a false dichotomy. Investors in Africa as I have shown from the evidence, depend on corrupt leaders as part of their investment plan. Again, the whole point is that these investors depend on African leaders accepting deals that only guarantee a high amount of profit for the investor. Therefore, unless these investors have a different investment strategy, how can they ever be beneficial if their goal is to get as much out of Africa as possible, which implicitly means not having anything going to local populations? Leaving African leaders out of this, how does that make these investors other than predatory and a threat and enemy of African economic independence?
Again, you keep trying to pretend that these people do not have a history of wanting to exploit Africa not build it up through investment.
I agree that it is the leaders job to defend their own interests, but that has nothing to do with the fact that historically most major investments in Africa have been bad for Africans and only good for foreigners, from the oil of West Africa, the plantations in Congo and the industrial centers of South Africa, all have been devastating to the local populations of Africa and that was the goal and intent of the foreign investors from day one.
Therefore, unless and until you can show me that these foreigners have changed their agenda, simply pretending that they are going to somehow do different now and that they aren't as complicit if not more complicit in the corruption of African officials is a denial of history and the facts. In fact, this is generally called neo-colonialism, where foreign powers and "investors" hand pick and support those leaders best suited to support their interests. It almost sounds as if you are trying to claim this does not exist and doesn't reflect foreign meddling in Africa's economic affairs.
I only blame white people when they deserve it and in this case a great many white industrialists deserve the blame.
The point is that I would love for foreign investment to be the things you claim them to be, but the reality on the ground does not support that view.
quote: Neocolonialism is a term used by post-colonial critics of developed countries' involvement in the developing world. Writings within the theoretical framework of neocolonialism argue that existing or past international economic arrangements created by former colonial powers were or are used to maintain control of their former colonies and dependencies after the colonial independence movements of the post-World War II period. The term neocolonialism can combine a critique of current actual colonialism (where some states continue administrating foreign territories and their populations in violation of United Nations resolutions[1]) and a critique of the involvement of modern capitalist businesses in nations which were former colonies. Critics adherent to neocolonialism contend that multinational corporations continue to exploit the resources of post-colonial states, and that this economic control inherent to neocolonialism is akin to the classical, European colonialism practiced from the 16th to the 20th centuries. In broader usage, neocolonialism may simply refer to the involvement of powerful countries in the affairs of less powerful countries; this is especially relevant in modern Latin America. In this sense, neocolonialism implies a form of contemporary, economic imperialism: that powerful nations behave like colonial powers of imperialism, and that this behavior is likened to colonialism in a post-colonial world.
The term neocolonialism first saw widespread use, particularly in reference to Africa, soon after the process of decolonization which followed a struggle by many national independence movements in the colonies following World War II. Upon gaining independence, some national leaders and opposition groups argued that their countries were being subjected to a new form of colonialism, waged by the former colonial powers and other developed nations. Kwame Nkrumah, who in 1957 became leader of newly independent Ghana, was an early proponent of what became the classical definition of neocolonialism. This definition of neocolonialism is outlined in one of the first books to use term, Nkrumah's Neo-Colonialism, the Last Stage of Imperialism (1965).[3] The work is self-defined as an extension of Lenin's Imperialism, the Last Stage of Capitalism (1916), in which Lenin argues that 19th century imperialism is predicated upon the needs of the capitalist system.[4] Nkrumah argues that "In place of colonialism as the main instrument of imperialism we have today neo-colonialism. [...] Neo-colonialism, like colonialism, is an attempt to export the social conflicts of the capitalist countries." He continues:
The result of neo-colonialism is that foreign capital is used for the exploitation rather than for the development of the less developed parts of the world. Investment under neo-colonialism increases rather than decreases the gap between the rich and the poor countries of the world. The struggle against neo-colonialism is not aimed at excluding the capital of the developed world from operating in less developed countries. It is aimed at preventing the financial power of the developed countries being used in such a way as to impoverish the less developed.[5]
quote:I agree that it is the leaders job to defend their own interests, but that has nothing to do with the fact that historically most major investments in Africa have been bad for Africans and only good for foreigners, from the oil of West Africa, the plantations in Congo and the industrial centers of South Africa, all have been devastating to the local populations of Africa and that was the goal and intent of the foreign investors from day one.
As if we needed more evidence of Dougy childish analysis, he cannot make up his mind whether "all" or "most" FDI is bad. LOL
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
quote:I agree that it is the leaders job to defend their own interests, but that has nothing to do with the fact that historically most major investments in Africa have been bad for Africans and only good for foreigners, from the oil of West Africa, the plantations in Congo and the industrial centers of South Africa, all have been devastating to the local populations of Africa and that was the goal and intent of the foreign investors from day one.
As if we needed more evidence of Dougy childish analysis, he cannot make up his mind whether "all" or "most" FDI is bad. LOL
Well, considering that you don't post other than to critique what I have posted, it would seem that you only feel that FDI is good, never bad and that foreign investors can do no wrong in Africa.
Is that correct?
Otherwise, why are you so concerned about my views towards FDI, unless you disagree with that conclusion? And why is it you never support your views with facts?
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
Don't talk about supporting with facts Dougy, you have yet to show how all FDI is bad.
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
Translated: I'm regurgitating Western media and couldn't name a single one by name, but I'm still an expert on Africa and African politics.
quote:Originally posted by homeylu:
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: Can you name these leaders and provide proof of this opulent lifestyle?
What would naming them prove, they exist that's all that matters. Do a google search. And don't try the cliche; the burden is on me to provide the proof, this is a non- scientific debate based on differing economic theories. We're talking about some 50 odd countries making up one continent. Don't expect me to utilize my time to go thru all 50 of them, when most of it common knowledge the average laymen should expect to be aware of.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: Don't talk about supporting with facts Dougy, you have yet to show how all FDI is bad.
The point is you haven't addressed the facts posted where foreign investors are actively destroying and destabilizing Africa by purposely promoting corruption, bad government, bad debt, coups and other activities which work against African development.
Did those things happen or did they not and are the foreign investors different now or are they the same?
The only thing I can hear from you and others is that After slavery, colonization and apartheid in the name of foreign "investment" we should now look at foreign investors as the "good guys" no matter what happened in the past. Of course, that is never backed up by anything other than rhetoric.
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: Don't talk about supporting with facts Dougy, you have yet to show how all FDI is bad.
quote:The only thing I can hear from you and others is that After slavery, colonization and apartheid in the name of foreign "investment" we should now look at foreign investors as the "good guys" no matter what happened in the past.
Quote me or anyone saying this.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: Don't talk about supporting with facts Dougy, you have yet to show how all FDI is bad.
quote:The only thing I can hear from you and others is that After slavery, colonization and apartheid in the name of foreign "investment" we should now look at foreign investors as the "good guys" no matter what happened in the past.
Quote me or anyone saying this.
Did you not post a remark about me saying all FDI is bad?
Does that not mean you suggest that all FDI is good or that most of it is good? Does not FDI mean Foreign Direct Investment?
Therefore are you not suggesting that foreign investment is good for Africa and that somehow the foreign investors today are different from the foreign colonists and investors of yesterday?
Or are you talking just to talk and not really making a point of your own?
The point being you never ever make a point but you are quick to act as if you are arguing something.
If you have a point then make it, otherwise the only thing I get from you is you hate folks talking bad about foreigners investing in Africa and talking about them like they have done no wrong. For what? Why are you so bent on defending foreign investment in Africa? Are they giving you money?
Posted by homeylu (Member # 4430) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The only thing I can hear from you and others is that After slavery, colonization and apartheid in the name of foreign "investment" we should now look at foreign investors as the "good guys" no matter what happened in the past. Of course, that is never backed up by anything other than rhetoric.
You are completely ignorant, and show no ability to argue against REAL quotes, you consistently argue against BASELESS claims. Slavery, Imperialism, Apartheid, were NOT investments, and no one ever claimed they were!
Even the Chinese investors in Africa had nothing to do with any of the above (slavery,colonozation, or apartheid).
What you fail to realize is that it's the Africans that WANT INVESTORS, and trying to attract it, not the other way around. Most investors see Africa as too politically unstable, and venture into other developing countries.
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The only thing I can hear from you and others is that After slavery, colonization and apartheid in the name of foreign "investment" we should now look at foreign investors as the "good guys" no matter what happened in the past.
Quote me or anyone saying this. Or STFU.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Did you not post a remark about me saying all FDI is bad? Does that not mean you suggest that all FDI is good or that most of it is good?
LOL you poor simpleton.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The only thing I can hear from you and others is that After slavery, colonization and apartheid in the name of foreign "investment" we should now look at foreign investors as the "good guys" no matter what happened in the past.
Quote me or anyone saying this. Or STFU.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Did you not post a remark about me saying all FDI is bad? Does that not mean you suggest that all FDI is good or that most of it is good?
LOL you poor simpleton.
Yawn.
Please actually make a point. All you do is cling to every post I make without having a point of your own.
Like this bit of childishness above.
You haven't addressed anything, haven't said anything and yet pretend to have an argument. What is your point? What is it that you believe and what is it that supports that belief?
Saying that you can't be quoted points out that in this entire thread you haven't yet made a point? So nobody can quote you because you haven't said anything.
So either make a point or stop trying to pretend to be defending something without actually providing the substance of what you are defending.
And like I said, since the only thing you seem to harp on is my posts relative to foreigners, then the logical conclusion is that you feel that foreigners are not doing anything wrong and that they should not be criticized for anything.
Otherwise, what is your point? Are you here simply to defend foreign investors or are you here to talk about African development in all its dimensions which is far more than simply foreign investment. Development starts at home and primarily will revolve around Africans. Foreigners can play a part but the primary responsibility lies with Africans and nobody else.
Do you disagree with that? Why?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by homeylu:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The only thing I can hear from you and others is that After slavery, colonization and apartheid in the name of foreign "investment" we should now look at foreign investors as the "good guys" no matter what happened in the past. Of course, that is never backed up by anything other than rhetoric.
You are completely ignorant, and show no ability to argue against REAL quotes, you consistently argue against BASELESS claims. Slavery, Imperialism, Apartheid, were NOT investments, and no one ever claimed they were!
Even the Chinese investors in Africa had nothing to do with any of the above (slavery,colonozation, or apartheid).
What you fail to realize is that it's the Africans that WANT INVESTORS, and trying to attract it, not the other way around. Most investors see Africa as too politically unstable, and venture into other developing countries.
Homeylou who financed the trips to South Africa, America and elsewhere and how were they financed?
Answer: investment under colonial crown maritime trade law and chartered companies under those laws.
All the first colonies in the Americas were chartered companies. Therefore I suggest you read some history before making false claims.
The whole enterprise behind slavery, colonialism and apartheid as well as similar systems of white supremacy all over the colonial world were economic and based on "investment" to support, develop and defend the economic interests of Europeans.
quote: The London Company (also called the Charter of the Virginia Company of London) was an English joint stock company established by royal charter by James I of England on October 26, 1606 with the purpose of establishing colonial settlements in North America. It was not founded as a joint stock company, but became one under the 1609 charter. It was one of two such as English colony, in 1610.[clarification needed]
The territory granted to the London Company included the coast of North America from the 34th parallel (Cape Fear) north to the 41st parallel (in Long Island Sound), but being part of the Virginia Company and Colony, the London Company owned a large portion of Atlantic and Inland Canada. The company was permitted by its charter to establish a 100-square-mile (260 km2) settlement within this area. The portion of the company's territory north of the 38th parallel was shared with the Plymouth Company, with the stipulation that neither company found a colony within 100 miles (161 km) of each other.
The London Company made landfall on April 26, 1607 at the southern edge of the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, which they named Cape Henry, in present day Virginia Beach. Deciding to move the encampment, on May 24, 1607 they established the Jamestown Settlement on the James River about 40 miles (64 km) upstream from the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. Later in 1607, the Plymouth Company established its Popham Colony in present day Maine, but it was abandoned after about a year. By 1609, the Plymouth Company had dissolved. As a result, the charter for the London Company was adjusted with a new grant that extended from "sea to sea" of the previously-shared area between the 34th and 40th parallel. It was amended in 1612 to include the new territory of Bermuda.
The London Company struggled financially for a number of years, with results improving after sweeter strains of tobacco than the native variety were cultivated and successfully exported from Virginia as a cash crop beginning in 1612. In 1624, the company lost its charter, and Virgina became a royal colony.
Please don't claim that you actually didn't know about the above and claim that I am making up history.
Likewise the purpose of aparthied was to move Africans off land in order to make way for more European settlements, mines and farms and to further the investment interests of Europeans in South Africa.
And anyone who doesn't understand that slaves were considered as investments under slavery and the system of slavery a profitable business model for European investors who financed slave expeditions and ships, is simply someone who doesn't anything about the history of slavery.
quote: The business of the company was the settlement of the Virginia colony using, as the labor force, voluntary transportees under the customary indenture system whereby in exchange for seven years of labor for the company, the company provided passage, food, protection and land ownership.
In December 1606, the Virginia Company's three ships, containing 144 men and boys (40 died during the voyage[citation needed]), set sail from Blackwall, London. After an unusually long voyage of 144 days, they made landfall on April 26, 1607 at the southern edge of the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, which they named Cape Henry. At the bay, they were attacked by Native Americans who pushed the settlers North. On May 14, 1607, these first settlers selected the site of Jamestown Island as the place to build their fort.
In addition to survival, the early colonists had another pressing mission: to make a profit for the owners of the Virginia Company. Although the settlers were disappointed that gold did not wash up on the beach and gems did not grow in the trees, they realized there was great potential for wealth of other kinds in their new home. Early industries, such as glass manufacture, pitch and tar production and beer and wine making took advantage of natural resources and the land's fertility. From the outset it was thought that the abundance of timber would be the primary leg of the economy, as Britain's forests had long been felled. The seemingly inexhaustible supply of cheap American timber was to be the primary enabler of England's (and then Britain's) rise to maritime (merchant and naval) supremacy. However, the settlers could not devote as much time as the Virginia Company would have liked to their financial responsibilities. They were too busy trying to survive.
Within the three-sided fort erected on the banks of the James, the settlers quickly discovered that they were, first and foremost, employees of the Virginia Company of London, following instructions of the men appointed by the Company to rule them. In exchange, the laborers were armed and received clothes and food from the common store. After seven years, they were to receive land of their own. The gentlemen, who provided their own armor and weapons, were to be paid in land, dividends or additional shares of stock.
Initially, the colonists were governed by a president and seven-member council selected by the King. Leadership problems quickly erupted and Jamestown's first two leaders coped with varying degrees of success with sickness, Indian assaults, poor food and water supplies and class strife.
When Captain John Smith became Virginia's third president, he proved the strong leader that the colony needed. Industry flourished and relations with Chief Powhatan's people improved. In 1609, the Virginia Company received its Second Charter, which allowed the Company to choose its new governor from amongst its shareholders. Investment boomed as the Company launched an intensive recruitment campaign. Over 600 colonists set sail for Virginia between March 1608 and March 1609.
Unfortunately for these new settlers, Sir Mr. Scrandy Virginia's deputy governor, bound for the colony aboard the Sea Venture, was shipwrecked in Bermuda, along with the Admiral of the Company, Sir George Somers, Captain Newport, and 147 other settlers and seamen. When Gates arrived to take up his new post in 1610, with most of the survivors of the Sea Venture (on two new ships built in Bermuda, the Deliverance and the Patience) he found only 60 of the original 214 colonists had survived the infamous "Starving Time" of 1609–1610[1], and most of these were dying or ill. Despite the abundance of food they had brought from Bermuda (which had necessitated the building of two ships), it was clear the colony did not have the means for survival. The survivors of Jamestown were taken aboard the Deliverance and the Patience, and the colony was abandoned. It was intended to return everyone to England, but the fortuitous arrival of another relief fleet, bearing Governor Lord De la Warre, granted Jamestown a reprieve. All the settlers were put ashore again , and Sir George Somers returned to Bermuda aboard the Patience to obtain more food (Somers died there, and his nephew, Matthew Somers, the captain of the Patience, took the vessel to Lyme Regis, instead, to claim his inheritance).
When news of Virginia's woeful state reached London, the result was predictable: financial catastrophe for the Company. Many new subscribers reneged payment on their shares, and the Company became entangled in dozens of court cases. On top of these losses, the Company was forced to incur further debt when it sent hundreds more colonists to Virginia.
There was little to counter this crushing debt. No gold had been found in Virginia; trading commodities produced by exploitation of the raw materials found in the New World were minimal. Attempts at producing glass, pitch, tar and potash had been barely profitable, and such commodities could be had far more cheaply on the other side of the Atlantic.
Increasingly bad publicity, political infighting and financial woes led the Virginia Company to organize a massive advertising campaign. The Company plastered street corners with tempting broadsheets, published persuasive articles, and even convinced the clergy to preach of the virtues of supporting colonization. Before the Company was dissolved, it would publish twenty-seven books and pamphlets promoting the Virginia venture.
To make shares more marketable, the Virginia Company changed its sales pitch. Instead of promising instant returns and vast profits for investors, the Company exploited patriotic sentiment and national pride. A stockholder was assured that his purchase of shares would help build the might of England, to make her the power she deserved to be. The heathen natives would be converted to the proper form of Christianity, the Church of England. People out of work could find employment in the New World. The standard of living would increase across the nation. How could any good, patriotic Englishman resist?
The English rose to the bait. The gentry wished to win favor by proving their loyalty to the crown. The growing middle class also saw stock purchasing as a way to better itself. But the news was not all good. Although the population of Jamestown rose, high settler mortality kept profits unstable. By 1612, the Company's debts had soared to over £1000.
A third charter provided a short-term resolution to the Virginia Company's problems. The Company was permitted to run a lottery as a fundraising venture. Other attractive features of the charter allowed Virginia's assembly to act as the colony's legislature and also added 300 leagues of ocean to the colony's holdings, which would include Bermuda (sometimes known as Virgineola) as part of Virginia. But the colony was still on shaky ground until John Rolfe's successful experiment with tobacco as a cash crop provided a way to recoup financially.
Unfortunately, by 1616, the Virginia Company suffered further adversity. The original settlers were owed their land and stock shares; initial investors at home were owed their dividends. The Company was forced to renege on its cash promises, instead distributing 50 acre (200,000 m²) lots in payment. The next year, the Company instituted the headright system, a way to bring more settlers to Virginia. Investors and residents were able to acquire land in paying the passage of new settlers. In most cases, these newcomers spent a period of time in servitude on the investor's land. Edwin Sandys, a leading force in the Virginia Company, strongly supported the headright system, for his goal was a permanent colony which would enlarge British territory, relieve the nation's overpopulation, and expand the market for English goods. Sir Thomas Smythe, as the Company's Treasurer, had a different dream: the Virginia Company's mission was to trade and to make a profit.
In the end, it was Sandys' vision which prevailed. When he became Treasurer of the Company in 1619, he moved forward to populate the colony and earn a protective status for the tobacco crop which had become the cash crop of Virginia. At the same time, he urged colonists to diversify their plantings and thus become less reliant on only one staple. The colonists ignored this advice, to their later dismay.
In 1619, the Company issued a grant to one John Wincob, which was originally to be used by the English Separatist Pilgrims for settling in the New World. (It was abandoned by the Pilgrims when they instead decided to use a grant issued by the Company to their financial backers. Since their crossing on the Mayflower landed them in what is now New England, beyond the lands controlled by the Company, this grant was also effectively abandoned.)[2]
In 1621, the Company was in trouble; unpaid dividends and increased use of lotteries had made future investors wary. The Company debt was now over £9000. Worried Virginians were hardly reassured by the advice of pragmatic Treasurer Sandys, who warned that the Company "cannot wish you to rely on anything but yourselves." In March 1622, the Company's and the colony's situation went from dire to disastrous when the Powhatan Indians staged an uprising which wiped out a quarter of the European population of Virginia. When a fourth charter, severely reducing the Company's ability to make decisions in the governing of Virginia, was proposed by the Crown, subscribers rejected it. King James I forthwith changed the status of Virginia in 1624. Virginia was now a royal colony to be administered by a governor appointed by the King. The Virginia Assembly finally received royal approval, in 1627, and this form of government, with governor and assembly, would oversee the colony of Virginia until 1776, excepting only the years of the English Commonwealth.
Bermuda had been separated, in 1614, when the Crown briefly took over its administration. In 1615, the shareholders of the Virginia Company created a new company, the Somers Isles Company, which continued to operate Bermuda, subsequently, also known officially as The Somers Isles (for the Admiral of the Virginia Company, Sir George Somers) until it, too, was dissolved in 1684.
Plymouth Company and Plymouth Council for New England:
quote: The Plymouth Council for New England was the name of a 17th century English joint stock company that was granted a royal charter to found colonial settlements along the coast of North America. The council surrendered its charter to the crown in 1635 and ceased to exist as a corporate entity.
Some of the persons involved had previously received a charter in 1606 as the Plymouth Company and had founded the shortlived Popham Colony within the territory of northern Virginia (actually in present-day Maine in the United States). The company had fallen into disuse following the abandonment of the 1607 colony.
In the new 1620 charter granted by James I, the company was given rights of settlement in the area now designated as New England, which was the land previously part of the Virginia Colony north of the 40th parallel, and extending to the 48th parallel (thus including all of present day New Brunswick and Nova Scotia) Unlike the previous charter, the new charter specified colonial rights of the company "from sea to sea".
Unlike the original Plymouth Company, the Plymouth Council was more successful. The first settlement in the area owned by the council was the Plymouth Colony in present day Plymouth, Massachusetts, although the council did not inititate the Plymouth Colony.
After the success of the Plymouth settlement, much of the rest of the company's territory was given away in further grants to other colonial ventures, notably: the Massachusetts Bay Company in 1628, and the Province of Maine to Sir Ferdinando Gorges and John Mason in 1622.
The Company's first attempt at settling Maine came in 1623, when King Charles I granted 6,000 acres of land to Captain Christopher Levett, a member of the Council for New England, to found a settlement, the third colony in North America. King Charles also directed that Anglican churches take up offerings to support the endeavor. Levett built a house in Casco Bay, left a company of men behind and returned to England. Located at the present-site of Portland, Maine, the settlement failed, and Levett never returned to Maine, although he was on hand to greet John Winthrop when he landed in Massachusetts in 1630. (For additional information see Stephen Bachiler who was to be leader of the Province of Maine).
The Plymouth Council is not to be confused with the Plymouth Colony, which was established in 1620 on land owned by the Council and outside the territory of the London Company. The Pilgrims of the Plymouth Colony had been granted permission to settle in the Hudson River area, but practical difficulties resulted in their settlement farther north on Cape Cod Bay. The colony obtained land patents from the Council in 1621 and in 1630, but was governed independently from the Council under the Mayflower Compact.
quote: Warrant for William Ussling to Establish a General Company for Trade to Asia, Africa, America and Magellanica; December 21, 1624
We, Gustavus Adolphus, by the grace of God, King of Sweden, Gothland and the Wendes, Grand Duke of Finland, Duke of Esthonia and Dalecarlia, Lord of Lugermanland, etc., etc.
Know you, that by a petition the honest and prudent William Ussling has humbly shown and proved to us how a general trading company here from our kingdom of Sweden to Asia, Africa, America, and Magellanica could be established for the considerable improvement of our and the Crown's revenues and the great advantage and benefit of our subjects; besides, that the said Ussling has also promised to us and engaged himself that he will organize this company using the utmost of his diligence and power, while he cherishes the certain hope that, with God's gracious blessing and help, it shall have a good beginning and progress as well as a favorable result and end. Such being the proposition which he made, we have taken it into consideration and find it to be founded and based upon so good reasons that we cannot disapprove of it nor do we see but what it is sure that if God will give success it shall tend to the honor of his Holy Name, to our and the state's welfare, and the advancement and advantage of our subjects. We have, therefore, graciously received and with pleasure approved of it and consented that the said company be organized and established. And that it may be done so much easier and better and capital and a management may be got so much quicker, we have given to the said Ussling power and permission now and in future to raise, inscribe, and accept in this our kingdom of Sweden and its dependent provinces all those who wish and desire to participate in the said society or company, not doubting that our faithful subjects, considering the advantages which they can have thereby both for themselves as well as their descendants in future, shall let themselves be found willing, each according to his power and means, to contribute something to and take a share in the said undertaking which is with especial well-meaning directed and organized for the common welfare and everybody's advantage. We also command herewith to all our governors, lords-lieutenants, bailiffs, crown-farmers, mayors, and councillors, as well as to all our other officers, whom the abovementioned Ussling shall ask for assistance and encouragement, that they receive him in friendship and, as far as their positions require and admit, give him for the promotion of this work what is needed, aid, and help him while he and everybody in his place here shall communicate more detailed information and advice about it.
Given and signed in our Royal Palace at Stockholm, the 21st of December, 1624
And most new "independent" states maintained the british common law in their constitutions:
quote: As colonies gained independence from Britain, most adopted British common law as the basis for their legal systems. In most cases, newly-independent colonies received common law precedent as of the date independence as the default law, to the extent not explicitly rejected by the newly-freed colony's founding documents or government.
For example, following the American Revolution in 1776, one of the first legislative acts undertaken by each of the newly-independent states was to adopt a "reception statute" that gave legal effect to the existing body of British common law to the extent that American legislation or the Constitution had not explicitly rejected British law.[36] Some states enacted reception statutes as legislative statutes, while other states received the English common law through provisions of the state's constitution, and some by court decision. British traditions such as the monarchy were rejected by the U.S. Constitution, but many British common law traditions such as habeas corpus, jury trials, and various other civil liberties were adopted in the United States. Significant elements of British common law prior to 1776 still remain in effect in many jurisdictions in the United States, because they have never been rejected by American courts or legislatures.[37]
For example, the New York Constitution of 1777[38] provides that:
[S]uch parts of the common law of England, and of the statute law of England and Great Britain, and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony on the 19th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, shall be and continue the law of this State, subject to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this State shall, from time to time, make concerning the same.
quote: The common law of England, as-well as so much of the statute law as has been heretofore adopted in practice in this State, shall remain in force, unless they shall be altered by a future law of the legislature; such parts only excepted as are repugnant to the rights and privileges contained in this constitution, and the declaration of rights, &c., agreed to by this convention.
^^^ Doug we know who helped finance the Apartheid regime, we were also part of the activists that pressured companies to DIVEST to help bring it to an END. We are talking about now, yet you are incapable of addressing the current economic situation without a simplistic solution and an argument against straw men.
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: Translated: I'm regurgitating Western media and couldn't name a single one by name, but I'm still an expert on Africa and African politics.
Translated--get off your butt and go search for one. Avee was kind enough to do a few cases, that you 'conveniently' ignored. I don't pretend to be an 'expert' in anything, but my extensive knowledge in economics, knows that it takes more than a simplistic approach of "planting seeds" to boost the African economy.
Actually Western media portrays Africans like Doug M; "helpless starving" in need of constant humanitarian support. You'd be hard-pressed to find a western media source showing an African living in a multi-million dollar dwelling. Believe me.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by homeylu: ^^^ Doug we know who helped finance the Apartheid regime, we were also part of the activists that pressured companies to DIVEST to help bring it to an END. We are talking about now, yet you are incapable of addressing the current economic situation without a simplistic solution and an argument against straw men.
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: Translated: I'm regurgitating Western media and couldn't name a single one by name, but I'm still an expert on Africa and African politics.
Translated--get off your butt and go search for one. Avee was kind enough to do a few cases, that you 'conveniently' ignored.
Actually Western media portrays Africans like Doug M; "helpless starving" in need of constant humanitarian support. You'd be hard-pressed to find a western media source showing an African living in a multi-million dollar dwelling. Believe me.
Homey, you aren't saying anything.
And last I checked the biggest corporations and land owners in South Africa and elsewhere in Africa are the same companies that were built during the colonial period. Are you suggesting that Africans should depend on these companies and look at them as anything other than institutions built on the destruction and oppression of Africans? And to be specific companies like DeBeers, Rio Tinto, Anglo American and so forth. What have these companies done for Africans in the past and what are they doing for them now?
So what is your point? That these companies are now suddenly good for Africa and that investors like those who created these companies are good for Africa? Most investors in Africa are following in the footsteps of those who created those companies. This is documented fact, from supporting and maintaining corrupt officials, to land grabs and other sorts of schemes, these investors are still primarily pursuing the same agenda that was pursued during colonialism.
Again, this is an argument based on facts. I don't care how you feel, I care about your ability to address facts.
So what is your point?
My point is clear: Africa's development is primarily the responsibility of Africans themselves. Foreigners can play a role but the primary responsibility rests on Africans.
What is your point?
Posted by Avee (Member # 16937) on :
quote:Originally posted by homeylu: 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.
Solution 1 exists. In East Africa we the EAC short east African community. The member state Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda and Burundi.
4 is in the process.
Anyway if this does not only talks the talk but walks the walk, he may be on gthe right path:
'Uganda: 'Oil Money for Roads, Science' Kampala — OIL revenues will not be spent on consumption, but will be used to finance construction of infrastructure to spur economic growth, President Yoweri Museveni has re-affirmed. "We shall study Norway's model and get some of its useful elements. We need a hybrid of our own. The danger is using money to fund consumption like importing whiskey, cars or perfumes. The money will fund infrastructure like railway, roads and science education." The President was launching a book "Uganda's economic reforms; An insider's account," at the Serena Kampala Hotel over the weekend. The book was written by government officials, who were at the heart of the reforms, including the Central Bank governor, Emmanuel Tumusiime Mutebile, Louis Kasekende, the deputy governor and the commissioner in charge of budget policy, Kenneth Mugambe. Others were Justin Zake, Alan Whitworth and Tim Williamson. Museveni added that the Government would not let the oil money undermine other exports like it has been experienced elsewhere. "This was part of the problem Nigeria had. Oil revenues caused exchange rate appreciation. We shall not allow that." The President did not have kind words for the international donors for what he termed as "wasting time teaching me governance issues." "I thank development partners for their contribution. But they should focus on other issues. "What I need is electricity and railways. Governance is a red herring, that's what we fought for, governance in Africa. That's why we were in Mozambique, so no one can tell me about governance," said the President. He said ignoring infrastructural development during the economic reforms era was an oversight and called on donors to fund rail and road projects to link the East African Community states. "If donors want to help Africa, why don't they fund railways linking East African with the DR Congo and Southern Sudan?" He said the Government would fund power generation if the donors were not willing to come on board. He revealed that the energy fund currently had $350m, which would be used to construct dams. "We took over 10 years haggling over a dam. Are the donors interested in developing Africa? The US has 14,000 kilowatt hours per capita. In Uganda it is 60. That is scandalous," he said. Museveni said Uganda would in future produce nuclear power stations from the high deposits of uranium in the country. Mutebile said the theme of the book was about the relevance of economic policy to economic development outcomes. He noted that economic policy was very important to Africa because despite improvements in the 2000s, they remained poor and under developed. He noted that Uganda's success story hinges on a two decade long consistent economic policies. Responding to Mutebile's concern over the risk of the fast rising population growth, Museveni said he had no apologies for the high rates. "I am not panicking about population. Our GDP per capita is about $500 despite of the tripling population of the current 31 million, from 14 million in 1986. Mutebile is right that if population growth was lower we would have been a middle income country. Fertility rates will decline with universal education," he asserted. Museveni said one of the most important reforms was allowing the private sector to create wealth. This he said created a telecommunication revolution, attracted investors to the education and transport sector and improved revenue collection. He suggested government intervention in areas that were not attractive to the private sector due to low rates of return. "We are not talking of a policy reversal but we should have indicative parastatals that move into areas that are shunned by the private sector." Governor Mutebile said the theme of the book was about the relevance of economic policy to economic development outcomes. He noted that economic policy was very important to Africa because despite improvements in the 2000s, they remained poor and under developed. He noted that Uganda's success story hinges on a two decade long consistent economic policies. "While there have been revisions to policy, there has not been any policy reversals which is important for investor confidence. It's important for government to commit itself almost permanently," he said. Mutebile highlighted the reforms that had taken place over the past decades including liberalization of the exchange rate, privatization, currency reform, structural reforms to improve resource allocation among others. He noted that the reforms propelled Uganda to have one of the fastest growing that averaged 7 percent over two decades. According to Mutebile, while Uganda has performed on the macroeconomic front, the future challenge was management of oil revenues. "Just like we became a model on macroeconomic management, we must become a model on management of oil reserves," he said.
Posted by Whatbox (Member # 10819) on :
^^
quote:Originally posted by AswaniAswad: This will not last they cant try to do this but it will eventually fall in there face.
White land owners black workers wont work im moving to africa next year game over
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Foreigners can play a role ....
Oh my f!cking god! LOL!!!
Go look at past threads [especially one where he confused government-ownership with royal charters] where this ignorant confused jackass inveighs against all FDI and foreigners. Now they have a ROLE to play?!! LOL!
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Foreigners can play a role ....
Oh my f!cking god! LOL!!!
Go look at past threads [especially one where he confused government-ownership with royal charters] where this ignorant confused jackass inveighs against all FDI and foreigners. Now they have a ROLE to play?!! LOL!
I think you are confused.
What we were talking about and what I am saying now is the same thing.
But again, I don't see you making a point. Surely your whole presence in this thread is not to try and find something, anything that you can cling to while not actually making a point of your own.
The whole argument and debate with some people on this board and myself concerning economics in Africa boils down to the role of foreigners in Africa's development.
My point is clear: Africans are responsible for their own development and nobody else.
Common sense tells you that in order to have trade and commerce you have to deal with foreigners.
However, the point I was making in the other thread and the point I am making now is that trading with foreigners is not the same as depending solely on foreigners for your economic development through "foreign investment". The point being that "foreign investment" has never developed Africa and never will and should not be relied upon for development. Economics is the key to development and there is a whole lot more to economics than simply foreign investment.
But again, since you never really make a point other than to criticize and over simplify what is obviously a complex discussion, of course you would think that this is what I meant.
Controlling trade does not mean not being involved or interacting with foreigners. For example when I say controlling trade, I mean Africans owning and profiting from their own gold mines where they trade that gold with foreigners for profit. That fundamental right of Africans to own and control their own diamond trade, gold trade and trade in other resources is as fundamental to economic development as anything else. Sure foreigners can own their own mines in Africa, but the historical domination of MOST African gold and resource mining by foreigners is simply a result of colonial policies and domination not any sort of natural process of economic development due to benign foreign "investment". In fact such investments were the reason for the oppression in the first place, because of the history of the colonial enterprises that created them.
Posted by homeylu (Member # 4430) on :
quote:Originally posted by Avee: 'Uganda: 'Oil Money for Roads, Science' Kampala — OIL revenues will not be spent on consumption, but will be used to finance construction of infrastructure to spur economic growth, President Yoweri Museveni has re-affirmed. "We shall study Norway's model and get some of its useful elements. We need a hybrid of our own. The danger is using money to fund consumption like importing whiskey, cars or perfumes. The money will fund infrastructure like railway, roads and science education." ..... The President did not have kind words for the international donors for what he termed as "wasting time teaching me governance issues." "I thank development partners for their contribution. But they should focus on other issues. "What I need is electricity and railways. Governance is a red herring, that's what we fought for, governance in Africa. That's why we were in Mozambique, so no one can tell me about governance," said the President.
Now this is a prime example of effective leadership and how Foreign investment can be beneficial for both the Nationals and the investors. This is the win-win scenario.
No one has suggested (other than the straw men Doug argues with) that Africans have to sell-out their resources at liquidated prices, like a passive beggar. You have something they desire, so you have to negotiate a deal beneficial to your nation.
Reinvesting in infrastructure is a sure way to reach long term goals, of further development. Science and Technology is a good place to start. Everyone can't always be farmers. Even commercial farmers have commodities that are determined by the markets, and the prices fluctuate for agricultural products too often to be stable. Even environmental factors such as floods and droughts can affect the prices in such markets.
With internal technology, you can maintain the ability to manufacture more of your own resources, relying even less on external advances.
He is very clever not to turn his nation into a society of CONSUMERS. This is the problem with the American society, and how our outlooks drives the world economy, of course we're a developed nation, but we have a tendency of over-consumption for lack of a "nicer" term.
Posted by Whatbox (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Originally posted by AswaniAswad: This will not last they cant try to do this but it will eventually fall in there face.
White land owners black workers wont work im moving to africa next year game over
quote:Originally posted by Avee: 'Uganda: 'Oil Money for Roads, Science' Kampala — OIL revenues will not be spent on consumption, but will be used to finance construction of infrastructure to spur economic growth, President Yoweri Museveni has re-affirmed. "We shall study Norway's model and get some of its useful elements. We need a hybrid of our own. The danger is using money to fund consumption like importing whiskey, cars or perfumes. The money will fund infrastructure like railway, roads and science education." ..... The President did not have kind words for the international donors for what he termed as "wasting time teaching me governance issues." "I thank development partners for their contribution. But they should focus on other issues. "What I need is electricity and railways. Governance is a red herring, that's what we fought for, governance in Africa. That's why we were in Mozambique, so no one can tell me about governance," said the President.
Now this is a prime example of effective leadership and how Foreign investment can be beneficial for both the Nationals and the investors. This is the win-win scenario.
No one has suggested (other than the straw men Doug argues with) that Africans have to sell-out their resources at liquidated prices, like a passive beggar. You have something they desire, so you have to negotiate a deal beneficial to your nation.
Reinvesting in infrastructure is a sure way to reach long term goals, of further development. Science and Technology is a good place to start. Everyone can't always be farmers. Even commercial farmers have commodities that are determined by the markets, and the prices fluctuate for agricultural products too often to be stable. Even environmental factors such as floods and droughts can affect the prices in such markets.
With internal technology, you can maintain the ability to manufacture more of your own resources, relying even less on external advances.
He is very clever not to turn his nation into a society of CONSUMERS. This is the problem with the American society, and how our outlooks drives the world economy, of course we're a developed nation, but we have a tendency of over-consumption for lack of a "nicer" term.
Sorry. Facts aren't straw men.
In fact, that statement of yours is a straw man.
I said point blank that Africans alone are responsible for their own development, nobody else. And part of that responsibility is in Africans controlling their own companies and industries so they can sell and process their own resources and gain a profit. That is economics, not simply waiting for someone else to come in and set up anything for you.
I know you didn't say that, but I am because that is the point. You do what you have to do to survive which doesn't mean wait for someone else. Meaning your survival doesn't start with foreigners it starts with you. That is just a fact and you can call it a straw man or whatever you want, but it is still true and will always be true, as that is the fundamental reality of life on this planet. That is my main philosophy behind what I feel is necessary for African development.
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Sorry.Facts aren't straw men.
No dummy, your posts are filled with straw men.
E.g. Your
quote:The only thing I can hear from you and others is that After slavery, colonization and apartheid in the name of foreign "investment" we should now look at foreign investors as the "good guys" no matter what happened in the past.
^ Quote me or anyone saying this. We are still waiting. Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Sorry.Facts aren't straw men.
No dummy, your posts are filled with straw men.
E.g. Your
quote:The only thing I can hear from you and others is that After slavery, colonization and apartheid in the name of foreign "investment" we should now look at foreign investors as the "good guys" no matter what happened in the past.
^ Quote me or anyone saying this. We are still waiting.
I know you didn't say this. My point is you haven't said anything, but you criticize me for attacking foreigners and foreign investors as if they don't deserve it. Therefore, you are supporting them and their history of investment in Africa. It is only logic.
Otherwise, if you disagree, make your own position clear.
What is it about my posts that you feel the need to constantly respond then? What is it you disagree with?
Posted by homeylu (Member # 4430) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I know you didn't say this. My point is you haven't said anything, but you criticize me for attacking foreigners and foreign investors as if they don't deserve it. Therefore, you are supporting them and their history of investment in Africa. It is only logic.
Otherwise, if you disagree, make your own position clear.
What is it about my posts that you feel the need to constantly respond then?
quote:What is it you disagree with?
Your 'twisted' logic, for one. Your inability to effectively refute anything we stated , and hence by your own admission, GRASPING AT STRAWS!
This type of logic is fallacious, as you failed to disprove our ACTUAL positions, and instead consistently create a DISTORTED version of our position, and refuted that version instead. It reveals a lack of real knowledge on the subject of our positions.
But for some reason, I think you actually believe that any of us are trying to refute the original post. When in actuality we were simply trying to show the PROS and CONS, rather than simply "whining" about a 'negative' situation without at least offering an alternative solution. While your arguments are based simply on 'Appeal to emotions', not LOGIC.
Posted by Avee (Member # 16937) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I said point blank that Africans alone are responsible for their own development, nobody else. And part of that responsibility is in Africans controlling their own companies and industries so they can sell and process their own resources and gain a profit. That is economics, not simply waiting for someone else to come in and set up anything for you.
I know you didn't say that, but I am because that is the point. You do what you have to do to survive which doesn't mean wait for someone else. Meaning your survival doesn't start with foreigners it starts with you. That is just a fact and you can call it a straw man or whatever you want, but it is still true and will always be true, as that is the fundamental reality of life on this planet. That is my main philosophy behind what I feel is necessary for African development.
Is this good enough for ya? This could turn out to be a win win deal:)
"B]Uganda becomes oil producer[/B]
........ He said as a result he refused to sign an agreement with Shell BP and Exxon because "I had nobody in Uganda knowledgeable on petroleum issues and I did not want to sell Ugandan interest at all." President Museveni went on saying his government was forced to send two young Ugandans to study first degrees in geology, physics or chemistry so that they could study masters in petroleum science abroad.
"Today, a core team of 25 professionals, 20 of them with Masters of Science degrees in these fields, has been put in place. It is this team that drafted our policy on petroleum exploration; did the aero-magnetic studies, using air-crafts that had started in 1982; did the seismological studies, based on land; as well as conducting some of the informed negotiations with the foreign oil companies," Mr Museveni boasts.
After an initial period of five years of training and capacity building, Mr Museveni said, the petroleum unit has been transformed into a department of petroleum exploration and production equipped with sophisticated equipment. The Ugandan president said after fifteen years of hard work, his government has now discovered "petroleum of good quality".
He added that the high oil prices on the world market couple with the erratic water levels on Lake Victoria, the Ugandan government has opted to pursue an Early Oil Production Scheme, which will involve setting up a mini-refinery to process a moderate amount of crude oil in order to produce diesel, kerosene and heavy fuel oil as well as develop a heavy fuel oil-based power plant to generate electricity.
He therefore urged Ugandans who panic about electricity to calm down. Uganda at the moment is consuming over 10,000 barrels of oil everyday and the import bill for its petroleum products stands over US$ 400,000 per year, Mr Museveni said while exploration continues, commercial production would start in mid-2009.
"Apart from discovering the oil underground, Uganda also has the capacity to produce bio-diesel - diesel from plants such as Jatropha (ekiroowa, etc) and Pongomia Pinnata (proposed to be imported from India). Some companies from Asia are ready to move in immediately. Government will establish joint ventures with some of them. In addition, of course, we are continuing with our plans to build Bujagali, Karuma, Ayago, etc. Therefore, the problem of shortage of energy, an unnecessary mistake in the first place, is on the way out."
A Ministry of Energy official in Uganda, Thomas Male, was quoted as saying that the three discovered fields in western Uganda have reserves of between 100 million and 300 million barrels. According to ‘Associated Press’, nor sooner than the discovery of oil was rumoured than wealthy Ugandans started scrambling to buy land in areas where exploration of oil is taking place.
"
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by homeylu:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I know you didn't say this. My point is you haven't said anything, but you criticize me for attacking foreigners and foreign investors as if they don't deserve it. Therefore, you are supporting them and their history of investment in Africa. It is only logic.
Otherwise, if you disagree, make your own position clear.
What is it about my posts that you feel the need to constantly respond then?
quote:What is it you disagree with?
Your 'twisted' logic, for one. Your inability to effectively refute anything we stated , and hence by your own admission, GRASPING AT STRAWS!
This type of logic is fallacious, as you failed to disprove our ACTUAL positions, and instead consistently create a DISTORTED version of our position, and refuted that version instead. It reveals a lack of real knowledge on the subject of our positions.
But for some reason, I think you actually believe that any of us are trying to refute the original post. When in actuality we were simply trying to show the PROS and CONS, rather than simply "whining" about a 'negative' situation without at least offering an alternative solution. While your arguments are based simply on 'Appeal to emotions', not LOGIC.
So do you agree or disagree that Africans are primarily responsible for their own development?
My point is that Africans have primary responsibility for this, nobody else.
That is my position, has been my position and will continue to be my position. You don't have to agree, but don't pretend that you have actually addressed whether my position is wrong or why. Therefore, what is the point of constantly responding if you aren't going to address my fundamental position?
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
quote:Originally posted by homeylu: Your 'twisted' logic, for one. Your inability to effectively refute anything we stated , and hence by your own admission, GRASPING AT STRAWS!
This type of logic is fallacious, as you failed to disprove our ACTUAL positions, and instead consistently create a DISTORTED version of our position, and refuted that version instead. It reveals a lack of real knowledge on the subject of our positions
yep, Dougy in a nut shell.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote: A study conducted by Action Aid Ghana (AAG) and FoodSPAN in four regions in Ghana has revealed that the production of biofuel is fast affecting food crop farmers in the regions.
The study indicated that due to unavailability of comprehensive policy on biofuel production in the country, its production was having adverse effect on food security, environment, human rights and in general, livelihoods of the affected communities.
The study, which was conducted in the last quarter of last year (2009) covered 12 communities namely; Bredi Camp, Myomoase, Fawoman (all in the Brong Ahafo Region), Dukusen and Afrisre (in the Ashanti Region) and Agomeda in Greater Accra.
The rest include; Adidome, Tordzino, Lolito, Dedukorpe (in the Volta region) and Gomoa Adenten and Baifikrom in the Central region.
According to the report, what was worse was that in most cases the companies involved in the production of the biofuel import labour from outside the communities where production sites were located, and "there were drastic lay-offs as the project progressed from land preparation and planting stages."
It observed that the companies were undertaking large scale plantation farms of maily jatropha production with the smallest farm covering about 75 acres.
The companies engaged in jatropha production were Kimminic Estates Ltd. in the Brong Ahafo Region, Scanfuel Limited in Ashanti Region and Afram Basin and Gold Star Bio-Diesel Farm Limited in the Volta and Central Regions.
"Generally, fertile arable lands suitable for crop production were being used for jatropha production except in the Volta region. Biofuel production projects were characterized by extensive use of weedicides, example Sunphosate with possible pollution of water bodies," it stressed.
It observed that the large scale production also involved the use of heavy machinery resulting in wanton destruction of forest, vegetative cover, biodiversity and economic trees including dawadawa and shea-tress, citing Dukusen in the Afram Basin as a clear example.
In Bredi Camp, a farmer named Mageed bemoaned that his life and that of other community members have been adversely affected as they no longer have land to produce maize, cassava and yam, adding that they were neither consulted by the Omanhene of the area nor the biofuel company before they took over the land, and that they have not been compensated for the displacement.
However, the report recommended for an urgent need for the government and all other stakeholders to discuss the issue of land grabbing for biofuel production objectively and come up with policies that would spell out modalities for biofuel production in the country since food insecurity, destruction of biodiversity and violation of human rights were imminent if not properly handled.
The Project Officer of General Agricultural Workers Union (GAWU), Mr. Joseph Owusu Osei told The Chronicle in an interview that due to the energy crisis the world over, there is a shift to bioproduction, hence countries like Russia, the US and China have moved to Ghana to acquire large tracts of lands in the country.
He said the activities of the multinational companies have left a lot to be desired.
He noted that they would present a policy paper to the Parliamentary select committee on Food and Agriculture on March 25th 2010 on what steps to take to combat the situation.
quote: A new study has linked conflicts in Africa with the continent's oil and mineral resources that Western powers are fighting to control through the militarised foreign policy of the United States in Africa, and geopolitical wars.
The study, Globalisation in Africa: Commercial Wars and State Failure in Uganda is a University of Malaya PhD thesis by Ugandan scholar Yunus Lubega Butanaziba.
Released in October 2009, it says the West's "imperial" interest in Africa's wealth first led to conquest and more recently the creation of a centralised military force, the US African Command (Africom) to police these resources, including Uganda's oil.
This interest has shaped global geopolitics from pre-World War II through the Cold War to the present in Congo, Darfur, Somalia, Sudan, Angola, Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Uganda.
No wonder these countries are among the world's conflict flashpoints of the post-Cold War era.
The study also postulates that commercial and resource wars are a US agenda with its allied Western powers -- all members of the Bretton Woods institutions since 1944 that seeks to weaken internal political systems and take control of resources.
This casts a very grim picture on the fortunes of Uganda that struck oil only a few years ago but has since been on the brink of slipping back into conflict.
This has been going on since the mid-seventeenth century the first stage was of course the slave trade, this evolved over the centuries until today's Neo-colonialism stage. Many sources you may read have you believe that slaves were the most important export through the earliest periods but allot of this is because we don't have as much records for the earlier periods. Patrick Manning had talked about how there was a dramatic change in the Bight of Benin and before then there were most likely trade in other things. John Thornton in his book talked about expensive cloth being exported from the Bight of Benin.
Eventually Europeans got the upper hand and during this period of history the development of Africa's natural resources were actually being suppressed and although industries in Africa didn't all go out of business Africans became more and more dependent on foreign imports. While Europeans had trouble playing Africans against each other they were still able to manipulate prices of different currencies and eventually many Africans ended up owing great debts to Europeans. While tons and tons (literally) of gunpowder and hundreds of thousand of firearms were being exported to Africa every year evidence seems to suggest that the biggest motive was profit and thus firearms were a means to an end, to attain slaves to trade for cowry shells, European trade goods and other items from distant continents. On the other hand gunpowder was important for conquests and not just capturing slaves but African weapons remained effective for a time, however European technology advanced over time making firearms more and more desirable compared to African weapons. Higher prices of slaves led to more militarization, the Dahomeans for example went to war with imported firearms and African manufactured swords. John Thornton believes the Lunda empire was an even more perfect slave capturing state than Dahomey and the Lunda through the 18th century did not use muskets.
While the trade in slaves became an important source of revenue for the nations of Africa, at the same time the reason it was an important source of revenue was because the goods being flooded were actually decreased the revenue of these states. The effects of course were disastrous, the slave trade was Europeans winning the competition against the Africans and by the late 17th century Europeans had the upper hand. The centuries after that up to the present is just Europeans increasing their domination
And as I said we go through various stages until Modern Neo-Colonialism
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
The scramble for Africa of course saw a great reversal in the policy of the Europeans when instead of suppressing the natural wealth of Africa they actually came in and exploited it
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
When talking about aid and charity, remember that the slave traders offered gifts and loans to African rulers and African states, all this did was deepen the Africans' debt and dependence on trade with Europeans
In other words, I'm comparing gifts from slave traders to modern day foreign aid
If any of the statistics in this article are wrong please tell me:
quote:These measures have allowed the U.S. to dump its farm surplus on world markets. For example, the U.S. exports corn at prices 20 percent below the cost of actual production, and wheat at 46 percent below cost. This has resulted in Mexican corn farmers being put out of business. The dramatic increase in U.S. agricultural subsidies will further jeopardize the livelihoods of those in developing countries. Poor regions, like Africa, depend on agriculture for about a quarter of their total output, most of it coming from low-income families.
Exporters in Africa will also suffer. According to the World Bank, West African cotton exporters already lose about $250 million a year as a direct result of U.S. subsidies; this figure will rise sharply. In West African countries like Burkina Faso, Mali and Chad, where cotton accounts for more than one-third of export earnings, the losses already represent around three times the savings provided through debt relief.
This is a classic example of trade policy undermining aid. In the cotton-growing basin of Sikasso, in southeast Mali, where 80 percent live in poverty, the consequences will be devastating. The Texas cotton barons will be cashing in at the bank while desperately poor Africans suffer more.
Staple food producers in developing countries face particularly bleak prospects as IMF imposed import liberalization exposes them to intensified competition with subsidized imports. For instance, since Mexico's import barriers started tumbling under the North American Free Trade Agreement, U.S. maize imports have tripled. Mexican smallholders have been forced out of local markets, undermining rural economies and fuelling migration. The U.S. department of agriculture is now targeting countries such as Brazil and the Philippines.
Import liberalization in markets distorted by subsidies can have devastating implications for efforts to combat rural poverty and improve self-reliance. When the IMF bulldozed Haiti into liberalizing its rice markets in the mid-1990s, the country was flooded with cheap U.S. imports. Local production collapsed, along with tens of thousands of rural livelihoods. Self-sufficient a decade ago, Haiti today spends half of its export earnings importing U.S. rice.
The wider danger is that the U.S. farm bill will undermine local agriculture and foster dependence on imports. This will be particularly damaging in sub-Saharan Africa, where staple food production lags behind population growth and imports have risen 40 percent over the past decade.
Even the World Bank president, James Wolfensohn, acknowledges "these subsidies are crippling Africa's chance to export its way out of poverty." The developing world faces trade barriers costing them $200 billion per annum - twice as much as they receive in aid. Industrialized nations currently spend about $350 billion a year assisting their farmers, more than the economic output for all of Africa.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
We go back hundreds of years ago and we still see subsidies, loans, and the flooding of imports thus actually decreasing the revenue Africans had and making them more dependent on imports.
- Dahomey had a monetary system: cowry shells were the basic currency, but trade goods were used also—guns, bolts of cloth etc.
- Europeans tried to take advantage of this currency; they brought so many cowry shells that the shells lost value (inflation). As a result, European trade goods became the basic currency used in the purchase of slaves.
- farming was very important; agriculture was mostly carried out by men, usually in communal gangs of young men; this was different from most of the rest of Africa where women did most of the agricultural work. However, there were many artisans also who made products in addition to farming.
- the market economy mostly involved producers selling to consumers,but some women acted as middlemen. The latter would travel from market to market buying and selling goods.
- all trade with Europeans was a royal monopoly and guarded jealously by successive kings; kings never allowed Europeans to bypass and trade directly with people in the kingdom. As a military, predatory state, the costs of government and the military were high; thus,the king needed all the revenue from taxes and the profits of trade that he could get.
- Europeans and their influence were confined to one port on the coast—Whydah.
- permission to go inland, especially to the capital, was given only infrequently and as a special favour; because so few Europeans were allowed in, there were only a limited number of eyewitness accounts in spite of the long history of trade and contacts; no missionaries were allowed in.
“The Royal African Company” By K. G. Davies
All the numbers bellow are in British pounds I don't have the key for that currency
quote: Between 1692 and 1698 the accounts of the king of Fetu in the Cape Coast ledgers show him to have owed the company will over 1,000. The 'king of the Arckanyes' owed 1,100 and the king of Saboe 250. In 1699 twenty-one Gold Coast notables owed the company about 4,000; they include the king of Equafo (2,000) Little Taggee (400), the Braffo of Fantyn (250), and John Kabes, Cabbasheer of Kommenda (250). The ledgers contain many other entries, 'to sundry accounts trusted him' or 'to gold lent him'
The impression left by both correspondence and accounts is that few of these loans were repaid in full. In 1690 for example the Chief Merchants reported that the wars on the coast had been concluded but that the company was 'like to loose the mony lent'. Four years later, after the defeat of Fetu, they wrote that the conquers (presumably the Saboes) required a loan, adding that what had hitherto been lent 'hath been a charge without profit to the company'. John Snow, whose balanced appreciate of the European position on the Gold Coast is printed on the Appendix, though not only that long standing debts could not be collected but that any attempt to do so would have disastrous political consequences. He preferred to make small gifts instead of granting large loans, and was probably right. His own views have already been quoted; Bosman, recording that both English and Dutch paid large sums in bribes and subsidies...
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
"…Impoverished farmers unable to compete with the billions of dollars in subsidies paid by the U.S. to its growers abandoned their farms."
What needs to be emphasized here is that the farmers who are exporting all of this rice are being subsidized by the government
"punctuated with abundant aid in various crises, have destroyed local agriculture and left impoverished countries such as Haiti unable to feed themselves."
The irony that aid has actually making this worse! Just like the bribes and subsidies paid by the slave traders for centuries
“With cheap food imports, Haiti can't feed itself” The Washington post
Captain:Maria Carmelle Jean, center, sells rice and dry products at a downtown street market in Port-au-Prince, Saturday, March 20, 2010. Decades of cheap imports, especially rice from the U.S., punctuated with abundant aid in various crises, have destroyed local agriculture and left impoverished countries such as Haiti unable to feed themselves. (AP Photo/Jorge Saenz) (Jorge Saenz - AP)
page 1
quote: Decades of inexpensive imports - especially rice from the U.S. - punctuated with abundant aid in various crises have destroyed local agriculture and left impoverished countries such as Haiti unable to feed themselves.
While those policies have been criticized for years in aid worker circles, world leaders focused on fixing Haiti are admitting for the first time that loosening trade barriers has only exacerbated hunger in Haiti and elsewhere.
They're led by former U.S. President Bill Clinton - now U.N. special envoy to Haiti - who publicly apologized this month for championing policies that destroyed Haiti's rice production. Clinton in the mid-1990s encouraged the impoverished country to dramatically cut tariffs on imported U.S. rice.
"It may have been good for some of my farmers in Arkansas, but it has not worked. It was a mistake," Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 10. "I had to live everyday with the consequences of the loss of capacity to produce a rice crop in Haiti to feed those people because of what I did; nobody else." ….
"A combination of food aid, but also cheap imports have ... resulted in a lack of investment in Haitian farming, and that has to be reversed," U.N. humanitarian chief John Holmes told The Associated Press. "That's a global phenomenon, but Haiti's a prime example. I think this is where we should start."
Haiti's government is asking for $722 million for agriculture, part of an overall request of $11.5 billion.
Page 2
"National rice isn't the same, it's better quality. It tastes better. But it's too expensive for people to buy," said Leonne Fedelone, a 50-year-old vendor
Riceland defends its market share in Haiti, now the fifth-biggest export market in the world for American rice.
But for Haitians, near-total dependence on imported food has been a disaster. Cheap foreign products drove farmers off their land and into overcrowded cities. Rice, a grain with limited nutrition once reserved for special occasions in the Haitian diet, is now a staple.…
Three decades ago things were different. Haiti imported only 19 percent of its food and produced enough rice to export, thanks in part to protective tariffs of 50 percent set by the father-son dictators, Francois and Jean-Claude Duvalier….
…Impoverished farmers unable to compete with the billions of dollars in subsidies paid by the U.S. to its growers abandoned their farms. Others turned to more environmentally destructive crops, such as beans, that are harvested quickly but hasten soil erosion and deadly floods.
Page 3 talks about aid and relief to Haiti
Posted by JMT2 (Member # 16951) on :
John Perkins - Confessions of an Economic Hit Man: How The West Undermines Third World Nations and their Economies
More examples of the failure of African leadership concerning development in Africa:
quote: South Africa is leveraging historic liberation ties with Kampala in a hunt for mining investment opportunities in Uganda -- a quest that gained added urgency with SA President Jacob Zuma's visit to the country last week.
Mining, a business in which the South Africans have vast experience, is being touted as Uganda's next avenue to prosperity after oil.
Results from aero-magnetic surveys covering hundreds of thousands of kilometres have generated sufficient data to inform exploration for gold, vermiculite, cobalt, iron ore, limestone, pozollana, wolfram, synenitic aggregate, kaolin, gypsum, lead, coltan, tin, manganese, beryl, copper, phosphates, salt and sand.
The sector is currently dominated by artisans and small-scale miners, meaning that the mineral wealth is barely scratched, even though production reached Ush87 billion ($43.5 million) in 2008, contributing Ush3.5 billion ($1.75 million) in non-tax revenue in forms like royalties, mineral licences, fees and rents.
Experts estimate that once the sector is properly structured for full commercial activity, it could generate billions of US dollars annually, and perhaps match the $50 billion currently estimated to be the oil revenue-worth in Uganda. ... President Museveni and President Zuma also officiated at the launch of the Uganda Chamber of Mines and Petroleum, a new "millionaires' club" expected to significantly influence national policy at the highest level.
Of course none of this is going to increase the amount of African owned and operated mines and related industries in Uganda, just like most mines and industries in South Africa are not owned and operated by blacks either. None of this technology exchange will go to blacks, as blacks in South Africa don't control mining technology. Therefore, Zuma is being a spokesman for the white mining industry allowing them to expand their operations in Africa with a black face in front.
These leaders are following policies designed and promoted by whites and foreigners as part of "development models" of economics which do not include natives as anything other than landless peasant laborers or workers. Nowhere in any of these plans is there an agenda for Africans to own and control ANY of their resource wealth as miners, oil drillers or industrialists. And as a result, of course these plans fail to bring any real economic benefit to Africans. And these plans are all supported and generated by the same whites whose main economic model was rape, pillage and plunder of Africans and others. Of course, we have already seen how the oil contracts by Tullow and Heritage have been shown to be blatant theft of African wealth. But now we have Zuma and the government of South Africa joining in under the context of historic ties of "liberation" to aid and abet the theft as official policy of state.
And of course all of this follows the same pattern seen in colonial times, Africans are dispossessed of their land and treated as squatters because the laws and governments still do not recognize Africans as having any claim or right to own the land they have been on for thousands of years. But of course they bend over backwards to sell that land to foreigners and give them right and claim to it. Of course, only a fool expects a mass of landless peasants with no ownership or control over the land or resources to actually benefit from this.
quote: KAMPALA, Uganda, Mar 18, 2010 (Dow Jones Commodities News Select via Comtex) -- Ugandan resource-sector lobbyists want the government to review land laws to facilitate the resettlement of people from mining and oil development areas as the country begins developing its resources in earnest, the president of the Chamber of Mines and Petroleum said Thursday.
Most locals have refused to vacate areas slated for development and exploration, hampering projects, said Elly Karuhanga, who is also the chairman of Tullow Oil Uganda Operations, a unit of United Kingdom-based Tullow Oil PLC (TLW.LN).
"The government must reform the land law," he said. "There is no way this sector will develop under the current law, where the investor has to compensate and relocate people without government support."
The Ugandan government next week will release the final results of its first-ever national geophysical mineral survey, in a bid to attract mining investors.
The commissioner in charge of mines at the Ministry of Energy and Minerals Development, Joshua Tuhumwire, said the ministry supports land law amendments.
"Resettlement and compensation can only be eased by revising the current law," he told Dow Jones Newswires, adding that his ministry had suggested changes to the Lands Ministry.
According to Karuhanga, laws regarding land ownership largely favor residents, who can only be moved with their consent. In most cases, residents refuse to vacate mineral-rich areas, preferring to carry out subsistence farming, and occasionally illegal mining activities.
Since last year, Tira Gold Mine, the country's largest gold mine, has been embroiled in disputes with encroachers, who have forcefully resisted relocation from its licensed mining areas. According to Crey Crown Resources, owners of the mine management have access to only half of the land at the gold mine, which has hampered mining operations.
Uganda is in the process of developing its oil fields in the Lake Albert basin, but residents have already accused exploration companies and the government of taking over communal land.
Uganda is drafting a law governing oil exploration and production that is expected to be passed this year. The Chamber of Mines and Petroleum will submit its proposals on the law for lawmakers' consideration.
Of course, it is ironic that Zuma would go to Uganda and promote displacement of Africans for white South African and foreign industrialists, while facing daily riots and protests at home over the same exact thing.
quote: South Africa: Orange Farm Is Not Equal To Sandton
Orange Farm is a township located approximately 45 km from Johannesburg, Gauteng Province, South Africa. It is the largest informal settlement in South Africa, with most estimates giving a population of 350,000 people. Additionally, it is one of the youngest, with the original inhabitants; laid off farm workers, taking up residency in 1988. Support for the population came slowly, but has now begun in earnest. The settlement now includes a modern library, some paved roads, permanent housing for some, electricity in places, a clinic, an information center with internet access, and a multi-purpose community center. However these improvements come with financial costs, which most of the citizens living in Orange Farm cannot afford. The ongoing privatisation which Orange Farm has been subjected to has also drawn much criticism from social justice and human rights groups. Most notably the installment of pre-paid water meters has been criticised for denying access to clean drinking water for much of the population of Orange Farm. The recently founded Orange Farm Water Crisis Committee, an off-shoot of the South African Anti-Privatisation Forum (AFP) has been very vocal and active against the privatisation of water.
quote: Orange Farm Early Childhood Development Forum Deliver A Memorandum Of Griveances Against The City Of
Today, 26 March 2010, more than fifty Early Childhood Development principals delivered a memorandum of grievances to the Mayor of Johannesburg Amos Masondo demanding children’s right to education since South Africa is celebrating Human Rights month. It is a fact that under the constitution of the country, childrens’ right are fundamentally important than the City of Johannesburg By-laws. The group will be delivering the memorandum at the City of Johannesburg Mayors Office at eleven o’ clock in the morning to voice out their grievances. The Orange Farm Early Childhood Development Forum (OFECDF) is a forum by a group of crèches in and around Orange Farm/Drieziek, 40 km South of Johannesburg.
The challenges that are facing the ECD centers are access to land or space (site) for the crèches. Many of the ECD centers have being in operation for the past fifteen years of democracy yet they face a challenge of erecting a permanent structure or building due to the implementation of the City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Public Health By-Laws. The By-laws (Chapter 14, Section 104-111) require that the ECD centers must have a running toilet and wash facilities within their premises yet the City of Johannesburg has failed to develop Orange Farm. There is no infrastructure for running sewerage in the area but the By-laws are set up as a pre-requisite or a condition for the building of a permanent structure.
This has lead to problems because many of crèches have being using temporary settlement or shacks and the centers can’t get land accreditation (land permit) for operating because the City of Johannesburg views these centers as hazardous conditions for learning. The City of Johannesburg has made it clear that no learning must take place in a shack because it is a disaster while the very children and people of Orange Farm are living in a disaster. Since 1994, the government through the Department of Housing has promised to build houses for the poor yet Orange Farm hasn’t tasted development. There is a lot uncertainty in the community on how land is allocated for early childhood centers in Orange Farm and the process is not transparent at all from the local municipality. People outside of Orange Farm are being allocated sites to establish their own ECD centers yet the existing projects have no accreditation or a letter of recognition from the local municipality.
The people of Orange Farm demand land for development and the allocation of land for community projects. Local ward councilors voted for the city By-laws without consultation with the people and the contradictions are visible in the Johannesburg municipality. Another demand is the scrapping of the City of Johannesburg By-laws when it comes to a poor area like Orange Farm that is not developed. The By-laws are depriving the people to access fundamental human rights, here being early childhood development and the right to employment.
The already existing ECD centers must be given first preference when it comes to land or site allocation and the process must be transparent to all community members. The City of Johannesburg must review the allocation process and up-root the existing corruption within the local municipality in regards to land allocation.
The City of Johannesburg must fast track service delivery in Orange Farm because the City of Johannesburg By-laws apply to high standards of developed areas such as Sandton or Houghton. The community demands that the centers must have access to basic services such as electricity, water and sanitation. The forum demands a positive response from the City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Mayor within 14 days or continuous mass action will follow.
But these protests are not limited to Orange Farm, it is all across South Africa as the landless peasants that are the byproduct of foreign "development" rise up in anger against being pushed aside and treated like waste by products.
quote: Balfour — The protests that have rocked Siyathemba township in Balfour, Mpumalanga, since Sunday are not related to service delivery, spokesperson for the Dipaliseng local municipality, Mahlalefi Lebotha said on Tuesday.
The protests, in which 22 people have been arrested on charges of public violence, theft and arson, which included the burning of a municipal office and looting of shops belonging to foreign nationals, are linked to unemployment.
Lebotha said the protesters were accusing the Burnstone Gold Mine of failing to fulfil its promise to ensure that 50 percent of its workforce was made up of locals.
He said the municipality would be meeting with officials from the provincial Department of Co-Operative Governance and Traditional Affairs to try and find a solution to the matter.
Burnstone mine spokesperson, Tsolo Serunye said the mine would release a statement on the matter later on Tuesday.
Protester, Herbert Zitha, said residents wanted jobs at the mine. He said the mine would also be forced to close its operations if they failed to employ more people from Siyathemba.
"We want this mine to remain true to the employment policy that they promised us when came here two years ago. More than 50 percent of locals are unemployed and the mine has instead employed people from other provinces," he said.
But this is exactly the "model" of economic development that is being pushed by these foreign backed government flunkies for Africa.
For example, a new initiative called all for Africa has been launched to promote "sustainable development" for Africa in Fortune magazine and other American outlets. Its first project is called palm out poverty and promotes the planting of 1 million palm trees to provide "revenue" for schools and other institutions across Africa. Now of course, this isn't really development, but that aside, who is behind it? The major players who are behind some of the most NON sustainable economic projects in Africa.
For example, Global Alumina is the company behind the largest Aluminum mine in Guinea, which has produced nothing but another coup and a state continuing to be in severe poverty even thought it has some of the worlds most desired resources. But the country is facing political instability due to coups and attempted assassinations of the coup leader, all backed by these same companies.
quote: In this African capital 2 1/2 decades ago, an unknown army officer staged a coup, promising democracy. He won over the people by declaring he had come to power poor, and if they ever saw him with a nice car or big house they would know he had stolen.
His name was Lansana Conte and at his funeral recently, his children arrived in a convoy of opulent SUVs. He was buried on the grounds of a house the size of a hotel built with public funds. ... Hours after his death, another unknown army officer declared a coup. He too is promising democracy. He too vows not to steal from the people and to punish anyone who does.
In Guinea, history is stuck on replay. Since winning independence half a century ago, the nation has been pillaged by its ruling elite. Its people are among the world's poorest, even though its soil has diamonds, gold, iron and half the world's reserves of the raw material used to make aluminum. The question is whether this time will be any different.
The international community rushed to condemn last week's coup. But people in Guinea have largely welcomed the coup leader, seeing in his age - 44 - and junior rank - captain - signs that he is not part of the corrupt elite that brought the nation to the brink of economic collapse. When his cortege drives through town, people greet him with cries of "Long live the president!" A top imam in the mostly Muslim nation declared that he had saved Guinea.
Before the coup, few had heard of Capt. Moussa "Dadis" Camara. There was so much confusion over his name that Guinean TV stations initially referred to him as "Gadis" and "Badis."
Though he may not be known to civilians, he is no stranger to the military and now leads a junta that includes generals and colonels - men who once far outranked him. Despite his rank, Camara built a base in the military that grew out of his job as head of gasoline distribution. His job helped him forge ties with soldiers at every level who relied on him for fuel in a country where gas stations often shut for days at a stretch.
He earned a reputation for fairness, helping even the lowest corporal get gas for his scooter, according to soldiers interviewed at the capital's largest barracks.
His appeal is rooted in his promise of a zero tolerance policy toward corruption. He's specifically vowing to go after anyone who tries to buy him off. Already, he says, people have offered bags of cash to his wife and cars to his children. "I want to warn anyone who thinks they can try to corrupt me. ... Money is of no interest to us."
But after the attempted assassination of comara, foreigners are still trying to buy off the politicians of Guinea for their projects to keep going forward.
quote: Aluminum Corp. of China, also called Chinalco, is in the midst of conducting due diligence on its $1.35 billion deal with Rio Tinto PLC to develop the Simandou iron ore mine in Guinea, Chinalco President Xiong Weiping said Monday.
quote: A Rusal delegation, directed by the company's troubleshooter for Africa, Victor Boyarkin, met with outgoing Guinean prime minister Kabine Komara in Conakry on Monday in what sources present said was a bid to put pressure on the Guinean government to drop legal claims to revoke the multibillion-dollar bauxite and alumina concessions that Rusal holds in the country.
quote: German military cooperation with African countries yields mixed results
Many African soldiers have been trained by the German Armed Forces, but the military training assistance program is under scrutiny. In recent years, German-trained soldiers staged a coup and shot at civilians in Guinea.
Over the last decade, Germany’s military cooperation with African countries has been organized and implemented by the Foreign and Defense Ministries. In fact, the military training assistance program has trained defense personnel from 28 African countries and over 1,200 experts.
Defence Spokesman Thomas Silberhorn of the Christian Social Union says the military training strenghtens bilateral relations.
"The military training assistance aims at strengthening relationships with other countries and thereby also teach democratic ideals. That is a good thing. It is military training, but from the basis of what we have in Germany," he told Deutsche Welle.
The other is Bujagali Energy, a development of a large electrical power plant in Uganda on the Nile, but which does not even have a connection to Uganda's power grid as part of its primary mandate. It is a "separate" project. Yet they build this facility, primarily to promote electricity for foreign and white owned industry and tout it as benefiting Africans even as there is no plan in the project to connect it to the national power grid. If it wasn't true it would be unbelievably hilarious.
quote: An associated power transmission system, the Bujagali Interconnection Project, is a separate proposal sponsored by Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited that was also approved by the government and lenders (see Interconnection Project).
We have implemented an open, collaborative public consultation program to maximize community awareness and opportunities for public involvement. See Public Consultation for more information on our community outreach program.
Now all of these companies who are not providing aluminum or steel for Africa's development or electricity for Africa's people are promoting "sustainable development". Sure they are. More likely they are gathering lands they can use for their own biofuel and other projects.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
The pattern goes back before imperial times in Africa with the gifts (aid) and subsidies (investment) ect. The purpose of the scramble for Africa was to both have more exports than imports, and also to attain raw materials. However for centuries Europeans have actually gone out of the way to suppress the use of natural resources in Africa. But basically the underdevelopment process goes back to the 17th century but intensified with the scramble for Africa and more factors in it. Many of the places in Africa that were colonized became more economically dependent so "traditional" leaders were already dependent in the early days of colonialism
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
Notice that this gives many clues about underdevelopment:
“Dahomey and the Dahomans: being the journals of two missions to the king of Dahomey, and residence at his capital”, in the year 1849 and 1850, Volume 1 By Frederick Edwyn Forbes
But what are all these to the tragic scenes that introduce the slaves to slavery ? A country living in peace with all around, and pursuing trade in the endeavour to become rich, is suddenly surrounded by a ruthless banditti; and how changed the scene ! The old would be rejected if brought to market, they are sacrificed ; the whole nation are transported, exterminated, their name to be forgotten, except in the annual festival of their conquerors, when sycophants call the names of vanquished countries to the remembrance of the victors.
This state of society will last as long as the slave trade exists. The question that should be asked is: Is it in the power of this country to stop it ? I will not confine myself to opinions, but relate facts.
Industry and agriculture, are not encouraged. On the contrary, the king is aware, that, if the enjoyments of home, and the luxuries of health and domestic happiness, were once obtained, he would fail in volunteers for the annual slavehunts. The road to riches hitherto has laid in the number of retainers the noble or chief could send to war. They are fed and partly clothed, but receive no pay, except at the scramble at the Customs. Prisoners and heads are purchased from them, and, according to their bearing in war, the officers are the recipients of the royal bounty.
In agricultural pursuits they are advanced in knowledge, but extremely indolent, keeping but a tithe of the land in cultivation. Corn and beans are intermixed ; and the land, although rich, highly manured. Palm plantations are also planted with corn, yams, and ground nuts. In short, in the small portions that are under cultivation, they rival the Chinese. The agricultural implements of both nations, excepting the plough, are similar; but whilst the Dahomans, equally with the industrious Chinese, lack the energy to overturn a bad traditionary system, they fall far short of them in industry and application. In the neighbourhood of Abomey, unlike the rest of Africa, men labour in the fields, and the women are only employed in carrying water.
This scarcity of a metallic currency affords a good opening for a trade in bullion at Whydah, the effect of which could not but be to materially arrest the progress of the slave trade.
The every-day life of a Dahoman, it would be a difficult matter to describe, depending as it does on the whim of the sovereign. Should a man inherit industrious habits, he must be very cautious in developing them, lest he fall under the suspicion of the government. If he brings more soil under cultivation, or in any manner advances his family to riches, without the license of the king, he not only endangers his fortune, but his own life and the lives of his family: instead of becoming a man of property and head of [a family, he is condemned to slavery; and, serving his Majesty or his ministers, assists unwillingly to uphold the laws that have ruined him, his only alternative being death.
The stopping the slave trade no doubt would assist to alter such an unfortunate state of affairs; but the true destroyer of such gross evils would be the advancement of civilisation,—the instruction of the mind by the enlightenment of a religious education.
Oh for a bird-stuffer! What ought not a traveller to be ? And what does he not lose by not having studied these necessary arts ? At half-past 8 we entered the straggling beautiful city of Cannah by passing a pretty brook, situated in a picturesque bosquet. Cannah covers about six square miles of ground; in it are four palaces of large extent, and each house has its piece of ground under cultivation dividing it from its neighbours. Here commences a broad clean road, as wide as any high road in England, leading to Abomey, with branch roads, equally good, approaching the palaces. The market is very extensive, occurring as, usual with all large markets in Dahomey, once in four days. There is a sereneness about this spot that leads the ideas far from Africa. The views are beautiful; the dwellings clean, neat, and quiet. Numbers of aged of both sexes speak of peace ; for while the hordes of the monarch and his nobles carry war and devastation into all the neighbouring countries, Cannah (formerly the capital of Fay, then called Dawee), conquering Abomey, has retained a peace of upwards of 200 years. The cultivation in the neighbourhood rivals that of the Chinese.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
Likewise throughout the 18th century there was a decline in gold production on the Gold Coast and many African rulers even began banning the export of gold, and many rulers demanded gold payment. Thus the examples with Dahomey and the Gold Coast make it very clear how this trade lead to underdevelopment, and so this is a pattern going back over a century before the actual scramble for Africa
Notice that those nations that did export gold did also hoard it so there was an added scarcity
quote:Page 34-35 Walter Rodney suggested that Akan gold production began to decline in the early eighteenth century, and links this to the rise in profits that could be made by concentrating on slave production rather than gold mining. If this is so it is an irony that the Europeans by promoting the slave trade were ultimately forced, much against their own wishes, to carry gold to the Gold Coast. A more likely explanation of the phenomenon lies in the increasing monetarization of the Asante economy, described by Joseph LaTorre, and in the consequent hoarding of gold in Asante itself. This in turn provoked a partial monetarization of the Fante economy and undoubtedly increased the value of gold whiter it was regarded as a currency or a commodity
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
Note there was something on the Royal African Company that I posted earlier in this thread that talked about debts, subsidies, bribes and loans and some other sources with information suggesting this dependence comes from manipulating currency prices and thus leading to underdevelopment
“African voices of the Atlantic slave trade: beyond the silence and the shame” By Anne Caroline Bailey
quote:One source says that the town of Atorker was in debt to white traders and thus arranged to pay this debt by the "kidnapping" of the drummers. If this indeed were the case and if such cases were widespread, then it augurs the future role of dect vis-a-vis the African continent and first world nations. It prefigures what has now become a standard relationship between developing nations and Europe and America; whereby these nations are heavily burdened with debt, which is paid for by the raw material and resources of their land. This notion of a town being indebted to traders, then, could possibly have started this disturbing spiral trend. Furthermore, if indeed the move toward becoming a debt-carrying nation began in the era of the slave trade, then it is possible to say this is one extremely devastating effect of the Atlantic trade.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
Everyone on the planet hurts from this kind of underdevelopment including the countries who are causing the damage like the United States because capital is diverted and put into agriculture and takes out the farming industries of other countries. The same was done with the western hemisphere, while with the Confederacy states they were underdeveloped and agricultural, today it is agricultural subsidies of developed countries that are causing the damage.
I've read something that the British empire ultimately lead to the ruin of cotton growing in India (or at least cotton growing decreased) by the late 18th century. Perhaps this was done as a way to justify buying most of the cotton from the western hemisphere. Moving from that to a modern day example is all the stuff lying in landfills that could be recycled, almost as if there is a need to make a need for this material (throwing it out means there is a continual need for more)
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
Ok the quote from that video "create moneys from nothing" about the bank of England seems very questionable I think it's propaganda. However it is the first fractional reserve bank, I don't want to give misinformation
Ok honestly I don't grasp all of this but this does show the primitive beginnings of this capitalist system
This is the part that the video didn't say, or at unless I forgot, or missed that part of the video. In 1873 38% of the London Stock Exchange was government debt. In the 1690s over 90% of the Bank of England's revenue was in government debt. In 1714 half of the government spending was in paying interest every year, this means an awful burden on the tax payer. The South Sea Company outbid the Bank of England over who could take the majority of the government outstanding debt, and the holders of that debt exchanged it for South Sea stock
This was the primative beginnings of our capitalist system. Relevance is that it seemed to have allot to do with trading debt, and this involved investing too
Edit: This book also says the dominate consumer of long term capital from the glorious revolution to 1873 was the government itself, and that the government of Brittan could borrow more than any other nation
Edit again:
This same book also has the words "glorious revolution" 11 times
Of course the imperial and colonial era of Europeans in Africa decimated African economics, culture and civilizations. However, the pattern now has not changed much. Europeans are still engaging in such practices, however now they are doing it under the guise of NGOs, the World Bank, "Green" initiatives, "philanthropic" initiatives, food insecurity and so on. All of these are simply gimmicks that allow Europeans to continue to manipulate African economics, resources and wealth to their own benefit and never the benefit of Africans, even if ostensibly these gimmicks are advertised as "helping Africans". Keep in mind that Leopold and many other European colonists also went to Africa under the guise of "helping Africans". The problem is that Africans don't need the kind of "help" that Europeans and others keep trying to force on them. It is simply a sham to begin with, that allows Europeans to portray Africans as infinitely dumb and unable to do for themselves, as an excuse for Europeans to continue to steal and plunder.
quote: The construction of a US$600 million ethanol plant in Chisumbanje, Manicaland province has ignited a storm of protests and claims that it could result in thousands of families being evicted from the area.
The plant, which government says will provide the country with 80 percent of it's ethanol needs, is being built on land currently owned by the Agricultural and Rural Development Authority (ARDA). The ethanol will be created from sugarcane grown in Arda Chisumbanje and Arda Middle Sabi. Clouds of uncertainty now hang over the welfare of over 250 000 villagers living along the vast Sabi river.
Government entered into the deal with controversial businessman Billy Rautenbach and his companies Macdom Pvt (Ltd) and Ratings Investment.
The 51 year-old Rautenbach is a multimillionaire Zimbabwe businessman well known for his aggressive business tactics. He is also closely linked to Robert Mugabe's ZANU PF. He was added to the EU targetted sanctions list in January 2008, and the US targetted sanctions towards the end of 2008 for his alleged involvement with the former ruling regime. It is alleged he has aided ZANU PF financially and the deals have been mutually beneficial. Mugabe, grateful for financial support, often returns favours to Rautenbach by granting him dubious and lucrative deals in mining and this latest ethanol project in Chisumbanje. As white farmers continue to be kicked off their farms, Rautenbach's empire grows even bigger. Two weeks ago we reported that Rautenbach was being accused by the MDC of hounding and intimidating its activists in Manicaland as political tension builds ahead of the constitution making programme.
quote: Billy Rautenbach, also known as Muller Conrad Rautenbach (born 23 September 1959), is a multimillionaire Zimbabwean businessman. He is known for his aggressive business tactics and is known to have close links to ZANU-PF and the regime of Robert Mugabe. Before he was 40, Rautenbach's business empire had spread in more than a dozen African countries even as far afield as Australia and Europe earning him the nickname "Napoleon of Africa". Rautenbach is currently on a travel ban list in both the European Union and United States.[1] He was added to the EU blacklist in January 2008, and the US blacklist towards the end of 2008 for his alleged involvement with the Mugabe regime. It is alleged he has aided Robert Mugabe’s regime financially, regardless of current international sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe to limit Robert Mugabe’s grip of power. A noticeable proportion of the funds made available to Robert Mugabe were used to pay his security forces help keep him in power. Mugabe, grateful for financial support often returned the favour to Rautenbach and similar financiers in exchange for dubious and lucrative drilling and mining deals with companies based in countries such as the British Virgin Islands, the Cook Islands and so on, both of which could be seen as having a lack of regulation in place therefore making it easier to transfer funds to Zimbabwe. He currently owns the Volvo franchise in Zimbabwe, the country's largest freight company and vast tracts of agricultural land, which includes land used for crocodile rearing. Rautenbach was wanted in South Africa where he faced hundreds of charges of alleged fraud, corruption and other crimes including his connection with his own South African company named Wheels of Africa Group in the 1990s. The group, which was the distributor for Korean car firm Hyundai in South Africa and Botswana, was liquidated in December 1999. At that time, he had property worth millions seized from him. These include a farm in the Western Cape worth more than R30 million, hunting safaris, a falcon executive jet, a bell 407 helicopter and a yacht, which have since been returned to him. The charges against Rautenbach include the theft of 1,300 cars from Hyundai, bribing customs officials and fraudulently reducing the tax liability of Wheels of Africa's subsidiaries. He fled South Africa in 1999 after justice department investigators raided his office and home. In 2009, he reached a bargain plea with the South African authorities to pay a fine of 40 million rand
In a recent Dispatches TV documentary "Bankrolling Mugabe" on Britain's Channel 4,[2] he was described as corrupt by opposition politicians and was shown to have interests in the mining industry of Zimbabwe and linked to moves to remove black farmers from their grazing land. It has been reported in trade publication Metal Bulletin that Rautenbach is thought to still be involved with marketing and moving cobalt for the Central African Mining & Exploration Company's (CAMEC) operations in Africa. CAMEC is a company based in London however has large operations in countries such as Zimbabwe, many of the deals it has won in the region are clouded by corruption allegations of which in numerous occasions Rautenbach can be directly linked. Rautenbach was a major shareholder in Camec until the company's sale to Eurasian Natural Resources Corp in September 2009.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Rautenbach Billy Rautenbach is a white thug and one of the white money men behind Mugabe. Note that most African officials in Africa are courted and supported by white money men. Many are stooges who sell out their people in order to stay on the payroll. Therefore, in reality the staged conflicts between these puppets is simply one group of white money men using one set of politicians against another. South African politics is a very good example of this.
quote: The Democratic Republic of Congo's bad luck is to be rich in resources. Foreign investors are pouring billions of dollars into large extractive projects such as mines and hydropower dams. In a classic case of the resource curse, these projects are not promoting the country's long-term development, but attracting short-term profiteers, conflict, and corruption.
In the latest example for this trend, the World Bank has just reported huge delays and cost overruns for the rehabilitation of the Inga 1 and 2 hydropower dams. Other projects are being swallowed by the morass of Congo's resource curse at the same time.
The Inga 1 and 2 dams were built on the Congo River in the 1970s and 1980s as part of a failed industrialisation scheme. Operating at only 40 per cent of capacity, the projects turned into white elephants and contributed heavily to the country's spiralling debt crisis. As International Rivers' Terri Hathaway discovered on a visit to the site, the people who were displaced by the dams were never properly rehabilitated, and are still fighting for just compensation after several decades.
In 2003, the World Bank committed US$179 million towards the reconstruction of a transmission line from the Inga dams to Southern Congo. A few years later, the World Bank, African Development Bank and European Investment Bank approved more than US$500 million in funding to rehabilitate the ailing dams on the Congo River.
Rehabilitating existing dams makes sense as long as the use of funds is closely monitored. In 2007, International Rivers called on the World Bank to resolve the outstanding social problems of the Inga dams as part of its work on the new project. Two years later, the Bank informed us that it was indeed gathering information 'for an appropriate social development plan for the affected communities' as part of the Inga rehabilitation.
The relatively modest rehabilitation of the Inga dams and transmission lines has already run into serious problems. Around 2002, US$110 million that the World Bank supposedly spent on Congo's electricity sector went missing. Last year, the Bank had to quietly double its lending for the transmission line. And on 23 February, Reuters reported that the rehabilitation of the Inga dams will be delayed for three years, cost an extra US$300-$400 million, and will be scaled back in scope. In other words, Congo will have to go deeper into debt for a smaller project whose benefits may materialise later. Without going into details, the World Bank blamed the setback on the poor quality of consultants' studies, implementation problems, and the effects of the world financial crisis.
How did U.N. money simply disappear? And where did it disappear? I am sure a lot of it went to finance the ongoing violence and suffering in Congo due to various armed "rebels" roaming the land. But of course, they are implying that this is money that "African politicians stole". I thought the U.N. was supposed to have controls in place to stop such a thing? If it happened the U.N. is complicit. But bottom line, this is the second time a major dam project and electrical transmission project will have produced little to no benefit for the people of Congo, while generating massive Debt against the country. This is no coincidence, it is intentional and a perfect example of the manipulation done even under seemingly 'altruistic' intentions.
quote: The setting is perfect for a good development story for Africa; its script is worth any prestigious award. Africa has enormous capacity to increase the production of hydro electricity, and to supply it to more than 500 million people on the continent, or so documents state.
This reminder comes in the wake of two electricity deals whose negotiations were announced last week between major insurance and investment companies in Europe as well as several African countries, the World Bank and the African Development Bank.
According to the two deals, the increased power will be generated on the Grand Inga Dam project in Kinshasa, which is on the powerful falls of River Congo and is set to begin next year.
The other plan is in the Sahara desert where another project is to tap the solar extracted from the scorching heart of the sun to produce electricity.
The Grand Inga project was announced in 2008, but only then the information given at its launch indicated that it will significantly increase access to electricity by more Africans than ever before.
The Europeans were not mentioned as potential backers and customers of the new solution to Africa's energy shortfall.
Figures representing the power distribution were dropped, and sufficient interest and alarm was raised.
In DR Congo for example where the new Grand Inga electricity project is to be established, only 8 percent of the population is and will remain connected to the power grid according to the World Energy Council even with the end of the project.
And while the country is currently grappling with several wars, the idea of electricity wars is likely to feature also.
The second deal is also equally important but not controversial; it is undertaken by Desertec a solar energy specialist in Morocco and Algeria.
The electricity generated from here as well as from the Grand Inga will mostly be exported to Europe.
The Grand Inga is most crucial as it can and will be connecting largely settled parts of the continent to the electricity grid and therefore lighting up Africa and increasing investment opportunities in Africa. While the later is ideal because it will be established in the very sparsely populated Sahara region.
That at least is the rule book of the African Development Bank and the World Bank.
Sadly, it is these two organizations that are the ones working on plans to generate the hydro electricity from DR Congo and export it to Europe.
The two institutions have in fact worked out a deal with Europe such that investors, can start on the Grand Inga as early as 2010, and then sell it to a market that can afford.
And these people are in Europe, they have proven credibility to be trusted to pay for the power and they have a negotiable currency with which to negotiate and pay.
The mistrust of Africans and the absence of any effective mechanism financial or administrative, with which to negotiate such a deal ensured that the only people worthy of 'credit substance' to satisfy investors are in Europe. And so African electricity will supply and light Europe.
At current numbers electricity supply in most African countries including giants like South Africa, is limited to only urban areas while the average 80 percent of Africans that live in rural areas have never had electricity.
This is what created the notion of the 'dark continent,' and the announcement in 2008 of the Grand dam, was seen by many as a good attempt at solving energy problems.
Sold as a possible success story for the public private partnerships, the new deal will most probably start from where the road construction and railway network system stopped at the helm of colonialism in Africa.
Where the railway and road system passed by human settlements and interconnected only minefields, government agencies and international exits.
People that discussed the business of the transportation networks were mainly visitors. Africans saw vans cruise by with visitors that never stopped, they never even spoke their language, and these visitors were in most cases government, colonial and investment officials.
But while the African leaders during the time of the colonial deals were easily hustled by humble men driven by greed and racial superiority, the Africans that discuss the new deals as the two power projects in the week are a smooth talking bunch of advisers, consultants, negotiators and experts.
The earlier generation of African hustlers came at their will and did as they willed; today's hustlers are encouraged to come and asses Africa and then invite appropriate hustlers, kind of trouble-shooters.
It is difficult identifying between the fleecier and the fleeced. In Rwanda, the cost of sustaining their services in 2007 was Frw 73 billion, 4 percent of the entire GDP.
And the figure is not much different in other African countries. And they will not solve our problems. The bottom-line is that however well marketed the Grand Inga will be, it is not worth being given to the service and management of Europeans.
The rightly stated reason for transferring this otherwise crucial project to Europe-irrespective of the moral arguments Africans and our sympathizers will-is that Africans do not have a have viable creditability or mechanism to uphold commitment to pay for the investment.
To develop this credit history, there needs to be a private sector that is competitive, diverse and sizable.
That is why Europeans need NGOs and other fronts to continue their plans of using African resources primarily for their own benefit. They will never ever directly give money to finance any large scale project that will directly benefit Africans. So they would rather play these con games using phony pretexts that seem to be beneficial but are actually simply scams to continue to guarantee foreigners and Europeans most of the benefit. Yet this PR works because many people are bombarded by the marketing campaigns of these front agencies and think they are actually in business to help Africa when they aren't.
And of course while they use con games and gimmicks to lull the people into thinking things have changed, they still continue to rape and pillage as they always did, but now they have a black faces in front to misguide people into believing Africans are actually in charge.
quote: THE reputation of South African mining companies operating in southern Africa is no better than that of western or Asian multinationals in the region, many of which have long been accused of unbridled exploitation, says a new report by the Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa (Osisa).
The report - the latest to question South African companies' social responsibility obligations - says concrete strategies and training are needed to counter negative perceptions of South African miners with regional operations.
"Failure to deal with these perceptions could undermine both foreign policy and the country's economic interests as discontent on the continent increases," says the report, prepared by Osisa's Southern Africa Resource Watch project.
It suggests that the government design guidelines for companies investing outside its borders, especially in matters of environmental protection and human rights. Alternatively, the government could adopt existing guidelines prepared by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
South African miners are taking advantage of regional governments' weak legislative frameworks and lack of capacity for effective policing of agreements, the report says. But liability should also extend to SA's banks for their lack of concern about how local companies behave outside.
The report's findings arise from a study of five countries, including the Democratic Republic of Congo, where the focus was on Metorex 's Ruashi Mining and Namibia's Namdeb, the diamond producer in which De Beers is involved, as well as Navachab, AngloGold Ashanti 's operation in Namibia.
The study also looked at Metorex's Chibuluma Mine in Zambia, along with operations in Zimbabwe. In Mozambique, the study examined oil and gas exploration, under Sasol , as well as the Mozal aluminium smelter, run by BHP Billiton .
Among the report's findings is that in all the five countries, mining companies have not fully respected their development agreements.
The report also found scepticism about whether the companies are fully meeting their tax obligations.
quote: Parts of the Tana Delta on Kenya's northern coastline are being leased to foreigners to grow food and bio-fuels for export. Civil society organisations are worried about such deals as they are done without public consultation while safeguarding investors from requirements that could benefit local communities, such as technology transfer.
The Qatari government has claimed 40,000 ha in the fertile Tana Delta to grow food for export, in exchange for the construction of a port in the town of Lamu on Kenya's northern coastline, according to Paul Matiku, director of Kenya Nature, a local nongovernmental organisation (NGO) that monitors what it regards as land-grabbing.
"The problem is that there is no central management system for the delta and no recognition of people's rights over it. How is the planning happening? We don't know," he stated.
Matiku was participating in a roundtable discussion organised by Media 21 Global Journalism Network in Nairobi prior to the first conference of African ministers responsible for meteorology. The workshop ended on Apr 16. Media 21 is a Geneva-based initiative launched to enhance media coverage on current complex global issues.
The recent large-scale acquisition of land in Kenya and in Africa in general happens on murky terrain as governments negotiate behind closed doors. Some NGOs are trying to find and dispense information about the deals but only a small part of agreements becomes known.
Matiku explained that several companies are active in the Tana Delta: Mat International has claimed 30,000 ha for the initial growing of sugar cane; an additional 90,000 ha form part of the deal. A company called Tiomin plans to mine the sand dunes. Other private companies want to grow maize in an attempt to cash in on future food crises such as the one in 2008/09.
"In these deals, environmental costs are usually overlooked: the loss of water, species diversity and ecosystems that are essential for food security," Jonathan Davies of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in Nairobi pointed out. IUCN is an international NGO that promotes sustainable development.
"Who is responsible for these environmental losses? It is likely that national governments and local communities, rather than investors, will bear the costs," Davies added.
Matiku maintained that African governments make the erroneous assumption that there is plenty of empty land in Africa and that money can be made by exporting crops. "But short-term gains will lead to Africa losing its natural capital," he warned.
For John Mutunga, CEO of the Kenya National Federation of Agricultural Producers, these land deals do not benefit populations where many people depend on subsistence farming. The destruction of biodiversity due to monoculture cultivation also holds serious implications for the environment.
Additionally, water is scarce in Africa and most of the deals require irrigation.
But he sounded a hopeful note when he added that "there may be some positive attributes in that we may receive technology transfers".
But Davies was less optimistic: "In theory foreign investment can bring new technology, infrastructure and better access to inputs. But, in practice, I haven't seen it."
Would it be possible to oblige foreign companies to sell a certain amount of their production on the local market? "It would be possible if we had a conducive investment policy," answered Mutunga. "But we don't."
But the idea of foreign companies selling produce on the local market will run into a variety of difficulties, Mark Halle, director of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) in Geneva, told IPS. ISSD is an NGO that has worked extensively on the issue of foreign investment. Halle shared Davies's scepticism.
"First of all, the WTO (World Trade Organisation) prohibits quantitative export restrictions. The obligation to sell part of the food investors produce to the local market would arguably put quantitative limits on exports," he explained.
"That said, of much more relevance than WTO rules are the obligations imposed on states under international investment treaties and the investment contracts between the investor and the government," Halle added.
"These have the potential of severely restricting the ability of states to adopt rules that would ensure that agricultural investments are made in a sustainable manner."
He explained that a number of investment treaties contain a prohibition on "performance requirements". This prohibits treaty parties from imposing or enforcing requirements that relate to the transfer of technology or the quantity of exports and sales, among others.
But even those investment treaties that do not include a prohibition on performance requirements could clash with government attempts to adopt appropriate measures in the area of agricultural investments - especially when such measures are perceived to conflict with the investors' "legitimate expectations".
In other words, foreigners are not obligated to produce anything to benefit the locals when they acquire massive amounts of land in Africa.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
Some radical estimates have said that if Europe and the United States ceased to have such high subsidies in agriculture, African countries would be able to pay off their debts. While the agricultural subsidies are only one part of the modern imperialism if the subsidies ceased the shackles would be loosened enough that they could be simply thrown off
As my last post showed the "capitalists" use massive government spending to their own advantage and also as a way to be able to invest their own money to make more profits from themselves, but this arising from very great expense to the public
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
Hey I've posted this same article a couple times before but I want to show it here. This article is from 2002 and so is very old. However one thing I've neglected to emphasize is tariffs which seem to do much damage to these countries as the tariffs happen to be things that these countries export
Now while the governments might just be working for and pawns of the rich people, these same people can carry out their schemes by tapping into the public purse
quote: Liberalisation of the EU's trade policies-and in particular the removal of subsidies-could have important positive development effects for developing countries. A few are noted here to illustrate this point.
The EU is the largest trading partner for a vastnumber of developing countries. For most of these countries (especially in Africa), their main exports are in those sectors where the EU retains high tariffs, tariff escalation2 and tariff peaks
Edit this is from the same electronic document electronic page 15
quote:Third, European consumers pay an estimated 44% more for food due to CAP subsidies and the market-intervention pricing system: EU consumers pay 70% more for milk, 221% more for beef, and 94% more for sugar due to CAP policies (International Herald Tribune, 2002). The British Consumers Association argues that a family of four in the United Kingdom spends about $1 200 more on food than they would without the CAP (International HeraldTribune, 2002)
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
Hey I just thought of this article the author says "free trade gurus" noting the irony in the situation that these couturiers are flooded with subsidized produce. Very relevant to the conversation here
"Profits before people: The great African liquidation sale" Published: 5 November 2009
quote:Hence all those years of structural adjustment programmes in Africa, poverty reduction schemes, the first Green Revolution, the liberalised trade that cranked open Africa’s doors to cheap imports and subsidised foodstuffs dumped on the continent, which snuffed out African industries and undermined African farmers who, ironically, the same free-market gurus said should not be subsidised.....
These monetarist schemes have helped to make Africa poorer and even more dependent on foreign donors and capital, and thus more vulnerable to still more of the big plans...
....Breaking over Africa is a tsunami of predatory capital, otherwise known as ‘foreign direct investment’ (FDI) in Africa. The spin on the FDI has it offering Africa wondrous opportunities, the only way to eradicate hunger and poverty.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by markellion: Hey I just thought of this article the author says "free trade gurus" noting the irony in the situation that these couturiers are flooded with subsidized produce. Very relevant to the conversation here
"Profits before people: The great African liquidation sale" Published: 5 November 2009
quote:Hence all those years of structural adjustment programmes in Africa, poverty reduction schemes, the first Green Revolution, the liberalised trade that cranked open Africa’s doors to cheap imports and subsidised foodstuffs dumped on the continent, which snuffed out African industries and undermined African farmers who, ironically, the same free-market gurus said should not be subsidised.....
These monetarist schemes have helped to make Africa poorer and even more dependent on foreign donors and capital, and thus more vulnerable to still more of the big plans...
....Breaking over Africa is a tsunami of predatory capital, otherwise known as ‘foreign direct investment’ (FDI) in Africa. The spin on the FDI has it offering Africa wondrous opportunities, the only way to eradicate hunger and poverty.
Of course "free trade gurus" would say that. Their definition of "free trade" is all trade and commerce controlled by a handful of global monopolies. They have no place for locals controlling their own. What they want is to snap up all the land and use it as they see fit, whether or not the locals like it or not. And having all this land they would ensure that they make the greatest profits possible off of the food and other products as part of "free trade". Meaning that rather than have locals feed themselves off their own land for pennies on the dollar (the most obvious and ancient solution to the "food crisis") they would rather plant palm oil or bio fuels on local land and then have the locals import much more expensive food products from far away, thereby guaranteeing more starvation and poverty and more profit for the multinational businesses.
There is no reason in the world with Africans across the diaspora having so much knowledge of industry and agriculture for Africans to be in such a dire strait agriculturally or industrially to begin with. The only reason is that most Africans in the diaspora are too busy running the treadmill of western economics to notice they aren't getting anywhere because the true path to money is to get off the treadmill and set up your own economic system which will reward you ten times better than the system which has done nothing historically but enslave and oppress Africans.
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
Doug, You act as if Africa is some sort of Negro reserve. Africa is no different that any other place in the world. It's resources will be used by the global economy. Black africa is an oxy moron.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
Doug M is right
Hammer, I remember you saying something once that if the government is doing something that isn't helping Americans make money they should stop it.
Here is another old article from several years ago that I just found . Many of these exports to Africa are at below the cost of production, Adam Smith had also talked about how exports were forced that would otherwise not be the case without government support. This article also says many African countries are more efficient producers of cotton. Also note, as I showed earlier, high tariffs (example shown was the European Union) are doing great damage to African countries. This is on top of the devastation caused by cheap imports which also is at great cost to tax payers who have to pay for cotton subsidies
What is being emphasized here is the
1. Non profit imperialism (Some profit to some people but at great government intervention thus making it at great expense)
2. The need to find new markets to unload goods and merchandise
Such was the case in Adam Smith's time, such is the case today
"US AND EU COTTON PRODUCTION AND EXPORT POLICIES AND THEIR IMPACT ON WEST AND CENTRAL AFRICA:" from the ethical global association
It should also be noted that in 2001, when US cotton export prices were 54 cents per pound below the cost of production
I've posted this from Adam Smith over and over and over but this is exactly whats going on today. Also the full context on page 274 Adam Smith is very clear that exports were forced, this alone not even counting the wars is a cost to the home consumers
quote: A great empire has been established for the sole purpose of raising up a nation of customers, who should be obliged to buy, from the shops of our different producers, all the goods with which these could supply them. For the sake of that little enhancement of price which this monopoly might afford our producers, the home consumers have been burdened with the whole expense of maintaining and defending that empire. For this purpose, and for this purpose only, in the two last wars, more than two hundred millions have been spent, and a new debt of more than a hundred and seventy millions has been contracted, over and above all that had been expended for the same purpose in former wars. The interest of this debt alone is not only greater than the whole extraordinary profit which, it never could be pretended, was made by the monopoly of the colony trade, but than the whole value of that trade, or than the whole value of the goods which, at an average, have been annually exported to the colonies.
quote:The rulers of Great Britain have, for more than a century past, amused the people with the imagination that they possessed a great empire on the west side of the Atlantic. This empire, however, has hitherto existed in imagination only. It has hitherto been, not an empire, but the project of an empire ; not a gold mine, but the project of a gold mine; a project which has cost, which continues to cost, and which, if pursued in the same way as it has been hitherto, is likely to cost, immense expense, without being likely to bring any profit; for the effects of the monopoly of the colony trade, it has been shewn, are to the great body of the people, mere loss instead of profit. It is surely now time that our rulers should either realize this golden dream, in which they have been indulging themselves, perhaps, as well as the people ; or that they should awake from it themselves, and endeavour to awaken the people. If the project cannot be completed, it ought to be given up.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: locals import much more expensive food products from far away, thereby guaranteeing more starvation and poverty and more profit for the multinational businesses.
Actually it is cheap food that is hurting farmers all over the world
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
I'm aware that many of these countries are also hurting when the price rises, this is because after destroying local agriculture the big businesses can raise prices. This is also done with corn and various schemes have gone on to raise the price by diverting corn to different uses
However this article was written very recently 2010. So even though a raise in price can hurt it is the food cheapness in the first place that has ruined local agriculture. The person who wrote this article doesn't mention that United States corn is highly subsidized. In fact just because a random article says something doesn't make it true, but what this says also is completely consistent with many credible sources
quote:When you globalise trade, you also globalise market failure. You get under-priced US corn coming into direct competition with under-valued Mexican corn. Mexican corn loses that competition, but not because it's less 'efficient'. A Mexican farmer once said, "We've been producing corn in Mexico for 8,000 years. If we don't have a comparative advantage in corn, where do we have a comparative advantage?" He's right. The problem is that comparative advantage as defined by the global marketplace doesn't value the advantage that Mexican corn offers. And in the deregulated marketplace, the only value is how cheap something is.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by markellion:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: locals import much more expensive food products from far away, thereby guaranteeing more starvation and poverty and more profit for the multinational businesses.
Actually it is cheap food that is hurting farmers all over the world
No Markellion that is absolutely nonsense. How on earth can it be cheaper than local produce once you factor in the costs of shipping, storage and refrigeration?
Care to cite any sources that back this up on the ground in Africa? Trust me, those foreign imports are more expensive versus local produce.
You are confusing the prices paid to farmers with the prices paid by consumers for those farm goods. Local farmers are not the major multinationals who take the food, process it and distribute it. After they get finished they mark up the price significantly over what they paid for it from the small farmers.
That was the whole point. It is in the interest of these multinationals to make as much profit as possible by paying farmers less and selling for much more. Trust me, the Africans are not paying the same price for that produce as the multinationals.
For example:
quote: A strong rally in commodity prices could help put Kenya's economy back on the growth path, analysts said even as they warned of persistent risk of imported inflation from the steady surge in the prices of key imports such as oil.
Kenya's fortunes in the commodities market is particularly tied to the continued strengthening of coffee and tea price that is helping the shilling claw back part of the ground it has ceded to major world currencies in recent months.
That should reduce the country's external debt burden and bring down the cost of imported intermediate goods that are critical to growth of industrial output.
Analysts are however concerned that the continuing surge in crude oil prices may exert a negative impact on the green shoots of growth as the rise in prices of key food imports such as wheat and rice pile upward pressure on headline inflation.
"Oil prices should be particularly watched because it is a key input into the economy and has exhibited a sticky price structure -- quicker to track prices higher and slow to track them lower leaving it with a heavy skew," said Aly Khan Sachu, an investment advisor who runs Rich Management.
Last week, an IMF mission that visited Nairobi to assess the state of the economy said it expected gradual improvement but warned of persistent risks.
"In the light of the risks facing the economy, macroeconomic management should remain geared towards achieving the inflation objective and promoting fiscal sustainability," Michel Atingi-Ego, a senior advisor in the African Department of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) said.
The IMF put its best case scenario for Kenya's growth at 2.7 per cent in 2009 with the possibility of rising to four per cent in 2010.
Expectation of improved performance is pegged on recent reports of recovery in Kenya's trading partners such as US, Germany and Japan while the caution is hinged on the continued economic contraction in key markets such as UK.
In recent months, the crude oil price has risen steadily to a 13-month high of between $75 and $80 as demand has risen with signals of global economic recovery.
That price is important because oil accounts for 22 per cent of the value of Kenya's annual imports.
Some analysts have warned that the ongoing economic recovery will pile pressure on the cost of imported goods as demand for freight surges piling pressure on the cost of shipping that dropped nearly to a 20-year low in the wake of global economic recession late last year.
Prices of key food imports such as wheat and rice are also expected to rise steeply in the coming months as consumers claw back part of the purchasing power they lost with the onset of recession adding to the imports bill burden that peaked in the third quarter of last year as commodity prices peaked to 30-year highs and oil rose to an all-time high of $147 per barrel.
Tea and Coffee exports, run by multinational corporations, are making a lot of money (for the multinationals) off of Kenya's fertile farmland. But Kenyan's have to import grain at high prices because the multinationals that control Kenya's agricultural sector would rather grow Coffee, Tea and Flowers as a cash crop for export. Therefore, instead of Kenya being self sufficient in grain which they certainly could be growing themselves, they are dependent on imports, which are much higher due to fuel costs, distribution costs and so forth.
The pattern of agriculture in Kenya and across Africa is a legacy of the colonial era. Those large mega-plantations growing Tea, Coffee, Tobacco and Flowers are directly the result of settlers forcing Africans off the land and using it for cash crops. The colonial enterprises of 100 years ago are the multinationals of today.
I've pretty much shown this beyond any question. How do you force people to import something unless you flood them with it at cheaper prices than they can make it themselves?
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Local farmers are not the major multinationals who take the food, process it and distribute it. After they get finished they mark up the price significantly over what they paid for it from the small farmers.
That was the whole point. It is in the interest of these multinationals to make as much profit as possible by paying farmers less and selling for much more. Trust me, the Africans are not paying the same price for that produce as the multinationals.
Why do you think I have been calling this non-profit imperialism. The cost is passed on to the tax payer, however these cheap imports also serves to keep these nations in debt so many people profit
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by markellion: I've pretty much shown this beyond any question. How do you force people to import something unless you flood them with it at cheaper prices than they can make it themselves?
That isn't what is happening on the ground. What is happening is that major settler companies and multinationals control most of the large plantations and grow crops to make money: Tea, Coffee, Palm Oil, Rubber plants, flowers and so on. They crowd out local farmers by force, using the best land, financing from their colonial homeland banking systems and technology imports to sustain profitable agribusiness. African locals are left to fend for themselves on smaller plots of land, with little to no financing, land ownership and technology. Hence they are more affected by weather fluctuation and low crop yields and they don't have the financial backing to pay for the high priced technology and other materials to sustain their farms productively. All of that is on purpose, not by accident.
And on top of that there is a global commodities market that sets the price of food for "global trade" meaning that prices fluctuate with no bearing on the actual local conditions for farming, farm output or anything else. All of which only provides more profit for large multinational players and leaves locals out to dry.
These multinationals created the fake "food crisis" by focusing on poor countries that have underdeveloped local agricultural sectors, even as major plantations in these countries produce all sorts of cash crops. The intent was to allow the multinationals to snap up even more land for cash crops and further entrench their control over the global food trade for their own profit, not the benefit of starving or "food insecure" people.
quote: A fresh rally in global food commodity prices threatens to destabilise Treasury's expenditure plans at a time when the country's food deficit situation is expected to worsen further owing to largely failed short rains.
The country had been banking on enhanced short rains between September and January to boost food reserves after previous three seasons of back-to-back failed rains but half-way through the season this doesn't seem to be forthcoming.
But in what could spell trouble for Treasury even as the country eyes such food imports, market data showed a steady climb in the prices of key food commodities since August.
The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) Food Price Index, a measure of the monthly change in international prices of a food basket comprising cereals, oil seeds, dairy, meat and sugar, has risen uninterruptedly since August 2009, a trend shared by nearly all its components.
"Another rain failure after the two bad seasons will leave the country with the largest grain deficit and a worst food crisis next year," said Dr James Nyoro, a food security consultant.
As a show of the magnitude of the global food price gains , the FAO index for instance in November averaged 168 points, the highest since September 2008, although still 21 per cent below its peak in June 2008.
Prior to the price spike of 2007/08, the index never exceeded the 120 points limit and oscillated below the 100 points range.
"Prices in the futures market have also shown renewed strength in recent weeks," the UN agency said in an outlook report released on Thursday.
By late November, the March 2010 maize contract at the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) that is one of the sources eyed by Kenya for imports, stood at around $160 per tonne, up $28 per tonne, or 20 per cent, above the September average but 5 per cent below the corresponding period last year.
A national food inventory record prepared by the Tegemeo Institute two months ago based on the ministry of agriculture's projections indicate that the intermittent long rains only yielded 17.6 million bags, a dismal 61 per cent of the targeted 28 million bags.
Given the failure of short rains which under normal cases would add an additional 15 per cent of the national production potential (6 million bags) to the national granary the country must import at least 16 million bags to satisfy the national consumption of 36 million bags annually.
"We were lucky because short rains did not interfere with long season's harvesting as earlier predicted but as for short season preparations, the rains have proved too erratic to rely on," said Mr David Nyameino, the Cereals Growers Association CEO.
He said that while some areas in Nyanza, Western and parts of Rift Valley are receiving good rains, areas with high potential for producing the short season maize have generally been skipped by the precipitation.
Last week, Meteorological Department's deputy director in charge of forecasting Mr Peter Abenje said the El Nino rains were ongoing, but poorly distributed.
"The rains are not as consistent as had been predicted and most of the areas we had hoped would be affected have not been covered at all," he said.
Latest proposals by the national Crisis Response Centre shows that Treasury is expected to release Sh9 billion to purchase some 240,000 tonnes of food by February mainly from external markets to cater for close to 4 million people facing starvation.
Treasury has already spent Sh24 billion to buy food and ensure water supplies to vulnerable groups since the CRC programme was launched in August.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: No Markellion that is absolutely nonsense. How on earth can it be cheaper than local produce once you factor in the costs of shipping, storage and refrigeration?
Care to cite any sources that back this up on the ground in Africa?
Here are a handful of articles on the subject, all prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt
“Manufacturing a Food Crisis” By Walden Bello June 2, 2008
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: No Markellion that is absolutely nonsense. How on earth can it be cheaper than local produce once you factor in the costs of shipping, storage and refrigeration?
Care to cite any sources that back this up on the ground in Africa? Trust me, those foreign imports are more expensive versus local produce.
Everything I have posted is for a central reason, this is the context of "free trade gurus", the irony I was pointing out was that the food being dumped on these countries are subsidized, and yet these "3rd world" countries were encouraged to do away with tariffs and subsidies. As was also shown earlier tariffs are also doing great damage. You asked me to cite any sources that support this but you also quoted this:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by markellion: Hey I just thought of this article the author says "free trade gurus" noting the irony in the situation that these couturiers are flooded with subsidized produce. Very relevant to the conversation here
"Profits before people: The great African liquidation sale" Published: 5 November 2009
quote:Hence all those years of structural adjustment programmes in Africa, poverty reduction schemes, the first Green Revolution, the liberalised trade that cranked open Africa’s doors to cheap imports and subsidised foodstuffs dumped on the continent, which snuffed out African industries and undermined African farmers who, ironically, the same free-market gurus said should not be subsidised.....
Of course "free trade gurus" would say that. Their definition of "free trade" is all trade and commerce controlled by a handful of global monopolies.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
This is all a part of the "force of craftsmen" (as Doug puts it) that I have been talking about
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Show me in the histories of Europe or Asia where craftsmen and "people with the knowledge" "have an edge" over the people of the government and their militants thus forcing them into reliance.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Likewise, imperialism is primarily defined by force of arms not by force of craftsmen. Name one empire that was not built on and maintained by military conquest and political domination.
There are none.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
I recommend reading Adam Smith pages 250-253 which gives a good perspective what is going on today. Doug had pointed out that there is a problem with monopolies, big businesses like the monopoly Adam Smith criticized. Adam Smith had pointed out that the trade with the Americas was both necessary and highly beneficial to Great Brittan, this trade overall overcoming even the bad effects of the monopoly. Adam Smith, as I had shown earlier, also talked about government giving incentives for certain kinds of exports which would not otherwise exist and this is exactly what is happening right now. Here Adam Smith also talks about how capital is forced to support the monopoly and thus divert from other sorts of productivity, this is just like what is going on today and this actually hinders the capital from carrying on as much productive activity as they otherwise would
The cheap imports hurt the overall economy of these countries so there is a spiral in which food imports need to be cheaper for people to afford it so the situation is complicated. These are all extremely brief from allafrica.com every article posted below is recent and talks about low prices are hurting agriculture development, except on the last article which mentions the poor state of many roads but this is also highly significant when it comes to development. Many of these articles also talk about irrigation and it is cheap imports in the first place that keeps these kinds of things to be less developed
"Nwanze Decries Country's Food Import" 23 March 2010
quote:Originally posted by markellion: I recommend reading Adam Smith pages 250-253 which gives a good perspective what is going on today. Doug had pointed out that there is a problem with monopolies, big businesses like the monopoly Adam Smith criticized. Adam Smith had pointed out that the trade with the Americas was both necessary and highly beneficial to Great Brittan, this trade overall overcoming even the bad effects of the monopoly. Adam Smith, as I had shown earlier, also talked about government giving incentives for certain kinds of exports which would not otherwise exist and this is exactly what is happening right now. Here Adam Smith also talks about how capital is forced to support the monopoly and thus divert from other sorts of productivity, this is just like what is going on today and this actually hinders the capital from carrying on as much productive activity as they otherwise would
The cheap imports hurt the overall economy of these countries so there is a spiral in which food imports need to be cheaper for people to afford it so the situation is complicated. These are all extremely brief from allafrica.com every article posted below is recent and talks about low prices are hurting agriculture development, except on the last article which mentions the poor state of many roads but this is also highly significant when it comes to development. Many of these articles also talk about irrigation and it is cheap imports in the first place that keeps these kinds of things to be less developed
"Nwanze Decries Country's Food Import" 23 March 2010
Actually those articles support what I said which is that local food is always cheaper than import and that the underdevelopment of African agriculture only benefits foreign multinationals and agribusiness who have large amounts of government support.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
It's complicated and sometimes prices could act weird but get serious man, one of the big factors in this is cheap agricultural products being dumped on these nations
It is extremely annoying when you show concrete evidence of something and people insist on remaining oblivious to it. The trade with Africa is highly important to the United States and European Union even though the tax payers have to pay for much of the subsidies, the problem is it could be done in a more efficient ways
Note that the third article is the one that didn't mention low prices being a problem, all the rest of them say low price is a problem. Why, because of cheap imports from abroad!
Lets briefly look at the 4 articles in order
1. A quote very specifically states that Nigerians must prevent cheap products from coming in and competing with local agriculture by lowering price, and that this is simply agricultural economics
2. Read 2nd paragraph foreign Maize has pushed the price so far down that the price now is hardly high enough to meet the price of production for local farmers.
3. Talks about the need to develop technology and to become food self sufficient, not being food self sufficient means importing foods
4. Has talked about the problem of increased supply lowering price and so on
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
"Farm Subsidies That Kill" By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF Published: July 5, 2002 from the New York Times
quote: For example, the U.S. has only 25,000 cotton growers, but they are prosperous (with an average net worth of $800,000) and thus influential. So the U.S. spends $2 billion a year subsidizing them
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by markellion: It's complicated and sometimes prices could act weird but get serious man, one of the big factors in this is cheap agricultural products being dumped on these nations
It is extremely annoying when you show concrete evidence of something and people insist on remaining oblivious to it. The trade with Africa is highly important to the United States and European Union even though the tax payers have to pay for much of the subsidies, the problem is it could be done in a more efficient ways
Note that the third article is the one that didn't mention low prices being a problem, all the rest of them say low price is a problem. Why, because of cheap imports from abroad!
Lets briefly look at the 4 articles in order
1. A quote very specifically states that Nigerians must prevent cheap products from coming in and competing with local agriculture by lowering price, and that this is simply agricultural economics
2. Read 2nd paragraph foreign Maize has pushed the price so far down that the price now is hardly high enough to meet the price of production for local farmers.
3. Talks about the need to develop technology and to become food self sufficient, not being food self sufficient means importing foods
4. Has talked about the problem of increased supply lowering price and so on
Markellion, read the articles. They are talking about the low prices of locally produced grain.
For example, this is the second article:
quote: The bumper maize harvest experienced late last year and at the beginning of this year has continued to depress the price of maize in the local market. Uganda's maize production rose by an estimated 30 per cent in 2009 from 12 per cent a year earlier, boosted by a wider use of fertilizer and the genetically modified seeds.
The fourth article is also talking about local production forcing prices lower, which is in reality a good thing(except in the minds of greedy agribusinesses who only think about profits).
The other two articles are talking about Africans being self sufficient and not dependent on imports. None of them are supporting your position in a real sense because while in some cases food imports are cheap, most cases of food prices being lower are due to large harvests produced locally. And in most cases across Africa food imports are actually more expensive than local production.
But regardless of whether imports are cheaper or more expensive it is still in Africa's best interest to become self sufficient in agriculture and less reliant on imports.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote: The useful delusion of being independent Hama Tuma 2010-04-22, Issue 478 http://pambazuka.org/en/category/comment/63896 Bookmark and Share Printer friendly version Fifty years after ‘18 African countries allegedly gained their “independence” from colonialism’, it is ‘safe to state that most of Africa suffers from the delusion of being independent’, argues Hama Tuma. ‘Colonialism played many tricks on gullible Africans,’ writes Tuma, ‘and its most damaging joke has been to declare that it has left…while actually rushing back in through the back door.'
Without going deep into the not so negligible difference between an illusion (more of a perceptual problem) and a delusion (concerning belief despite facts to the contrary) it is safe to state that most of Africa suffers from the delusion of being independent, fifty years after some 18 African countries allegedly gained their ‘independence’ from colonialism, which was a tricky monster if there ever was one.
Colonialism came with the Bible in one hand, and as the Africans bowed to pray, the white man took the land and their alleged freedom (at least from being colonised by a foreign country). Colonialism played many tricks on gullible Africans and its most damaging joke has been to declare that it has left (front door exit) while actually rushing back in through the back door (neo colonialism using the black bourgeoisie). The puppets wearing black masks – denounced so bitterly by Frantz Fanon for one – were quick to declare that formal independence (flags and a native government that played the puppet role to the hilt) was actually the real thing.
A national flag, a black oppressor in a Mercedes Benz and a Rolls Royce, palaces and corrupt and hedonistic existence for the few and Africans were expected to hail this as freedom and salvation. Those who said the emperor was actually naked and that colonialism has continued in a new garb (with the old stink in place) were quickly silenced. Belgian and CIA agents collaborated to have Patrice Lumumba murdered. Freedom fighters Um Nyobe, Felix Moumie and later on Mondlane, Machel and Cabral were gotten rid off in one way or another. Pan-Africanists with a strong anti imperialist stance were made victims of foreign-engineered coups, as in Ghana and Nkrumah. Colonialism never left but wore a new mask; Africa was doomed as the traitors had a field day, selling the whole continent without any scruples or qualms.
The one party state that was the darling of the West, fleecing Africa through a corrupt and malleable strongman – Mobutu is a good example – went against any notion of democratic governance. Rebellions were bound to erupt here and there and the colonisers had to spread again the virus of what Nyerere called ‘tribalism’ and is nowadays referred to as ‘ethnicism’, the ‘Ethnic assaulting the Nation’ as Samir Amin put it in a book. Africa's desire to consolidate nation states broke against the iceberg of ethnic assault and the division helped carry the goal of the rapacious West to its zenith. (Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union were also to become victims of this sponsored ethnic or nationality assault). Worse still, even the ethnically or nationally cohesive people like the Somalis succumbed to the virus. Divided on clan levels, they are still going on with their carnage no matter what.
Yet, we must admit that, fifty years on, the delusion of independence is no longer a big problem – we all know few African countries are really independent. Actually, the two countries that had never been colonised, Ethiopia and Liberia, are also fine examples of dependence and neo colonial servility. Liberia was handed over to freed American slaves and these imposed their corrupt rule over the ‘natives’ with the help of America and North American companies like Firestone rubber company. When the jury of revenge came (via the Samuel Doe coup) it was indeed violent (Tolbert and many ministers were summarily shot).
Liberia was not independent in the 19th century and is not so now either. Ethiopia was never colonised (maybe the Ethiopians read the Bible before the white man and were not duped to close their eyes and pray) but the regimes in power for more than seventy years were/are puppets of foreign powers (USA and the Soviet Union) and Ethiopians have never realised their dream of democratic governance. This is not to say that there was little difference between the colonised and the not colonised (perhaps there is some in the psyche and type of wounds), but it is to assert that colonialism did not leave, not ever, but stayed on with more fangs and new garb. As I said, colonialism is a tricky monster.
It can even change colour and appearance, given the fact that China is now busy replacing the old and known plunderers. As a ‘Young Turk’ plunderer, China seems to have little or no scruples, other than fiercely pursuing its own national interests – but it has learnt the moves and gives lip service to the ‘delusion’, the flag and the false belief in a non-existent sovereignty. Buttering up our ego, telling us we are rich and proud when we are poor and miserable and they are taking away our wealth and backing our killers (Beshir, Meles, Mugabe, etc).
In reality, the assault on our pride and self-respect has been so strong that most of us have succumbed to self-hate (a bonanza for the skin lightening product manufacturers for example), and lack of self-confidence. We claim that partaking of wisdom at the feet of the white man is all, we speak English or French and we are wise and we know it all (as opposed to the ‘ignorant’ majority that doesn't); our salvation can only come from the good will of the new colonisers. The pathetic souls who pray ‘Our Father who art in the White House’ are good examples of this malady. The dependence and absolute lack of belief in the strength and power of one's people is very damaging especially in light of the real situation, in which there seems little hope of achieving meaningful social change peacefully. And yet, it is sadly true that the armed rebels claiming to fight for our liberation have turned out to be murderous thugs (Renamo, RUF, LRA and others), lumpen guerrillas if you want. Our misery is compounded; colonialism is dead but long live colonialism is not a dead cry.
It is of course possible to contend that we should be left alone with our delusions. It is probable that if one takes one's hell for a paradise, then the suffering may appear less (illusion). Ethiopians say that if we call it life, dwelling in the graveyard may be comfortable or warm; perspective matters. If the poor man did not drink butter in his dream, he would have died sooner from constipation is another favourite saying in Ethiopia. Delusion plays a role. Instead of a white Bwana governor, we have a black native oppressor – is there any difference? Isn't it better if we delude ourselves that there is a difference, especially when we cannot find an iota even using a magnifying glass for investigation? Less expectation, less frustration; more delusion, less pain. The bastards have not left (blood diamonds, blood Coltan, a whole continent plundered without mercy) but why not delude ourselves that they have? Viewed from this angle, the delusion of independence makes our graveyard feel warm. We all know we live in a ‘cold’ continent, so why harp on it and shiver when we can embrace our delusion and sweat from the imagined heat?
You do not deserve independence because you breathe and crap, and certanily not because you are black. You gain wealth and independence by being smarter and meaner than everyone else.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
Those articles I posted also specifically talked about the problem of cheap agriculture coming in. This is something that needs to be taken seriously
Explain to me why food is also being brought in for free i.e. aid. This is in order to drive out agriculture competition in countries all over the world. The United States and European Union in other words are competing with these "3rd world nations", and the agriculture and industry and economy of these "3rd world" countries in general would improve greatly if corporations didn't rely on subsidies to carry on their schemes
If it were not for these schemes these countries could develop more easily, also those articles talk about the need to develop irrigation and roads and everything. If farmers could make a profit by selling their crops then all these things would become more developed, but the price is too low
Also since this hurts the economy of the whole country people have less money to buy food so it is a spiral and people become reliant on cheap food.
This is just one quote from the first article
"Nwanze Decries Country's Food Import" 23 March 2010
quote:"You have to put trade limitations that would encourage them so that people will not bring in cheap food from outside and bring down prices and compete with local production; this are simple economics of agriculture".
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
This was written just a month or so ago and is recent and says that it is still low price that is the problem. I am, however, aware that rising prices also hurt because after agriculture is driven out raising prices hurts consumers
Whats significant here is all this proves that it is not simply taking advantage of hopeless people, it is a war to drive out competition. It takes immense resources to drive these people out. This is something I've repeated on this thread to the point of it being spam but what do you think about these two articles:
quote:One place where the government seems to have kept its ideological blinkers firmly in place is Mexico. There, in the birthplace of corn, where the crop was domesticated into one of the world's most important food crops, there were tortilla riots in the streets as people couldn't afford this most basic staple. In the fifteen years since the North American Free Trade Agreement took effect, US corn has flooded Mexico at prices half what it cost to produce in Mexico. Mexico now depends on imports from the US for more than a third of its corn. Some two million hungry farmers have left agriculture under the flood of cheap food.
"With cheap food imports, Haiti can’t feed itself U.S. policies encouraging low tariffs on imports destroyed local agriculture"
quote:Women carry a bag of rice on their heads at a food distribution center in Port-au-Prince, Sunday, March 14. Decades of inexpensive imports — especially rice from the U.S. — punctuated with abundant aid in various crises have destroyed local agriculture and left impoverished countries such as Haiti unable to feed themselves.
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
So Markellion, Why should the United States and Europe cut them a deal? It is all about money, the strong survive and the weak suffer. That may not be a pretty picture but is the way the world WILL ALWAYS work.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
But the situation here is survival of the unfitest since these subsidies are supporting U.S. farmers and farmers in the European Union.
If these subsidies (paid for with tax dollars and also supported by other means of government intervention) didn't exist, things would be different
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
Maybe they would be different and maybe not. Inany event these governments are acting in what they consider to be their pown self interest. You have to put yourself in the other guys place.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
I would have thought you were someone who was against big government. Is this really what you want your tax dollars spent on?
"The Cost of America's Farm Subsidy Binge: An Average of $1 Million Per Farm" Published on December 10, 2001 by Brian Riedl. Posted on The Heritage Foundation Leadership for America
The last article said that most of the subsidies in the United States went to these crops "wheat, cotton, corn, soybeans, and rice"
But that is just the United States, and over half of the European Union's spending is on agricultural subsidies and beef from Europe did great damage to cattle raisers in different parts of Africa (not mentioned in this article). The dumping of beef in African countries. Also don't be fooled by the fact that sometimes the European Union might not use an outright tariff sometimes but they have many other means of protectionism on top of tariffs where they make it harder to import food. They do this through rules and regulations
"Common Agricultural Policy" from economic expert.com
But regardless of whether imports are cheaper or more expensive it is still in Africa's best interest to become self sufficient in agriculture and less reliant on imports.
This is half of the problem because there is still the world market, it would be highly advantageous to these countries to be able to export surplus but the high subsidies in the United States and European Union make it so world prices are lower and thus lowering the amount of money exports can make
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by markellion:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
But regardless of whether imports are cheaper or more expensive it is still in Africa's best interest to become self sufficient in agriculture and less reliant on imports.
This is half of the problem because there is still the world market, it would be highly advantageous to these countries to be able to export surplus but the high subsidies in the United States and European Union make it so world prices are lower and thus lowering the amount of money exports can make
Actually in the world market prices fluctuate and change especially on commodities traded around the world.
And again, imports are not going to be cheaper than local produce in most cases except when the local produce is in short supply, which then causes prices to go up. Normally the reason for the short supply goes back to the underdevelopment of the agricultural sector. If the agricultural sector was more developed, local agriculture would always produce much more and therefore drive prices lower.
Now, if you agree that Africans should export food, then that means they should be able to feed themselves first right? If so then that means they would have to have enough food for themselves with an excess to be sold for export. In such a scenario the local food produce would always be cheaper as it is in abundance.
And again, most of the fluctuation in prices is not to any real supply and demand on a global scale as opposed to manipulation by global financial elites and speculators.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
Imagine it like this these two variables 1. cost of production vs. 2. price of crop. Once the two meet each other at a certain point there will be no more development when it comes to growing that crop
Remember those articles from allafrica.com, they said that the low price is what is causing the underdevelopment, whenever there is more production the price goes down and farmers can no longer produce crop at a profit, this is the major reason why there is underdevelopment.
The bankers and global financial elites are part of the same elites that also control global supply
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
I'm curious as to what you thought this article was trying to say in this specific quote:
"cranked open Africa’s doors to cheap imports and subsidised foodstuffs dumped on the continent, which snuffed out African industries and undermined African farmers who, ironically, the same free-market gurus said should not be subsidised"
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by markellion: Hey I just thought of this article the author says "free trade gurus" noting the irony in the situation that these couturiers are flooded with subsidized produce. Very relevant to the conversation here
"Profits before people: The great African liquidation sale" Published: 5 November 2009
quote:Hence all those years of structural adjustment programmes in Africa, poverty reduction schemes, the first Green Revolution, the liberalised trade that cranked open Africa’s doors to cheap imports and subsidised foodstuffs dumped on the continent, which snuffed out African industries and undermined African farmers who, ironically, the same free-market gurus said should not be subsidised.....
Of course "free trade gurus" would say that. Their definition of "free trade" is all trade and commerce controlled by a handful of global monopolies.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
Exports will be necessary to develop economies and thus giving the people purchasing power to buy food despite the fact that the world price of food will increase if there are no more subsidies in the United States or European Union. Higher price will lead to more development in agriculture in these "3rd world nations", and as I have pointed out the underdevelopment is because cost of production meet the price of the crop.
This article also mentions how Argentina and Brazil are angry about this, and this was written almost 10 years ago. Both of these countries continue to export soybeans what they are mad about is lower prices
The article also says "free trade doesn't work" but the very problems with "free trade" that the author points out are caused by high subsidies. The subsidies are done in such a way as to promote as much production as possible while naturally a farmer would not want to produce past a point where it begins to become less profitable to do so. This also ties in with a lot of environmental damage because in many cases less economical methods are used as farmers are encouraged to do so because of subsidies. One example of this is crop rotation isn't being used because farmers are encouraged to grow as much of one crop as they can. Crop rotation prevents the soil from being worn out
"Giving Away the Farm: The 2002 Farm Bill" By Anuradha Mittal June 2002
quote: ...The current level of subsidies has already led to overproduction, which lowers prices. Today more than 40 percent of net farm income comes from the federal government,....
...Robin Hood in Reverse
However, the U.S. shields itself from foreign competition by increasing its subsidies and maintaining tariffs. These measures have allowed the U.S. to dump its farm surplus on world markets. For example, the U.S. exports corn at prices 20 percent below the cost of production, and wheat at 46 percent below cost.(14) This has resulted in Mexican corn farmers being put out of business....
...Even the World Bank President, James Wolfensohn, acknowledges that "these subsidies are crippling Africa's chance to export its way out of poverty."(17)
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
3rd world nations have a number of problems.
1. They lack complex economies 2. They lack capital formation 3. They lack an advanced educational system 4. Many are riddled with corruption 5. Many have populations with a diminished IQ base
The problems are huge. Many of these nations are poor and small and they are not going to get much welfare or help from the richer nations (who have problems of their own) nor should they get help.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
Hammer, billions and billions of dollars are already going as aid to these countries. Even though Haiti may need money because of the earthquake the free food given out to many of these countries continues to hurt local agriculture.
These countries are receiving plenty of welfare
Also billions and billions of dollars are going to agricultural subsidies, these billions come from tax payer dollars so that food can be dumped in these countries under the cost of production
My last post showed the quote from James Wolfensohn but what I didn't show is right after that in the same article it is estimated that the loss of revenue from exports equals what these countries receive in aid
"Giving Away the Farm: The 2002 Farm Bill" By Anuradha Mittal June 2002
quote:Even the World Bank President, James Wolfensohn, acknowledges that "these subsidies are crippling Africa's chance to export its way out of poverty."(17) Mark Malloch Brown, the head of the United Nations Development Program, estimates that U.S. farm subsidies cost poor countries about $50 billion a year in lost agricultural exports. By coincidence, that's about the same as the total of rich countries' aid to poor countries.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hammer:
Many of these nations are poor and small and they are not going to get much welfare or help from the richer nations (who have problems of their own) nor should they get help.
The key thing here is "who have problems of their own" one of those problems is tax payers paying billions of dollars so that produce can be sold to foreign nations at below the actual cost of production. See the first two posts on the top of page 4 of this thread, the articles I posted there specifically show what the subsidies cost to the taxpayer in both the United States and European Union. Over half of the spending in the European Union is in agricultural subsidies
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
Adam Smith on bounties, where a trade is supported by tax payers in which the expenses exceed that actual returns:
quote:The bounty is given in order to make up this loss, and to encourage him to continue, or, perhaps, to begin a trade, of which the expense is supposed to be greater than the returns, of which every operation eats up a part of the capital employed in it, and which is of such a nature, that if all other trades resembled it, there would soon be no capital left in the country.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by markellion: Exports will be necessary to develop economies and thus giving the people purchasing power to buy food despite the fact that the world price of food will increase if there are no more subsidies in the United States or European Union. Higher price will lead to more development in agriculture in these "3rd world nations", and as I have pointed out the underdevelopment is because cost of production meet the price of the crop.
This article also mentions how Argentina and Brazil are angry about this, and this was written almost 10 years ago. Both of these countries continue to export soybeans what they are mad about is lower prices
The article also says "free trade doesn't work" but the very problems with "free trade" that the author points out are caused by high subsidies. The subsidies are done in such a way as to promote as much production as possible while naturally a farmer would not want to produce past a point where it begins to become less profitable to do so. This also ties in with a lot of environmental damage because in many cases less economical methods are used as farmers are encouraged to do so because of subsidies. One example of this is crop rotation isn't being used because farmers are encouraged to grow as much of one crop as they can. Crop rotation prevents the soil from being worn out
"Giving Away the Farm: The 2002 Farm Bill" By Anuradha Mittal June 2002
quote: ...The current level of subsidies has already led to overproduction, which lowers prices. Today more than 40 percent of net farm income comes from the federal government,....
...Robin Hood in Reverse
However, the U.S. shields itself from foreign competition by increasing its subsidies and maintaining tariffs. These measures have allowed the U.S. to dump its farm surplus on world markets. For example, the U.S. exports corn at prices 20 percent below the cost of production, and wheat at 46 percent below cost.(14) This has resulted in Mexican corn farmers being put out of business....
...Even the World Bank President, James Wolfensohn, acknowledges that "these subsidies are crippling Africa's chance to export its way out of poverty."(17)
Markellion, you don't understand what you are talking about.
In most African countries the cost of local produce is far cheaper than imports. However, that is only in the most favorable of circumstances, since African agriculture does not have the investment or infrastructure to sustain large crop yields for local consumption. Hence, most of the time because of weather, infrastructure, market manipulation and other forces, local food production lags far behind what is needed and therefore costs much more.
The point being made is that the foreign owned plantations growing the majority of crops for export have all the benefit of financial support from foreign banks, foreign industrial support for infrastructure and foreign technological support for irrigation and high crop yields. Yet all of this support is primarily for producing crops for export: tea, coffe, palm oil, bio fuels, etc. African local food production is left in the stone age with impoverished Africans picking out crops on the worst land, with no financial support, no industrial support and no technology. So when there is a bumper crop, most times the food simply goes to waste and rots in the field because there is no distribution system in place to get it to the local markets.
All of this is due to direct manipulation by foreign industrialists and their local flunkies in the African governments who care more about foreign money than their own people. It has nothing to do with export earnings as most of those export earnings go to the foreign elites who own the plantations in the first place, not the local Africans.
So claiming this nonsense about exports giving more money to Africans to buy food is silliness. All the industry in the world wont improve the lives of Africans if that industry is based on a pattern of exploitation and oppression. For example, South Africa has the most developed industry in Africa and yet the majority of blacks there are unemployed and get little benefit from the massive plantations, mines and other industries in the country. Only a fool would sit there and explain this in terms of "market economics" when that has absolutely nothing to do with it.
quote: African Governments have been challenged to adopt long-term policies to contain rising food prices.
Kenya was cited as a case study where prices of maize increased by over eight per cent between March 2007 and March 2008.
Agricultural economists and researchers from East and Southern Africa recalled media images of farmers pouring out thousands of litres of milk as hunger ravaged other parts of the country.
They said the continent risks a crisis over uncontrolled food prices.
While global prices were on a decline, there was a gradual food price increase in the Common Markets for East and Southern Africa region, they noted.
Rwanda Agriculture Minister Agnes Kalibata said high costs of food imports put enormous strain on foreign exchange.
Dr Kalibata said the high cost of food was to blame for social unrest and political tension in developing countries.
"Growing uses of food grains for biofuel production, animal feeds, increasing population and rapid urbanisation are among the demand factors," added Kalibata.
The factors affecting food prices are high costs of agricultural inputs like fertiliser and fuel, reduced exports and low supply of food.
Families in urban areas are more at risk of starvation.
"About 40 to70 per cent of household expenditure in the Comesa region accounts for purchases of domestic food," said Kalibata.
Most African countries were food exporters under colonialism. Of course this means that Africans worked as slave labor on large plantations under white supervision to produce large amounts of the produce shipped to European and American markets, with financial and technical support from those places. Of course since then African countries have had to deal with the policies of the IMF and World Bank, along with the puppet dictators and kleptocrats installed by Western powers.
quote: FRED DE SAM LAZARO, correspondent: This busy food market in Mayadoua sits just inside Nigeria's northern border. A lot of produce, like these beans, is from neighboring Niger, even though that nation's 13 million people are often on the brink of starvation. The economics are simple: Prices are higher in oil-rich Nigeria.
But why is Nigeria even importing food? Agricultural produce used to be its main export. Now it must turn to neighbors to feed its growing population, already Africa's largest at 140 million.
Most Nigerians live on farms, but today many, like the extended Usman family, can barely provide for themselves. The rains provided a good crop of sorghum and maize this season, maybe enough to get through the dry season. But even as the ladies sing to celebrate a good crop, Ramatu Usman and Aisha Yusuf say each new year brings new uncertainty.
AISHA YUSUF SAY: We've had difficult times when rainfall was poor, when we had to rely on leaves and shrubs.
RAMATU USMAN: We pluck them, boil them, sprinkle with salt, sometimes eat them with peanut butter.
FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Not that the food they enjoy today is either bountiful or balanced. The U.N. says almost a third of Nigeria's young children are moderately to severely underweight.
In this family's main daily meal is a starchy porridge, flavored with chilies, dried tomatoes, and monosodium glutamate, or MSG, an additive that mimics the taste of meat, as they rarely have the real thing. The few goats and poultry are the savings account, sold to buy clothes or medicine or to pay for a wedding.
Much of the blame for the poor state of Nigerian agriculture lies with the successive military dictatorships, which since the 1970s promised, but never delivered, on grandiose modernization plans.
Muhammad Sabo Nanono heads a group of large farmers.
And of course it is the foreign backed elites of Africa who play dumb and dumber when it comes to the basics of running a country and always seem to pretend that foreigners are Africa's saviors, when no reading of history supports this view.
quote: 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.
The bottom line point being that the foreigners back these people because they don't want Africans to be independent and have stable economies and to be able to feed and sustain themselves. As in the case above, with proper support from the Kenyan government, Kenyan farmers would be able to produce more than enough food to feed each and every Kenyan. But these politicians only pay lip service to the farmers and are more interested in bringing in more foreigners and taking money from the cartels that control most of the trade in East Africa than they are about making Kenya self sufficient in agriculture.
But again, just like the global financial crisis, this global food crisis is also fake, designed by the global industrialists, bankers and multinational agricultural cartels to buy up and take more land under the pretext of food security. But most of this food "insecurity" is not due to anything being wrong with the land itself, it is all about money, distribution and manipulation of the markets: creating fake shortages in order to justify higher prices.
quote: In India's continuing paradox of overflowing granaries and starving populations, the only smiling faces these days are of those of traders. At the moment private traders are slavering over government's grain procurement policies,which have the laudable motive of supporting farmers but which will result in government grain stocks swelling to a record 75 million tonnes --with nowhere to store it.
''The only buyers of wheat in post-harvest wholesale markets of (northern) Punjab and Haryana states at the moment are the Food Corporation of India (FCI)and other state agencies,''said Banwari Lal, a grain exporter based in Delhi.
''We will buy only when the government offloads the stocks at subsidised rates,''said Lal. For traders like Lal, it is a simple waiting game and the longer they are patient, the better because there seems no end to the glut of grain.
But neither the farmers, many of whom are already in debt, nor the government can wait to get rid of perishable stocks. Already, open-market prices for rice and wheat, the main staples, are way below the minimum support prices announced by the government in a pattern depressingly similar to that in the previous years,when traders rather than starving people benefit from a massive three billion dollar subsidy.
''This is a crazy situation --the government is actually subsidising the grain trade instead of ensuring that food supplies reach vulnerable people,'' says Jean Dreze, visiting professor of economist at the prestigious Delhi School of Economics. She is a close associate of Amartya Sen,the Nobel prize-winning economist who showed the real relationship between poverty,entitlements and famines.
Sen's celebrated theory --that famines could be caused by economic factors other than changes in food supply - seems to have special relevance to the current Indian situation, one where enormous strides in food production have not dented shortages.
Last year,several hundred starvation deaths were report- ed from eastern Orissa state despite the fact that granaries were creaking with rotten stocks.That prompted rights activists to petition the Supreme Court to get grain released to people who desperately needed it, but could not afford it.
Newspapers and television channels repeatedly reported grain rotting after being allowed to lie exposed on airport runways and even highways covered with flimsy plastic sheets. Large portions ended up getting devoured by rats and other vermin.
From:http://ipsnews.net/fao_magazine/indian.shtml
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
Whats strange is that earlier you asked me to cite any sources that cheap imports were driving out local industries and agriculture, at the point of this thread that you asked that question I had already been spamming articles that said just that
Not only that but you also quoted me in a post where I had specifically quoted part of an article that said this "cranked open Africa’s doors to cheap imports and subsidised foodstuffs dumped on the continent, which snuffed out African industries and undermined African farmers who, ironically, the same free-market gurus said should not be subsidised....."
It is one thing if you disagreed what that article said, but you acted like you were completely oblivious to the fact that the article made that claim
Edit: underdevelopment includes things like roads and irrigation, low food prices means there will be less put into these kinds of improvements. Exports however will not only help farmers but will allow money to circulate throughout society
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
This is an article I have posted over and over and have posted earlier in this thread. But this shows that while it weird that people might already have a hard time affording food, at the same time cheap food prices are doing great harm to these countries
What the author doesn't take into account is that corn is highly subsidized in the United States, thus giving the U.S. the capacity to flood the world market with corn but there is a lot of good insight in this article. I suggest reading the whole thing
quote: One place where the government seems to have kept its ideological blinkers firmly in place is Mexico. There, in the birthplace of corn, where the crop was domesticated into one of the world's most important food crops, there were tortilla riots in the streets as people couldn't afford this most basic staple. In the fifteen years since the North American Free Trade Agreement took effect, US corn has flooded Mexico at prices half what it cost to produce in Mexico. Mexico now depends on imports from the US for more than a third of its corn. Some two million hungry farmers have left agriculture under the flood of cheap food.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
Ok previously I cited three articles from allafrica.com but one of them didn't really say anything about food prices so I took that one out. This is my list so far which I am posting for convenience so people don't have to worry about looking through all the posts, the list is right here, each and every one of these sources supports the low price thing
Edit: I edited this to show from the article about cotton exports how loss of revenue from exports hurts access to food in many African countries
"US AND EU COTTON PRODUCTION AND EXPORT POLICIES AND THEIR IMPACT ON WEST AND CENTRAL AFRICA:" from the ethical global association May 2004
quote:To prevent a collapse of their cotton sectors (due to low prices), WCA governments have been forced to divert limited financial resources away from other critical areas such as education, delivery of health services and development of rural infrastructure. Access to food is also threatened by low cotton prices because many WCA countries rely on export revenue from cotton to purchase food imports. This is particularly important for countries such as Togo, Benin, Chad, Burkina Faso and Mali where the export revenue of cotton accounts for more than 10% of total national export revenue
“On the Road to Cancún: A Development Perspective on EU Trade Policies” By Faizel Ismail
Ok now for a quick analysis of the articles from your last post. First I have shown very recent sources that prove that low prices are still hurting the agricultural industry in many African countries and hurting the overall development of these countries. I have also already said that things like irrigation and road development will be stifled by low prices
These are the articles from your last post in order:
1. Concerning the immediate article below that you posted, the irony of produce being thrown out while people starved was pointed out
"Kenya cited as case study at food price talks" By Harold Ayodo Published on 05/05/2010
quote:Agricultural economists and researchers from East and Southern Africa recalled media images of farmers pouring out thousands of litres of milk as hunger ravaged other parts of the country.
2. Most of what is said in the immediate article below that you posted can be explained by the fact that industries and agriculture are under attack by subsidized goods from abroad
From PBS site "In Nigeria, Scarce Water Supply and High Food Prices Leave Families Hungry"
3. Concerning the immediate article below that you posted, I have already said that low prices will lead to underdevelopment of these roads, and the article makes it exceedingly clear that low prices are the problem "glut in the market has pushed prices down"
"Kenyans Starve as Food Worth Millions of Shillings Rots"
4. About the last article you posted I've read about farmers in India killing themselves because they are hardly able to make ends meet
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
Doug, in your last post you named several forces that are acting together against "3rd world nations" but I don't think you mentioned the governments of the Untied States and European Union. While governments probably are simply tools to be wielded by the elite it is also a very powerful tool, for example the massive farm subsidies that allow for a great manipulation of world economies. We are talking about immense power here Can it be seriously believed that these subsidies are for no reason?
The subsidies themselves represent awesome power on an epic scale
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
Markellion, Governments in all nations are going to promote their business sector to the best of their ability. American history is repleat with examples of foreign policy decisions based on economic considerations. For example, our "open Door' policy in China was designed to give american business an opportunity to develop new markets in China at the expense of eropean nations. The Monroe doctrine was issued to promote american economic interests in latin America etc etc. Foreign Policy and trade are a hard nasty bsiness at times. Third world nations just do not have as many cards to play in that game and thus do not prosper. That is not thye fault of America or eropean nations, bt rather the fault of third world nations themselves.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by markellion: Ok now for a quick analysis of the articles from your last post. First I have shown very recent sources that prove that low prices are still hurting the agricultural industry in many African countries and hurting the overall development of these countries. I have also already said that things like irrigation and road development will be stifled by low prices
These are the articles from your last post in order:
1. Concerning the immediate article below that you posted, the irony of produce being thrown out while people starved was pointed out
"Kenya cited as case study at food price talks" By Harold Ayodo Published on 05/05/2010
quote:Agricultural economists and researchers from East and Southern Africa recalled media images of farmers pouring out thousands of litres of milk as hunger ravaged other parts of the country.
2. Most of what is said in the immediate article below that you posted can be explained by the fact that industries and agriculture are under attack by subsidized goods from abroad
From PBS site "In Nigeria, Scarce Water Supply and High Food Prices Leave Families Hungry"
3. Concerning the immediate article below that you posted, I have already said that low prices will lead to underdevelopment of these roads, and the article makes it exceedingly clear that low prices are the problem "glut in the market has pushed prices down"
"Kenyans Starve as Food Worth Millions of Shillings Rots"
4. About the last article you posted I've read about farmers in India killing themselves because they are hardly able to make ends meet
Markellion, the only reason imported rice is cheaper in Haiti is because there is so much of it and so little of local Haitian rice. What I said in the beginning and what is still true if you understand the facts is that locally produced crops, within a framework of proper financing, technology and support, will always be cheaper than imports. Meaning that if the Haitian agricultural sector was not decimated by lack of investment and manipulation by foreign forces, there would be abundant rice harvests and the rice would be cheaper than any import. If there is only one or two farms producing a small amount of rice in Haiti, of course it is going to be higher. But if there were many farms across Haiti growing a significant amount of rice, more than enough to satisfy the needs of the Haitian people, it would be cheaper than American rice. At the same token, if at any time there is a decrease in the amount of American rice exported to Haiti, due to some crisis in agriculture or whatever, the price of that American rice will go up. Even if American rice was not cheaper, the Haitians would still buy it because there is not enough Haitian rice to feed the Haitian people. And even if those prices were the same, there is no guarantee that more Haitian farms would be created in Haiti to meet the demand. Prices aren't the issue, it is the policies of the government and the private sector that is the issue. If the government and private sector really wanted to make Haiti self sufficient in rice, they could do it if they really wanted to. But that is if they had the will to do it.
Read between the lines Markellion, yes, the rice in Haiti is expensive but that is because there is very little Haitian rice to begin with and the agricultural sector in Haiti is small to nonexistent. The same goes for many countries in Africa as well. My point is that if these countries had the proper financing, technology and support there would be food in abundance and therefore cheaper prices. The goal is to have local agriculture producing more than enough food to feed the locals and then a surplus to export. That not only would keep prices down, but also provide substantial income for local farmers.
Markellion, the point of those articles is not about cheap prices of imports. The point of the articles is that it is manipulation, intervention and government policies that are creating an environment where farmers cannot get their goods to market. If farmers cant get their food to market they get no money. Therefore, the price is not an issue because the food isn't being sold to begin with. Therefore, this outright manipulation and neglect creates artificial shortages and an artificial food crisis, which is fake to begin with. A food crisis occurs when the land becomes barren and unable to grow crops due to no water resources being available, pests or other natural forces. No such thing has happened. This is all a man made crisis designed to promote the interests of multinational agribusinesses by shutting out and destroying local farmers around the world and creating starvation where there should be none. Such a situation exists because agriculture is a managed commodity and therefore must be kept within limits desired by "the market" in order to keep prices at a desired level. But this has nothing to do with the ultimate purpose of agriculture: feeding the people. Therefore, the greed of investors and multinational businesses takes precedence over the needs of the people. So they will pour out milk and let crops rot in the field rather than let that food make it to the mouths of people. Cheap prices have nothing to do with it. The roads and infrastructure in Kenya and across Africa are bad for Africans because of historic racist policies towards Africans. Cheap prices of imports have absolutely nothing to do with it. It is the foreigners and their multinationals and other investment interests who promote underinvestment in African infrastructure. And then it is the leaders of Africa who take the money from these people and beat the drum for the interests of these foreigners. Foreigners do not want Africans to compete with them in anything. Foreigners want to own and control everything. Africans and their well being have no meaning to them.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
Actually from from some things I've heard about Haiti the people are fairly savvy when it comes to traders. Also Haitians are of African descent and Africans are famous as farmers, this in itself disproves the idea that Haiti hasn't developed a thriving agricultural sector
The fact remains that if there were no massive subsidies there would be a lack of capacity to exploit "3rd world nations" because these subsidies are extremely powerful, take that away and there is much less power working against these "3rd world nations". The diminished revenue from having to compete with subsidized agriculture does much to damage the economies of these nations thus making them vulnerable
This is the 2nd page of the article about Haiti that you might have missed
Again, you have provided no real reason to believe that Haiti hasn't developed a thriving agricultural sector. We are talking about adults not children, and didn't rice come from Africa?
"With cheap food imports, Haiti can’t feed itself U.S. policies encouraging low tariffs on imports destroyed local agriculture" March. 21, 2010
quote:Three decades ago things were different. Haiti imported only 19 percent of its food and produced enough rice to export...
Impoverished farmers unable to compete with the billions of dollars in subsidies paid by the U.S. to its growers abandoned their farms. Others turned to more environmentally destructive crops, such as beans, that are harvested quickly but hasten soil erosion and deadly floods.
[Edit: Concerning the politicians of Haiti which you say are in cahoots with foreigners, while to whatever extant this may be true the government of Haiti still clearly wants to develop it's rice sector, as the video showed that they want rice aid to stop :End Edit]
No matter how developed the agriculture in Haiti is they will never be able to compete with subsidized rice from the United States, and common sense says that these cheap prices will make it so the roads will remain undeveloped because there is much less motivation to support something that is not profitable.
The United States is exporting many crops at prices below the actual price of production and they are able to do this with massive government support, it is profitable for those involved in it because it is being subsidized. See the example with cotton that I showed, African governments have to divert resources from other sectors in order to prop up the cotton industry
Doug, these tactics have been used against Africa for hundreds of years, that is competing with African industries
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
so, what would you have us do? Let me guess....give you money?
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
Hammer, if you live in the United States you have to pay for the agricultural subsidies that are going to these nations at below the price of production. In other words it is your burden, the tax payers are paying for all of this. (See the first two posts at the top of this thread page, both talk about the expenses involved in the agricultural policy)
What Smith said hundreds of years ago applies today
quote:The rulers of Great Britain have, for more than a century past, amused the people with the imagination that they possessed a great empire on the west side of the Atlantic. This empire, however, has hitherto existed in imagination only. It has hitherto been, not an empire, but the project of an empire ; not a gold mine, but the project of a gold mine; a project which has cost, which continues to cost, and which, if pursued in the same way as it has been hitherto, is likely to cost, immense expense, without being likely to bring any profit; for the effects of the monopoly of the colony trade, it has been shewn, are to the great body of the people, mere loss instead of profit. It is surely now time that our rulers should either realize this golden dream, in which they have been indulging themselves, perhaps, as well as the people ; or that they should awake from it themselves, and endeavour to awaken the people. If the project cannot be completed, it ought to be given up.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
Doug, please carefully read this whole article. First of all in page 5 it actually says African countries can grow cotton cheaper than in the United States, the difference is the massive subsidies that the United States gives to cotton growers which allows them to export at below the cost of production. African governments have to divert resources in order to protect the cotton industry thus greatly hindering development and progress in these countries and hurting more than just the cotton producers
Please read this article and tell me what you think about it
"US AND EU COTTON PRODUCTION AND EXPORT POLICIES AND THEIR IMPACT ON WEST AND CENTRAL AFRICA:" from the ethical global association May 2004
More importantly, overproduction leads to widescale export-dumping. Cotton dumping has been a serious issue since 1997, and the US is the largest source of dumped agricultural commodities. Between 1997 and 2002 US cotton went from being dumped at an average price of 17% below the cost of production to being dumped at an average price of 61% below the cost of production....
...page 7
....To prevent a collapse of their cotton sectors, WCA (West and Central Africa) governments have been forced to divert limited financial resources away from other critical areas such as education, delivery of health services and development of rural infrastructure. 15 Access to food is also threatened by low cotton prices because many WCA countries rely on export revenue from cotton to purchase food imports. This is particularly important for countries such as Togo, Benin, Chad, Burkina Faso and Mali where the export revenue of cotton accounts for more than 10% of total national export revenue.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
never mind
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
Doug, are you aware that Africans on the Gold Coast were buying gold from Europeans, because I showed that earlier in this thread as an example of how this economic manipulation works
Here is something else, which shows this kind of economic manipulation has been going on for a long time
[Edit: However in this instance the price of gold went up but many African societies that were earlier exporting gold actually banned the export of gold, or began hoarding it and exporting less like Asante, and many societies that were earlier exporting gold began importing it. So a lot of weird things were going on
Both of these articles refer to Walter Rodney![:Edit]
"How the Slave Trade stifled Africa’s economy" Emmanuel K. Dogbevi
quote:Rodney reports that the Portuguese and Dutch actually discouraged slave trade in the ‘Gold Coast’ because they recognized that it would be incompatible with the trade in gold.
However, by the end of that Century, gold had been discovered in Brazil, and the importance of gold supplies from Africa lessened. Within the total Atlantic pattern, African slaves became more important than gold, and Brazilian gold was offered for African captives at Dahomey and Accra.
The trading activity involving the exchange of gold for African slaves was in itself dehumanizing. It is a denigration of the African which reduces him or her to a mere object of economic value rather than a human
quote: Johnson demonstrated the immense changes wrought in the trade by the great rise in the price of gold on the coast around mid century. Before 1740 an ounce of trade might purchase an ounce of gold. By 1770 European slave traders had to include gold in practically every barter at the rate of two ounces of trade for one ounce of gold. Worse still, they often had to purchase gold from areas west of the Gold Coast proper (such as Appolonia) at 1.5 times the price it commanded in London market in terms of the prime cost of their goods. The reasons for this reversal of the gold trade are still obscure, as a consequence of the cloak of secrecy which the Akan threw over everything relating to gold. (Miles himself undertook an investigation of the subject but could produce no answers.) Walter Rodney suggested that Akan gold production began to decline in the early eighteenth century, and links this to the rise in profits that could be made by concentrating on slave production rather than gold mining. If this is so it is an irony that the Europeans by promoting the slave trade were ultimately forced, much against their own wishes, to carry gold to the Gold Coast. A more likely explanation of the phenomenon lies in the increasing monetarization of the Asante economy, described by Joseph LaTorre, and in the consequent hoarding of gold in Asante itself. This in turn provoked a partial monetarization of the Fante economy and undoubtedly increased the value of gold whiter it was regarded as a currency or a commodity
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Therefore, the greed of investors and multinational businesses takes precedence over the needs of the people. So they will pour out milk and let crops rot in the field rather than let that food make it to the mouths of people. Cheap prices have nothing to do with it. The roads and infrastructure in Kenya and across Africa are bad for Africans because of historic racist policies towards Africans. Cheap prices of imports have absolutely nothing to do with it.
Why would farmers dump milk unless, of course, the prices were too low? Many of the articles you yourself posted mentioned there being a glut, and low prices being a problem.
This is related to the whole gold thing that I mentioned in the last post, but it is very complicated. Basically this all has to do with manipulation of prices
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by markellion: Doug, please carefully read this whole article. First of all in page 5 it actually says African countries can grow cotton cheaper than in the United States, the difference is the massive subsidies that the United States gives to cotton growers which allows them to export at below the cost of production. African governments have to divert resources in order to protect the cotton industry thus greatly hindering development and progress in these countries and hurting more than just the cotton producers
Please read this article and tell me what you think about it
"US AND EU COTTON PRODUCTION AND EXPORT POLICIES AND THEIR IMPACT ON WEST AND CENTRAL AFRICA:" from the ethical global association May 2004
More importantly, overproduction leads to widescale export-dumping. Cotton dumping has been a serious issue since 1997, and the US is the largest source of dumped agricultural commodities. Between 1997 and 2002 US cotton went from being dumped at an average price of 17% below the cost of production to being dumped at an average price of 61% below the cost of production....
...page 7
....To prevent a collapse of their cotton sectors, WCA (West and Central Africa) governments have been forced to divert limited financial resources away from other critical areas such as education, delivery of health services and development of rural infrastructure. 15 Access to food is also threatened by low cotton prices because many WCA countries rely on export revenue from cotton to purchase food imports. This is particularly important for countries such as Togo, Benin, Chad, Burkina Faso and Mali where the export revenue of cotton accounts for more than 10% of total national export revenue.
Markellion, saying the same thing over and over doesn't make it right in all cases. All imports of food into African countries are not cheap. In fact, I would argue that most are not cheap. Yes, American and developed countries subsidize their agriculture. Why? Because on one level agriculture is too important not to. On another level, it is strictly business and the desire of those governments their multinational backers to ensure that they have control of the trade in agricultural products. That right there tells you that modern agriculture is not based on the simple economic principles of price, supply and demand. There are far to many cases of people meddling in the supply and distribution of agricultural products for that to be the case. And it is especially true that this manipulation is implicitly designed to keep third world nations dependent on their first world former colonial masters for the food they need. And the in this and the sinister nature of this is in the fact that many of these Third World countries are major exporters of agricultural related products owned by Multinationals. Whether it is cheap rice in Haiti or the land grabs and underdevelopment of farming in Africa, it always serves the same purpose: control of the trade in agricultural products by a handful of powerful multinationals. They don't care if Africans have enough to eat is the point.
Therefore, the purpose of agriculture in Africa is to feed Africans, not to simply follow simple economic principles that do not exist in reality. The same first world countries that subsidize their farmers are the same ones that back programs in Africa that cause the destruction of African farms. The issue isn't the price of the food these multinationals produce, the issue is the fact that they are destroying Africa's and black people's ability to feed themselves, which is far more important than the economics of prices.
Agriculture for most human history was not about prices or "global trade". It was about basic survival and the needs of humans to eat.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
The post that you quoted was about cotton which isn't food. However the cheap price of cotton has in fact forced African governments to divert resources from other areas and to overall do more to decrease the wealth of these nations.
In this way, despite the fact that you can't eat cotton, the cheap cotton still makes hunger problems worse because it impoverishes people. This is highly significant because it illustrates the damage that these subsidies cause, and the fact that cotton isn't something that the United States should consider a security measure to subsidies
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
Another thing is you haven't really explained why farmers are dumping all that milk and wheat and everything. I would think that this shows that price is extremely significant
Edit: About the roads, if growing the crops becomes more profitable more will be naturally invested into the roads, this is what I mean by cheap prices keeping the roads underdeveloped. The same stands for agricultural development in general.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by markellion: The post that you quoted was about cotton which isn't food. However the cheap price of cotton has in fact forced African governments to divert resources from other areas and to overall do more to decrease the wealth of these nations.
In this way, despite the fact that you can't eat cotton, the cheap cotton still makes hunger problems worse because it impoverishes people. This is highly significant because it illustrates the damage that these subsidies cause, and the fact that cotton isn't something that the United States should consider a security measure to subsidies
The point is that Africans are the only ones forced into this situation by first world countries who are hypocrites. If first world nations subsidize their farmers then Africans should subsidize and support their own.
The issue isn't simply about prices. The issue is about Africans being able to sustain and feed themselves.
The first world nations only care about the control of the global trade in agricultural products, which is a result of the colonial system which gave rise to most modern first world powers. They treat this legacy of colonial hegemony as their birthright and hence try and protect it. Agriculture is an important part of national security as food is critical to sustaining a stable nation. That is why they subsidize it. But of course they tell Africans not to subsidize their agriculture, not because of free trade, but because they don't want African nations to be stable and develop.
You think this is about prices as if Africans are major players in the world market. They aren't. Most exports from Africa are not in the hands of Africans. Most African agriculture is small scale peasant farmers on small plots barely able to feed themselves let alone export anything, with little or no access to technology, irrigation or infrastructure for distribution. These things are the fundamental basics of a society and it is these things that the governments do not support because of international intervention and manipulation. And it is this lack of support from governments or anyone else that makes food more expensive in Africa than imports.
Multinationals and first world countries only care about infrastructure and agriculture when they are making a profit off it. Therefore, African farmers becoming major players is not in their interest. Which is again why there are so many large scale land grabbing headlines. They aren't grabbing this land to feed Africans. It isn't about price it is about Africans owning and controlling their own land and resources and using it for their own benefit.
quote: imperialism.” The corporate colonization of cassava is advancing. Just how dangerous this is for all of us and especially for the people whose existence depends on cassava would never be clear if you simply listened to the discussion of the issue on National Public Radio’s program “Talk of the Nation.” You guessed it. Even if you don’t eat cassava the corporate colonization of cassava matters for you. The same corporate controlled food system that works through structural racism to deny affordable access to quality food to residents in urban communities, also super-exploits migrant workers, and also pollutes our water, land, and air. Colonizing cassava and other foods is about power; it is about increasing corporate power over and against people’s rights to food and life, especially racialized people. Cassava is eaten by millions of people in the global South. For example, in Nigeria, Africa’s most populous nation with 149 million people, more than 70% of the population relies on cassava for much of their food needs. Cassava is also widely consumed in central and South America as well as South East Asia. Why the growing interest in cassava (and other “marginal” crops like sorghum, millet, pigeon peas etc)? Global hunger is the answer served up. We are told that the reason why corporations are colonizing cassava is to help address growing hunger. That is, agricultural/biotech corporations are laboring to genetically modify cassava because this can help eliminate increasing global hunger. These agricultural corporations promise to engineer cassava that allegedly has more and bigger roots. “The roots of global hunger have to do with structural adjustment programs imposed on the imperialized countries in the global South.” But any real solution needs to get at the root causes of the problem. However, as Food Rebellion makes clear the roots of global hunger have to do with structural adjustment programs imposed on the imperialized countries in the global South by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The roots of global hunger have to do with the liberalization of agricultural trade and “free” trade agreements that support unfair trade rules that prioritize profit maximization of agricultural corporations over the basic rights of peasants and small scale-farmers to grow their own food and feed their own communities. The roots of global hunger have every thing to do with the pro-corporate agriculture and anti-farmer policies of the US and the European Union.i Increasing hunger within and between nation-states is inextricably rooted in capitalist imperialism. Therefore, the corporate solutions being offered cannot solve anything. Solving hunger by technological fixes is no solution. It is a power move; it mystifies the power relations that help organize hunger and further consolidate the power of those entities that make profits by enforcing and producing hunger. Hunger, as we know, is concentrated in the global South. (Hunger is also concentrated in racialized communities within the global North; the obesity epidemic, or what is now being called “diabesity” is fundamentally an epidemic of hunger). According to the logic of biotechnology companies, the issue of global hunger is an issue of productivity. We need to produce more food if we are going to feed the world’s hungry people. Therefore, it is suggested that if there is more cassava produced then the people who are hungry will have more access to cassava to eat. This argument is compelling in its simplicity. It is also too simple and profoundly flawed.
Given the historical treatment of Africans by Europeans in an agricultural context whether it be cotton, tea, tobacco, sugar cane or anything else, it shouldn't be a shock that these people are not interested in the welfare of the people they largely used as forced plantation labor for hundreds of years. Yet some people look to these same people and the system they built off the blood and death of blacks as somehow being "beneficial". And only someone stupid would wonder why this system gives them no benefit under such historical circumstances. That in itself explains the situation in Haiti and one needs not accept the lies told by Clinton now that he is the "front man" for the American mission in Haiti. That he and Bush who also did nothing for blacks under Katrina were chosen to led this effort should tell you something. And it should tell you even more about why the Haitians are continuing to suffer.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
That is not true (you said Africans are the only ones suffering from this) "3rd world" countries all over the world are suffering from this cheap agricultural subsidies not just in Africa This doesn't just go back to the colonial system this goes back to the African slave trade
Also different countries in Africa do play a major role in world affairs and in the world market.
Another thing is that cotton can't be eaten and so the United States shouldn't subsidize cotton as it is not a security concern to the United States. The point of the cotton subsidies is to compete and drive out competition in the world market. These subsidies should be seen as economic warfare against Africa and the rest of the "3rd world"
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by markellion: That is not true "3rd world" countries all over the world are suffering from this cheap agricultural subsidies not just in Africa This doesn't just go back to the colonial system this goes back to the African slave trade
Also different countries in Africa do play a major role in world affairs and in the world market.
Another thing is that cotton can't be eaten and so the United States shouldn't subsidize cotton as it is not a security concern to the United States. The point of the cotton subsidies is to compete and drive out competition in the world market. These subsidies should be seen as economic warfare against Africa and the rest of the "3rd world"
The issue in 3rd world countries is that they are 3rd world because of the history of colonization which put the land, labor and resources of these countries under the control of white Europeans who exploited them for all it was worth. The system these Europeans built was designed to create wealth and a global trading system for whites only. It was not designed to sustain the non whites they were exploiting. Period. Prices have nothing to do with it. It is just one small part of the larger picture of a global system that continues to exploit and subjugate people of 3rd world countries even though they are now supposedly free.
Prices and markets are not the issue. The issue is power and control among a handful of people who manipulate prices and markets in order to gain even more control. Africans are not even major players in their own agricultural or industrial sectors. One needs look no further than South Africa to see this, but the same exists all over Africa. Kenyas primary exports are flowers, coffee and other food products under the control of whites and Asians. Fundamentally Africans are still slaves on large plantations run by foreigners.
quote: NAIROBI, Kenya — The dangers of an interconnected world are being felt in equatorial Kenya where a key part of the economy has ground to a halt because of Iceland's volcanic eruption close to the Arctic Circle.
Last year vegetable and flower exports from Kenya were worth close to $1 billion, making it the biggest foreign exchange earner and contributing roughly one fifth of the entire economy.
But Kenya’s growers are being hit hard by airport closures across Europe since Thursday when European airspace was closed down because of the cloud of volcano ash in the sky.
(Read about how the cancellations are hurting the Amsterdam markets that serve as the flower industry’s international hub.)
Industry insiders estimate that Kenya is losing $3 million to $4 million a day in lost horticulture exports as the closures continue. In cold storage units and warehouses in the key growing area of Naivasha and in the capital Nairobi vegetables are rotting and flowers wilting as the airport closures continue. Already hundreds of tons of vegetables and millions of flowers have been dumped.
"Over the weekend we had to dump somewhere close to 65 tonnes of vegetables and we’re due to dump 400,000 stems of roses," said Johnnie McMillan, operations director of Vegpro Group, one of Kenya’s leading vegetable and rose exporters.
"It’s really painful to lose this sort of cash flow and every day it goes on the worse it gets. There will be some big gaps on supermarket shelves in Europe if they can’t find alternative sources," he added.
Dumping produce might sound appallingly wasteful in a country where 1.6 million people survive on emergency food handouts from international aid agencies, but the fine beans, sugar snap peas, runner beans, baby corn and other high-end vegetables are as alien to most Kenyan dinner tables as a bowl of "ugali" maize porridge is to American tastes.
The companies offer the stranded vegetables to their workers first, but most is simply destined to become cattle feed or compost. The same goes for the boxes of neatly trimmed and packaged roses, carnations and other flowers that cannot reach their European markets.
Stephen Mbithi, chief executive of the Fresh Produce Exporters’ Association of Kenya, estimates that Kenya is losing $3 million a day as the usual nightly exports of 1,000 tonnes of fruit and vegetables are all but halted.
"We handled drought, El Nino and post-election violence, but we’ve never seen anything like this," he told the local Daily Nation newspaper.
Africans in particular are suffering greatly but even with tariffs to protect from unfair subsidized goods and produce there still remains a problem in exporting as the world price is lower
I never said that manipulating supply and prices was the only force of modern imperialism, I'm saying that it is an important aspect of it and that it makes these nations more vulnerable because of the decreased revenue and all the industries in these nations that are put out of business because of this
Edit: How about how the cotton industry was hurt by this? This industry in particular is highly significant for exports in many African countries
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by markellion: Africans in particular are suffering greatly but even with tariffs to protect from unfair subsidized goods and produce there still remains a problem in exporting as the world price is lower
I never said that manipulating supply and prices was the only force of modern imperialism, I'm saying that it is an important aspect of it and that it makes these nations more vulnerable because of the decreased revenue and all the industries in these nations that are put out of business because of this
Edit: How about how the cotton industry was hurt by this?
Markellion, that was the objective to begin with: hurt the ability of Africans to develop and maintain their own indigenous owned and controlled agricultural sector.
Therefore this isn't an issue of "free trade" it is an issue of power and control with the former colonial countries desiring to keep the power and control over world trade they acquired during colonialism and due to the exploitation of blacks and other non whites. Therefore the destruction of the cotton, rice and other agricultural sectors of formerly enslaved and colonized peoples was the reason for the manipulation of the markets and subsidies to begin with. You keep focusing on prices and miss the point. These former colonial exploiters of blacks don't want blacks to sell anything at any price. That is why they manipulate the markets and prices in order to destroy them.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Markellion, that was the objective to begin with: hurt the ability of Africans to develop and maintain their own indigenous owned and controlled agricultural sector.
Therefore this isn't an issue of "free trade" it is an issue of power and control with the former colonial countries desiring to keep the power and control over world trade they acquired during colonialism and due to the exploitation of blacks and other non whites.
Ok lets look specifically at the cotton industry, which has been shown to be an important source of revenue through exports. How was the African cotton industry hurt other than the glut of cotton on the world market, driving down the prices. Everything seems to suggest that it is Untied States cotton that is driving down the price, doesn't this mean that United States subsidies should be of such a concern to Africans, even Africans who have nothing to do with cotton growing, that they should regard it as economic warfare? More exports will help everyone who lives in these countries because it'll generate more wealth
All of this considered, these subsidies should rightly be considered an act of economic warfare, and the importance I have attributed to them is not misplaced
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Therefore the destruction of the cotton, rice and other agricultural sectors of formerly enslaved and colonized peoples was the reason for the manipulation of the markets and subsidies to begin with. You keep focusing on prices and miss the point. These former colonial exploiters of blacks don't want blacks to sell anything at any price. That is why they manipulate the markets and prices in order to destroy them.
Exactly what point am I missing? What did you say here that I haven't basically already said?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
You are missing your own point. These people are seeking the destruction of African agriculture through market and price manipulation.
Therefore Africans can and should do everything in their power to support and develop their own Agricultural (and every other) sector as a form of national security and sovereignty. Prices and simple economic principles alone have nothing to do with it. The world economic system does not operate on pure economic principles. It is purely a result of manipulation, destruction and monopolization of power in the hands of a few. Pretending that Africans should follow a course of simple economic principles when nobody else operates that way is doomed to fail because it misses the point. The point being that everyone else operates purely in their own interests and will do whatever it takes to support those interests, even if it violates economic principles. But then again these are the same people who have violated every principle in the book in order to create the economic system we have to day in the first place. So Africans of any people should know better to follow rules put in place by those whose only rule is to not follow them.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: You are missing your own point. These people are seeking the destruction of African agriculture through market and price manipulation....
.....Pretending that Africans should follow a course of simple economic principles when nobody else operates that way is doomed to fail because it misses the point.
For one thing it is not really in the interests of people in the European Union or the United States to subsidize agriculture and then sell at at prices lower than the actual cost of production. I have made it exceedingly clear that I believe that these agricultural policies are a form of warfare
You have no solution, my solution is to try to get the subsidies to end this will be a major step forward. I have proven earlier, using the example with cotton, that protecting industries means diverting resources that are needed in other areas
quote: If I had my own way, I’d stop US rice coming into the country - and I tell you, if it didn’t come in, we would have prospered and we’d be out of poverty.
quote from Al-Hassan Abukari, a rice farmer in northern Ghana
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by markellion:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: You are missing your own point. These people are seeking the destruction of African agriculture through market and price manipulation....
.....Pretending that Africans should follow a course of simple economic principles when nobody else operates that way is doomed to fail because it misses the point.
For one thing it is not really in the interests of people in the European Union or the United States to subsidize agriculture and then sell at at prices lower than the actual cost of production. I have made it exceedingly clear that I believe that these agricultural policies are a form of warfare
You have no solution, my solution is to try to get the subsidies to end this will be a major step forward. I have proven earlier, using the example with cotton, that protecting industries means diverting resources that are needed in other areas
quote: If I had my own way, I’d stop US rice coming into the country - and I tell you, if it didn’t come in, we would have prospered and we’d be out of poverty.
quote from Al-Hassan Abukari, a rice farmer in northern Ghana
Of course it is a form of warfare. I mean honestly Europe has been waging war against most of the world and especially Africa for the last 500 years. Don't tell me that you just figured this out.....
It is warfare and therefore the goal of Africans is not to imitate Europeans or try to be part of a system that is at war against them. The goal is to be independent and self sufficient as much as possible so as to not be as vulnerable to such tactics. But then again, you on one hand make the case that these people are at war but then on the other hand claim that this is all about free markets and economic principles when it isn't.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
From the African perspective, a way to fight back would be to convince the average citizen in the United States (Hammer for example) that it is not in their own interest to continue on these policies that hurt African countries.
We (we is the United States) ought to focus on simply buying the things we need from Africa instead of going through a whole bunch of crap and pretending to be "uplifting" or "saving" people
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
To further illustrate the importance of price, in the first place low prices make it so that less food is produced and this is the reason food was being grown on less favorable land, as described here. However export crops were encouraged to be grown in several countries thus lowering the price and again doing damage
Remember that while a lot of people benefit from this becoming extremely rich or richer, it is at great expense. While this is extremely important to the overall world economic system because it keeps these countries in debt and everything (good for those who benefit from these loans like the World Bank) it is also a great drain to the economy for example of the United States with large amounts of money going to subsidies
“Manufacturing a Food Crisis” By Walden Bello June 2, 2008
quote:The support that African governments were allowed to muster was channeled by the World Bank toward export agriculture to generate foreign exchange, which states needed to service debt. But, as in Ethiopia during the 1980s famine, this led to the dedication of good land to export crops, with food crops forced into less suitable soil, thus exacerbating food insecurity. Moreover, the World Bank's encouragement of several economies to focus on the same export crops often led to overproduction, triggering price collapses in international markets. For instance, the very success of Ghana's expansion of cocoa production triggered a 48 percent drop in the international price between 1986 and 1989. In 2002-03 a collapse in coffee prices contributed to another food emergency in Ethiopia.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
See, the World Bank benefits greatly from this. However agricultural subsidies in "developed" nations cost hundreds of billions of dollars a year! Can the whole amazing profit these people are making from Africa match the actual expenses?
quote:....This international debt problem has become such a crisis that many poor countries pay more money to the World Bank and the IMF each year than they receive in loans. The World Bank's own figures indicate that the IMF extracted a net US$1 billion from Africa in 1997 and 1998 more than they loaned to the continent....
....Uganda began to receive debt relief worth US$350 million in April 1998, but as a consequence lost access to other debt relief mechanisms. With a drop in the international price of coffee, its chief export, Uganda found itself by April 1999 once again saddled with an officially "unsustainable" debt burden. An internal World Bank/IMF report indicates that Mali and Burkina Faso (slated for HIPC relief in early 2000) will actually pay more on their debt after graduating from HIPC.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Pretending that Africans should follow a course of simple economic principles when nobody else operates that way is doomed to fail because it misses the point. The point being that everyone else operates purely in their own interests and will do whatever it takes to support those interests, even if it violates economic principles.
I don't think I really even recommended any principals for African as my focus was on the United States and European Union since Africans were already exporting and everything. When I was talking about Africans being forced to put more resources into protecting industries I was entirely criticizing "1st world" nations for forcing them to do that. My one and only recommendation was that Africans speaking out to end these agricultural subsidies in the United States
You understand that right?
To say something like "that it was bad for African governments to have to divert resources to prevent industries from collapsing" is a criticism of United States trade policies as it is their policies that create this situation
I have no idea what you mean by saying that I claimed this was about "free trade" or how I could "miss my own point"
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Of course it is a form of warfare. I mean honestly Europe has been waging war against most of the world and especially Africa for the last 500 years. Don't tell me that you just figured this out.....
Why did you even say that, it makes absolutely no sense you act like I just recently came to this conclusion. I say that this is economic warfare and then you act like I don't believe this is about manipulation and destructive tactics, how can I possibly think something is economic warfare and believe that it is not manipulation?
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: "US AND EU COTTON PRODUCTION AND EXPORT POLICIES AND THEIR IMPACT ON WEST AND CENTRAL AFRICA:" from the ethical global association May 2004
More importantly, overproduction leads to widescale export-dumping. Cotton dumping has been a serious issue since 1997, and the US is the largest source of dumped agricultural commodities. Between 1997 and 2002 US cotton went from being dumped at an average price of 17% below the cost of production to being dumped at an average price of 61% below the cost of production....
...page 7
....To prevent a collapse of their cotton sectors, WCA (West and Central Africa) governments have been forced to divert limited financial resources away from other critical areas such as education, delivery of health services and development of rural infrastructure. 15 Access to food is also threatened by low cotton prices because many WCA countries rely on export revenue from cotton to purchase food imports. This is particularly important for countries such as Togo, Benin, Chad, Burkina Faso and Mali where the export revenue of cotton accounts for more than 10% of total national export revenue.
Yes, American and developed countries subsidize their agriculture. Why? Because on one level agriculture is too important not to. On another level, it is strictly business and the desire of those governments their multinational backers to ensure that they have control of the trade in agricultural products. That right there tells you that modern agriculture is not based on the simple economic principles of price, supply and demand. There are far to many cases of people meddling in the supply and distribution of agricultural products for that to be the case. And it is especially true that this manipulation is implicitly designed to keep third world nations dependent on their first world former colonial masters for the food they need.
Ok in your next post answer this specifically. What was my purpose for quoting that article?
For any reason other than pointing out the damage done by United States subsidies and trading policies and manipulation, why would I have posted that?
You act like I'm saying this is being done because of reasons other than manipulation
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: You are missing your own point. These people are seeking the destruction of African agriculture through market and price manipulation.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
The reason you miss the point of your argument is that if this is economic warfare then what is the goal? The goal is to destroy African economic sovereignty and independence in order to reinforce the power and control of whites and foreigners over Africa and world trade. This isn't about price because prices only benefit those who own the farms and industries. Therefore it doesn't benefit Africans if they don't own the major export industries to begin with, let alone control what gets grown and the distribution system. So you are missing the point. The point being they are actively using tactics to ensure the continued control of Africas agriculture and industrial sector purely for the benefit of foreigners and not Africans at all.
The point I am making is you make it seem as if this is a price battle between two companies of equals when it isn't. It is more like an 800 pound gorilla using its power to smash a small chimp and take all his bananas.
Protecting Investors, but What About the People? - Dissecting the Contradictions of Agricultural Investment
quote: On 25 April 2010, representatives from a host of organisations and nations with the clout to shape policies and millions of lives around the world gathered for a Roundtable at the headquarters of the US Millennium Challenge Corporation in Washington.
Among them were representatives from the World Bank Group, Japan, the US, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), African governments and the African Union Commission. Their stated aim was to 'facilitate a dialogue among government representatives, multilateral agencies, civil society, and the private sector to further explore progress and advancement of ongoing work related to principles for responsible agricultural investment.'[1]
Others prefer simpler language. They describe the form of agricultural investment under discussion at the Roundtable, which involves large-scale land acquisition for industrial-style agriculture in African and other developing countries, as a global 'land grab'. They say there is no way it can be 'responsible' because it threatens food, seed and land sovereignty of family farmers, social stability, environmental health and biodiversity around the world.[2]
According to Devlin Kuyek of GRAIN, the international NGO that has been drawing the world's attention to the land-grab issue, the Roundtable was 'a smoke and mirrors show to dampen the escalating social backlash threatening land grab investors.' He was one of the activists who travelled to Washington to protest in front of the Roundtable venue in Washington. Well over 100 farmer, civil society and non-governmental organisations and broad-based coalitions around the world have signed onto the campaign, 'Stop land grabbing now!'.[3]
The investors and the proponents of this kind of agricultural investment in Africa deny it is a land grab.[4] They say that the investments are positive, providing jobs and infrastructure, posing no threat to food security even if the food and agrofuels they produce are for export. Such a stance is understandable; it would be unrealistic to expect an objective assessment of such foreign direct investment from the nations, corporations, investment banks and funds, and billionaire tycoons that stand to profit from it.
What is perplexing, however, is that the same kind of rhetoric is coming from some whose job it is to protect Africa's farmers' rights and their farmland from exploitative foreign takeover. By this, I mean African heads of state and other elected representatives of the people, as well as some holding key positions in Africa's regional economic and political bodies.
Take, for example, the views of Sindiso Ngwenya, secretary general of Comesa, the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa. He calls the agricultural investment in the region, particularly by Gulf States, a 'win-win' partnership. Egypt's minister of investment, Mahmoud Mohieddin, says that if foreign investors exploit an African country, it's the fault of the country itself because individual countries have the obligation to protect themselves. In the words of Minister Mohieddin, 'If your country doesn't provide this kind of policy priority in its investment policy, don't blame those who are coming to exploit and extract. The issue of responsible investment lies with the government and all of these things should be established.'
The question is: Are African governments being responsible and putting protection of their own people ahead of, or at least on par with protection for the investors? Listening to some African leaders, it doesn't look that way.Some defend the investors' acquisition of land in their countries, saying it is 'virgin' or 'under-utilised' or 'uncultivated' or 'degraded' land and they applaud the 'modernisation' of agriculture with agribusiness that is heavy on the use of imported seed and environmentally destructive machinery, chemicals and irrigation. This suggests they know precious little about the importance of fallows and the resilience and diversity of agroforestry systems, or about sustainable agriculture and the knowledge base of their own farmers in using soil, tree, water and genetic resources wisely and productively, particularly in the face of climate change. It certainly shows they have not read or understood the world's most comprehensive study of agriculture, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). It was done by 400 scientists over many years and it showed that agro-ecological farming is the best - the only - sustainable approach to land use. So did the recent study by the United Nations Environment Program on the appropriate response to the food crisis and to climate change. Even less comprehensible is that some African leaders seem to be prostrating themselves at the feet of the investors, competing to outdo each other to court them with generous tax holidays and concessions. Such giveaways cast doubts on how cash-strapped African governments will benefit at all from such investments.
So the next question is: Why are Africa's leaders so eager to sell out their own farmers by leasing their precious land (water, soils and other natural resources) to foreign interests? Is it just because of their own lack of understanding of the value of agro-ecological agriculture and environmental sustainability? Or are they also being influenced by imported ideology and neo-liberal ideologues from major international financial institutions? It appears the answer is both of the above.
THE WORLD BANK GROUP AND FOREIGN INVESTORS FIND FRIENDS IN SIERRA LEONE
Take the case of Sierra Leone. Its president, Ernest Bai Koroma, says that he wants to run his country 'like a business' and that his background in the private sector as an insurance broker gives him the know-how to do that.[10] President Koroma recently praised the economic and political reforms that have made his country 'climb 20 places in the World Bank's annual Doing Business rankings in the last three years, and made Sierra Leone one of the top 5 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa for investor protection and the ease of starting a business.'[11]
The importance of 'investor protection' surfaces frequently in interviews with President Koroma's business-friendly team. His special advisor on the private sector, Oluniyi Robbin-Coker, formerly of Citibank and the World Bank's International Finance Corporation (IFC), refers to it so often during an interview about large-scale land acquisition and agricultural investment in Sierra Leone that I finally ask him if the government is so busy protecting investors that it is neglecting to protect itself and its people.
'We have to take a long-term view and a broad view,' he replies. 'So in the short term, we may have to make some concessions in order to get the businesses up and running and profitable.' He refused to say just what incentives or tax holidays the government of Sierra Leone was offering to Addax Bioenergy for its 'flagship' agricultural investment in the country, a giant sugarcane plantation to produce ethanol for export to Europe, to fuel European vehicles. Addax Bioenergy is part of the Addax & Oryx Group of Swiss billionaire, Jean Claude Gandur, who has a long record of oil and mining business in Africa.
Even if Robbin-Coker wouldn't divulge what concessions had been made for Addax Bioenergy in Sierra Leone, the website of the Sierra Leone Investment and Export Promotion Agency (SLIEPA) said that agricultural investors enjoyed a 10-year corporate tax holiday (although that information later disappeared from the SLIEPA website, coincidentally, after I quoted it in the media).
SLIEPA itself makes an interesting study. According to its enthusiastic director of investor promotion, Raymond Kai-Gbekie, SLIEPA was established by an act of Sierra Leone's parliament in 2007 and is financed by the IFC and the UK's Department for International Development (DFID). Like other such 'one-stop-shops' for investors that the IFC has been setting up in African nations (and around the world), SLIEPA's mission to 'assist and inform investors and exporters' may initially look almost banal.[13] How it assists investors, however, is more telling. SLIEPA boasts that a new Investment Code has gone into effect, which 'was designed to provide more protection for companies investing in Sierra Leone ... full foreign ownership is allowed ... there is no discriminatory economic or industrial strategy against foreign investors, and no limit is imposed on foreign ownership or control.'
http://allafrica.com/stories/201005061088.html (Keep in mind that many of the NGOs protesting such things are in and of themselves another arm of the same system, but at least they do document the issues at hand even if their agenda is not much better.)
Uganda: Iranians to Start Agriculture Bank
quote: The Iranian business community is set to start an agricultural bank in Uganda to facilitate the promotion of local exports to the Arab world.
The Iranians are targeting animal, fish, coffee, cotton and horticultural processing.
They have already agreed with their local counterparts to construct a modern abattoir in Jinja to facilitate beef products export to Arab countries.
Mohammood Ali Musavir, the Iranian delegation leader, explained over the weekend that Iran needs thousands of tonnes of agro-processed products from Uganda for its market.
"Our feasibility study in Uganda, revealed that though the country has a chain of micro-finance banks and credit institutions, farmers are lagging behind in terms of farming procurement facilitation," he noted.
He extended an invitation to Ugandan investors who want to open up joint ventures with their Iranian counterparts.
He assured those interested of land and financial support.
Musavir decried the huge chunk of idle land, while peasants cry of poverty and the youth of unemployment.
Apollo Bwebale, the Jinja deputy resident district commissioner, promised government assistance to the investors.
He said, the Iran/Uganda investment project, would help local farmers in adopting modern technology in their operations.
quote: One in every four adult South Africans is uneployed, one in three, if disillusioned job-seekers who have given up looking for work are taken into account. That is a crisis by any standard, one that should be of concern to all South Africans but especially the government, which was re-elected after promising to prioritise employment creation.
Yet its best efforts so far have failed, a result of tentative and often conflicted policy formulation and the global recession. Now signs of desperation are emerging. Defence and Military Veterans Minister Lindiwe Sisulu 's call for "voluntary but unavoidable" national military service is a good example of this, managing to illustrate in a single statement the administration's desperation to be seen to be doing something and its tendency to announce new policies before they have been properly thought through.
Military conscription is not a panacea for SA's unemployment problem, and nor would it instil discipline, respect, pride and a sense of purpose in the angry youths who are inclined to be at the forefront of the often violent service delivery protests that have become increasingly common in SA. Beside the fact that the army is barely able to maintain standards of discipline and combat readiness among its existing forces, an effective conscription system demands both efficient administration and a large budget.
The South African military boasts neither. Far from providing cheap labour and thereby saving the army money, as Sisulu seems to be hoping given her complaint that her department's R34bn budget appropriation is woefully inadequate, swelling the ranks with amateur soldiers would be an additional drain on a national fiscus that is already overburdened by social welfare commitments.
Kenya: Ngugi's Book Warns Africans to Shed European Culture or Perish
quote: His latest book is slim but packed with an impassioned message: If Africans do not shed Europhonism, they stand to lose their memory. A people without memory are in danger of losing their soul.
Europhonism, Ngugi was Thiong'o explains in Re-membering Africa, is the African's continued self-identification with Anglophonism, Francophonism and Lusophonism. It is the African embrace of European culture. Europhonism is the replacement of native names and language systems with European ones.
It is the loss of self-identity. It is the loss of the African memory and consciousness, Ngugi says. The distinguished professor of English and comparative literature at the University of California argues that language is the carrier of culture. "To starve or kill a language is to starve and kill a people's memory," he says.
Ngugi writes that people lose their memory and self-identity through "linguicide", as happened to the Africans taken as slaves to the Americas, and through "linguifam", as happened to the Africans colonised on the continent. "Linguicide" is the equivalent of genocide; it is conscious acts of language liquidation.
"Linguifam" is linguistic famine. Re-membering Africa, 128 pages long, significantly differs from Ngugi's other works. It is a collection of essays that draws from history, literature, anthropology and globalisation. It draws comparisons from other parts of the world and shows us in graphic terms the connectedness between colonialism and modernity.
With penetrating honesty, Ngugi seeks to decolonise the African memory. Of course, central to the African memory is language. "Language is a communication system and carrier of culture by virtue of being simultaneously the means and carrier of memory - what Frantz Fanon calls 'bearing the weight of a civilisation,'" he says. Frantz Fanon refers to the African memory in Black Skin, White Masks.
Using illustrations from global history, Ngugi narrates in powerful words how Africans lost their self-confidence and memory, drawing parallels from other colonized peoples. "Ireland was England's first colony, and it became a prototype for all other English colonies in Asia, Africa, and America" he writes. The British deployed language, religion, and education "to achieve loss of memory and dismember the Irish elite from their parental social body."
And even when Japan invaded Korea in 1906, it banned Korean names and required the colonised to take on Japanese ones. In Kenya, the British did even more dramatic things in their bid to colonise the African memory. They captured Chief Waiyaki wa Hinga, one of the most important figures in Kikuyu anticolonial lore, removed him from the base of his power in Dagoretti and deported him to the Kenya Coast.
But on the way, they buried him alive at Kibwezi, head facing the bowels of the earth in opposition to the Kikuyu burial rites requirement that the body face Mount Kenya, the dwelling place of Ngai, the Kikuyu supreme deity. "Similarly, in Xholand, the present-day Eastern Cape of South Africa, the British similarly captured King Hintsa of the Xhosa resistance and decapitated him, taking his head to the British Museum, just as they had done with the decapitated head of the Maori King of New Zealand."
Ngugi uses such symbolisms to show the relationship between Africa and Europe, how colonial acts were intended to pacify a populace and produce docile minds. "Of course, colonialists did not literally cut off the heads of the colonised or physically bury them alive," he writes. "Rather, they dismembered the colonised from memory, turning their heads upside down and burying all the memories they carried."
Now given what has been said so far, what is wrong with the picture below:
quote: Nairobi — More than 5,000 flood victims in Tana River District face starvation after donors reduced food allocations by half, starting this month.
Woldena, Wayu and Kalkacha villagers have appealed to Kenya Red Cross and World Food Programme to reconsider restoring full rations.
Members of the mainly pastoral community also asked area MP Dado Godana to intervene.
Speaking at a baraza at Haroresa sub-location in Galole Division, the community's council of elders spokesperson, Sheikh Dakane, said the pastoralists were too hungry to join voting queues in the coming referendum.
"Some of us are already too weak from hunger to line up for long periods," he said.
The elders complained that the government had neglected the pastoral communities whose members could not travel to big towns to buy food because of poor roads.
They said numerous animals had been killed by the floods and accused the government of doing nothing to help them restock.
Mr Godana, who is also Information and Communications assistant minister, said he had consulted Special Programmes minister Naomi Shaban, who assured him that enough food would be sent to the area.
Kenya Red Cross Tana River branch coordinator Maurice Anyango confirmed that food supplies had been reduced, but denied that his organisation was the only one that had done so.
He said that a joint assessment of the situation by the Nairobi-based National Food Security Group and the local drought steering group recommended the aid reduction.
Mr Anyango said Kenya Red Cross Society, which is the lead relief agency in the area, was monitoring the situation.
He said nobody would be left to die of hunger as relief efforts would be stepped up.
Neighbouring Tana North District has also been badly affected by the cut in food aid.
Here's a hint: Kenya: Bumper Harvest Now a Nightmare for Farmers
quote: Nairobi — Food crops worth millions of shillings are rotting on farms in the country's grain basket of North Rift, as farmers cannot access market for the produce.
Heavy rains have been pounding the area, rendering most roads impassable.
Grain farmers in the region are faced with difficulties in selling more than 600,000 bags of maize harvested last season owing to a crisis in marketing and the bad state of roads.
Also going to waste is more than 80,000 litres of milk due to increased production that has stretched beyond the processing capacity of New KCC (Kenya Cooperative Creameries) and private creameries.
Counting losses
Horticultural farmers in the region are also counting losses owing to market glut and the pathetic state of roads. Crop worth more than Sh35 million is going to waste.
The district received over Sh27 million from vegetables last season and additional Sh3.4 millions from fruits.
According to the annual agricultural report, the district earned Sh5.2 million from over 17,000 metric tones of cabbage planted in 247 hectares.
"Heavy rains have made it impossible to access market for our produce despite plentiful harvest," said Ms Rachael Chematia from Tot area of Marakwet District.
Landslides have hit parts of Kerio Valley region as rains pound parts of the country rendering most roads impassable.
Uasin Gishu District earned Sh4.5 million from 3,000 tonnes of tomatoes last year and additional Sh14.4 million from potatoes and Sh2.4 million from kales (Sukuma wiki).
Reports indicate that the district earned Sh1.8 million from 52,500 metric tonnes of passion fruit cultivated on an approximate area of 150 hectares.
The revenue, however, reflects a loss of Sh400,000 due to decline in acreage under cultivation of fruits from the targeted 164 hectares of land.
According to the report, passion fruit production in Uasin Gishu was expected to increase to over 6,000 metric tonnes this season, but the projections might not be achieved due to disease and an outbreak of pests.
North Rift earned Sh13.6 billion last year from horticultural produce, up from Sh8.6 billion it earned the previous year.
Due to heavy rains, however, farmers are suffering heavy losses.
Dairy farmers in the region are likewise experiencing losses due to lack of market for the produce and impassable roads.
Dairy farmers in the region have incurred a loss of over Sh2.5 million in two months from over one million kilogrammes of milk that has gone to waste due to lack of market.
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't find market for the produce," said Mr John Kiptoo from Chepkumia, Nandi South District.
Another hint: who do you think owns most of the major agricultural plantations in Kenya and where does that produce go?
quote:
Volcanic flight ban hits Kenya farm workers
Will Ross reports from a flower 'factory' in Kenya
Thousands of farm workers in Kenya have been temporarily laid off because of the volcanic ash over Europe that has grounded flights.
The BBC's Will Ross in Kenya says they have been sent home as harvesting of flowers and vegetables has had to stop.
Agriculture is the East Africa nation's largest export sector, employing hundreds of thousands of people.
The head of the Kenya Flower Council has told the BBC that 3,000 tonnes of flowers have already been discarded.
Other African industries, like Uganda's fish and flower export businesses, have also been affected by the grounding of planes for a fifth day.
'Disastrous'
Our reporter in the Kenyan capital, Nairobi, says refrigerated stores at the city's airport and on farms are now completely full.
We have handled drought, El Nino and the post-election violence, but we have not seen anything like this" Stephen Mbithi of Fresh Produce Exporters Association of Kenya
UK gets Kenya produce via Spain
Unless flights resume by Tuesday, much more produce will have to be thrown away, he says.
Stephen Mbithi, chief executive of the Fresh Produce Exporters Association of Kenya, has described the situation as "disastrous".
"On average, we ship some 1,000 tonnes worth $3m (£1.9m) per day," he told Kenya's Daily Nation newspaper."
"We have handled drought, El Nino and the post-election violence, but we have not seen anything like this," Mr Mbithi said.
Horticulture recently became Kenya's greatest export earner and accounts for roughly 20% of the economy.
Exporting roses and getting beans, sugar snap peas and other vegetables onto the shelves of European supermarkets is an impressive operation, our correspondent says.
quote: Kenya: Macadamia farms turning out to be 'Goldmines'
Because of the increased demand, many farmers in the country rarely wait for the fruits to fall but harvest and dry them-which affects quality
Increased interest by foreigners in the Kenyan macadamia sub-sector has boosted the fortunes of many farmers in the country.
This has made many farmers regret why they had not planted as many tress on their farms as they should have.
"We have realized the immense potential this crop has as a source of income in this region.
"We planted the trees in the 50s and no one thought it would turn out to be a goldmine in the future," asserts Damaris Mwaitu, a farmer in Nyeri, Central Kenya.
Matu is one of the many farmers in the region to uproot their coffee bushes for other crops that are quickly gaining acceptance in the region.
During one surprise payment in the region recently, many farmers, starved by little money coming from coffee, received a hefty sum between Sh10,000 and Sh50,000 ( Between 120 and 550 U. S. dollars) for their macadamia produce.
Growing of the crop became an occupation with many uprooting their coffee bushels for the new gold in the formerly coffee dependent regions.
But macadamia — with a ready export market — in Asia and United States has suddenly become the black gold of the previously rich coffee growing area.
However, no serious effort was made to develop new grafted seedlings until recently when the demand for the crop hit the roof.
In Kenya, the macadamia industry is unique in that small-scale producers play the major role as producers alongside company farms.
Farmers are organized through cooperative societies with over 700 collection points and private firms providing extension services to these outreach farmers- mainly found in coffee producing regions.
Private firms have over 100 extension offices and over 20 field offices to provide services to the increasing number of potential macadamia growers.
quote: The Vegpro Group is one of the leading growers, processors and exporters of prepared and pre-pack vegetables and high quality roses to the UK and mainland European supermarket trade. We export in the region of 250 tonnes per week of vegetables and 2 million stems of roses. We also have a substantial rose top-graft business supplying Kenyan and regional rose producers with up to 7,500,000 top-grafts per annum.
We are known for innovation and currently are making large investments in hydroponic vegetable production, new crops such as asparagus and raspberries and new farming and packing facilities.
Our mission statement:
To delight our customers with outstanding quality, service, innovation and high standards of corporate social responsibility. We aim to be the best.
So when you read articles about Kenya's main economic activity being agriculture, doesn't it sound strange to hear of the locals starving? So again price has nothing to do with it as Africans don't own the farms to begin with. They are simply peasant slaves, which is why they are starving while the country ships tonnes of food to Europe to feed white people thousands of miles away. And all those NGOs and their gimmicks along with all those food relief organizations are simply diverting attention from the fact that Africa has all the capacity it needs to feed itself, but it is being used to feed everyone else except Africans by whites who colonized it, followed by new arrivals of Asians and everyone else who want to follow in the footsteps of the whites.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
The evidence (as I showed earlier) clearly shows that in this competition, this price war, Europeans and the United States farmers without government subsidies would lack the capacity to be able to drive out African competition because in many instances Africans can actually make these goods cheaper. These products are being dumped at below the cost of production even though production costs in Africa are sometimes cheaper! Looking at it another way, Farmers in the European Union and the United States would be forced to be more efficient if it were not for the subsidies
So instead of it being like a gorilla smashing a chimp, it is more like a spoiled child asking his daddy to help him whoop another child. The children represent the farmers and the dad is the government i.e United States government. The dad of the poor child being whooped is the African governments
And both dads work for the banks
Also I have shown how many other people profit from this, such as the World Bank and anyone else who is able to profit from Africa being more vulnerable
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
You keep saying price has nothing to do with this, the dumping of cheap goods should be seen as being like a battering ram through which all the other bad stuff can come in. First there is a glut in the market so farmers can't sell their produce, at this point there is a great deal of vulnerability.
Hell earlier I had pointed out that this kind of thing lowers the options of what farmers can grow, since their are fewer options so much of a certain cash crop is grown that it brings that price down, thus forcing the country into more debt and benefits the banks and investors because they can take advantage of the vulnerability
As for roads, the government obviously have less financial resources to invest into roads and this further contributes to the hunger problem
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Here's a hint: Kenya: Bumper Harvest Now a Nightmare for Farmers
The same article, which the very title says high production is in itself hurting farmers, also says this:
quote:"A severe milk glut should be expected in the next six months. Production will be high due to sufficient pasture, as most parts of the country will be experiencing rains," Mr Kiptoo said. He described New KCC's reduction of producer prices from Sh24 to Sh21 per litre as unjustified....
....But the farmers woes have been complicated by the falling prices, with a 90kg bag going for Sh1,800. The cost was Sh2,400 two months ago.
"The prices are likely to fall further as more maize floods the market," said Mr Kipkorir Menjo, a Kenya Farmers Association (KFA) director.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
Ok about the Vegpro thing, the information you showed itself shows that they are now having a hard time finding a market for these vegetables and that not being able to sell these roses and vegetables is hurting Kenyans
Also you are ignoring the fact that the European Union also has rules and regulations set up in strategic ways to control what is imported from Africa, so there is a huge problem of Africans not being able to sell certain goods to the European market. But again, not being able to sell those roses and vegetables is hurting Kenyans, and also the exports were also brining money in for Kenyans.
"Last year vegetable and flower exports from Kenya were worth close to $1 billion, making it the biggest foreign exchange earner and contributing roughly one fifth of the entire economy...."
Industry insiders estimate that Kenya is losing $3 million to $4 million a day in lost horticulture exports as the closures continue..... Already hundreds of tons of vegetables and millions of flowers have been dumped.
The local people are unfamiliar with these kinds of foods so there isn't as much a home market for it. While staple foods that the people are used to are being driven out of business (because of low prices)
The problem is that by lowering the prices and out competing Africans when it comes to other crops the Africans then put their energies into a different crop. Then there is a big problem if there suddenly is not a market for that crop. It is like being squeezed because it gives them less and less choices of what can be grown profitably
This article here simply talks about food exports to the European Union in general, I can show some information on tariffs like on clothing that hurt African countries later
"High duties keep food imports from poor countries out of Europe"
quote: Berlin's international Green Week fair is a showcase for agricultural produce from around the world. Yet few products from developing countries make it to the EU due to high import tariffs and strict standards.
Edit:
One example is that banana exports from Africa were encouraged, even though they could be made more cheaply in "Latin America" (this is explained in the article). And then there is concern by African farmers about being pushed out of the banana market
quote:The agreement made banana imports from Africa cheap, while Latin American producers had to pay higher duties and felt disadvantaged...
"Banana production is more difficult and expensive in Africa than in Latin American countries...
...He adds that many African farmers now fear that African bananas will be pushed out of the European market.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
As shown with the bananas this shows a common theme in which a people that make something less efficiently are favored over people who are making it more efficiently
"US AND EU COTTON PRODUCTION AND EXPORT POLICIES AND THEIR IMPACT ON WEST AND CENTRAL AFRICA:" from the ethical global association May 2004
quote:West and Central African (WCA) cotton producers are among the lowest cost producers in the world. According to figures from 2001, in Benin and Mali it costs 21 US cents per kilogram to produce one hectare of cotton. In Burkina Faso the cost is 22 cents per kilogram, in contrast to the US where it costs 68 cents per kilogram.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
So there is no question that this is competition, this is not a case of a gorilla smashing a chimp as Africans are perfectly capable of competing, and many of these people would simply lack the capacity to out compete with these Africans if it were not for government intervention
"Mounting opposition to Northern farm subsidies
African cotton farmers battling to survive" By Gumisai Mutume
quote: the US government paid more to its cotton farmers in supports than the value of the harvested crop -- $3.9 bn in subsidies for a crop valued at $3 bn....
..."Some of the results are bizarre," says Mr. Stern. "We see sugar beets grown in Finland whilst poor sugar cane producers and cutters in the tropics struggle to make a living." Even though its production costs are more than double those of countries with a natural comparative advantage such as Brazil, Thailand and Mozambique, the EU is now the second largest sugar exporter from being a net importer 30 years ago. The EU spends about $3.3 bn annually in supports on sugar exports, and in mid-2002 was paying its processors a guaranteed price three times that offered on the world market. Due to EU subsidies, prices on the world sugar market have fallen 17 per cent, the World Bank reports.
"It is hypocritical to preach the advantages of free trade and free markets and then erect obstacles in precisely those markets in which developing countries have a comparative advantage." -- Nicholas Stern, chief economist, World Bank...
....While raw sugar prices in the US averaged 21.17 cents per pound during the first quarter of 2002, on the world market they averaged 7.12 cents. And despite the lower production costs of foreign sugar, the US requires the price of imported sugar to match domestically produced sugar.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by markellion: Ok about the Vegpro thing, the information you showed itself shows that they are now having a hard time finding a market for these vegetables and that not being able to sell these roses and vegetables is hurting Kenyans
Also you are ignoring the fact that the European Union also has rules and regulations set up in strategic ways to control what is imported from Africa, so there is a huge problem of Africans not being able to sell certain goods to the European market. But again, not being able to sell those roses and vegetables is hurting Kenyans, and also the exports were also brining money in for Kenyans.
"Last year vegetable and flower exports from Kenya were worth close to $1 billion, making it the biggest foreign exchange earner and contributing roughly one fifth of the entire economy...."
Industry insiders estimate that Kenya is losing $3 million to $4 million a day in lost horticulture exports as the closures continue..... Already hundreds of tons of vegetables and millions of flowers have been dumped.
The local people are unfamiliar with these kinds of foods so there isn't as much a home market for it. While staple foods that the people are used to are being driven out of business (because of low prices)
The problem is that by lowering the prices and out competing Africans when it comes to other crops the Africans then put their energies into a different crop. Then there is a big problem if there suddenly is not a market for that crop. It is like being squeezed because it gives them less and less choices of what can be grown profitably
This article here simply talks about food exports to the European Union in general, I can show some information on tariffs like on clothing that hurt African countries later
"High duties keep food imports from poor countries out of Europe"
quote: Berlin's international Green Week fair is a showcase for agricultural produce from around the world. Yet few products from developing countries make it to the EU due to high import tariffs and strict standards.
Edit:
One example is that banana exports from Africa were encouraged, even though they could be made more cheaply in "Latin America" (this is explained in the article). And then there is concern by African farmers about being pushed out of the banana market
quote:The agreement made banana imports from Africa cheap, while Latin American producers had to pay higher duties and felt disadvantaged...
"Banana production is more difficult and expensive in Africa than in Latin American countries...
...He adds that many African farmers now fear that African bananas will be pushed out of the European market.
The point markellion is that the farmers who are making the money and control the farms in Kenya whites, Indians and Asians. The African is in most cases simply the peasant worker. Price does not directly benefit him. And it is those same workers or those who are unable to find work who don't eat because the system itself is not designed to feed Africans. It is designed to put food into the markets of Europe and to make money for the non Africans who export those products from Africa. Africans get the least benefit of anyone. Which is the whole problem to begin with. Therefore no matter what the price, the Africans aren't benefiting.
So no the Africans aren't directly competing with anyone because it is European farmers and Asian farmers in Africa competing with European farmers in Europe and America, making all the money.
And the manipulation of prices primarily serves to destroy the local indigenous small scale farmers who produce food for the Africans to eat. By depriving them of technology, irrigation and land ownership they are easily forced off the land, which is then gobbled up by foreign "investors". That is the purpose of the price and market manipulation, which is to put more African land and wealth in the hands of whites. And this land and wealth is not used to benefit the Africans. Therefore, it is not an issue of price as in price competition because the majority African small scale farmers aren't able to even penetrate the international market which is primarily controlled by whites and Asians.
The issue is Africans owning and controlling their land, using it for their own benefit and then exporting excess for profit.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
The problem here is that Africans can make some of these things cheaper than what is being produced in the United States, so these Africans can compete but they are challenged by the huge subsidies. On top of that the can produce enough for themselves plus export but production is not the problem as much as mal-distribution of consumption
I think we need to start seeing Africans as important competitors in the global market, and in fact that Africans have an edge in many kinds of industries. In Kenya local farmers produce an excess amount of food, produced by common people, and for the common people to buy, there is enough food to feed everyone. The problem is that people can't afford it. This is because different African industries are forced to compete with subsidized goods thus reducing overall the wealth of everyone living in these countries
That these countries are capable of competing is proven by the fact that Haiti was exporting rice. If it were not for subsidized United States Rice Haiti would become strong enough that no one could push her around
The people throwing out the food in this article are the common folk not big corporations.
quote:"The prices are likely to fall further as more maize floods the market," said Mr Kipkorir Menjo, a Kenya Farmers Association (KFA) director.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Therefore, it is not an issue of price as in price competition because the majority African small scale farmers aren't able to even penetrate the international market which is primarily controlled by whites and Asians.
See, you are right in other things but here you are wrong. Many Africans are living off of very little money a day and are in horrible poverty, it is not a problem of production it is a problem of mal-distribution of consumption. As local industries are put out of business people become impoverished and the country actually relies more on exports when it comes to other industries that were not driven out, since people can't afford to buy. But many of the people who were competing in the world market were forced into poverty because of foreign trade subsidies
For positive evidence for this it is found in the fact that rice growing regions in Haiti have some of the most malnourished people in that country, however Haiti was producing enough rice in earlier years.
Also this is why I showed the example with cotton how Africans could grow it cheaper, even three times cheaper thus making them competitive! However in the United States they have huge subsidies that amount to more than the actual worth of cotton. $3.9 bn subsidies for $3.0 bn worth of cotton! As for rice the subsidies are $1.3 billion for the total cost of $1.8 bn to grow rice
quote:in 2003 the US government ploughed $1.3 billion into rice sector subsidies, supporting farmers to produce a crop that cost them $1.8 billion to grow - effectively footing the bill for 72 per cent of the cost of production...
...But it has devastated farmers in Haiti, where rice-growing areas now have some of the highest levels of malnutrition and poverty.
quote:Import liberalization in markets distorted by subsidies can have devastating implications for efforts to combat rural poverty and improve self-reliance. When the IMF bulldozed Haiti into liberalizing its rice markets in the mid-1990s, the country was flooded with cheap U.S. imports. Local production collapsed, along with tens of thousands of rural livelihoods. Self-sufficient a decade ago, Haiti today spends half of its export earnings importing U.S. rice.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
This is what I meant earlier when I mentioned tariffs on clothing. Notice that this article says that the European Union has tariffs on goods that developing countries have a comparative advantage in. "For most of these countries (especially in Africa), their main exports are in those sectors where the EU retains high tariffs"
If Africans were not competitive players in the world market there would be no need for the European Union for these tariffs, would be no need to waste time making the tariffs in the first place.
“On the Road to Cancún: A Development Perspective on EU Trade Policies” By Faizel Ismail
The EU is the largest trading partner for a vast number of developing countries. For most of these countries (especially in Africa), their main exports are in those sectors where the EU retains high tariffs, tariff escalation and tariff peaks. While these sectors represent only a marginal proportion of output and employment in the EU, they account for a high share of the total trade, output and employment for most developing countries, making them particularly vulnerable to EU trade policies
electronic page 5
B. Clothing and Textiles European countries have historically based their industrialisation on labour-intensive production in sectors such as clothing and textiles. In terms of employment and production in the EU, these sectors now play relatively insignificant roles, as the EU economies have graduated to higher value-added sectors such as manufacturing and services. By contrast, clothing and textiles are sectors of natural comparative advantage for developing countries. Nonetheless, the opportunity for developing countries to promote employment and exports in these sectors has been severely stifled by a combination of high tariffs, tariff peaks (triple the simple average), tariff escalation and import quotas. Added to this is an arsenal of contingent protection measures (mainly anti-dumping) that continue to stifle the growth and industrial development of many developing countries.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
So Doug lets say that farm production actually increases. Get serious, explain to me how is this going to benefit anyone? Many people in these countries are already receiving food from aid agencies, any increase in food production only makes things worse because farmers will only be stuck with more food that they can't sell.
We hear all this talk everywhere about giving Africa technology in the farming sector and everything but it won't do any good. They will only dump out the extra food. No increased food production will fix this problem. In fact Kenyans seem to be a bit discriminating in what they eat but it is not just these alien foods they are throwing out, and its not just in Kenya that this is happening, in Uganda farmers can barely sell product to meet the cost of production. The farmers are not struggling to produce food, the struggle of these farmers is finding someone who will buy the dammed food. Taking this in, it would be extremely reasonable to conclude that these farmers could be feeding their own country and competing on the world market if it were not for 1. free food aid 2. subsidies 3. tariffs in "developed" countries. Plus, astonishingly, these African farmers would be even more productive if they could actually profit from farming, making them even more competitive in the world market and allowing them to develop technology without any aid Edit: You mentioned how vegetables were grown for the European market while Kenyans were starving, the reason those vegetables were grown was because the price on those specific products higher, this is why overall low food prices are hurting farmers while there is a "shortage of some cereals" which push the price higher. All improvements associated with agriculture such as roads and irrigation will be tied in with it's profitability
"Kenya horticulture exports stopped by volcano ash cloud"
quote:Dumping produce might sound appallingly wasteful in a country where 1.6 million people survive on emergency food handouts from international aid agencies, but the fine beans, sugar snap peas, runner beans, baby corn and other high-end vegetables are as alien to most Kenyan dinner tables as a bowl of "ugali" maize porridge is to American tastes.
"Nwanze Decries Country's Food Import" 23 March 2010
quote:Maize traders interviewed by Saturday Monitor, said the product has flooded the local markets, causing a slump in prices and distress among farmers who say prevailing prices can barely cover their production costs
Kenya: Food Prices Fall Due to Improved Supply Barnabas Bii 3 May 2010
quote:Nairobi — The cost of most essential commodities including cereals and vegetables has plummeted in most markets following an increase in supply.
Traders in the North Rift region have attributed the decline in prices to a glut of the commodities from a neighbouring country.
"We are, however, still experiencing shortage of some cereals in some markets which has pushed the prices higher," said Ms Leah Chepkemei, a trader at the Eldoret retail market.
“Kenya: Bumper Harvest Now a Nightmare for Farmers” 16 March 2010
As a quick review, it is very important to keep in mind the inefficiency of sugar being grown in places like Finland and on the subject of inefficiency there is the fact that Africans were encouraged to export bananas at the expense of more efficient banana growers in South America. Also what needs to be kept in mind is that the European Union specifically has high tariffs and protectionism against the very products that "developing" countries, especially in Africa, rely on exporting. These are a few examples, but it is all part of an ongoing theme of inefficiency
But whats of the highest importance is the example of cotton can be produced in Africa CHEAPER, even 3 times cheaper than in the United States! This is extremely important because it is up for anyone to argue that those who can produce it the best and most efferently should have the greatest share of the market. The common people must realize the enormous waste of subsidizing this kind of agriculture so that it can be brought to an end
As for ethanol, here is some interesting articles as it related to food and trade with "developing" countries. We were talking about Kenya, note that a Kenyan here is complaining about cheap food coming in. The author of the same article suggested using the food for Ethanol instead of dumping it on other nations.
"Could U.S. Ethanol Solve Third World Hunger?" by Christopher Mims May 07, 2010
quote: Take the example of Africa. We dump a lot of subsidized grain on Africa. Superficially, giving food away to hungry people, practically for free, seems like a good idea. But is it? As a Kenyan friend of mine recently pointed out to me, all that cheap grain pretty much destroys the ability of farmers living in the developing world to get a fair market price for their own grain.
quote:In La Tribune, Claude Mandil explains [*french] that ethanol is currently made from three main feedstocks: corn in the United States and Europe, sugar beet in Europe and sugar cane in the developing world, most notably in Brazil and India.
"The first two methods are the worst imaginable", says the chief executive of the IEA, because they are only commercially viable with permanent subsidies and trade barriers, and their production requires a large amount of fossil fuel inputs, which is not the case for sugar cane and other tropical crops.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by markellion: So Doug lets say that farm production actually increases. Get serious, explain to me how is this going to benefit anyone?
Why should I explain the obvious?
quote:Many people in these countries are already receiving food from aid agencies, any increase in food production only makes things worse because farmers will only be stuck with more food that they can't sell.
Not selling food is no excuse for people not to have food to eat. Your argument is that the purpose of growing food is to make money based on prices and that prices are the most important reason behind doing anything. Therefore, people shouldn't grow food because they are hungry, they should grow food for money. The problem is you can't eat money. Which therefore exposes the problem behind "western" economic thinking. In western economic thinking, growing food is for making money. This means they don't grow food for the purpose of feeding people who are hungry, they grow food solely for the purpose of making money. Now, according to you this is the only reason to grow food. Which means that many Africans will starve because those growing the food right there in their own country would rather see the food rot than distribute it to those who are hungry.
That whole argument of planting food solely for making money is directly contradicted by the fact that the development of agriculture had nothing to do with money and everything to do with being hungry. Just like hunting meat had nothing to do with prices but everything to do with eating. So you are following a world view that is totally out of touch with reality.
Not to mention that, but if food aid is needed then why can't those relief agencies buy it from the farmers whose crops are going to waste? I guess you didn't know that the aid distribution agencies are also part of the warfare against African farmers as Western farmers lobby their governments to make sure that the food aid sent to Africa comes from Western farmers. But of course you won't make the obvious argument that this is economic warfare against Africans on all fronts. You will pretend it is simply the Africans fault.
Obviously such a point is absurdly ridiculous, especially for Africans who have had their lands stolen by foreigners who want to plant food for money. But rather than address that fundamental fact, you blame the Africans for letting food rot, assuming that all the owners of these farms are Africans. Not true. All over the world farmers do the same exact thing because of market manipulation of one form or another. Those who are in business to make money off food don't want too much food to be available because that means less profit for them. They could care less how many people are starving. All they care about is how much money they get for the food being grown.
That is the problem. And in addition to this, they do not support Africans growing food for themselves, because there is no profit in it. In fact, this is why the crops are rotting, because those farms aren't controlled by the foreign cartels, so they don't care about them and they lobby the government to ignore them. Which leads to the next nonsensical argument of yours below, which replaces growing food to feed the local people with illogical arguments about growing food purely for foreigners to eat because of money, which implies that local people eating is less important than making money from feeding foreigners or more specifically non Africans.
quote: We hear all this talk everywhere about giving Africa technology in the farming sector and everything but it won't do any good. They will only dump out the extra food. No increased food production will fix this problem. In fact Kenyans seem to be a bit discriminating in what they eat but it is not just these alien foods they are throwing out, and its not just in Kenya that this is happening, in Uganda farmers can barely sell product to meet the cost of production. The farmers are not struggling to produce food, the struggle of these farmers is finding someone who will buy the dammed food. Taking this in, it would be extremely reasonable to conclude that these farmers could be feeding their own country and competing on the world market if it were not for 1. free food aid 2. subsidies 3. tariffs in "developed" countries. Plus, astonishingly, these African farmers would be even more productive if they could actually profit from farming, making them even more competitive in the world market and allowing them to develop technology without any aid Edit: You mentioned how vegetables were grown for the European market while Kenyans were starving, the reason those vegetables were grown was because the price on those specific products higher, this is why overall low food prices are hurting farmers while there is a "shortage of some cereals" which push the price higher. All improvements associated with agriculture such as roads and irrigation will be tied in with it's profitability
"Kenya horticulture exports stopped by volcano ash cloud"
quote:Dumping produce might sound appallingly wasteful in a country where 1.6 million people survive on emergency food handouts from international aid agencies, but the fine beans, sugar snap peas, runner beans, baby corn and other high-end vegetables are as alien to most Kenyan dinner tables as a bowl of "ugali" maize porridge is to American tastes.
"Nwanze Decries Country's Food Import" 23 March 2010
quote:Maize traders interviewed by Saturday Monitor, said the product has flooded the local markets, causing a slump in prices and distress among farmers who say prevailing prices can barely cover their production costs
Kenya: Food Prices Fall Due to Improved Supply Barnabas Bii 3 May 2010
quote:Nairobi — The cost of most essential commodities including cereals and vegetables has plummeted in most markets following an increase in supply.
Traders in the North Rift region have attributed the decline in prices to a glut of the commodities from a neighbouring country.
"We are, however, still experiencing shortage of some cereals in some markets which has pushed the prices higher," said Ms Leah Chepkemei, a trader at the Eldoret retail market.
“Kenya: Bumper Harvest Now a Nightmare for Farmers” 16 March 2010
quote:Originally posted by markellion: As a quick review, it is very important to keep in mind the inefficiency of sugar being grown in places like Finland and on the subject of inefficiency there is the fact that Africans were encouraged to export bananas at the expense of more efficient banana growers in South America. Also what needs to be kept in mind is that the European Union specifically has high tariffs and protectionism against the very products that "developing" countries, especially in Africa, rely on exporting. These are a few examples, but it is all part of an ongoing theme of inefficiency
But whats of the highest importance is the example of cotton can be produced in Africa CHEAPER, even 3 times cheaper than in the United States! This is extremely important because it is up for anyone to argue that those who can produce it the best and most efferently should have the greatest share of the market. The common people must realize the enormous waste of subsidizing this kind of agriculture so that it can be brought to an end
As for ethanol, here is some interesting articles as it related to food and trade with "developing" countries. We were talking about Kenya, note that a Kenyan here is complaining about cheap food coming in. The author of the same article suggested using the food for Ethanol instead of dumping it on other nations.
"Could U.S. Ethanol Solve Third World Hunger?" by Christopher Mims May 07, 2010
quote: Take the example of Africa. We dump a lot of subsidized grain on Africa. Superficially, giving food away to hungry people, practically for free, seems like a good idea. But is it? As a Kenyan friend of mine recently pointed out to me, all that cheap grain pretty much destroys the ability of farmers living in the developing world to get a fair market price for their own grain.
quote:In La Tribune, Claude Mandil explains [*french] that ethanol is currently made from three main feedstocks: corn in the United States and Europe, sugar beet in Europe and sugar cane in the developing world, most notably in Brazil and India.
"The first two methods are the worst imaginable", says the chief executive of the IEA, because they are only commercially viable with permanent subsidies and trade barriers, and their production requires a large amount of fossil fuel inputs, which is not the case for sugar cane and other tropical crops.
Markellion, the only thing you need to review is the fact that Agriculture is the #1 industry in Kenya and most of that industry is geared for export and most of it is owned and controlled by whites. The African farms dedicated to growing food for local consumption are on the worst land, with the least amount of irrigation and the least amount of technology. Those farms with the irrigation and technology along with thousands and thousands of low wage peasant black workers are primarily foreign owned and do not produce anything for blacks to eat. Therefore, whatever pricing you are talking about primarily only benefits those foreign controlled plantations that export the Coffee, flowers, vegetables and other crops on the world markets. Local African farmers are not major players in this market and do not get any large percentage of this profit. So by focusing on price alone and not focusing on the fact that the land and wealth of Kenya is controlled by foreigners you are missing the point.
It is like talking about the price of gold and diamonds in South Africa or or petroleum in Nigeria as if Nigerians and South Africans really own the Oil companies and Mining companies to begin with, when you know they don't.
Price can only be meaningful for Africans if they own, control and export the majority of the product being sold, but they don't so it is a irrelevant argument.
Your point about prices and destabilization of African farmers is a reflection of what happened hundreds of years ago when Europeans first entered Africa and Africans owned and controlled all the trade in African products. That time is long gone as it was followed by hundreds of years of economic and literal warfare against Africans which put all the control of the wealth and trade in Africa into the hands of foreigners. So it does not apply in a modern context as the battle is primarily long over. The issue now is whether Africans can regain their control over their own trade and economics as opposed to being dominated by foreigners.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Local African farmers are not major players in this market and do not get any large percentage of this profit.
Why the hell do you keep saying that? Ok, Doug, why then does the "developed" world need to create tariffs that hurt these African nations? Don't these tariffs actually show that Africans are competitive? How about being able to produce cotton 3 times cheaper than production costs in the United States? Regardless of however much land is owned by "foreigners" African farmers have still been shown to be highly efficient and producing bumper harvests. If these farmers can't make a profit then the country is more vulnerable to manipulation by outsiders, so price is the very central issue here
There are limited resources in these countries and it won't bring in a lot of tax revenue for the government to improve the roads since the price of these crops are sometimes hardly meeting the cost of production. What you must understand is that resources must go into the growing and transportation of these crops but hopefully the returns will exceed the expenses. If there is not a profit then the growing of these crops will only be a drain on the economy. However if it would bring in more tax revenue the government could put resources into developing these roads and still earn enough to be able to pay off their debts
Also you accuse me of blaming Africans or whatever but I'm not the one blaming African leaders, I'm just showing cause and effect and the effect of lower prices. I haven't recommended anything, its not my place to recommend anything, I've said that the problems come about from economic warfare. However despite this there have been bumper crops, which is excellent they are growing large amounts of food so they are doing the right thing. The problem then is food aid and cheap imports
People have trouble buying food because they are impoverished, but if these farmers could sell at a decent price the wealth will circulate through society and help lift people out of poverty, and again since the earliest of times farmers exchange their produce for other goods. In that respect being paid is not a European invention
But anyway, stop saying Africans are not major players in the world market.
"Mounting opposition to Northern farm subsidies African cotton farmers battling to survive" By Gumisai Mutume
quote:Nigerian groundnut farmer: Selling his crop at a decent price is more beneficial than receiving foreign aid.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Not to mention that, but if food aid is needed then why can't those relief agencies buy it from the farmers whose crops are going to waste? I guess you didn't know that the aid distribution agencies are also part of the warfare against African farmers as Western farmers lobby their governments to make sure that the food aid sent to Africa comes from Western farmers. But of course you won't make the obvious argument that this is economic warfare against Africans on all fronts. You will pretend it is simply the Africans fault.
Will, earlier in this thread I posted this video. Also I have talked about the negative impact of aid several times. These farmers want to sell their food at a decent price
It would be good to not have so much confusion in future conversations so I don't misunderstand others or they misunderstand me, why did you say that I was unaware that aid agencies were part of a plan of economic warfare? Why would I have given you this impression
I don't think I've caught how you think food should be distributed.
Edit: Think about a newly independent country, but still dependent on trade with the former ruler.
1. Dependence on selling certain merchandise for the benefit of the former ruling country (Example earlier was Kenya exporting roses and certain kinds of vegetables that were suited for the tastes of a specific market)
2. Cheap imports
“History of domestic and foreign commerce of the United States, Volumes 1-2”
...Again, Great Britain was developing in industry more rapidly than was the continent of Europe, and hence was not only a better market for exported foods but was also able better to supply America with the manufactures which the people of the United States required. When the British monopoly of American trade was terminated by the Revolution and the staple articles of export from America were no longer "enumerated," but were free to go to any market in the world, there proved to be little demand for the articles outside of Great Britain, where they had previously been sold…..
…..One other reason that may be noted as in part accounting for the control of American trade by Great Britain after the Revolution was that many, if not most, of the staple articles of manufactures desired by American buyers were made better in Great Britain and sold more cheaply there than in continental Europe. As an illustration of this, Lord Sheffield cites the fact that "when France granted a sum of money to Congress for clothing the American troops, Mr. Laurens, Jr., was employed to provide it; but instead of laying out the money in France he went to Holland and bought English cloths and sent them to America."
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
Despite the sanctions the United States and European Union remain important traders with Zimbabwe, I think the sanctions are done for the sake of supporting Mugabe since it gives the government the chance to use these sanctions as a scapegoat.
If the sanctions were for the sake of ousting Mugabe then they would cease trading with, and giving aid to Zimbabwe. Or simply support the opposition. Actually it seems the stated purpose for the sanctions is to help Zimbabwe develop democracy, but this of course is the stated purpose which differs from the real purpose
"Sanctions against Zimbabwe may be helping Mugabe" Published: 8 March 2010
Therefore this isn't an issue of "free trade" it is an issue of power and control with the former colonial countries desiring to keep the power and control over world trade they acquired during colonialism and due to the exploitation of blacks and other non whites. Therefore the destruction of the cotton, rice and other agricultural sectors of formerly enslaved and colonized peoples was the reason for the manipulation of the markets and subsidies to begin with. You keep focusing on prices and miss the point. These former colonial exploiters of blacks don't want blacks to sell anything at any price. That is why they manipulate the markets and prices in order to destroy them.
So from this comment here, what do you disagree with? Right here you say that manipulating prices and markets is done as a means to do great damage to these industries
I keep focusing on prices, but the former colonials manipulate markets and prices?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: You are missing your own point. These people are seeking the destruction of African agriculture through market and price manipulation.
So I am right, manipulation of markets and prices is used as a means to do damage to African countries?
What point am I missing?
You also stated that if these aid agencies wanted to help they would purchase food that is setting around on African farms. Wouldn't this indicate that the farmers want to be paid for their crops?
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
You say that local African farmers can't compete, despite all the evidence that was shown.
"Mounting opposition to Northern farm subsidies
African cotton farmers battling to survive" By Gumisai Mutume
quote: Cotton prices are too low to keep our children in school, or to buy food and pay for health," notes Mr. Brahima Ouattara, a small-scale cotton farmer in Logokourani. "Some farmers are already leaving. Another season like this will destroy our community."
caption says Loading bales of cotton in Zimbabwe: Northern subsidies make it harder for African farmers to compete.
I just reread the conversation and noticed that I actually made it exceedingly clear that I counted food aid as a means of out competing African farmers (thus economic warfare)
In fact in the very post that you said I probably didn't realize that aid was a means of economic warfare, you had quoted me where I actually very clearly stated aid was economic warfare
Why would I have worded that post the way I did if I didn't believe aid was a means of economic warfare? Do you believe the way I word my posts is random for no reason and for no specific point?
As you made this statement, this is one piece of what you quoted in the very same post. When I mentioned free food aid it was just some random stuff I threw in and thus should be ignored because it wasn't in there for any real purpose. In fact it was my cat walking on the keyboard and it just happened to spell out "free food aid"
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I guess you didn't know that the aid distribution agencies are also part of the warfare against African farmers as Western farmers lobby their governments to make sure that the food aid sent to Africa comes from Western farmers. But of course you won't make the obvious argument that this is economic warfare against Africans on all fronts.
quote: Taking this in, it would be extremely reasonable to conclude that these farmers could be feeding their own country and competing on the world market if it were not for 1. free food aid 2. subsidies 3. tariffs in "developed" countries. Plus, astonishingly, these African farmers would be even more productive if they could actually profit from farming, making them even more competitive in the world market and allowing them to develop technology without any aid
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Of course it is a form of warfare. I mean honestly Europe has been waging war against most of the world and especially Africa for the last 500 years. Don't tell me that you just figured this out.....
Hey Doug what do you think of this? Microsoft word document
The whole point is that Europeans and other foreigners are waging economic war in order to allow them to take over ALL of Africas trade in agricultural products. The purpose of controlling this trade is not to benefit Africans. That means not feeding Africans, not providing infrastructure for Africans, not providing profits for African farmers and so forth. IT is only designed to promote the power, control and profits of foreigners who will try and come in and take over even the small African farms for the benefit of foreigners only.
Like I said, the purpose of agriculture is feeding the people. You keep pretending that feeding the people is not important. If you export all your food then what are you going to eat? Are you claiming that with good prices they can buy food imported from abroad at expensive prices (expensive because of no price controls)? Why shouldn't Africans simply plant, distribute and eat their own food?
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
What I'm not understanding is how do you think this food should get from the farms to the people? If I were asked how Doug M thinks food should get from the farms to the people I wouldn't know what to say
In your statement the first paragraph seems to agree with everything I've said completely, you said there is a problem with profits not going to farmers, you specifically used the words profits.
So is there anything of what I said that you disagree with?
Edit: There is a shortage of certain crops, this is the reason for the food exports of specific crops, which are often suited for a specific market. I posted this before but this explains some of the complexities of the situation. Also the poor state of roads retards trade between African countries
Kenya: Food Prices Fall Due to Improved Supply Barnabas Bii 3 May 2010
quote:Nairobi — The cost of most essential commodities including cereals and vegetables has plummeted in most markets following an increase in supply.
Traders in the North Rift region have attributed the decline in prices to a glut of the commodities from a neighbouring country.
"We are, however, still experiencing shortage of some cereals in some markets which has pushed the prices higher," said Ms Leah Chepkemei, a trader at the Eldoret retail market.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: If you export all your food then what are you going to eat? Are you claiming that with good prices they can buy food imported from abroad at expensive prices (expensive because of no price controls)? Why shouldn't Africans simply plant, distribute and eat their own food?
Price controls are the problem, if rice from the United States wasn't so cheap then Haitian farmers would be feeding their own people. This is why I specifically posted this, and I copied these sources before you even made that comment. People who were growing rice become the most malnourished people in Haiti. The irony is people become impoverished and that is why they have more trouble buying food, despite the food being cheap and even given out for free. And it hurts people who are not even farmers
quote:in 2003 the US government ploughed $1.3 billion into rice sector subsidies, supporting farmers to produce a crop that cost them $1.8 billion to grow - effectively footing the bill for 72 per cent of the cost of production...
...But it has devastated farmers in Haiti, where rice-growing areas now have some of the highest levels of malnutrition and poverty.
quote:Import liberalization in markets distorted by subsidies can have devastating implications for efforts to combat rural poverty and improve self-reliance. When the IMF bulldozed Haiti into liberalizing its rice markets in the mid-1990s, the country was flooded with cheap U.S. imports. Local production collapsed, along with tens of thousands of rural livelihoods. Self-sufficient a decade ago, Haiti today spends half of its export earnings importing U.S. rice.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by markellion: What I'm not understanding is how do you think this food should get from the farms to the people? If I were asked how Doug M thinks food should get from the farms to the people I wouldn't know what to say
In your statement the first paragraph seems to agree with everything I've said completely, you said there is a problem with profits not going to farmers, you specifically used the words profits.
So is there anything of what I said that you disagree with?
Edit: There is a shortage of certain crops, this is the reason for the food exports of specific crops, which are often suited for a specific market. I posted this before but this explains some of the complexities of the situation. Also the poor state of roads retards trade between African countries
Kenya: Food Prices Fall Due to Improved Supply Barnabas Bii 3 May 2010
quote:Nairobi — The cost of most essential commodities including cereals and vegetables has plummeted in most markets following an increase in supply.
Traders in the North Rift region have attributed the decline in prices to a glut of the commodities from a neighbouring country.
"We are, however, still experiencing shortage of some cereals in some markets which has pushed the prices higher," said Ms Leah Chepkemei, a trader at the Eldoret retail market.
There is nothing complex about the reason why food is grown for export while local people starve or have very little to eat.
The reason is because foreigners want to use Africa's land and labor to provide them with food and resources for profits as part of the system of global trade that was built during the colonial period. This system of trade was never designed to provide anything for Africans. It was only designed to provide Europeans and other foreigners with wealth and resources to make a better life for themselves.
The fact that you like to try and dance around these facts and somehow try to pretend that Africans have an equal opportunity to benefit from this system which is not based on any historical fact is the reason for our disagreement. You are trying to pretend that this is all about economic principles when the system has never been designed to allow Africans to participate fully and equally in order to gain any benefit in terms of food, resources, development or wealth from a share of profits based on market value. Plantation economics based on exports is simply the same system created during the colonial period and has the same purpose: exploitation of Africans. That is not a free market system based on economic principles of supply and demand. It is a system based on unequal distribution, exploitation and theft.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by markellion:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: If you export all your food then what are you going to eat? Are you claiming that with good prices they can buy food imported from abroad at expensive prices (expensive because of no price controls)? Why shouldn't Africans simply plant, distribute and eat their own food?
Price controls are the problem, if rice from the United States wasn't so cheap then Haitian farmers would be feeding their own people. This is why I specifically posted this, and I copied these sources before you even made that comment. People who were growing rice become the most malnourished people in Haiti. The irony is people become impoverished and that is why they have more trouble buying food, despite the food being cheap and even given out for free. And it hurts people who are not even farmers
quote:in 2003 the US government ploughed $1.3 billion into rice sector subsidies, supporting farmers to produce a crop that cost them $1.8 billion to grow - effectively footing the bill for 72 per cent of the cost of production...
...But it has devastated farmers in Haiti, where rice-growing areas now have some of the highest levels of malnutrition and poverty.
quote:Import liberalization in markets distorted by subsidies can have devastating implications for efforts to combat rural poverty and improve self-reliance. When the IMF bulldozed Haiti into liberalizing its rice markets in the mid-1990s, the country was flooded with cheap U.S. imports. Local production collapsed, along with tens of thousands of rural livelihoods. Self-sufficient a decade ago, Haiti today spends half of its export earnings importing U.S. rice.
LOL! Markellion you again miss the obvious. If this is economic warfare then the goal is to destroy the economy of the nation. When a nations economy is destroyed, it means the nation is unable to feed its people, house them and provide them with meaningful employment as a result of the normal process of economic activity. Therefore, the point of economic warfare is to destroy a people's independence and make them dependent and subservient to the wishes of foreigners.
You keep talking about all of this as if it is some sort of philosophical argument about market economics when it is an issue of war pure and simple. This issue goes way beyond simple questions of price, but to the issue of independence, dignity, wealth and national sovereignty.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
War is not simple, this includes physical warfare. Archimedes was a genius and he made complex machines for war, Da Vinci was a genius and also built complex machines for war, Einstein's work lead to the atomic bomb which is a device for war.
If war was simple we wouldn't call Napoleon and Shaka Zulu geniuses in.... The art of war. Sun Tzu wrote about war and is still famous today
You can't just say "the evil white man is brining us down". It may have some truth to it, but you have to explain how it is happening.
You make Africans look weak, yet the evidence supports the view that African farmers are capable of growing more than enough food. In fact in many countries they are throwing out food. Doug, there is every reason to believe that African farmers can be competing in the world economy if it were not for subsidies in "developed" nations
You keep talking about vegetables being exported from Kenya yet all the evidence shows that there is now problems selling these very same vegetables that were meant for export, and the evidence clearly shows that Africans are losing money by not being able to sell these vegetables. This is on top of all kinds of agricultural produce that farmers can barely find a market for in their own country, and this is food that Kenyans are use to
Again, these export vegetables were grown because the price was higher, but this food is alien to Kenya who are not use to this food.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
Doug, how is the food supposed to get from the farms to the people? As I said before, if someone asked me how Doug M thought food should get from the farm to the people, I wouldn't have an answer
In order to clear up confusion we need to go through this point by point
Edit: obviously the out competing against African farmers gives foreigners more ability to exploit people. On the other hand these nations could become stronger if they could benefit from more trade.
"Trade Is Key to Africa’s Economic Growth" 07/23/2009 FromOffice of the United States Trade Representative
quote: "Trade is critically important to economic development. Right now, Africa has about 2 percent of all world trade, which is hard to believe when you think about all of the tremendous resources that they have - oil, diamonds, gold ... not to mention all the agricultural products such as coffee, tea, cocoa - and to think that Africa still only has 2 percent of world trade is really incredible. But the power of trade is that if the Africans were able to increase their share of world trade from 2 to 3 percent, that 1 percentage increase would actually generate about $70 billion of additional income annually for Africa," or about three times the total development assistance Africa gets from the entire world, Liser said.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
This is why I recommend reading Adam Smith 250-253
This also applies to the modern trade with Africa. While it is essential to the United States it could be done more efficiently. The way the trade is carried on gives massive profits to certain people but "It keeps down the revenue of the inhabitants of that country below what it would naturally rise to"
And this is extremely important, he talks about the improvement of land. In the modern case lower prices on crops, for example, hinder improvements in agriculture. This is actually common sense. What needs to be stressed is he also talks about how the effects of the monopoly alters the quality (quality meaning type) of industries of the home country. I think this gives some insight into the modern United States even though there are many differences
Posted by JMT2 (Member # 16951) on :
US cotton farmers see the effects of American subsidies on Africa
A while ago, I wrote about the US cotton subsidies, how they depress world prices and harm the economy of poor cotton-producing countries such as Burkina Faso. Burkina loses more money through the effect of US cotton subsidies than it receives through US aid. These subsidies have been declared illegal by the WTO.
Then, to the hope of millions, the US announced it was scrapping its cotton subsidies.
US farmers see the reality for themselves But it seems there is still a problem. US cotton farmers have recently visited Burkina's neighbour, Mali, and said themselves that US cotton subsidies are hurting Africans and "worsening hardship in the world's poorest region". In 2004-05, $4.2 billion in government subsidies was given to just 25 000 US cotton producers, affecting between 15 and 20 million people in Africa who depend on the crop.
In addition, a paper produced by TCS observes: "The vast majority of these and other commodity subsidies go to the largest and most profitable farm operations. ... one farm in Arkansas received $23 million in cotton subsidies between fiscal years 1996 and 2001."
The situation as it stands So what happened to that "scrapping" of the subsidies?
Well, in fact, Congress only agreed to scrap one part of the subsidies (the the Step 2 cotton export subsidy program if you are interested), and that only comes into effect as from next month. Oxfam does a good analysis of that decision here.
It was a good start, but leaves $3.2 billion in annual cotton subsidies and $1.6 billion in export credits untouched - all equally illegal and unjust.
West Africa have seen a 14% increase in their cotton yields, but the absence of an equitable price, caused by the western subsidies, meant a 31% loss in the income they received from it. While the price of imports such as oil are rising, the price Burkina can receive for its key export is falling due to western subsidies. So we keep Burkina poor by our unjust trade rules, and then appease our consciences by giving a few million in aid.
International deliberations Ahead of the WTO, the leaders of Burkina Faso, Mali, Chad and Benin have been continuing their fight for the elimination of cotton subsidies worldwide. President Blaise Compaore of Burkina Faso spoke to the Trade Negotiating Committee of the WTO in June, and, with the president of Mali, has written a letter to the New York Times condemning the subsidies.
One year after the climax of the Make Poverty History campaign at the G8 summit in Edinburgh, the EU and US are still arguing over who needs to make more cuts to their subsidies and tariffs. The Middle East crisis then inevitably kicked concern for Africa onto the sidelines. Yesterday, there was more hope as trade ministers have been sent to meet at the WTO with a principle of "more flexibility" in the aim of resolving the issues of trade subsidies and tariffs.
Parallel to the G8 summit in Russia, there is another summit in Gao in Mali, trying to bring attention to the region's issues. With immigration from Africa to Europe a major concern for the "rich nations", the gathering in Mali observes that "working to improve the standard of living in sub-Saharan Africa is the only way to stem the tide of immigration".
Justice and common sense The obvious injustice of the vast discrepency of wealth between the rich and poor world is also a cause for international social disruption - whether that be immigration or terrorism.
Justice in trade rules for the poor, giving a fair income for their work, is not only right on its own merit, but is beneficial to all. It gives dignity to people, allowing them to work to improve their lives rather than being so dependant on aid. And it takes away one of the main incentives to the international social unrest that so threatens our world today.
quote:In addition, a paper produced by TCS observes: "The vast majority of these and other commodity subsidies go to the largest and most profitable farm operations.
Some of the statistics I posted earlier suggest that the subsidies are going to the least profitable farmers, for example the cost of cotton production in the United States is 3 times more than in many places in Africa. The European Union is exporting sugar and growing it in places like Finland even though the cost of production is much higher than in many other countries. Another statistic from 2005 says that the United States pays rice farmers $1.3 billion to grow a crop that costs them $1.8 billion to produce (government covers 72% of the cost of production). Rice in the United States costs more to produce than it does in many other countries
The profits of these farmers are the government subsidies. Often these farmers get paid by the government when the price reaches a certain low point and they get paid more subsidies money when they have higher yields
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by markellion: Doug, how is the food supposed to get from the farms to the people?
How do you think? What makes you think that food distribution is something new? What have people in Africa been doing for thousands of years before Europeans got there? The point you are missing is that Europeans disrupted and destroyed Africa's internal systems of food production and distribution, yet you now claim that this same system is supposedly going to help Africans grow and distribute food. That is nonsense. The global economic system today was never designed for Africans to benefit. It was built off of the theft, rape and plunder of African land and the enslavement or colonization of African people. Therefore it was never designed for African people to participate in as equals or as a system to provide for the distribution of resources or wealth among black African people. It was strictly designed to provide for the distribution of wealth and resources among whites.
Therefore, the fact that there are problems with the production and distribution of food for Africans is only a symptom of the current global economic system. Yet you keep trying to play this game of promoting the same system which is causing the problem as somehow the solution. That is why I disagree with you.
Whether it is slavery, colonialism, prices or any other tactic, the goal is always the same: to allow whites and foreigners to completely dominate black Africans economically and therefore politically and socially. Yet rather than acknowledge the full implication of this, you go off on a tangent focusing only on one small part of the larger agenda, acting as if this is the complete entirety of it.
quote: As I said before, if someone asked me how Doug M thought food should get from the farm to the people, I wouldn't have an answer
Which is an absurd straw man argument. As I said, Africans had been producing and distributing for thousands of years quite well before Europeans got there. Therefore, the question is how is this current global economic system providing for Africans to grow and distribute food to themselves? The answer is it isn't. And in fact if I was to ask you that question, you would say that it shouldn't and that they should simply produce food and distribute it purely for profit, as if profit only means selling and distributing outside Africa.
But not only is it silly to say that exporting food is more important that feeding the local population, it is also silly to pretend that Africans really have control over the trade in their agriculture to begin with. They don't. Most large scale agricultural production and distribution in Africa is run by whites and foreigners. Therefore, the nonsense about prices is irrelevant, when those benefiting the most from food prices and the distribution of food products are the whites. Even if Africans own the farms the distributors that take their crops only pay them a sharecroppers wage to begin with. Therefore, Africans aren't getting any benefit of the market prices for their products anyway. The people making the money are the distributors, most of whom are not African. So again, you keep promoting a vision of prices as the salvation for Africans when you aren't acknowledging the facts on the ground which makes this a fantasy.
quote: In order to clear up confusion we need to go through this point by point
Confusion for who? I am not confused. And I don't believe that you know really what you are talking about.
quote: Edit: obviously the out competing against African farmers gives foreigners more ability to exploit people. On the other hand these nations could become stronger if they could benefit from more trade.
These nations are already benefiting from trade. Almost every African country in Africa has some sort of trade activity. The problem is not the fact of trade, it is the fact that Africans don't have any major part in it, especially when it comes to making profit off the prices for those things being traded. You cannot benefit from trade if you don't control it, meaning owning the resources being traded and able to control the output and distribution of those resources for both your own direct benefit through consumption or indirect benefit from trade.
quote: "Trade Is Key to Africa’s Economic Growth" 07/23/2009 FromOffice of the United States Trade Representative
quote: "Trade is critically important to economic development. Right now, Africa has about 2 percent of all world trade, which is hard to believe when you think about all of the tremendous resources that they have - oil, diamonds, gold ... not to mention all the agricultural products such as coffee, tea, cocoa - and to think that Africa still only has 2 percent of world trade is really incredible. But the power of trade is that if the Africans were able to increase their share of world trade from 2 to 3 percent, that 1 percentage increase would actually generate about $70 billion of additional income annually for Africa," or about three times the total development assistance Africa gets from the entire world, Liser said.
The quote above is nonsense. Africa already has a very active and robust trading sector. However, this sector is primarily focused on exports of resources of which Africans get very little benefit. In fact there are some commodities in which Africa dominates the world market. The problem isn't what percentage of world trade Africa has, it is what percentage of the trade generates direct wealth to Africans as opposed to wealth for foreigners and whites. Again, the point of this thread is that foreigners are snapping up millions of acres of land in Africa in order to grow food and extract resources and wealth for themselves not for Africans. And these operations are part of world trade, yet they are not controlled by Africans and produce no wealth for Africans. Yet it is exactly this type of foreign interaction that has left Africans with no control of their own trade.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
How would foreigners even possess the capacity to be able to exploit Africans if it were not for suppressing African trade i.e. suppressing prices of goods that Africans could otherwise sell for a profit? If Africans could sell these goods they would become stronger, pay off their debts, ect.
You need power to exploit people, and you also have to actually use that power in order to gain an upper hand. The exploiter must have some sort of edge over the exploited people, if there is no edge then there is no exploitation
The recent imperialism going on today in the 21st century is the most pointless, wasteful and unprofitable in the history of mankind, the advantage is being able to put endless amounts of capital into doing pointless things i.e. growing sugar in Finland, invading Iraq
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
This is a really great article on sugar
"How an Addiction To Sugar Subsidies Hurts Development" Posted on January 26, 2005
This is from something earlier in this thread but I do not understand what you are talking about at all. I call this economic warfare, so what exactly do you disagree with? What is the obvious that I am not getting? In this post I very clearly see the need for African farmers to get their food to market and for Africans to "feed themselves"
quote:in 2003 the US government ploughed $1.3 billion into rice sector subsidies, supporting farmers to produce a crop that cost them $1.8 billion to grow - effectively footing the bill for 72 per cent of the cost of production...
...But it has devastated farmers in Haiti, where rice-growing areas now have some of the highest levels of malnutrition and poverty.
quote:Import liberalization in markets distorted by subsidies can have devastating implications for efforts to combat rural poverty and improve self-reliance. When the IMF bulldozed Haiti into liberalizing its rice markets in the mid-1990s, the country was flooded with cheap U.S. imports. Local production collapsed, along with tens of thousands of rural livelihoods. Self-sufficient a decade ago, Haiti today spends half of its export earnings importing U.S. rice.
LOL! Markellion you again miss the obvious. If this is economic warfare then the goal is to destroy the economy of the nation.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by markellion: How would foreigners even possess the capacity to be able to exploit Africans if it were not for suppressing African trade i.e. suppressing prices of goods that Africans could otherwise sell for a profit? If Africans could sell these goods they would become stronger, pay off their debts, ect.
You need power to exploit people, and you also have to actually use that power in order to gain an upper hand. The exploiter must have some sort of edge over the exploited people, if there is no edge then there is no exploitation
The recent imperialism going on today in the 21st century is the most pointless, wasteful and unprofitable in the history of mankind, the advantage is being able to put endless amounts of capital into doing pointless things i.e. growing sugar in Finland, invading Iraq
Markellion do you mean to tell me that the last 300 years of white oppression and enslavement of Africans is only about suppression of African trade?
They were trying to suppress African people as a whole, for the purposes of their own trade and for the purpose of either exterminating Africans and taking over any and all trade of African resources.
This is nothing new. The issue is that you make this into a simply trade issue, when it is a people issue and freedom issue. Free people engage in trade and benefit in all respects. Oppressed people do not engage in trade because they are oppressed and suffer from systematic poverty due to willful neglect and bias. You keep emphasizing trade as if Africans are fully free to participate in trade when they aren't.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
I emphasize trade because Africans would become more powerful if trade was not suppressed, the statistic about Africa only having 2% of world trade comes from a government website
Why do you keep saying Africans are not free to trade it makes no sense to me. Africans are free to grow cotton and they are free to sell that cotton, but they have to sell that cotton at a low price.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Markellion do you mean to tell me that the last 300 years of white oppression and enslavement of Africans is only about suppression of African trade?...
...This is nothing new. The issue is that you make this into a simply trade issue, when it is a people issue and freedom issue.
- Dahomey had a monetary system: cowry shells were the basic currency, but trade goods were used also—guns, bolts of cloth etc.
- Europeans tried to take advantage of this currency; they brought so many cowry shells that the shells lost value (inflation). As a result, European trade goods became the basic currency used in the purchase of slaves.
- farming was very important; agriculture was mostly carried out by men, usually in communal gangs of young men; this was different from most of the rest of Africa where women did most of the agricultural work. However, there were many artisans also who made products in addition to farming.
- the market economy mostly involved producers selling to consumers,but some women acted as middlemen. The latter would travel from market to market buying and selling goods.
- all trade with Europeans was a royal monopoly and guarded jealously by successive kings; kings never allowed Europeans to bypass and trade directly with people in the kingdom. As a military, predatory state, the costs of government and the military were high; thus,the king needed all the revenue from taxes and the profits of trade that he could get.
- Europeans and their influence were confined to one port on the coast—Whydah.
- permission to go inland, especially to the capital, was given only infrequently and as a special favour; because so few Europeans were allowed in, there were only a limited number of eyewitness accounts in spite of the long history of trade and contacts; no missionaries were allowed in.
“The Royal African Company” By K. G. Davies
All the numbers bellow are in British pounds I don't have the key for that currency
quote: Between 1692 and 1698 the accounts of the king of Fetu in the Cape Coast ledgers show him to have owed the company will over 1,000. The 'king of the Arckanyes' owed 1,100 and the king of Saboe 250. In 1699 twenty-one Gold Coast notables owed the company about 4,000; they include the king of Equafo (2,000) Little Taggee (400), the Braffo of Fantyn (250), and John Kabes, Cabbasheer of Kommenda (250). The ledgers contain many other entries, 'to sundry accounts trusted him' or 'to gold lent him'
The impression left by both correspondence and accounts is that few of these loans were repaid in full. In 1690 for example the Chief Merchants reported that the wars on the coast had been concluded but that the company was 'like to loose the mony lent'. Four years later, after the defeat of Fetu, they wrote that the conquers (presumably the Saboes) required a loan, adding that what had hitherto been lent 'hath been a charge without profit to the company'. John Snow, whose balanced appreciate of the European position on the Gold Coast is printed on the Appendix, though not only that long standing debts could not be collected but that any attempt to do so would have disastrous political consequences. He preferred to make small gifts instead of granting large loans, and was probably right. His own views have already been quoted; Bosman, recording that both English and Dutch paid large sums in bribes and subsidies...
"Dahomey and the Dahomans" By Frederick Edwyn Forbes
quote:These wars are directly and instrumentally the acts of the slave-merchants of Whydah and its neighbouring parts; but have they no higher parties on whom to lay the blame of their actions ? are these, the agents of larger houses, the instruments in the hands of parties who have other means of disposing of their goods, to bear the whole blame ? Truth is strange but a truth it is, that the slave trade is carried on in Dahomey and the neighbouring kingdoms with British merchandize, and, at Porto Novo, the residence of the monarch of slave dealers, by British shipping direct. I do not mean to say that if British goods were not obtainable, the traffic would cease to exist; but the taste for British goods runs high, and if these could not be purchased with slaves, palm-oil would be manufactured to obtain them.
quote:The goods exported to Africa to pay for the slaves were costly manufactured products or high-priced imports from other countries or even other continents, and were the single most expensive factor in the outfitting of the voyage, being more valuable than the ship, the wages for the crew, and food supplies combined. An officer in the Royal Navy presented a typical cost estimate to Parliament in the late 1780s, which noted that the cargo taken on board a typical slaver leaving Liverpool was close to double the combined costs of the ship, its insurance, and the wages of the crew of twenty months. Even when all the final commissions to the captian, other officers, and agents from the final slave salves, the interest on loans, and the port fees were included, the costs of the outbound cargo used to purchase the slaves still represented the single largest expense incurred by the owners and over half of total costs of the entire enterprise. Two-thirds of the outfitting costs of the French slavers in the eighteenth century were also made up of goods used to purchase the slaves
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
Concerning the costs of the modern trade with Africa (costs to the United States) the biggest cost would be the changing of industries in order to fit the African trade
The reason I recommended these pages was because Adam Smith noted how people were using the government as a means to sell their merchandise. In page 253 he says this which sounds very similar to the agricultural subsidies today
"To found a great empire for the sole purpose of raising up a people of customers, may at first sight, 'appear a project fit only for a nation of shopkeepers. It is, however, a project altogether unfit for a nation of shopkeepers, but extremely fit for a nation whose government is influenced by shopkeepers"
However this does not mean that the industries as a whole have increased, if you read the pages Adam Smith also claimed that this unnecessary diversion of capital overall diminished the industries of the country. However, certain industries that served the trade would become overgrown out of proportion. There are many differences, but the modern example is the agricultural subsidies which grow certain industries i.e. cotton growing out of proportion
On page 252
"The effect of the monopoly has been, not to augment the quantity, but to alter the quality and shape of a part of the manufactures of Great Britain, and to accommodate to a market, from which the returns are slow and distant, what would otherwise have been accommodated to one from which the returns are frequent and near."
quote:Originally posted by markellion: This is why I recommend reading Adam Smith 250-253
This also applies to the modern trade with Africa. While it is essential to the United States it could be done more efficiently. The way the trade is carried on gives massive profits to certain people but "It keeps down the revenue of the inhabitants of that country below what it would naturally rise to"
And this is extremely important, he talks about the improvement of land. In the modern case lower prices on crops, for example, hinder improvements in agriculture. This is actually common sense. What needs to be stressed is he also talks about how the effects of the monopoly alters the quality (quality meaning type) of industries of the home country. I think this gives some insight into the modern United States even though there are many differences
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by markellion: I emphasize trade because Africans would become more powerful if trade was not suppressed, the statistic about Africa only having 2% of world trade comes from a government website
Why do you keep saying Africans are not free to trade it makes no sense to me. Africans are free to grow cotton and they are free to sell that cotton, but they have to sell that cotton at a low price.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Markellion do you mean to tell me that the last 300 years of white oppression and enslavement of Africans is only about suppression of African trade?...
...This is nothing new. The issue is that you make this into a simply trade issue, when it is a people issue and freedom issue.
- Dahomey had a monetary system: cowry shells were the basic currency, but trade goods were used also—guns, bolts of cloth etc.
- Europeans tried to take advantage of this currency; they brought so many cowry shells that the shells lost value (inflation). As a result, European trade goods became the basic currency used in the purchase of slaves.
- farming was very important; agriculture was mostly carried out by men, usually in communal gangs of young men; this was different from most of the rest of Africa where women did most of the agricultural work. However, there were many artisans also who made products in addition to farming.
- the market economy mostly involved producers selling to consumers,but some women acted as middlemen. The latter would travel from market to market buying and selling goods.
- all trade with Europeans was a royal monopoly and guarded jealously by successive kings; kings never allowed Europeans to bypass and trade directly with people in the kingdom. As a military, predatory state, the costs of government and the military were high; thus,the king needed all the revenue from taxes and the profits of trade that he could get.
- Europeans and their influence were confined to one port on the coast—Whydah.
- permission to go inland, especially to the capital, was given only infrequently and as a special favour; because so few Europeans were allowed in, there were only a limited number of eyewitness accounts in spite of the long history of trade and contacts; no missionaries were allowed in.
“The Royal African Company” By K. G. Davies
All the numbers bellow are in British pounds I don't have the key for that currency
quote: Between 1692 and 1698 the accounts of the king of Fetu in the Cape Coast ledgers show him to have owed the company will over 1,000. The 'king of the Arckanyes' owed 1,100 and the king of Saboe 250. In 1699 twenty-one Gold Coast notables owed the company about 4,000; they include the king of Equafo (2,000) Little Taggee (400), the Braffo of Fantyn (250), and John Kabes, Cabbasheer of Kommenda (250). The ledgers contain many other entries, 'to sundry accounts trusted him' or 'to gold lent him'
The impression left by both correspondence and accounts is that few of these loans were repaid in full. In 1690 for example the Chief Merchants reported that the wars on the coast had been concluded but that the company was 'like to loose the mony lent'. Four years later, after the defeat of Fetu, they wrote that the conquers (presumably the Saboes) required a loan, adding that what had hitherto been lent 'hath been a charge without profit to the company'. John Snow, whose balanced appreciate of the European position on the Gold Coast is printed on the Appendix, though not only that long standing debts could not be collected but that any attempt to do so would have disastrous political consequences. He preferred to make small gifts instead of granting large loans, and was probably right. His own views have already been quoted; Bosman, recording that both English and Dutch paid large sums in bribes and subsidies...
"Dahomey and the Dahomans" By Frederick Edwyn Forbes
quote:These wars are directly and instrumentally the acts of the slave-merchants of Whydah and its neighbouring parts; but have they no higher parties on whom to lay the blame of their actions ? are these, the agents of larger houses, the instruments in the hands of parties who have other means of disposing of their goods, to bear the whole blame ? Truth is strange but a truth it is, that the slave trade is carried on in Dahomey and the neighbouring kingdoms with British merchandize, and, at Porto Novo, the residence of the monarch of slave dealers, by British shipping direct. I do not mean to say that if British goods were not obtainable, the traffic would cease to exist; but the taste for British goods runs high, and if these could not be purchased with slaves, palm-oil would be manufactured to obtain them.
Africans would be more powerful if they were not colonized, enslaved, killed and oppressed. You cannot be strong in trade if you are not free to engage in trade.
Africans today are not free to trade. They don't own the land, they don't control the output of the land and they don't get the profits from that output which is sold.
Therefore, long story short, they are still suffering from over 300 years of colonial economic exploitation and a global system built on that exploitation and they will not progress until they remove that system of exploitation and build a true economic system in Africa for the benefit of Africans.
Its that simple.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
And when you talk about Agriculture in Africa, the most productive period in terms of agricultural output in Africa among all African countries is during the colonial period. Now this isn't to say I am a supporter of colonialism. What I am saying is that the global system of economic exploitation was at full tilt in Africa during this period, using the people as colonial slaves and using the land as their own private breadbasket.
Now if the Africans could do this under colonialism, when they were forced to work long hours as slaves on plantations, why can't they do it when they are free? Because the neocolonial puppets installed after the colonial period have been working to keep the land and wealth of these countries out of the hands of the people. Therefore, 50 years after colonialism, most Africans still don't own the land and it is up for grabs by any foreigner who has cash.
quote: Co-operatives
In the 1950s until independence in 1962, British Colonial Office policy encouraged the development of co-operatives for subsistence farmers to partially convert to selling their crops: principally coffee, cotton, tobacco, and maize. David Gordon Hines (1915-2000) (as Commissioner of Co-operatives from 1959 to independence in 1962 and then as a civil servant until 1965) developed the movement by encouraging eventually some 500,000 farmers to join co-operatives. He, as an accountant, plus a team of 20 (British) District Co-operative Officers and some 400 Ugandans established the constitution and accounting procedures of each co-operative. They ran courses at a co-operative college in Kampala; settled disputes; established a co-operative bank; and developed marketing in a population that largely had no experience of accounts and marketing. Each co-operative had 100 to 150 farmer members who elected their own committees. In each political district, there was a co-operative "union" which built stores and, eventually, with government money, processing factories: cotton ginneries, tobacco dryers, and maize mills. The number of farmers involved rose exponentially as the co-operatives made the profits that the Asian traders had previously made. The roads, other infrastructure and security were better in this colonial period than in the late 1900s, so allowing relatively efficient transport and marketing of agricultural products. After the Amin era of massacres and tortures, David Hines in 1982 returned to Uganda in a World Bank delegation to find decrepit factories that had been kept going as long as possible by cannibalising other factories.[2] [edit] 1970s
Throughout the 1970s, political insecurity, mismanagement, and a lack of adequate resources seriously eroded incomes from commercial agriculture. Production levels in general were lower in the 1980s than in the 1960s. Technological improvements had been delayed by economic stagnation, and agricultural production still used primarily unimproved methods of production on small, widely scattered farms, with low levels of capital outlay. Other problems facing farmers included the disrepair of the nation's roads, the nearly destroyed marketing system, increasing inflation, and low producer prices. These factors contributed to low volumes of export commodity production and a decline in per capita food production and consumption in the late 1980s.[1]
The decline in agricultural production, if sustained, posed major problems in terms of maintaining export revenues and feeding Uganda's expanding population. Despite these serious problems, agriculture continued to dominate the economy. In the late 1980s, agriculture (in the monetary and nonmonetary economy) contributed about two-thirds of GDP, 95 percent of export revenues, and 40 percent of government revenues. Roughly 20 percent of regular wage earners worked in commercial agricultural enterprises, and an additional 60 percent of the work force earned some income from farming. Agricultural output was generated by about 2.2 million small-scale producers on farms with an average of 2.5 hectares of land. The 1987 RDP called for efforts both to increase production of traditional cash crops, including coffee, cotton, tea, and tobacco, and to promote the production of nontraditional agricultural exports, such as maize, beans, groundnuts (peanuts), soybeans, sesame seeds, and a variety of fruit and fruit products.[1] [edit] Crops
Uganda's main food crops have been plantains, cassava, sweet potatoes, millet, sorghum, corn, beans, and groundnuts. Major cash crops have been coffee, cotton, tea, and tobacco, although in the 1980s many farmers sold food crops to meet short-term expenses. The production of cotton, tea, and tobacco virtually collapsed during the late 1970s and early 1980s. In the late 1980s, the government attempted to encourage diversification in commercial agriculture that would lead to a variety of nontraditional exports. The Uganda Development Bank and several other institutions supplied credit to local farmers, although small farmers also received credit directly from the government through agricultural cooperatives. For most small farmers, the main source of short-term credit was the policy of allowing farmers to delay payments for seeds and other agricultural inputs provided by cooperatives.[1]
Cooperatives also handled most marketing activity, although marketing boards and private companies sometimes dealt directly with producers. Co-operatives had been very successful during the British Colonial period (see below) but later many farmers complained that cooperatives did not pay for produce until long after it had been sold. The generally low producer prices set by the government and the problem of delayed payments for produce prompted many farmers to sell produce at higher prices on illegal markets in neighboring countries. During most of the 1980s, the government steadily raised producer prices for export crops in order to maintain some incentive for farmers to deal with government purchasing agents, but these incentives failed to prevent widespread smuggling.[1] [edit] Coffee
Coffee continued to be Uganda's most important cash crop throughout the 1980s. The government estimated that farmers planted approximately 191,700 hectares of robusta coffee, most of this in southeastern Uganda, and about 33,000 hectares of arabica coffee in high-altitude areas of southeastern and southwestern Uganda. These figures remained almost constant throughout the decade, although a substantial portion of the nation's coffee output was smuggled into neighboring countries to sell at higher prices. Between 1984 and 1986, the European Economic Community (EEC) financed a coffee rehabilitation program that gave improved coffee production a high priority. This program also supported research, extension work, and training programs to upgrade coffee farmers' skills and understanding of their role in the economy. Some funds were also used to rehabilitate coffee factories.[1]
When the National Resistance Movement seized power in 1986, Museveni set high priorities on improving coffee production, reducing the amount of coffee smuggled into neighboring countries, and diversifying export crops to reduce Uganda's dependence on world coffee prices. To accomplish these goals, in keeping with the second phase of the coffee rehabilitation program, the government raised coffee prices paid to producers in May 1986 and February 1987, claiming that the new prices more accurately reflected world market prices and local factors, such as inflation. The 1987 increase came after the Coffee Marketing Board launched an aggressive program to increase export volumes. Parchment (dried but unhulled) robusta producer prices rose from USh24 to USh29 per kilogram. Clean (hulled) robusta prices rose from USh44.40 to USh53.70 per kilogram. Prices for parchment arabica, grown primarily in the Bugisu district of southeastern Uganda, reached USh62.50 a kilogram, up from USh50. Then in July 1988, the government again raised coffee prices from USh50 per kilogram to USh111 per kilogram for robusta, and from USh62 to USh125 per kilogram for arabica.[1]
By December 1988, the Coffee Marketing Board was unable to pay farmers for new deliveries of coffee or to repay loans for previous purchases. The board owed USh1,000 million to its suppliers and USh2,500 million to the commercial banks, and although the government agreed to provide the funds to meet these obligations, some of them remained unpaid for another year.[1]
Uganda was a member of the International Coffee Organization (ICO), a consortium of coffee-producing nations that set international production quotas and prices. The ICO set Uganda's annual export quota at only 4 percent of worldwide coffee exports. During December 1988, a wave of coffee buying pushed the ICO price up and triggered two increases of 1 million (60- kilogram) bags each in worldwide coffee production limits. The rising demand and rising price resulted in a 1989 global quota increase to 58 million bags. Uganda's export quota rose only by about 3,013 bags, however, bringing it to just over 2.3 million bags. Moreover, Uganda's entire quota increase was allocated to arabica coffee, which was grown primarily in the small southeastern region of Bugisu. In revenue terms, Uganda's overall benefit from the world price increase was small, as prices for robusta coffee--the major export--remained depressed.[1]
In 1989 Uganda's coffee production capacity exceeded its quota of 2.3 million bags, but export volumes were still diminished by economic and security problems, and large amounts of coffee were still being smuggled out of Uganda for sale in neighboring countries. Then in July 1989, the ICO agreement collapsed, as its members failed to agree on production quotas and prices, and they decided to allow market conditions to determine world coffee prices for two years. Coffee prices plummeted, and Uganda was unable to make up the lost revenues by increasing export volumes. In October 1989, the government devalued the shilling, making Uganda's coffee exports more competitive worldwide, but Ugandan officials still viewed the collapse of the ICO agreement as a devastating blow to the local economy. Fears that 1989 earnings for coffee exports would be substantially less than the US$264 million earned the previous year proved unfounded. Production in 1990, however, declined more than 20 percent to an estimated 133,000 tons valued at US$142 million because of drought, management problems, low prices, and a shift from coffee production to crops for local consumption.[1]
Some coffee farmers cultivated cacao plants on land already producing robusta coffee. Cocoa production declined in the 1970s and 1980s, however, and market conditions discouraged international investors from viewing it as a potential counterweight to Uganda's reliance on coffee exports. Locally produced cocoa was of high quality, however, and the government continued to seek ways to rehabilitate the industry. Production remained low during the late 1980s, rising from 1,000 tons in 1986 to only 5,000 tons in 1989.[1]
The Uganda Coffee Development Authority [1] was formed in 1991 by government decree, in line with the liberalization of the coffee industry. [edit] Cotton
In the 1950s, cotton was the second most important traditional cash crop in Uganda, contributing 25 percent of total agricultural exports. By the late 1970s, this figure had dropped to 3 percent, and government officials were pessimistic about reviving this industry in the near future. Farmers had turned to other crops in part because of the labor-intensive nature of cotton cultivation, inadequate crop-finance programs, and a generally poor marketing system. The industry began to recover in the 1980s. The government rehabilitated ginneries and increased producer prices. In 1985, 199,000 hectares were planted in cotton, and production had risen from 4,000 tons to 16,300 tons in five years. Cotton exports earned US$13.4 million in 1985. Earnings fell to US$5 million in 1986, representing about 4,400 tons of cotton. Production continued to decline after that, as violence plagued the major cotton-producing areas of the north, but showed some improvement in 1989.[1]
Cotton provided the raw materials for several local industries, such as textile mills, cotton oil and soap factories, and animal feed factories. And in the late 1980s, it provided another means of diversifying the economy. The government accordingly initiated an emergency cotton production program, which provided extension services, tractors, and other inputs for cotton farmers. At the same time, the government raised cotton prices from USh32 to USh80 for a kilogram of grade A cotton and from USh18 to USh42 for Grade B cotton in 1989. However, prospects for the cotton industry in the 1990s were still uncertain.[1]
The Uganda Cotton Development Authority or CDO[3] was created in 1994 by Act of Parliament; the CDO is a semi-autonomous body of the Uganda Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries[4]. [edit] Tea
Favorable climate and soil conditions enabled Uganda to develop some of the world's best quality tea. Production almost ceased in the 1970s, however, when the government expelled many owners of tea estates--mostly Asians. Many tea farmers also reduced production as a result of warfare and economic upheaval. Successive governments after Idi Amin encouraged owners of tea estates to intensify their cultivation of existing hectarage. Mitchell Cotts (British) returned to Uganda in the early 1980s and formed the Toro and Mityana Tea Company (Tamteco) in a joint venture with the government. Tea production subsequently increased from 1,700 tons of tea produced in 1981 to 5,600 tons in 1985. These yields did not approach the high of 22,000 tons that had been produced in the peak year of 1974, however, and they declined slightly after 1985.[1]
The government doubled producer prices in 1988, to USh20 per kilogram, as part of an effort to expand tea production and reduce the nation's traditional dependence on coffee exports, but tea production remained well under capacity. Only about one-tenth of the 21,000 hectares under tea cultivation were fully productive, producing about 4,600 tons of tea in 1989. Uganda exported about 90 percent of tea produced nationwide. In 1988 and 1989, the government used slightly more than 10 percent of the total to meet Uganda's commitments in barter exchanges with other countries. In 1990 the tea harvest rose to 6,900 tons, of which 4,700 were exported for earnings of US$3.6 million. The government hoped to produce 10,000 tons in 1991 to meet rising market demand.[1]
Two companies, Tamteco and the Uganda Tea Corporation(a joint venture between the government and the Mehta family), managed most tea production. In 1989 Tamteco owned three large plantations, with a total of 2,300 hectares of land, but only about one-half of Tamteco's land was fully productive. The Uganda Tea Corporation had about 900 hectares in production and was expanding its landholdings in 1989. The state-owned Agricultural Enterprises Limited managed about 3,000 hectares of tea, and an additional 9,000 hectares were farmed by about 11,000 smallholder farmers, who marketed their produce through the parastatal Uganda Tea Growers' Corporation (UTGC). Several thousand hectares of tea estates remained in a "disputed" category because their owners had been forced to abandon them. In 1990 many of these estates were being sold to private individuals by the departed Asians' Property Custodian Board as part of an effort to rehabilitate the industry and improve local management practices.[1]
Both Tamteco and the Uganda Tea Corporation used most of their earnings to cover operational expenses and service corporate debts, so the expansion of Uganda's tea-producing capacity was still just beginning in 1990. The EEC and the World Bank provided assistance to resuscitate the smallholder segment of the industry, and the UTGC rehabilitated seven tea factories with assistance from the Netherlands. Both Tamteco and the Uganda Tea Corporation were also known among tea growers in Africa for their leading role in mechanization efforts. Both companies purchased tea harvesters from Australian manufacturers, financed in part by the Uganda Development Bank, but mechanized harvesting and processing of tea was still slowed by shortages of operating capital.[1] [edit] Tobacco
For several years after independence, tobacco was one of Uganda's major foreign exchange earners, ranking fourth after coffee, cotton, and tea. Like all other traditional cash crops, tobacco production also suffered from Uganda's political insecurity and economic mismanagement. Most tobacco grew in the northwestern corner of the country, where violence became especially severe in the late 1970s, and rehabilitation of this industry was slow. In 1981, for example, farmers produced only sixty-three tons of tobacco. There was some increase in production after 1981, largely because of the efforts of the British American Tobacco Company, which repossessed its former properties in 1984. Although the National Tobacco Corporation processed and marketed only 900 tons of tobacco in 1986, output had more than quadrupled by 1989.[1] [edit] Sugar
Uganda's once substantial sugar industry, which had produced 152,000 tons in 1968, almost collapsed by the early 1980s. By 1989 Uganda imported large amounts of sugar, despite local industrial capacity that could easily satisfy domestic demand. Achieving local self-sufficiency by the year 1995 was the major government aim in rehabilitating this industry.[1]
The two largest sugar processors were Kakira and Lugazi estates, which by the late 1980s were joint government ventures with the Mehta and Madhvani families. The government commissioned the rehabilitation of these two estates in 1981, but the spreading civil war delayed the projects. By mid-1986, work on the two estates resumed, and Lugazi resumed production in 1988. The government, together with a number of African and Arab donors, also commissioned the rehabilitation of the Kinyala Sugar Works, and this Masindi estate resumed production in 1989. Rehabilitation of the Kakira estate, delayed by ownership problems, was completed in 1990 at a cost of about US$70 million, giving Uganda a refining capacity of at least 140,000 tons per year.[1]
Of course during colonialism many foreigners in Africa prospered and grew economic empires by trading in African products. Yet Africans could not play any major role or reap any benefit because they were still colonized. And after colonialism, the land was not redistributed back to the Africans who still have less land rights than foreigners and whites who own massive estates. So they are still in reality slaves to large plantation owners even though it is 50 years after independence. So to talk of trade in this context where Africans don't control much trade to begin with is to talk nonsense. Of course this is economic, political and social warfare, but this is old news. That war has been going on for over 300 years and Africans have suffered in many ways because of it. Therefore it serves no purpose pretending that this is some sort of "new" situation in Africa.
quote: The Madhvani Group of Companies commonly referred to as the Madhvani Group is the largest conglomerate in Uganda with a total asset base in excess of US$250 million, as of April 2009.[3] The group has investments in Uganda, Rwanda, Southern Sudan, Tanzania, the Middle East, India and North America.
In 1912, Muljibhai Madhvani, then aged 18, arrived in Jinja. Due to his extraordinary vision, personality and ability, he was able to take a humble trading concern and create a business that would later account for 10% of Uganda's GDP. As his business prospered, Muljibhai was keen to take care of the well-being and welfare of his employees and the community. His workers and their dependents have enjoyed free education, housing and healthcare, many decades before the term "Corporate Social Responsibility" (CSR), was even devised. The Group's businesses are run primarily by Madhvani family members but many of the newer investments are joint ventures with other businesses.
During the 1970s, the Madhvani family was expelled from Uganda by Idi Amin and their businesses were nationalized and mismanaged to near-extinction. In 1985, the family returned to Uganda and with loans from the World Bank, the East African Development Bank and the Uganda Development Bank, they resurrected and rehabilitated their businesses and started new ones.
quote: The Patriarch and founder of the group is the late Nanji Kalidas Mehta (1887 - 1969). He was born in India in the late 19th Century. In 1900, at the age of 13 years, he migrated to Uganda and started a series of businesses that included a tea plantation, a cotton ginnery, a sugarcane plantation and a sugar factory.
During the 1930's, having established himself in Uganda, Mehta began operations in India. He set up a textile mill and ginning factory in Porbandar, Gujarat, and a trading company in Bombay. Later, a cement plant (Saurashtra Cement Limited) was established in 1956.
In 1972, Idi Amin expelled all Asians from Uganda. The group concentrated on their non-African businesses; setting up a consultancy in India and a plastics plant in Canada. The group grew to a truly International conglomerate during the 1970's. In 1979, Idi Amin was removed from power and the group was invited back into Uganda to repossess their assets.
During the 1980's the Agrima Consultancy wing of the group expanded to Ethiopia, Cameroon, Sudan, Burundi, Nigeria, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Myanmar. The group rehabilitated all their Ugandan businesses during this period. A second cement plant was started in India; the Gujarat Sidhee Cement Limited.
During the 1990's the group successfully entered the financial area by establishing Transafrica Assurance Company Limited. During this period, the cement factories in India were expanded and modernized.[3]
Doug, I insist that you stop saying that Africans don't have control of agriculture. It makes absolutely no sense and it is insulting, there is no reason to believe that agriculture could be more productive in the colonial era than today. To say that agriculture was more productive in the colonial era is in a way a supporting colonialism even if you are against colonialism
The evidence very clearly shows us that African farmers were very productive before colonialism and they are not only competitive, but highly competitive today. You have provided absolutely nothing to believe otherwise, In fact the very information that you show supports the idea that tariffs and subsidies are what allows Europeans to out compete in agriculture. We know that many African farmers themselves wish that they could sell at a fair price, the more farmers suffer from this the more foreign exploiters will take control
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by markellion: Doug, I insist that you stop saying that Africans don't have control of agriculture. It makes absolutely no sense and it is insulting, there is no reason to believe that agriculture could be more productive in the colonial era than today. To say that agriculture was more productive in the colonial era is in a way a support for colonialism
The evidence very clearly shows us that African farmers were very productive before colonialism and they are not only competitive, but highly competitive today. You have provided absolutely nothing to believe otherwise, In fact the very information that you show supports the idea that tariffs and subsidies are what allows Europeans to out compete in agriculture
Markellion the facts are clear. During colonialism most African countries were net exporters of agricultural products of many types. After colonialism, many of these same countries became net importers of the same agricultural products due to the collapse of the local farms and plantations.
This is a fact. But such an outcome is only to be expected given that under colonialism the Africans were worked to death in substandard conditions in order to produce those massive agricultural outputs. And after colonialism, the former colonial masters did not pay one cent in reparations to finance a redevelopment of these countries. In fact they started the whole regime of debt governed by the World Bank and IMF as a way of protecting their interests in Africa. This regime of debt crippled African economic systems along with agricultural production more that prices. So again, I suggest you do some true research as opposed to clinging to bits and pieces of data that mean nothing on their own.
But again you live in a fantasy world if you believe that most Africans control the agricultural exports of their own countries. Most coffee, tea, flower, rubber and other exports from Africa are run by non Africans. Just like most gold, copper, tin, platinum, silver, cobalt, manganese, zinc, diamonds and other minerals are also exported by non Africans. This is a known fact. And one needs look no further than South Africa to see this. Tell the black South Africans that they really own most of the farms and control most of the agriculture in South Africa. They would laugh at you.
But of course you live in a fantasy world which is why you keep going on and on about prices without acknowledging the reality that economically most blacks are still not free and able to really participate in trade on a global level.
Trust me. This is what foreigners want in Africa. They could care less about the Africans:
It would be impossible to keep someone in debt unless in some way you were somehow forcing them to have more expenses than income
You say that I cling to bits and pieces of information but you don't do anything different. For example you suggested that I somehow didn't see aid as economic warfare when on the same post you quoted me when I clearly said that aid was economic warfare. I also see the bribes and subsidies from slave traders as being just like aid today. The slave traders actually said they were aiding in giving civilization to Africa
Let me say this three times
I see modern aid as economic warfare, and I see bribes and subsidies from slave traders as being the same thing
I see modern aid as economic warfare, and I see bribes and subsidies from slave traders as being the same thing
I see modern aid as economic warfare, and I see bribes and subsidies from slave traders as being the same thing
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: But of course you live in a fantasy world which is why you keep going on and on about prices without acknowledging the reality that economically most blacks are still not free and able to really participate in trade on a global level.
Massive amounts of merchandise were brought to Africa for the slave trade, the nature of it made it one of the most expensive trades because they had to bring a variety of specific merchandise which they often had to buy from different places including buying it from one part of Africa and selling to another
Doug, that is trade on a global level
"Early Globalization and the Slave Trade Trips around the world were essential for sustaining slavery" by Robert Harms YaleGlobal , 9 May 2003
quote: The demise of the French East India Company in 1706 (it was later resurrected as the Company of the Indies) caused a problem for French slave traders. It was impossible for them to remain competitive in the slave trade without ready access to cowry shells and Indian textiles. So vital was the Asian trade to the slave trade that a consortium of merchants raised over a million livres to start a company to replace the defunct French East India Company. In requesting authorization from the French Council of Commerce, the merchants cited the difficulties they were having in obtaining the products of Asia that were vital for the slave trade. The slave trade could not function successfully, they argued, unless they had direct access to cowry shells and Indian textiles.
"Africans and the industrial revolution in England" By J. E. Inikori
quote:The success of the British traders in capturing a large share of the slave trade in the eighteenth century was often attributed by the traders to this generous extension of credit by the export producers. Giving evidence before the Privy Council Committee in 1788, Robert Norris, who knew a lot about the trade, stated that Brittan had a larger share of the African trade because of "the credit which the British merchant has with the manufacturers, which no other merchant in Europe enjoys..." James Penny also told the same committee that one of the main reasons for British success in the African trade was the longer credit which British merchants had from the manufacturers: "Our manufactuerers gave eighteen months credit, and the French only six."
But the provision of this credit posed serious financial problems for the manufacturers. The firm of William and Samuel Rawlinson that had boasted of their ability to serve the African merchants to their satisfaction soon ran into credit problems with these merchants. In December 1790, one of the Liverpool African traders, Joseph Caton, wrote to James Rogers in Bristol:
quote: Thus in the later 'seventies and in the 'eighties the company spent each year on the purchase of goods for export and on shipping a sum appreciably larger than what was left of its share-capital after the Adventurers had been bought out.....
....Even if all these plantation debts had proved good, which many did not, the consequence of giving long credit was to slow down the turnover of capital until a gap often of years intervened between the sowing of the seed, in the form of exports to Africa, and the reaping of the harvest, in the shape of returns from the West Indies
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by markellion: It would be impossible to keep someone in debt unless in some way you were somehow forcing them to have more expenses than income
And that is exactly what is happening. The world bank and IMF programs in Africa have been long known to produce a net negative income for African countries and are notorious for being ineffective. Africans are still forced to pay the debt for such programs no matter how ineffective and disastrous they are for African economies. And that is what keeps them in debt. Africans don't create these programs and they cannot promote their own programs because the World Bank and IMF makes acceptance of their "AID" conditional on certain "policy changes" which only continue the cycle of debt and dependence.
But this is only to be expected from institutions whose only reason for being is to protect the interests of the industrial and banking elites.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
I added some more to the last post. Although Europeans paid large amounts for slaves it also put the Africans in debt, this gives some idea on the magnitude of goods being shipped because the goods were also given in loans that the Africans were not able to pay back. Not only that but there were bribes being paid but still as an earlier post shows many Africans were still unable or unwilling to pay off their loans. Many plantation owners were in debt because of the price of the unfortunate slaves
However since the Africans were importing all these goods it means they wern't totally vulnerable
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The world bank and IMF programs in Africa have been long known to produce a net negative income for African countries and are notorious for being ineffective
You said earlier that I post little pieces of information that mean nothing by themselves, each and everything showed here shows how these nations remain in debt. Haitian farmers become impoverished and thus malnourished, this shows that the low prices overall lower the income of the people so they can no longer buy food. Haiti then had to spend half of it's export earnings on rice, obviously doing much to keep this nation in debt
Cash crops are grown because African farmers can't compete with subsidies. Look at it this way we have industries A, B, C, D. The price on A goes down so that industry goes out of business and the price on D goes up so more resources will go into supporting D. However, the options of what to produce become narrower and narrower and Africans start producing more and more of D until the price of D goes down and then there is a crisis
I already posted this earlier all of this to show a very important and central point. What needs to be stressed here is the growing of cash crops is because other crops become lower in price. This is not because the World Bank simply forced them to, they were forced to it because of price.
“Manufacturing a Food Crisis” By Walden Bello June 2, 2008
quote:The support that African governments were allowed to muster was channeled by the World Bank toward export agriculture to generate foreign exchange, which states needed to service debt. But, as in Ethiopia during the 1980s famine, this led to the dedication of good land to export crops, with food crops forced into less suitable soil, thus exacerbating food insecurity. Moreover, the World Bank's encouragement of several economies to focus on the same export crops often led to overproduction, triggering price collapses in international markets. For instance, the very success of Ghana's expansion of cocoa production triggered a 48 percent drop in the international price between 1986 and 1989. In 2002-03 a collapse in coffee prices contributed to another food emergency in Ethiopia.
....Uganda began to receive debt relief worth US$350 million in April 1998, but as a consequence lost access to other debt relief mechanisms. With a drop in the international price of coffee, its chief export, Uganda found itself by April 1999 once again saddled with an officially "unsustainable" debt burden. An internal World Bank/IMF report indicates that Mali and Burkina Faso (slated for HIPC relief in early 2000) will actually pay more on their debt after graduating from HIPC.
quote:in 2003 the US government ploughed $1.3 billion into rice sector subsidies, supporting farmers to produce a crop that cost them $1.8 billion to grow - effectively footing the bill for 72 per cent of the cost of production...
...But it has devastated farmers in Haiti, where rice-growing areas now have some of the highest levels of malnutrition and poverty.
quote:Import liberalization in markets distorted by subsidies can have devastating implications for efforts to combat rural poverty and improve self-reliance. When the IMF bulldozed Haiti into liberalizing its rice markets in the mid-1990s, the country was flooded with cheap U.S. imports. Local production collapsed, along with tens of thousands of rural livelihoods. Self-sufficient a decade ago, Haiti today spends half of its export earnings importing U.S. rice.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
Several times before you claim that I cling to bits and pieces of information, what do you Doug? I don't remember you giving any way that farmers can get their food to people.
On the other hand everything I posted is part of a clear and central point incorporated all the evidence into a coherent whole. Every piece of information I show being an important part of the entire point
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
Explain to me why you said this. In the same post you had quoted me clearly saying that aid was economic warfare
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Not to mention that, but if food aid is needed then why can't those relief agencies buy it from the farmers whose crops are going to waste? I guess you didn't know that the aid distribution agencies are also part of the warfare against African farmers as Western farmers lobby their governments to make sure that the food aid sent to Africa comes from Western farmers. But of course you won't make the obvious argument that this is economic warfare against Africans on all fronts. You will pretend it is simply the Africans fault.
So explain to me how this differs from what I have said?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The whole point is that Europeans and other foreigners are waging economic war in order to allow them to take over ALL of Africas trade in agricultural products. The purpose of controlling this trade is not to benefit Africans. That means not feeding Africans, not providing infrastructure for Africans, not providing profits for African farmers and so forth.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
Edit: Sorry was trying to find information here and I accidentally posted here
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
