Libya- another colony gone bad?

Victor

brianthebard wrote: »

Would very much disagree about there being a good infrastructure in the Congo, any infrastructure was there to extract raw materials with

Not all infrastructure is physical. Simple things like a postal service, mapping, weather forecasting, keeping rivers navigable and the knowledge base on to do things and maintain equipment are just as important as any railway or port.

donaghs wrote: »

This doesnt excuse the evils of colonialism, or its after-affects. But as far as I can see, most of Africa's post colonial problems stem from bad leadership.

Largely because colonialism destroyed much of the pre-existing social structures for reasons of convenience or oppression and anyone who spoke out was suppressed or even killed.

In such circumstances, all to often only the strongman can emerge, not the balanced, educated, respected leader. While there may be overlaps between the two, its easy to see the differences also.

jonniebgood1

brianthebard wrote: »

No not really tbh, the Belgian civil service like everything else involved in the belgian control of the congo was geared towards exploitation of resources, if that civil service had remained it might have been able to continue that exploitation but not contributed to any other factor of civilisation. Unfortunately even though the civil service left the exploitation by belgium and later others remained, so even then the cs was not critical to success in that area.

My view is that the means to exploit Congo (civil service & infrastructure) needed to be retained at the level of 1960. For the Congo to develop from that era exponentially as should have happened the country needed to continue to exploit its natural resources. The difference would be that a proper government would have used the profits to provide for its people rather than allowing the corporations and elite to take all. The original colonial trinity of control (missions/ corporations/ colonial government) needed to be addressed to re-balance the equation but this didnt happen. Rather the governent part in the first hand (including civil service) was removed and not replaced leading to the problems that continue to this day partly caused by the unbalance of corporations having to big an influence. The civil service had on occasions got the corporations to benefit their workers as per Huileries du Congo Belge company (HCB) example given earlier.

Extract from pg 81; The history of Congo by Didier Gondola.

jonniebgood1

Condescending, patronising but interesting link to a 1950's piece about Congo before independence
http://books.google.ie/books?id=L0kEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA131&lpg=PA131&dq=belgium+benefits+congo&source=bl&ots=q_WGdBFHOI&sig=xQwsK3WX78QZXOWaIOn1NF5hjtc&hl=en&ei=39VzTY-4MIexhAfP7vlR&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFMQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

jonniebgood1

This link is to an alternative view on the Libya situation which references to Gadaffi taking control.
http://www.infowars.com/world-cheers-as-the-cia-plunges-libya-into-chaos/

The chaos in Libyan consists of a mixture of tribal conflicts, conflict over oil revenue (since most oil is in the east of the country), radical islamists opposed to Gaddafi’s system of government, and outside destabilization by Western funded exile groups.

Gaddafi took control in a bloodless coup from a sick monarch away for medical treatment 41 years ago. His ideology is based on unification and he attempted to peacefully merge his country with Egypt and Syria.

It would take a miracle for the violence unfolding now to lead to a single stable democratic government in Libya, with full control over the entire country. The country is more than twice the size of Pakistan, but with 6 million inhabitants. Endless deserts divide many of the cities in the nation.

dpe

The biggest problem with post-colonial Africa is simply that the map doesn't represent the ethnicity of the peoples within it; think Balkans, but everywhere. Its no accident that some of the relative success stories (like Botswana) are relatively homogeneous (Botswana is actually nearly as much of a patchwork as the others, but has managed to use religion and language to bind the country together pretty well, almost everyone is Christian and speaks Setswana). The problems multiply when you have not only ethnic differences, but religion layered on top of that.

The other issue that people fail to consider is that, just like the Balkans, conflict was a pre-existing condition; everyone fought everyone else in Africa pre-colonialism, and all colonialism did was put a lid on things for a couple of centuries, but when the Europeans left (particularly the British) they left behind a particular cultural institution in almost every post-colonial country; the tradition of using the minority culture (if one existed, which was almost always the case in Africa) to rule the majority. This was the root cause of Rwanda, and has influenced the development of Nigeria, Kenya and many others.

But, Africa has had half a century to sort out these issues, and if anything conditions have got worse, not better. The question is, when do you stop blaming dead white guys and start to take responsibility for your own actions? Its like Robert Mugabe when he blames Britain for Zimbabwe's current woes; its ridiculous, but its easy politics in Africa where there's a nasty tendency for leaders to protect their own even when they're palpably corrupt or dangerous. When you start to see to see members of the African Union putting their own house in order, I might start to have some hope in the future of the continent.

easychair

dpe wrote: »

The biggest problem with post-colonial Africa is simply that the map doesn't represent the ethnicity of the peoples within it;

The biggest problem? If you think thats a bigger problem that corrupt dictators ruling by force and stripping their countries bare of resources for the benefit of their Swiss accounts, then I suggest you have a strange view of the scale of problems.

The Scientician

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Also should former ruling countries not now retrospectively sponsor their former colonies to assist in setting them up properly?

Well you've hit on a conundrum there. Many of the more benevolent colonialists used a paternalistic ethos as justification for their continuing presence in different parts of the world. British/French/Belgian etc. interference in the affairs of its former colonies smacks of a continuation of this (oft-times racist) paternalism.

dpe

easychair wrote: »

The biggest problem? If you think thats a bigger problem that corrupt dictators ruling by force and stripping their countries bare of resources for the benefit of their Swiss accounts, then I suggest you have a strange view of the scale of problems.

You're missing the point. The power base of a lot of these dictators is caused by the very tribal make-up I've described.

getz

mike65 wrote: »

Libya was an Italian colony, for the ignorant on here.

and there is a few of them

jonniebgood1

Some details of the previous experience of the forces engaging in Libya were on BBC:

London came up with a plan in 1949 to divide its three main regions between itself, France and, incredibly, Italy, the former colonial power.

The new superpower, the United States, intervened at the United Nations to stop the British plan - but not because it cared about Libyan aspirations.

Washington now saw Libya - with its long coastline, in the middle of the Mediterranean - as a strategic prize in its struggle with the Soviet Union and was expanding its huge Wheelus airbase just outside Tripoli.

Originally built by the Italians, almost 5,000 Americans and scores of aircraft were based there by the 1960s.

Libya became independent in 1951, under King Idris, but still remained a British protectorate - with both the UK and the US maintaining their military bases and control over the country's foreign and defence policies.

Commercial oil discoveries in the late 1950s gave both governments even more incentive to keep things as they were

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12882213

So there are previous attempts to divide Libya which were prevented .........