Reparations to be paid to the Third World

CCCP^

I have lately been thinking about the dire position of countries in the Third World, specifically Africa. Since most of the nations there gained independence in the 1950s and 60s, it could be said argued that most of the nations have not progressed well, and infact are in retrograde. They face myriad problems which seem insurmountable - poverty, tyranny, war, famine. These problems are Africa's problems, but they are not necessarily their creation. Europeans, Russians and Americans have a responsibility to help developing nations.

After all, it was colonialism that messed up Africa so bad. And the Cold War proxy wars didn't help either. Europe grew rich on the extensive wealth being robbed from Africa, not to mention the ridicolous interest that had to be paid back on loans.

I think that an international fund, under the auspices of the United Nations and Amnesty International, should be created.

The fund would provide money for the development of infrastructure and industry. Africa has a huge amount of natural resources, and they should be exploited - exploited for the benefit of Africans (but that would probably scare the EU and US though, they live in mortal fear of South America or Africa ever coming together because they would rival them economically, no more robbing blind).

The sale of armaments to states experiencing civil war by other nations should cease outright. This will probably never happen, but it should happen. Africa was the cradle of humanity, and it's a mortal shame to see what has become of it. Does anyone else think this is a practical idea?

Munya

No, I don't think reparations should be paid and why did you use Europeans like a nationality?

Fratton Fred

Munya wrote: »

No, I don't think reparations should be paid and why did you use Europeans like a nationality?

Pretty much every country in europe has had a hand in the exploitation of Africa, so it is a fairly reasonable catch all i'd say.

The Arabs states did their fair share of exploiting as well, african slavery goes back to biblical times.

Reparations is dodgy territory and I don't think it can or should be paid. i do however think that the developed countries need to far more responsible than they are now, especially the EU nations.

mikemac

Algerian pirates were involved in sacking Baltimore and taking slaves.
If reparations are due to Africa, then Algeria needs to be reminded of this incident

http://www.divainternational.ch/spip.php?article249

brianthebard

Munya wrote: »

No, I don't think reparations should be paid and why did you use Europeans like a nationality?

Can you expand on why they shouldn't be paid? I think at the very least African debts should be cancelled, and any future "loans" by the World bank should be in Africa's favour, not the countries loaning the money.

Munya

brianthebard wrote: »

Can you expand on why they shouldn't be paid? I think at the very least African debts should be cancelled, and any future "loans" by the World bank should be in Africa's favour, not the countries loaning the money.

That's how you see it should be done?

Munya

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Pretty much every country in europe has had a hand in the exploitation of Africa, so it is a fairly reasonable catch all i'd say.

Then he didn't need to say Russians imo.

Bubs101

I can't see why I would want more competitors on a global scale if I were one of the European countries. A weaker Africa helps Europe in the long term. Cheaper food etc. and to be honest, I'd rather a better standard of living myself than have to pay higher food prices or reperations through tax for Africans

brianthebard

Munya wrote: »

That's how you see it should be done?

Yes why is this surprising? You still haven't said why reparations shouldn't be paid.

CCCP^

Munya wrote: »

Then he didn't need to say Russians imo.

The Russians and Americans turned Africa into their little playground during the Cold War. If you recall Ethiopia and Somalia, at one point were allied to Washington and Moscow, and following a coup and change of events switched the other way around. It would have been laughable if this were a comedy, but it wasn't, these countries and their people were just pawns.

Bubs101 wrote: »

I can't see why I would want more competitors on a global scale if I were one of the European countries. A weaker Africa helps Europe in the long term. Cheaper food etc. and to be honest, I'd rather a better standard of living myself than have to pay higher food prices or reperations through tax for Africans

I think your wrong on this. The World we live in needn't be based on the principle that in order for someone to be well off somebody has to go without. True, that's what often happens with our Capitalist system, but Africa probably contains more natural resources than Europe ever did, and if it's lands were managed efficiently, could support enough food for billions of people.

As it is, the Sahara is rapidly spreading and what land there is can't sustain the current population. Are more competitors not good for business? I was always told this in school, but obviously only 'certain' competitors are allowed.

In 100 years, people might very well look back upon what happened to Africa and see it as a holocaust 1,000 times worse than what happened to the Jews or the Armenians. It's worse because of our indifference.

bartholomewbinn

African leaders are doing nothing to rid Zimbabwe of the Illegal murderous tyrant who has reduced a once prosperous country to penury. Until the said African leaders do their duty I suggest we in Europe just stand back and allow them to come to their senses before we throw good money after bad.

CCCP^

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

African leaders are doing nothing to rid Zimbabwe of the Illegal murderous tyrant who has reduced a once prosperous country to penury. Until the said African leaders do their duty I suggest we in Europe just stand back and allow them to come to their senses before we throw good money after bad.

They won't get rid of Mugabe until sufficient pressure is put on Mbeki, President of South Africa, because South Africa is Zimbabwe's chief (and probably sole) trading partner. The sanctions against Zimbabwe won't do diddly. They just make the poor even poorer.

Bottle_of_Smoke

I just don't trust Africa to not f*ck it up. All I can see is any reparations being squandered on arms. I think Ghaddafi brought this point up colonial reparations a while back actually

Overheal

See if we paid them everything back to day and lifted the protectionist taxes all that money would just end up in the hands of the wrong people (if you need an example check out Iraq and Saddam's history) and for exports - well, look what happened with conflict diamonds? Whats to say they dont do the same thing if they were to discover exporting food and clothing was also profitable? Africa is a big mess.

Kama

(Stolen) Thought Experiment:

Think of the expropropriation of gold from the New World, not as a vicious brutal theft, but as a 'friendly loan' from the Americas to Europe, a Marshall Plan for Western capitalism.
Charge a modicum of interest per annum.
See who owes who what.

It's planets worth of gold bullion

Booty capitalism can be considered as the foundation of the Western 'economic miracle'.


And Bubs, thanks for your honesty. I think thats a fair statement of a lot of people unvoiced opinion, and one I'm opposed to. I honestly think that that form of 'realist' policy is a key contributor to how some developing countries have been 'kept back', their resources exploited in a neocolonial arrangement. Reparations are not to my mind the key issue; the legitimacy of their debt is.

jhegarty

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Pretty much every country in europe has had a hand in the exploitation of Africa, so it is a fairly reasonable catch all i'd say.

And how much exploitation of Africa did Ireland do ?

and I can't remember any of the newer EU members in eastern Europe having many African colonies....

cabinteelytom

This is an excellant idea, though 'reparations' is an unneccessarily controversial term. A Marshall Plan for Africa- is a spot on idea.

Bubs101

jhegarty wrote: »

And how much exploitation of Africa did Ireland do ?

There was no Ireland but as part of the U.K. we "raped" the African countries but such a simple outlook forgets that the U.K. actually left really decent infrastructure and systems in place that helped them get an edge on their neighbors who were colonised by the likes of the French who were left up **** creek paddleless.

The natural resources plan that CCCP suggested is really flawed in that since those countries are so poor, if a certain country or trading block wanted their natural resources or land they could use DFI through a state owned company and use a different state owned company to export it to Europe. That way it will probably make profit in the long run, all money spent on transport and the such will go back into the economy and the host country will benefit by getting some desperately needed jobs.

When making this "poor Africa" argument, people always forget that around the 70's and 60's, Africa was expected to make massive strides. Alot of the coutries had found oil and the poorer ones were starting to get richer. They were taking control of their own land etc. but THEY SQUANDERED IT. Asia surpassed them in 10 years from nothing through good management. History has shown that the only way Africa can be run anyway succesfully is by Europeans and their decendants, ala South Africa pre Mandela and the colonies

CCCP^

jhegarty wrote: »

And how much exploitation of Africa did Ireland do ?

and I can't remember any of the newer EU members in eastern Europe having many African colonies....

I'd imagine the 'natives' weren't too overcome with joy when Catholic missionaries from Ireland arrived en masse and told them their beliefs and traditions were a load of voodoo.

Kama, here's another thought experiment for you. If Africa had colonized Europe, and the question of reparations was brought up, do you think people might consider it?

The Americans gave Europe Marshall Aid, despite the fact that it was their fault that WW2 happened in the first place. Why should they have been given money for wrecking their own continent?

Bubs101

CCCP^ wrote: »

The Americans gave Europe Marshall Aid, despite the fact that it was their fault that WW2 happened in the first place. Why should they have been given money for wrecking their own continent?

That was all so America could make more money and friends. After WW2 they had no trading partners. In 10 years they did and they were even richer. From what I understand alot of the money had to be spent on American goods which created jobs in America

CCCP^

Bubs101 wrote: »

That was all so America could make more money and friends. After WW2 they had no trading partners. In 10 years they did and they were even richer. From what I understand alot of the money had to be spent on American goods which created jobs in America

It's pretty obvious giving the track record of American foreign policy for the last 70 years that the US Gov't doesn't want friends, it wants subjugated allies. Why not have taken the oppurtunity while Europe was weakened to cement their position and take it over? After all, that's what they've been trying to do ever since - take stuff over.

Bubs101

CCCP^ wrote: »

It's pretty obvious giving the track record of American foreign policy for the last 70 years that the US Gov't doesn't want friends, it wants subjugated allies. Why not have taken the oppurtunity while Europe was weakened to cement their position and take it over? After all, that's what they've been trying to do ever since - take stuff over.

No, what they have been trying to do is consolidate their power and their position at the top of the political food chain, like any sound Superpower would do. Pray tell what exactly have they taken over?

Fratton Fred

Money is not the answer though. If America were to give Zimbabwe a chunk of cash right now, what do you think would happen to it? would it get given out to the people who need it or would Mugabe buy himself a new rolls royce and increase the size of the army?

Policies need to be changed, such as the Common Agricultural policy. don't give these guys charity, give them a leg up and the chance to compete on a global footing.

the simplest way we can start right now is by buying fairtrade products that ensure third world farmers get a decent rate for their products.

DadaKopf

Bubs101 wrote:

Asia surpassed them in 10 years from nothing through good management.

Not quite true. In books like Ha Joon Chang's Kicking Away the Ladder, it's clear that the East Asian tiger countries were riddled with cronyism and corruption, something African people are constantly accused of. One of the major elements in East Asia's success was that, under a then powerful Japan (the 'Yellow Peril' of the 1970s), countries like South Korea and Taiwan could simply ignore the IMF's and World Bank's advice while they embarked on state-led development programmes. It was when the IMF forced its hand in the 1990s that their economies collapsed.

It's simply wrong to compare the historical cultures of one geographical region to another, but in the sense that both East Asia and Africa are, in different ways, hotwired into the global capitalist system, it's OK to make some comparisons.

In African countries, they were forced to accept the strict conditions of IMF structural adjustment policies very early on and, like Latin American countries, their governments had no one protecting them from the destruction like the East Asian Tigers did.

I'm not absolving blame on part of certain governments, or ignoring other aspects such as geographical terrain, or the impact of the 'resource curse', and the legacy of colonialism, but this international aspect has had a hugely powerful effect on the state of sub-Saharan Africa today.

the simplest way we can start right now is by buying fairtrade products that ensure third world farmers get a decent rate for their products.

I'd like to see studies about how effective that really is. I'm generally skeptical about development approaches that call on people to consume more, differently. I don't know that being 'consumers' rather than 'citizens' or whatever is a good idea; it depoliticises people and disrupts organisation among people to change the deep structures of injustice embedded in our capitalist system.

meditraitor

Most african countries have had 50-100years to fix their problems. The majority of them are far richer in resource terms than Europe but they still fucked it up.

Stop spoon feeding them and they might grow up.

DadaKopf

There's an argument that constant interventions by the West via 'development aid' have interrupted the 'learning processes' that all rich developed countries went through. Those processes took hundreds of years - for example, the emergence of popular democracy which involved enormous death and destruction. Don't forget Europe twice destroyed itself in war within the last 50-100 years.

As for Ireland, we haven't even fully emerged from the bog.

SkepticOne

CCCP^ wrote: »

True, that's what often happens with our Capitalist system, but Africa probably contains more natural resources than Europe ever did, and if it's lands were managed efficiently, could support enough food for billions of people.

Ironically this wealth of natural resources causes problems as it undermines the social contract. This is why "reparations" or aid paid to governments also won't work.

brianthebard

Bubs101 wrote: »

No, what they have been trying to do is consolidate their power and their position at the top of the political food chain, like any sound Superpower would do. Pray tell what exactly have they taken over?

well they have a very obvious interventionist policy on south and latin america for one,thats fairly clear.And as already pointed out many nations in africa,along with korea,vietnam,parts of south america and more were all used as killing fields in the cold war.Just to be clear do you endorse the USA's superpower status and manifest destiny ideology?

Bubs101

brianthebard wrote: »

well they have a very obvious interventionist policy on south and latin america for one,thats fairly clear

I'm not denying that they have an interventionalist policy, only a madman would do that, but there are really very few cases of them trying to take over anything. They have no problem interfering if they think it will benefit them but there's a big difference between that and "taking over"

brianthebard wrote: »

.And as already pointed out many nations in africa,along with korea,vietnam,parts of south america and more were all used as killing fields in the cold war.

But alot of those "killing fields" started because two domestic, ideologically opposed parties asked for help. It was in their interest to help parties who opposed communist sects and vice versa for the U.S.S.R. but it was rare enough that the U.S. initiated the wars. They normally just came in and helped their side and as a result elevated the conflict

brianthebard wrote: »

Just to be clear do you endorse the USA's superpower status and manifest destiny ideology?

I'm not sure what you mean here by"manifest destiny" but I don't support the U.S. in general. I do however think that they should get certain privileges in global politics because of their power

DadaKopf

Manifest Destiny was an official presidential policy in the 19th century (or early 20th) which declared America's God-given right to dominate the Americas as Britain and Germany were doing (and latterly the world via the 'full spectrum dominance' policy). The Manifest Destiny was the political-ideological force behind the wars fought by the US to eject Spain and other empires from its sphere of influence and to gradually expand its power southwards and westwards.

The Manifest Destiny is still frequently cited and daily referenced indirectly. It is the animus of America's imperialist politics.

Kama

On the reparations/debt forgiveness approach, I read a very iteresting article once, which took as its pemise a reaccounting of Sub-Saharan African debt. Since people seem to be in agreement that corrupt elites were part of the problem, I think its an interesting approach.

The assumptions were that money loaned to a country, that was not invested in that country in any way, squirrelled away in the Caymans or what have you, should not be counted as the sovereign debt. Any money that could be shown to be, was.

On this basis, with a variety of assumptions, the debt was long ago paid off, and the subsequent payments can be viewed as a loan to the West.

I think its a more feasible approach than reparations, politically and economically; attempting to come to an accounting of what we owe is highly subjective, while producing figures on levels of graft in relation to actual aid is A: far easier and B: fairer. Should citizens be held accountable for the sins of past elites, especially given the likelihood of our collusion with these elites for various reasons?

Or, for brevity...
Compound Interest + Inherited Debt = the Financialization of Slavery?


Would anyone object to such a scheme, and if so, why?