Possible answer to the Third world question

Zambia

DadaKopf wrote:

How would you assist Zimbabweans?

Hey I posted my idea already and as it stands it would be in that framework.

DadaKopf

Oh yes, colonise the country.

Zambia

DadaKopf wrote:

Oh yes, colonise the country.

In the world of the cant be arsed, the half arsed man is king.

I am asking for another way , all your doing is picking holes. Better still you come up with a plan.

Akrasia

DadaKopf wrote:

If they're journal articles, I won't be able to access them. PM me if you want my email. Ta.

Here are a couple of interesting bits of research that are free to read on-line

http://www.clingendael.nl/publications/2006/20061000_cru_frerks.pdf
(basically a look at how conditional aid works in post conflict development)

http://www.berghof-handbook.net/uploads/download/anderson_handbook.pdf
(how development aid can make existing divisions worse and the need to properly address the impact of development work)

purple'n'gold

Zambia232 wrote:

I would be interested to see how you would assist a country like for example Zimbabwe after Mugabes demise.

Not joking at all, slowly coming around to some of your ideas.

The only “help” Zimbabwe will need after the end of Mugabe is to allow the white farmers to get on with their business. Within a few years the country will be thriving again. And before the political correct brigade have an apoplectic fit. It’s a fact of life that the farmers are of European decent.

Akrasia

Zambia232 wrote:

I would be interested to see how you would assist a country like for example Zimbabwe after Mugabes demise.

Not joking at all, slowly coming around to some of your ideas.

It is too big a task to take all of Zimbabwe and try to help the country as one single entity.
Effective development has to come from the people themselves to meet the needs that they identify.

There is a role for development agencies to provide cheap or free small scale credit to local communities so they can make the improvements to their infrastructure themselves, using local knowledge, local labour and aimed at improving the quality of life for the majority of people and not just pure 'economic growth'

This has traditionally been one of the main jobs of the World Bank, except the world bank credit is anything but cheap, and anything but democratic.

Akrasia

purplengold wrote:

The only “help” Zimbabwe will need after the end of Mugabe is to allow the white farmers to get on with their business. Within a few years the country will be thriving again. And before the political correct brigade have an apoplectic fit. It’s a fact of life that the farmers are of European decent.

So you're saying that the black people of Zimbabwe can't farm? That's a pretty far out statement.
Even assuming that is true, perhaps someone should set up agricultural colleges and training courses to re-train them instead of returning to the apartheid conditions of colonial Zimbabwe?

purple'n'gold

Akrasia wrote:

So you're saying that the black people of Zimbabwe can't farm? That's a pretty far out statement.
Even assuming that is true, perhaps someone should set up agricultural colleges and training courses to re-train them instead of returning to the apartheid conditions of colonial Zimbabwe?

The blacks have most of the farms now, confiscated by Mugabe’s government. They don’t seem to be making a great fist of farming do they? So, why doesn’t Mugabe set up agriculture colleges etc? He’s the genius who got his unfortunate people into the mess they are in.

Zambia

Akrasia wrote:

It is too big a task to take all of Zimbabwe and try to help the country as one single entity.
Effective development has to come from the people themselves to meet the needs that they identify
.

This sounds like a sound idea my only worry would be that if we keep this too small scale the people would generally not go too far above subsistance level. Zimbabwe has enoromous agricultural potential and it does need large scale farming to take advantage.

Png The white farmers plight was quite terrible and I believe there farms should be returned to them however I dont see this happening in reality. Many of those farms where purchased post independance and there theft was nothing short of racism. However this is Africa the white farmers always knew this could happen just like every white african farmer does to this day.

It is these types of events that drive foriegn investment away from african countries. Why set up a business if you have 0 confidence the next party elected to goverment could take that business off you.

I see your piont ark about the attempt to assist parts of the country. But the country would need to be helped as a whole as well.

purple'n'gold

JOHANNESBURG, South Africa - Supporters of Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe have launched a drive to raise $1.2 million to celebrate his 83rd birthday next week amid the country's worst economic crisis, a Zimbabwean newspaper reported Monday.
The news of the party plans came as many Zimbabweans struggle to make ends meet in a country where inflation is running at 1,280 percent and there are critical shortages of foreign currency, essential drugs and basic commodities.
Zimbabwe's state-controlled Herald reported that lavish celebrations are due to be held in the central town of Gweru on Feb. 24, three days after Mugabe turns 83.

Zambia

purplengold wrote:

The blacks have most of the farms now, confiscated by Mugabe’s government. They don’t seem to be making a great fist of farming do they? So, why doesn’t Mugabe set up agriculture colleges etc? He’s the genius who got his unfortunate people into the mess they are in.

They are actually the land was grabbed and subdivided so each african war veteran has a nice little plot they just dont make enough food to feed the country or export.

Mugabe is a problem full stop. He is not caplable of any progressive step except of a tall building.

DadaKopf

I see your piont ark about the attempt to assist parts of the country. But the country would need to be helped as a whole as well.

Look, there are practical limits to what aid interventions can do. Aid enters into an existing environment - economic, political, cultural, environmental - in which it is supposed to produce limited results which can only ever contribute to a country's development. An aid 'programme', which is also co-ordinated with other agencies' and NGOs' programmes effectively means that these 'limited interventions' amount to something big which can assist people of developing countries to develop themselves. Though this is easier in theory than in practice.

To say a country can develop another is something that ranges from hubris, to lunacy, to colonialism.

People themselves must lead their own development process - however they define it. But aid in limited and precise forms can contribute instrumentally to building the capacities of people, institutions and businesses to achieve development for themselves.

In the case of Zimbabwe, I would say finding ways to empower Zimbabweans to challenge Mugabe's rule is the key. But not through force. Ultimately, I believe, Mugabe must be held accountable by Zimbabwean society and by the member countries of the African Union.

Zambia

DadaKopf wrote:

In the case of Zimbabwe, I would say finding ways to empower Zimbabweans to challenge Mugabe's rule is the key. But not through force. Ultimately, I believe, Mugabe must be held accountable by Zimbabwean society and by the member countries of the African Union.

Why not Ian Smiths goverment did less damage to the indiginous people and was forcefully resisted by the ZANU and ZAPU movements. Personnally I would love the Zimbabwen people or even the OAU to sort him.

So essentially AID can only work in small doses , in small areas.

lostexpectation

Zambia232 wrote:

Ok so from what I can gather we should just leave them all alone ...

Could you suggest benefical ways then as your initial entry just said we should eliminate the debts these countries have outstanding.

Should we stop training doctors and nurses.
Should we stop training enginners
Should we stop sending teachers over to teach.
Should we stop sending conservationists over.

Granted some efforts have failed , but to smear most projects is wrong.

YES

We should we stop stealing their doctors and nurses.
We should we stop stealing their enginners
We should we stop stealing their teachers over to teach.
We should we stop stealing their conservationists over.

lostexpectation

Zambia232 wrote:

It is these types of events that drive foriegn investment away from african countries. Why set up a business if you have 0 confidence the next party elected to goverment could take that business off you.

thats why they bribe them, pay for their militias, and only bring in )irish)UN peacekeepers to keep them in power after they made the deals

Zambia

lostexpectation wrote:

thats why they bribe them, pay for their militias, and only bring in )irish)UN peacekeepers to keep them in power after they made the deals

Can you elaborate?

DadaKopf

It is these types of events that drive foriegn investment away from african countries.

There is plenty of foreign investment throughout the developing world. The problem for most is that it's the kind of foreign investment that simply acts as a siphon, drawing trillions out of developing countries in the form of raw commodities. Wealth that those countries will probably never see, so long as global civil society sits on its arse.

Zambia

DadaKopf wrote:

There is plenty of foreign investment throughout the developing world. The problem for most is that it's the kind of foreign investment that simply acts as a siphon, drawing trillions out of developing countries in the form of raw commodities. Wealth that those countries will probably never see, so long as global civil society sits on its arse.

Sorry I should have stated other than mining and other mineral activity like it. More along the line of farming but then again that destroys the natural landscape.

Plus on the filp side I have seen the wealth that mining brings to these nations in reality they should be shrewder in their dealings.

Akrasia

Zambia232 wrote:

Sorry I should have stated other than mining and other mineral activity like it. More along the line of farming but then again that destroys the natural landscape.

Plus on the filp side I have seen the wealth that mining brings to these nations in reality they should be shrewder in their dealings.

There is a lot of research out there that shows small multi-culture farms are much more economically efficient and far more socially and environmentally sustainable than large scale monoculture plantations.

This cash crop style development looks great on the economic statistics page but it just concentrates the wealth in the hands of a few and drains resources from the local economy.

he continuing success of the long-running 'small-farm efficiency' paradigm is highlighted. The article concludes by asking whether sustainable livelihoods approaches can be interpreted as providing a new or different way forward for rural development in the future.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/1467-7679.00143/abs/

Akrasia

Yesterday on Democracy now, Greg Palast highlighted a very very disturbing issue of "vulture funds" that are basically debt collection agencies that are preying on the poorest nations who have recently had some of their debt cancelled.

They buy the debts off countries and banks who had otherwise written them off and then sue in U.S. courts for the payment of these debts + interest and penalties based on the fact that they have an ability to pay now that they have had some debt relief and save on interest repayments. Because of this practise, countries like Zambia face having the entire benefit of the recent debt cancellation stolen by these private venture capitalists

It is a disgusting practise made even worse by the fact that the President of the U.S. could put a stop to it with the stroke of a pen, it's in the U.S. constitution, but the white house refuses to address the issue or even respond to queries. The reason could very well be something to do with the co-incidence that these vulture capitalists are amongst the biggest private contributers to the republican party.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6365433.stm

http://play.rbn.com/?url=demnow/demnow/demand/2007/feb/video/dnB20070215a.rm&proto=rtsp

Zambia

Heard about this this morning these really are the definition of bottom feeding. However its done one a small scale across the UK in the form of baliffs.

Pity I never even saw one of those Tractors...

Akrasia

Zambia232 wrote:

Heard about this this morning these really are the definition of bottom feeding. However its done one a small scale across the UK in the form of baliffs.

Pity I never even saw one of those Tractors...

they were so expensive, they were probably never even unwrapped. They should have kept the receipt

Zambia

Akrasia wrote:

they were so expensive, they were probably never even unwrapped. They should have kept the receipt

Under KK's 1979 regime it was highly likely the tractors where brought and sold on to somewhere the profits going to "someone".

It would be interesting in light of this to actually ask the Zambian goverment where those Tractors went. Most of the tractors in Zambian Farms where Massey Fergusons that I knew

lostexpectation

Zambia232 wrote:

Heard about this this morning these really are the definition of bottom feeding. However its done one a small scale across the UK in the form of baliffs.

Pity I never even saw one of those Tractors...

can I ask are you from zambia and where did you get your thought on international relaions if not from zambia generally?

Zambia

lostexpectation wrote:

can I ask are you from zambia and where did you get your thought on international relaions if not from zambia generally?

Yes

lostexpectation

Zambia232 wrote:

Yes this does stink of colonialism , it has several of the markers of it but when the colonial powers pulled out they left these country with very little in the way of assistance and in some case they just left...

the country may have left their coporations stayed for the most part, you may be from zambia but you must have led a very sheltered life.

DadaKopf

Yes, and how do you feel about the recent anti-China protests in Zambia?

Does China offer an alternative 'development paradigm' for Africa? And how do you feel about the apparent flooding of Zambia with Chinese workers when Zambians could do the jobs instead?

MadsL

quick one on the what can be done question...

How about letting African farmers compete via free trade (remove artifical trade barriers and tariffs) and (most importantly) cancel all EU farm subsidies and stop propping up our own uneconomic farming.

If Africa is allowed to feed the world in all likelyhood it will begin to be able to feed itself.

Simple - just politically very hard for us to bite the bullet and do.

The Corinthian

DadaKopf wrote:

If anything, the West owes the developing world for decades, centuries of exploitation.

Rubbish. European colonialism of sub-Saharan Africa was a pretty short-lived affair in historical terms. It was negligible prior to the ninetieth century when vaccination finally made it possible for Europeans to colonise more than a few disease-ridden costal enclaves and was all but over by the latter of the twentieth century.

Even the slave trade was hardly a European import, as it existed long before, and in many cases long after, the colonial period. Certainly we may have created a demand for it, but was frankly offset by the fact that it was ultimately the European colonies that actually abolished it there – gloriously independent Liberia and Ethiopia only bothered doing so long after us nasty Westerners had done so everywhere else.

It’s almost as if you believe that had sub-Saharan Africa not come into contact with the West until last year we would have discovered a happy, thriving continent. Seriously, wake up and smell the elephant sh¡t.

You can't develop a country. Countries must develop themselves. Historically, trying to develop a country just hasn't worked because people, rightly, don't accept it. Or trust it. It's called colonialism.

Yet, time after time after time sub-Saharan Africa has failed to develop itself, which is the only reason that we are discussing the option of developing it for them here. I certainly agree that it is akin to colonialism and patronising to say the least, but the alternative you suggest has failed repeatedly and not because of Western interference, but because ultimately they fscked it up all on their own.

Seriously, it’s like an abusive husband blaming his wife for why he beats her and you’re accepting his reasoning on the basis that he had an unhappy childhood.

DadaKopf

Corinthian. Again, you're putting words in my mouth, and you know I've written on the impact of colonialism on Africa before. But I'm not talking about just Africa.

The names attached to the forms of exploitation by the rich countries have changed, but the deep structural relationships of power remain the same. The slave trade, colonialism, post-colonialism and globalisation are four different phases phases in exploitation of the poor by the rich, but they are united by a common logic. Put simply, whatever the label, rich countries have used their power to exploit developing countries natural and human resources in ways that block them out from getting a bigger slice in the great big global pie.

But, really, Corinthian, we don't have to go too far back in time to locate these injustices.

Through the globalisation phase, corporations and governments have consistently manipulated situations in developing countries (and in international institutions such as the IMF, World Bank and WTO) to suit their interests. These manipulations - such as the $1 trillion in bribes paid by corporations each year which banks in rich countries facilitate, and aid conditionalities - have undermined developing countries' abilities to manage countries to promote development. And what about the $2,000 trillion debt owed by developing countries, much of which were given knowingly to corrupt dictators to keep them on-side during the cold war. These illegitimate debts are kept in place to control developing countries' economic and political policies. Or what about the bad economic advice forced on sub-Saharan African countries that have cost the continent $228 billion over the past 20 years? Any why are the former European colonisers seeking new 'aid-for-trade' agreements with African, Caribbean and Asian countries which they know will have damaging effects on the lives of millions in 77 or the world's developing countries?

I absolutely agree that governments and civil societies must bear much of the blame, too, and responsibility in their development. Indeed, many in developing countries are waking up to this, which is a good thing. But the picture just isn't that simple. Matthew Lockwood (who I linked to on page 1 or 2) thinks so, too. But much work has been done in recent years that catalogue manipulations by foreign countries and corporations that undermine those successes. Lockwood concurs. And, frankly, I'd trust his judgement over yours or my own.

There simply is no basis in reality that developing countries 'f*cked it all up on their own'.