Africa a target of neo-colonialism

this blatantly honest report from the front page of the NY times says it all about the US' 21st century foreign policy. its ugly but at least they're telling the truth..

http://www.nytimes.com/ads/usair/pop...07.08.04.02.22

"In the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the United States is eager to keep poor nations with shaky governments from becoming breeding grounds and safe harbors for terrorists. It sees Africa as the world's last largely untapped market. It holds out hope that Africa's substantial oil reserves could play a larger role in fueling the American economy and perhaps serving as a counterweight to the influence of OPEC."

[johnny861]

That would definitely be good for some African Nations to benefit from the sale of oil and natural resources

[Adam D]

Originally posted by johnny861
That would definitely be good for some African Nations to benefit from the sale of oil and natural resources

In other words we can rob them of their oil and natural resources, and the government will declare a victory for democracy.

[Dionysos]

Originally posted by Adam D
In other words we can rob them of their oil and natural resources, and the government will declare a victory for democracy.

Would they be better off in abject poverty with the oil still in the ground?

[Adam D]

Originally posted by RosebudProd
Would they be better off in abject poverty with the oil still in the ground?

Nope, let them develop their own economic structures and companies.

[johnny861]

Originally posted by Adam D
Nope, let them develop their own economic structures and companies.

Yea, that works...


Look at Somalia, Zimbabwe, Mosembique, Liberia, Ethiopia...


... That statement is more like let them rot in hell

[Adam D]

Originally posted by johnny861
Yea, that works...


Look at Somalia, Zimbabwe, Mosembique, Liberia, Ethiopia...


... That statement is more like let them rot in hell

None of which are cases in which the West allowed them to develop on their own.

[johnny861]

Originally posted by Adam D
None of which are cases in which the West allowed them to develop on their own.

The definition of developing on their own is not an option...

No African nation has not had already had influence from the west or the east (former soviet union) or the middle east, etc...


The nations are already influenced and to leave them isolated to figure stuff out on there own is certainly no answer either...


These countries are not just examples of Western influence, but world influence....


Yes, The world fucked up and betrayed Africa, what should the world do now? Should the global economy ignore them while they sort out their own problems left by the world? Should the west get involved and try and condition african nations to be less dependant on the west than they are now?

[Adam D]

Originally posted by johnny861
The definition of developing on their own is not an option...

No African nation has not had already had influence from the west or the east (former soviet union) or the middle east, etc...


The nations are already influenced and to leave them isolated to figure stuff out on there own is certainly no answer either...


These countries are not just examples of Western influence, but world influence....


Yes, The world fucked up and betrayed Africa, what should the world do now? Should the global economy ignore them while they sort out their own problems left by the world? Should the west get involved and try and condition african nations to be less dependant on the west than they are now?

The UN should act diplomatically to end civil strife, apply UN peacekeepers if they cannot. Provide them loans through the IMF and WB, but without the neoliberal constrants those organizations provide.

Then, redraw Africa according to ethnic boundaries, which is the only way the conflicts will cease.

It's just like the Middle East.

[johnny861]

Originally posted by Adam D
The UN should act diplomatically to end civil strife, apply UN peacekeepers if they cannot. Provide them loans through the IMF and WB, but without the neoliberal constrants those organizations provide.

Then, redraw Africa according to ethnic boundaries, which is the only way the conflicts will cease.

It's just like the Middle East.

The UN should act diplomatically to end civil strife, apply UN peacekeepers if they cannot. Provide them loans through the IMF and WB, but without the neoliberal constrants those organizations provide.


The UN currently acts diplomatically to attempt to end civil strife and they do deploy peacekeepers to africa. Many loans have been provided by the IMF, many of those loans have and will never be paid back, and many of them have been misused by corrupt governments for which the UN was supposed to diplomatically resolve...

however demands for more loans continue? Where does this money come from?

And to lift restraints on loans funnelling money to god knows where? Apparently not to the areas of which the loans were intended...


Then, redraw Africa according to ethnic boundaries, which is the only way the conflicts will cease.

It's just like the Middle East.


Just like Israel and the Palestinians? Ethnic boundaries, that's interesting... What about the white Africans? Should they have their own African nation? or should their 400 year family ties be uprooted and relocated?


Sounds like the Native American Argument to the white man in the United States...

[Adam D]

Originally posted by johnny861
The UN currently acts diplomatically to attempt to end civil strife and they do deploy peacekeepers to africa. Many loans have been provided by the IMF, many of those loans have and will never be paid back, and many of them have been misused by corrupt governments for which the UN was supposed to diplomatically resolve...

And my argument is that the IMF is a corrupt structure.

And to lift restraints on loans funnelling money to god knows where? Apparently not to the areas of which the loans were intended...

And they will continue to go into the hands of the elites because that's generally the manner in which the IMF is set up.

Just like Israel and the Palestinians? Ethnic boundaries, that's interesting... What about the white Africans? Should they have their own African nation? or should their 400 year family ties be uprooted and relocated?


Sounds like the Native American Argument to the white man in the United States...

Sure, there's similar arguments between all indigineous people. This is a lot of the reason why I do not support Israel's existance. It's a geopolitical creation birthed out of an illegitimate power structure. The same is true of most borders throughout Africa, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe. They don't reflect the will of the people, and ethnic groups are broken up so much that there are conflicts of minorities where large groups have been moved around and split between political boundaries. It's largely the fault of western European conflict, which amassed people together into imperial boundaries based on geography rather than population.

I'm not talking about turning these areas into puzzles and randomly picking plots to give various groups, but to redraw lines where it will better suit the ethnic makeup of the continent. For example, the Kurds are split between Iraq and Turkey, and since the majority of the populations of both nations neither want them there nor give them rights, it would make sense to remove the regions where the Kurds exist now and turn it over to them as a Kurdistan. It's not a perfect solution, and on some level there will always be some sort of land dispute, but it's a step in the right direction. Even if that isn't possible, it would make sense at very least to divide the nations into small state governments, such as what we have here, that would at least give these ethnic groups a voice and a penchant for their rights within their own countries.

[johnny861]

And my argument is that the IMF is a corrupt structure.

And they will continue to go into the hands of the elites because that's generally the manner in which the IMF is set up.


A corrupt institution funneling money to corrupt parties is certainly not a solution I would condone... If your alleged IMF claim is in fact, true... Is this a common liberal argument? Or just yours?






Sure, there's similar arguments between all indigineous people. This is a lot of the reason why I do not support Israel's existance. It's a geopolitical creation birthed out of an illegitimate power structure. The same is true of most borders throughout Africa, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe. They don't reflect the will of the people, and ethnic groups are broken up so much that there are conflicts of minorities where large groups have been moved around and split between political boundaries.

An Illegitimate power structure, as you define it, has been a problem since the dawn of civilization.. to the earliest days of Ancient Sumaria, encroached upon by Egypt, conflicting with the Babylonians... and so on and so on...

As for Israel, if you would like to talk about Illegitimate power structure, Historically, the original Kingdom of Israel was established somewhere around 1025 BCE, removed from other civilizations... It was later conquered by the Assyrians in 722BCE... Babyonia was also the cause of the Jewish Diaspora in 586BCE...



It's largely the fault of western European conflict, which amassed people together into imperial boundaries based on geography rather than population.

Don't Forget China and Egypt and Babylon and Assyria... Imperial boundaries were imposed even before the Roman Empire was founded, the alleged birth of Western Civilization


I'm not talking about turning these areas into puzzles and randomly picking plots to give various groups, but to redraw lines where it will better suit the ethnic makeup of the continent. For example, the Kurds are split between Iraq and Turkey, and since the majority of the populations of both nations neither want them there nor give them rights, it would make sense to remove the regions where the Kurds exist now and turn it over to them as a Kurdistan.

You contradict yourself with Israel... You support giving the land the Kurds have existed on for so long, their own sovereign rights... Did this not happen with Israel? What kind of conflicts should we expect to see for years to come between Turkey and Iraq over this new Kurdish nation?



It's not a perfect solution, and on some level there will always be some sort of land dispute, but it's a step in the right direction. Even if that isn't possible, it would make sense at very least to divide the nations into small state governments, such as what we have here, that would at least give these ethnic groups a voice and a penchant for their rights within their own countries.

Israel was considered a step in the right direction after world war II... I enjoy liberal thinking... All compasion, no logistics...

[Adam D]

Originally posted by johnny861
A corrupt institution funneling money to corrupt parties is certainly not a solution I would condone... If your alleged IMF claim is in fact, true... Is this a common liberal argument? Or just yours?

It's a common leftist argument, at very least. It isn't as though it is some conspiracy to funnel money to evil dictators, it's simply the way the IMF and World Bank were established. Their aim is to fund "economic development" in nations which suffer from economic hardship. The loans, however, are contingent on certain reforms made. These reforms are largely neoliberal, that is, they demand the economy be opened up to globalization (allowing transnational corporations to establish themselves and block regulations, workers' rights, unionization, etc. ), which prevents any domestic economy from building a foundation. That's how Nike and GM are able to find cheaper labor overseas. These nations never had the opportunity to build proper workers' rights legislation (as the governments are lobbied by the corporations, the IMF/World Bank, and the US government in some cases). Protectionist measures to prevent this are strictly prohibited, yet the US engages in a number of tarriffs and import taxes to protect infant industries, fund R&D through public labs, and subsidize corporate involvement in third world nations.

An Illegitimate power structure, as you define it, has been a problem since the dawn of civilization.. to the earliest days of Ancient Sumaria, encroached upon by Egypt, conflicting with the Babylonians... and so on and so on...

As for Israel, if you would like to talk about Illegitimate power structure, Historically, the original Kingdom of Israel was established somewhere around 1025 BCE, removed from other civilizations... It was later conquered by the Assyrians in 722BCE... Babyonia was also the cause of the Jewish Diaspora in 586BCE...

I won't argue with your first point, but as far as the second, the Kingdom of Israel was wiped out, and the Palestineans were living there when Israel was established. As I stated, I do agree with the historical problem of empire building, and the history of ethnic conflict begins at roughly the same time. Simply because it is a historical precedent, does not mean people today ought not change it.

Don't Forget China and Egypt and Babylon and Assyria... Imperial boundaries were imposed even before the Roman Empire was founded, the alleged birth of Western Civilization

Sure, but most of these lines have been erased and redrawn so many times they are of little importance in comparision today.

You contradict yourself with Israel... You support giving the land the Kurds have existed on for so long, their own sovereign rights... Did this not happen with Israel? What kind of conflicts should we expect to see for years to come between Turkey and Iraq over this new Kurdish nation?

I think you would find some conflict, but I think you would find some argument of peace within these nations' population no longer having to worry about Kurdish attacks in their quest for soverignty. I couldn't really speak on what would happen without seeing what the effects would be from a serious discussion on the issue. I do think, that Iraq as a whole should be dissolved for the most part, as it was a geopolitical collection of people from the Ottoman Empire through the British Empire.

As far as Israel, there is no conflict. Israel was created out of an illegitimate power structure, which has marginalized and disempowered the Palestineans, hence the reason for the conflict. I do think there is a solution which would allow a peaceful Israel to exist, whether with palestineans in a seperate nation, or within a dual state Israel.

Israel was considered a step in the right direction after world war II... I enjoy liberal thinking... All compasion, no logistics...

I don't see what it was a step in the right direction of, except for a lynchpin of US/UK presence in the Middle East.

And I don't represent liberal thinking at all, particularly since I reject the status quo holistically...not a very liberal position.

[johnny861]

It's a common leftist argument, at very least. It isn't as though it is some conspiracy to funnel money to evil dictators, it's simply the way the IMF and World Bank were established. Their aim is to fund "economic development" in nations which suffer from economic hardship. The loans, however, are contingent on certain reforms made. These reforms are largely neoliberal, that is, they demand the economy be opened up to globalization (allowing transnational corporations to establish themselves and block regulations, workers' rights, unionization, etc. ), which prevents any domestic economy from building a foundation. That's how Nike and GM are able to find cheaper labor overseas. These nations never had the opportunity to build proper workers' rights legislation (as the governments are lobbied by the corporations, the IMF/World Bank, and the US government in some cases). Protectionist measures to prevent this are strictly prohibited, yet the US engages in a number of tarriffs and import taxes to protect infant industries, fund R&D through public labs, and subsidize corporate involvement in third world nations.


So what you are suggesting is that the International Monetary Fund operates without the interests of African nations, but soley in the interests of the west?



I won't argue with your first point, but as far as the second, the Kingdom of Israel was wiped out, and the Palestineans were living there when Israel was established. As I stated, I do agree with the historical problem of empire building, and the history of ethnic conflict begins at roughly the same time. Simply because it is a historical precedent, does not mean people today ought not change it.

Sure, but most of these lines have been erased and redrawn so many times they are of little importance in comparision today.

I think you would find some conflict, but I think you would find some argument of peace within these nations' population no longer having to worry about Kurdish attacks in their quest for soverignty. I couldn't really speak on what would happen without seeing what the effects would be from a serious discussion on the issue. I do think, that Iraq as a whole should be dissolved for the most part, as it was a geopolitical collection of people from the Ottoman Empire through the British Empire.



In presenting this argument, my fear is that such a bold step would incite problems in social-political scenerios. The Kingdom of Israel was wiped out as was Saddam's regime. Not to compare the two in terms of government, but we have seen violence erupt between the sunni and shi'ite muslims over Iraq already. All I am suggesting is what potential violence could we see erupt from Sunni or Shi'ite demanding the return of hypothetical Kurdish land to what they consider rightfully theirs.

The Kingdom of Israel was conquered, but this does not mean all Jews got up one day and left the land to another culture, it is possible that history might show more violence between jewish and other groups in the region....

I wouldn't be too quick to make assumptions on forgotten middle-eastern history. There are still arab extremist groups that voice hatred of the west over the crusades. Rival groups of the assyrian(Iran) and babylonian(Iraq) empires have had rival disputes up to modern day. I think one major mistake that western civilization repeats about the middle east is that time will mend differences, when the region has a violent history masked over by layers of empires...




As far as Israel, there is no conflict. Israel was created out of an illegitimate power structure, which has marginalized and disempowered the Palestineans, hence the reason for the conflict. I do think there is a solution which would allow a peaceful Israel to exist, whether with palestineans in a seperate nation, or within a dual state Israel.


I don't think peace ever existed in the region, Again, The Kingdom of Israel was conquered, but this does not mean all Jews got up one day and left the land to the another culture....



I don't see what it was a step in the right direction of, except for a lynchpin of US/UK presence in the Middle East.


The US/UK has a had presence well before the establishment of Israel. The British, well before the Americans. As You suggested, Iraq itself is a "geopolitical collection of people from the Ottoman Empire through the British Empire."

Again, you are contradicting yourself. forgoing historical events and focusing on the now.


And I don't represent liberal thinking at all, particularly since I reject the status quo holistically...not a very liberal position.


My apologies for suggesting your thinking as liberal... I suppose Libertarianism is a step up from liberal chaos...

[Adam D]

Originally posted by johnny861
So what you are suggesting is that the International Monetary Fund operates without the interests of African nations, but soley in the interests of the west?

Yes, I am. The IMF and World Bank (as well as the UN) were post-WW2 organizations designed by western nations to rebuild the world economically in a way that would allow them to maintain economic superiority and roughly retain the same economic blocs that existed before the war.

In presenting this argument, my fear is that such a bold step would incite problems in social-political scenerios. The Kingdom of Israel was wiped out as was Saddam's regime. Not to compare the two in terms of government, but we have seen violence erupt between the sunni and shi'ite muslims over Iraq already. All I am suggesting is what potential violence could we see erupt from Sunni or Shi'ite demanding the return of hypothetical Kurdish land to what they consider rightfully theirs.

Sure, I'm not suggesting any one plan will solve every problem. Maybe developing Iraq into a confederation of states would solve the problem. Maybe Iraq as a whole needs to be dissolved. I can't really say, and I don't think I should, either. That is really between the people of Iraq.

The Kingdom of Israel was conquered, but this does not mean all Jews got up one day and left the land to another culture, it is possible that history might show more violence between jewish and other groups in the region....

Most of the Jews did leave for Europe, though. And whether they did or not is irrelevant. Before Israel was established, there were Jews living in the region, without considerable conflict. It was the creation of the Israeli state that fueled the explosion of ethnic conflict.

I wouldn't be too quick to make assumptions on forgotten middle-eastern history. There are still arab extremist groups that voice hatred of the west over the crusades. Rival groups of the assyrian(Iran) and babylonian(Iraq) empires have had rival disputes up to modern day. I think one major mistake that western civilization repeats about the middle east is that time will mend differences, when the region has a violent history masked over by layers of empires...

It isn't forgotten, though. It's well understood by historians (but seemingly not politicians) that there is a deep hatred in most Middle Eastern culture for the West, due to the Crusades. And I understand that there are thousands of years of conflict in that region, which is the reason why I suggest what I do. Rather than clump people together into arbitrary geopolitical zones, they ought to be defined to reflect the make up of the populations.

The US/UK has a had presence well before the establishment of Israel. The British, well before the Americans. As You suggested, Iraq itself is a "geopolitical collection of people from the Ottoman Empire through the British Empire."

Again, you are contradicting yourself. forgoing historical events and focusing on the now.

What I am suggesting is not a contradiction. I think it is important to reflect upon the history of the regions, to understand what events caused the current situations. However, I do not think that you can justify giving land to somebody because they conquered it from somebody else thousands of years ago, when there are people who have a legitimate tie to the land now. I think if Jews want to live in the Middle East, they ought to be allowed to do so, but not at the disadvantage of somebody who also has history there. If we were to base changes upon empires of old times, then Turkey ought to overrun most of the Middle East, Italy ought to control most of southern Europe and northern Africa, and Mongolia ought to be reexpanded to control most of Asia.

My apologies for suggesting your thinking as liberal... I suppose Libertarianism is a step up from liberal chaos...

Just as long as you don't equate me with the "Libertarian" Party (which is not libertarian by any means).